What about the Democrats that also voted for the bill?

You also didn't look at this, or if you did you ignored it.  Here's a quick summary:

*13 out of 15 delegates who voted "no" on the abuser fees four times are DEMOCRATS.

*8 of 9 delegates who voted "no" 3 out of 4 times are DEMOCRATS, and the other is an independent.

*Of the 53 delegates who voted yes 4 out of 4 times on the abuser fees, 44 were Republicans, 1 an independent, and 8 Democrats.

The only Democrats who voted 4-0 or even 3-1 in favor of the abuser fees are in safe districts, pretty much.  So go ahead, talk as much as you want about Tim Kaine (not up for re-election) or the Democrats in safe district or without Republican opponents.  Perhaps that will make you feel better, but the bottom line is that the vast majority of delegates who supported the abuser fees were REPUBLICANS, and several of them are vulnerable.  I can't wait until Election Day! :)

And you're conflating them. The first is, who is responsible for the abuser fees? The answer is a bi-partisan majority of Democrats and Republicans, led by Speaker Howell and Governor Kaine.

The second is, who is in danger electorally because of the abuser fees? The answer is, for the most part, Republicans.

Yes, I saw NLS's post weeks ago when it was first put up. I did notice, however, David Poisson and Chuck Caputo voted for the fees 4 out of 4 times, and they both are freshmen incumbents facing tough challenges. Maybe Republicans won't be the only victims of this bill.

1.  Who's responsible for the abuser fees is crystal clear - the Bill Howell House of Delegates, which pushed these things as an alternative to the Senate gas tax approach.

2.  The answer in #1 leads directly to the conclusion by pretty much EVERY political analyst out there that it is the Republicans most endangered this November.

If you really think David Poisson and Chuck Caputo are in danger, then by all means focus your energies there.  We'll compare notes after Election Day.

Aside from the opposition to the very idea of abuser fees in lieu of another tax increase, most people are angry at two components of the fees:

1) Its application to both misdemeanors and felony driving infractions, and

2) It only applies to Virginian drivers. It is important to note that the constitutionality of the bill is focused on this second part, and that it is solely the work of Governor Kaine that caused it.

While some people want to see the fees scrapped altogether, many other people would like to see the fees amended to fix those two components.

And the reason why Republicans are most endangered is because what you said before: Kaine isn't on the ballot, and more Republicans voted for it than Democrats.

I do think Poisson and Caputo are in danger. That's not to say that Republicans are not in danger, but if this really is the most controversial election year issue in the last twenty years, I don't understand how you can be so cavalier as to believe that Republicans will be swept out of office in an anti-abuser-fees tidal wave, and Democrats like Poisson and Caputo who are equally culpable will somehow manage to avoid the controversy.

It's pretty much unanimous.  Again, let's compare notes after Election Day.

Do you think Delegates Poisson and Caputo are in danger, either a little or a lot, because of their 4-for-4 votes on the abuser fees?

And regardless of their electoral danger, what is your opinion of delegates like Poisson and Caputo, and other Democrats who don't face tough challengers, who voted for the fees four times? Are you as upset with them as you are with the Republicans who voted for the bill?

This guy is a persistent troll who got himself banned from Swing State Project, but has somehow managed to worm his way back. Take the same tack with him that was taken with I Pubes: ban the sucker!

And I didn't "worm" my way back in. I simply registered for a new account, and because the only thing I've ever done is raise legitimate points in discussion, there has been no reason to ban me.

I've said it before. This is a privately-owned site. If me asking questions such as the ones in this thread are too dangerous to be allowed, or the hassle of answering criticism or points of contention is too much, then Lowell is at full liberty to ban my account.

Hard ass, anti-immmigrant, non-reality-based, the usual.  But to be banned on RK, you've go to actually DO something wrong - excessive swearing, ad hominem attacks, taking over threads just to disrupt, etc.  Also, remember that we have a community rating system that everyone is encouraged to use. If you really think someone is a "troll," then by all means "troll rate" them.  If not, then don't. 

solid - although I'd add a sub-point to #1: that a number of people also feel that many non-abusive and/or non-habitual drivers will get caught up in these fees.  The way our traffic safety/ticketing system is currently designed a number of people who aren't deserving of these excessive fees will get nailed.

