Collegiate Times

McAuliffe had no particular interest in Virginia politics until Hillary Clinton's campaign came to an end and he needed something new to do. Being between gigs, he decided to go from no political office to the top spot in Virginia's government based on . . . hmmmm. Whim? He backs up his claim that he will bring jobs and prosperity to Virginia by writing voluminous plans. The Governor doesn't enact legislation. The General Assembly does. How well is Terry connected there? What does he know about the legislative process? Where is the coalition of Delegates and Senators who will pass Terry's grand plans? You could easily write a term paper on what needs to happen in the Commonwealth on energy, education and job creation, but writing it down doesn't make it so. I'm casting my vote for someone who understands the job description and has a proven track record for getting things done in state government - Brian Moran.

Congratulations, you have currently performed a pseudo-journalistic sex act on T-Mac for a thousand words or so. How nice.

Commentariat - what else would you expect from the CT. Have you heard McAuliffe speak in person? His high energy, persuasive speeches clearly got the best of Mr. Sage and he was obliged to write this article.

Since when was an opinions column supposed to be held to the standard of strict journalism? In fact, it exists to allow the author to take a stand, and as such, is quite antithetical to the hard news reporting that Commentariat seems to be requesting. Reason is the most noble justification in our public affairs gentlemen, and the last two responses do not employ it in the slightest. On the contrary, csread provides a highly reasonable and logically sound response, and that is the kind of dialogue that should be utilized by all who claim to advocate for the public good. However, I would ask csread what happens if Moran wins the nomination and can't compete with McDonnell in the general election? That Republican General Assembly really would be burdensome if given the chance to serve a Republican Governor who is so off-target that he voted to deny federal stimulus money to Virginia.

Denying federal stimulus money is right on target. It's not often that a politician will take a principled approach like that. Have you even read his reasoning? Ron Paul has been voting against federal earmarks for his district in Texas for years, and he keeps on winning.

In the Washington Post, many commenters called McDonnell's decision on the stimulus money a bad one because "it's only $4.50 more per worker for a business to pay" and because it could be repealed in the future. Two realities: once taxation occurs, it will almost never be repealed, and where exactly is the federal money coming from? Last I checked, it doesn't appear out of thin air. I am glad that he chose not to buy into the whole Monopoly money scheme going on at the federal level.

I agree Jason T. Hopefully the rest of Virginia is smart enough to see the truth, instead of being blinded by the "McDonnell doesn't care about the unemployed!!" propaganda.

I understand and respect the fiscal conservative principles that you guys are talking about, but you cannot utilize the same rationale in all circumstances. We are in a deep economic recession at the moment, and as a result, federal stimulus is far more productive than small tax cuts or other feasible alternatives; the vast majority of the people will just automatically save that money and it won't feed the system, whereas with the stimulus, you are getting money directly to the state and local governments that can fund projects and services which (if allocated smartly) will benefit the public for decades to come. Earmarks and pork projects represent an entirely different subject, but something that I agree should be opposed and curbed as much as possible. Monetary injection into the overall economy when we are in desperate need of it is a far more logical pursuit. Furthermore, you know what happens when we deny federal stimulus? It goes to other states, thus giving Virginia a competitive disadvantage. Principles are respectable, but no type of governmental measure works in all situations and thus flexibility (the option of stimulus in this case) is crucial.

There is a reason that we have separate state and federal governments, but the federal government loves to play overlord and influence state governments to do its will. I realize that VA missed out on money that other states opted to take, but the point is that these stimulus plans have potentially severe long-term effects on the viability of our currency and our economy. The government is printing money like it's going out of style, and that doesn't fix the problem. It devalues the currency; it doesn't make the economy magically better. The problem is that recessions are a part of economic cycles (largely because people exhibit pack behaviors during times of prosperity that are unsustainable, and market corrections are bound to happen), and we're trying to pretend that they aren't by buying our way out of one. The government becomes increasingly powerful every day, as it is not "bailing out" businesses, but rather "buying" them out. It's startling to see how many federal tentacles are spread throughout private sector corporations.

Right on Jason T. Our currency is devaluing like crazy because of all this reckless spending. The Chinese are now frowning on purchasing US government backed bonds and instead are putting their money in other areas. The debt has risen by trillions of dollars in just a few short months. While the stimulus may temporarily halt the recession, which might be good enough to get Obama reelected, it will certainly leave the country worse off than if the market had just been left alone to correct itself. Its time to get long gold, silver, natural gas, and oil in my opinion. Commodities should sky rocket as the dollar devalues since most commodities are traded in US dollars.

we can debate macroeconomic policy for hours and likely not come to any common ground; if we could, the debate would have ended decades ago. Jason makes the truest point: the government is not "bailing out" companies but buying them and giving them to political allies (the UAW, which always backs dems) received 55% of Chrysler). As for whether they deserve it, just ask Indiana Sec. of Treasury Richard Mourdock, whose state lent money to Chrysler as a secured creditor, entitling it to be the first creditor repaid in the event of bankruptcy. Now retired people in Indiana, teachers, police officers, etc., are losing money-- don't give me the "heartless republicans" speech, this is due to the democratic party owing the UAW the next dance (or three).