Comments (4)

By Marc, March 15, 2010 6:40 pm

As I wrote on Saturday, Krystal Ball swept all delegates and alternates from caucuses over the weekend in Stafford and Fredericksburg. These were huge victories for Krystal and, in sweeping these caucuses, helped her secure slightly more than one-third of the number of delegates she needs to secure the Democratic nomination in Virginia’s First Congressional District. There is no other way to put it, these were devastating losses for his campaign and call into question his continued viability. So how does Scott deal with adversity? If you guessed by putting his nose to the ground and working hard to build up a currently non-existent field operation, you would be sorely mistaken. This is how he has chosen to deal with things.

This email is being sent with the intent of informing you of troubling events that have developed over the last few weeks involving a fellow Democratic Committee (Stafford County) and what actions the Robinson campaign intends to use to remedy the situation.

It is the opinion of the Robinson campaign that the caucus process in Stafford County was “hijacked” by a small group of Krystal Ball supporters and the democratic process was circumvented with the intention of ensuring that the Krystal Ball campaign not only won a majority of delegates but left the caucus with a “slate” of supporters for Krystal Ball.

As I write this I am quite certain that while you read this you will feel this email is bourne of frustration and written with my campaigns best interests in mind. No doubt that is true.

However, there are facts that are too egregious to ignore that point in the direction of an organized attempt by members of the Stafford County Democratic Committee (SCDC) to make the proverbial “smoky backroom deal” scenario seem all too real.

·         The SCDC violated the Democratic Party of Virginia’s (DPVA) plan by not posting the Call to Caucus in a local paper.

·         The SCDC did not inform the Robinson campaign of the Call to Caucus via phone, email, or United States Post Office mail.

·         The chair of the SCDC did not inform the remainder of her own EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of the Call to Caucus.

·         The chair of the SCDC made the decision of the ‘who, what, when, and where’ of the Caucus without ANY input from the rest of the Executive Committee.

·         The chair of the Committee chose to allow for a non-executive committee to take charge of the committee in her absence while on vacation in violation of the committee rules.

The Robinson campaign feels at the very least that the rules of the Caucus have been violated and election law could have been as well. Because of these facts and actions of individuals who are associated with BOTH the Krystal Ball for Congress campaign and the SCDC; the Robinson campaign intends to file a formal complaint with the Chair of the Virginia 1st Congressional District Committee.

My intention is to follow this email up with all of the county chairs of the 1st Congressional District individually. I appreciate your patience as we work our way through this process.

Best,

Gregory Richardson
Scott Robinson for Congress
804.238.2728

I’m speechless, well not really. The wheels have now completely come off the Robinson campaign. The allegations are quite serious; however, they lack any legal basis (federal or state party) and, instead, show a campaign that is spiraling out of control.

Why can’t the Robinson campaign just admit that they were out organized and lost badly this weekend? Instead, they come off as a bunch of sore-losers.  You would think that Scott would have done his homework before leveling these ridiculous claims publicly, but that is clearly not the case. The fact is that this should come as no surprise to anyone, since he has shown a continued failure to do his homework and has made false statements before (see breeder reactors).

He clearly does not understand anything about the rules that govern party caucuses. To his point that “The SCDC violated the Democratic Party of Virginia’s (DPVA) plan by not posting the Call to Caucus in a local paper,” he is simply confused (as though this should surprise anyone by now). As Blue Virginia points out:

Those are some serious charges right there, up to and including possible illegality. The only problem, as 1st CD Democratic Party Chair Suzette Matthews points out, is that none of this is accurate. In fact, as Matthews points out, “Contrary to the second bullet of this message, local committees do not have to pay for expensive newspaper postings of caucuses.” In addition, Matthews writes, “Please note the last sentence of the following provision of the DPVA Party Plan, which permits posting of the caucus notice on web sites and press release to newspapers (we understand [1st CD City and County chairs] have no control whether the newspaper prints the notice or not).”

The provision that Suzette refers to is “Instead of a newspaper notice, a committee may provide notice by placing notice on the State Party website, its local website, and providing a press release to all relevant newspapers of general circulation.” In interpreting this provision, I would add that legally the word “may” implies discretion. That would imply that a committee could decide whether they needed to provide notification using all three methods or just one. As will be clear in a moment, the committee did meet this requirement.