Plus the third point you've glossed over (in this comment) but shouldn't is that people in favor of responsible government know that these fees are a faulty attempt at funding.  This point by itself is reason enough to scrap the whole abusive fee thing - although I'm personally in favor of scraping it for the other reasons as well.

As for the few Democrats who have been for this all along.  Personally, I'm not too pleased with them and I do agree that if their Republican opponents exploit the aye votes, those Dems could be in real trouble.  These few Dems are in the same boat that the vast majority of Republicans are in - either stand and attempt to defend their position (which is almost hopeless) or furiously back peddle and hope for forgiveness. 

The one advantage the Dems do hold in this regard is that the Republican leadership designed and insisted upon these fees to avoid taxes - which won't change if they are re-elected (or new Republicans are elected).  While the anti-tax crowd will find comfort here, most will not because they will know that the Republicans are plotting the next ridiculous way to avoid taxes that will end up screwing over the people more than a tax would.

As Lowell has said many times in this post: we'll see what happens in November.  I'd much rather be a Democrat (with regard to this issue at least) than a Republican if I were running. 

Let's go back to the session and say you were a Democratic delegate.  The Republicans had authored this bill in a cynical attempt to take transportation off the table in the 2007 elections.  As I recall, Speaker Howell said that if this bill wasn't passed, they wouldn't take up transportation again.  Virginia needs the money just to fund road maintenance.  Given that this was the best proposal the anti-tax, pro-ineffective government Republican majority could paste together; what would your vote have been?  Would you be pragmatic so that funding could go where it was needed?  Also, bear in mind that you are in the minority and there is no guarantee after this election cycle you will be in the majority.  And as a minority member, you have little control over what bills get considered in the General Assembly.  So even if you had the most awesome of alternatives, your opponents could kill your bill in committee.

I'm not a Democrat, nor a state delegate, I've never been one, and I never will be one, so I don't know how I would react in that situation. I also don't know all of the behind-the-scenes mechanics of how the bill was put together, what the Democratic leadership believed, how they instructed their members, how the Governor was involved personally, and what the process for input into the bill was. Without knowing all of those things, its hard to answer your question.

You seem to be defending Poisson and Caputo's votes. That's fine. Are the rest of the Democrats, therefore, wrong for voting against the bill? And are the rest of the Republicans right for voting for it? Or do the votes of Poisson and Caputo count differently, for some reason you've made up?

My points are in response to yours concerning Democratic culpability in the transportation legislation.  Republicans have a majority in both houses of the General Assembly.  They govern every bill that is considered before those respective bodies and any amendments to them.  They set the rules.

I believe you were stating that Democrats share as much blame as Republicans in this.  However, Republicans wrote the bill.  And again they control legislation in both houses.  Further, Speaker Howell said this was a take it or leave it proposition.  On top of that, the state needs the money.  So, the distinction I am making is that Democrats who voted for the bill were most likely being pragmatic (i.e. the state needs the money and if this is the best Republicans could do, we'll take it even if we don't like it).  And therefore, they do not share in the blame.  Afterall, Republican floor control means no chance for a Democratic alternative. 

My counterpoint is not specific to Messrs Poisson and Caputo.

Obviously, Republicans were behind this bill.  Again, for the zillionth time, see the numbers here.  Now, if you have numbers that disagree with these, please present them.  If not, then what exactly are you adding to this discussion?

Regarding Gov. Kaine, against for the ZILLIONTH time, Raising Kaine has been consistent in its opposition to the transportation bill.  Throughout the spring, we urged Gov. Kaine numerous times to veto it or at least to heavily amend it.  But he didn't, and we're not happy about that of course (your buddy Eric even wrote a post entitled "Razing Kaine," he was so mad!).  So yeah, Gov. Kaine bears part of the "blame" for this, even though Republicans basically said "take it or leave it, our way or the highway" to the Governor.  In other words, after two General Assembly sessions since he became Governor, Kaine's options were to take this moldy half-a-loaf, or starve. He chose the moldy half-a-loaf.  Here at RK, we would have taken that moldy half-a-loaf and offered it to the Republicans for dinner.  Better yet, we would have taken that moldy half-a-loaf and shown it all around Virginia, then let the voters decide on election day who was to blame for it.

Finally, let's get real here about the politics of all this: Gov. Kaine is NOT up for re-election this year, next year, in 2009, etc.  So you can blame him all you want for signing the transportation monstrosity, but the election this November is for General Assembly, NOT for Governor.  Also, I would point out that it's not the Democrats but the REPUBLICANS who are in the middle of a nasty civil war on the transportation package.  You might want to check with the Club for Growth on this one.  See here for more.

Now, let's see if you can respond with a few FACTS for a change.  If not, then you're obviously a "troll" with nothing to offer on this site.

You can seperate between the "politics of all of this" and everything else show that there are two seperate dynamics in play. Let's sort them out.

Politically, this is a killer against Republicans, because only two at-danger Democrats voted for the bill and Governor Kaine isn't on the ballot. That much, we can all agree on. We can differ on whether Poisson and Caputo are at risk for their votes, but we all agree about the politics concerning the 2007 elections and this issue.

Now let's leave politics aside. Yes, Speaker Howell was the driving force behind this bill. I've never denied that. Yes, the majority of Republicans supported it and the majority of Democrats opposed it. I've never denied that. My question is about those Democrats that voted for it, and continue to support it. Does there vote count different because they're in the minority? Is there an asterick in the official record that notes this somewhere? You have a particular loathing of Dave Albo. Does Dave Albo's vote matter more than David Poisson's?

Those are the numbers I'm providing to you, something that you appear to neglect entirely. No one is disputing the number of Republicans who supported the bill, but you seem to be ignoring completely the number of Democrats who did the same. There are two positions here:

1) "I am a Democratic activist dedicated to defeating Republicans. Therefore, I will use any issue I can to paint Republicans in a bad light and paint Democrats in a positive light."

OR

2) "I oppose these abuser fees on principle, and I want them repealed. I disagree with anybody that voted for them and anybody that supported them."

Which is it, Lowell? If you fall into category number one, then this could be about abuser fees, but it could just as easily be about anything else. If you fall into category number two, then folks like Poisson, Caputo, Marsden, and Bulova are just as guilty as the Republicans who also voted for the bill, and the Republicans who didn't support it should be in your good graces.

This isn't a cut-and-dry partisan issue. This isn't a matter of party line. There are Republicans who support it and Republicans who do not. There are Democrats who support it and Democrats who do not. And there is the namesake of this site in the middle, who was a principle architect of the most controversial part of the bill, and who has to date refused to convene a special session. This twisting of words and numbers that you and others are engaged in to trap only Republicans in the net of the abuser fees, and spare all Democrats, simply isn't credible.

Your response seems to be only expressing your exasperation with my argument and not really critiquing any of my points.  I say this only because I would like to have a civil discussion.  And you decry my logic, but don't offer any reasoning as to what is flawed.  I don't find that to be creating a constructive dialogue.

I don't see anything wrong with the points that I have made.  You did offer one counterpoint to my assertion that Republicans authored this legislation.  You said that Democrats wrote critical components of the law.  If that is the case, what sections of the law and which Democratic legislators?  I would certainly stand corrected in that instance.  But overall the fact remains that Republicans control both houses and that is essential to the creation and passage of legislation (is this under dispute?).  I'm not saying that Democrats don't have a role in that process, but it is relatively minor.

All you have offered thus far is that Democrats voted for the bill and are therefore complicit.  I fail to see how a minority party in the legislature is complicit for legislation they don't really have control over.  And while some minority party members may have voted for the legislation, the vote in favor was in all likelihood based on pragmatism.  And ultimately, what is wrong with pragmatism?  That was the point of my original rhetorical question, to which you responded that you are neither a Democrat nor delegate. 

I think it is incumbent on you, since you are a proponent of shared blame, to elaborate more on your reasoning for that.  It is my belief that the circumstances that surround and influence a person's decision making process is very relevant in determining guilt.  Do you not agree?  If you argument is simply guilt by association, we can leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Last, I did not mention Governor Kaine.  As Lowell mentions in his response, we discussed all of that mess a while back.  You can look back on my comments to the transportation bill as to my thoughts on the Governor's actions.  But the focus here has been and continues to be legislators.

About added a critical component of the bill--the part that makes it only apply to out-of-state drivers.

And the reason I am a proponent of the "shared blame" view is because, after the bill was constructed, many Democrats voted for it. You call it pragmatism, but that just seems like a cheap excuse to villify the Republicans who voted for it, and not hold Democrats to the same standard. After the legislation was brought before the General Assembly, everyone's vote counts the same, no matter majority or minority. Therefore, a Democrat who supported the bill is just as culpable as a Republican.

Help me understand this: Republicans put together the package because they didn't want to go to the voters empty-handed in 2007. Democrats, apparently, have no say in the process, and therefore can defend any action by the GA as "out of their hands". So why vote for the bill if they don't like it? What would be the harm in going to the voters and saying the same thing as you encourage them to say now: "Its out of my hands because I'm in the minority". And what about the Democrats who continue to support the legislation, or Governor Kaine who refuses to call for a special session?

The reason why I believe in the "shared blame" view is because I don't see the issue as a partisan issue. There is nothing inherent in being a Republican that says I have to support this, and there is nothing inherent in being a DEmocrat that says you have to oppose it. Therefore, I don't see it as a "Republican bill", because I look at the Democrats that voted for it and the leadership that Kaine took on the bill, and see it for what it is, not for what I want to make an election issue.

I'm starting to think you're Tom Rust or something.

And you've done nothing to convince me otherwise. Others have presented good arguments, though, and that's what keeps me posting.

To your first point, you are discussing Kaine again and my focus is only legislators.  But since you bring it up, my response to that can be found here and a more general thought here

I don't think it is a cheap excuse.  Again as I said earlier, I think the circumstances that surround a person's decision making process are very relevant in the determination of guilt and the severity thereof.  I am not trying to vilify Republicans either.  I am simply saying that they authored this bill.  They control legislation.  This was their solution to the transportation issue.  On the Democratic side, if you don't think you won't be out of the minority any time soon and the urgency of the issue outweighs an ideal solution, accepting Republican solutions is sometimes what you have to do.  Does that put you as Democratic legislator to blame for an imperfect solution?  I don't think so.

As you say, Democrats could say this was out of their hands.  And equally, Republicans could paint the picture that Democrats who voted against the bill are obstructionist; that they are more interested in scoring political points than in coming up with bipartisan solutions to the state's problems.  And voters could certainly counter that traffic is so bad and roads are in dire need of repair that something is better than nothing.  And further, they don't care that this wasn't the best solution, you should have voted for it.  So, there is always a downside in politics, generally, no matter what you do.

As to this being a partisan issue, I think it is.  If voters are displeased with the solution, then they need to properly identify the party who developed the solution.  And by properly identifying that party, they may choose to hand control of the legislature over to the opposition so that they may be given a chance to come up with a different solution.

Lowell, maybe you have done this and I missed the entry, but could you put on RK the names and districts of all legislators in northern Virginia who voted to approve the bill?

But she "held her nose while she voted".  So that makes it OK.  Go Democrats!

here.

The way I remember it is as follows:
1) Transportation was ignored in the previous Mark Warner budget, but  with a sacred promise to Northern Virginia that "your turn will come next time."
2) Kaine was elected partly because he promised to address transportation if elected (along with land use, and the two really do go together).
3) The Republicans, infuriated that Kilgore lost to Kaine, refused to give ANY legislative success to Kaine, as they were still smarting from having cooperated with Warner.
4) Forced into doing something about transportation (remember how Tom Davis and Ed Gillespie held a top secret session with Howell and other Republican legislators, and literally dragooned them into providing some transportation effort?), Howell and crew adamantly refused any sort of tax increase, instead came up with abuser fees, and let it be known that their transportation funding mechanism was so ridiculous they secretly hoped Kaine would veto it, and they could then say "we tried, but you Democrats refused to do anything about transportation."
5) Howell told Kaine and Democrats, "take it or leave it," meaning if they did not go along with the Republican abortion of a transportation bill, then they would get nothing. The Republicans meant it--- and were floored when Kaine, trying his bipartisan best to make a silk purse out of sow's ear, returned the bill with some modifications. 6) Then, since it was "take it or leave it" some Democrats felt they had to vote for the bill for two reasons: to support Kaine in his effort to get something on his transportation pledge, and second, because their own constituents desperately wanted some transportation help.

Therefore, I do not blame Kaine for any part of the bill, given the obdurate intransigence of the Republican caucus, nor do I blame those Democrats who finally voted for the bill. It's very very clear who is responsible for the transportation bill, abuser fees and all: the Republicans, in all their virulent partisan glory.

and on FISA?  Take it or leave it, my way or the highway.