To his second point that “The SCDC did not inform the Robinson campaign of the Call to Caucus via phone, email, or the United States Post Office mail,” there is simply no requirement beyond what was previously mentioned by Blue Virginia. The Call to Caucus was posted on the SCDC website (here) 2 weeks prior to the caucus, which is the maximum amount of notice that is allowed for within the party plan. An email also went out to all committee members, a few of which support Robinson, with the Call to Caucus attached. In an email dated February 27, 2010:

Please find attached the SDC Call to Caucus and the Pre-Filing Form for the 1st Congressional District.  We will meet on March 13th in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at the Stafford Government Center.  We will have our regular meeting after the Caucus.  The information about caucus can also be found at http://www.stafforddemocrats.org.

Please forward this information to anyone you feel might be interested in participating.

Kandy Hilliard
SDC Chair

This is another example of a total lack of organization on behalf of the Robinson campaign. Instead of dealing with the fact that this is one of the worst campaigns I’ve ever seen run, they make up false claims and sound like a bunch of sore-losers. I’d imagine that they would also try to blame the government for not reminding folks to show up to vote for them on Election Day, to cover up for their ineptitude.

As to his third point that “The chair of the SCDC did not inform the remainder of her own EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of the Call to Caucus,” this is not true. See aforementioned email from the Chair, which went out to every single committee member (including the executive board). This isn’t even a requirement.

To his fourth point that “The chair of the SCDC made the decision of the ‘who, what, when, and where’ of the Caucus without ANY input from the rest of the Executive Committee,” again this is incorrect. This was discussed in great detail at a February 20, 2010 meeting of all committee members. A ton of input was provided on when NOT to conduct the caucus, which did not include March 13, 2010. The Chair said that she would provide the Call to Caucus to members, based on their feedback from the February 20, 2010 meeting, the Call to Convention and the Party Plan.  Not a single member objected.

To his fifth point that “The chair of the Committee chose to allow for a non-executive committee to take charge of the committee in her absence while on vacation in violation of the committee rules,” this is another untruth. The Chair was in complete control of the Committee and responded to phone calls and emails, during this period of time.

How Scott can claim the process was “hijacked” is laughable. His lack of understanding of the process is evident and very troubling, as is his candidacy.  Krystal left the caucus with a “slate” of supporters because her field operation was superior to Scott’s. Slates were clearly advertised in the Call to Caucus:

Slate voting for delegates and alternates shall be permitted at this caucus. Slates must be filed no later than 5:00 PM on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, with Kandy Hilliard, Chair of the Stafford County Virginia Democratic Committee, 43 Town & Country Drive, Suite 119-129, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22405 or by email to info@staffordemocrats.org. Slates must be prefiled by the time and date specified above. There will be no exception to this rule for any reason. A properly filed slate will include the names of those persons wishing to appear on the slate, their candidate preference, who will serve as the 29 delegates and 15 alternates and who will be serving as the caucus chair. The fist slate filed will be designated as Slate ‘A’, the second Slate ‘B’, etc.

All properly prefiled persons will be listed on the ballot in alphabetical order. The ballot will also indicate the candidate preference for each individual who prefiles, or uncommitted; and it will include whether they are running for a delegate or alternate slot. Slates will appear at the bottom of the ballot and not show the names of the candidates included in that slate. It will be the responsibility of the slate organizer to have the names and candidate preferences of those comprising their slate available for distribution at the caucus.

I’m not really seeing their point on “slates.” In fact slates were giving the least amount of preference you can possibly give them on the ballot. They had ample opportunity to file and didn’t. You would think that given Stafford’s proximity to Quantico, he could have turned out more than a few supporters?

The best part of this email is the last part of it where it indicates that “election law could have been [violated].” What are they claiming has been violated, specifically? As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a seven-justice Supreme Court majority opinion, “A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” The party manages the caucus process and they are allowed to specify the process by which a candidate is selected. No court is getting involved in internal party workings; however, there is one limitation. That is no party can exclude voters based on race (see “White Primary Cases”) or religion. I understand that the Robinson campaign likes to deal in generalities, but you can’t level serious claims like this without providing details (as they do with his positions or lack thereof).

I agree with Blue Virginia in saying that

…Robinson’s complains are completely and wholly without merit, not to mention hysterical and pathetic. The only question is how badly his super-sore loser routine will hurt him in upcoming caucuses. Starting with Gloucester tonight, followed by James City this Thursday, Newport News on March 25, etc.

This campaign is as good as finished. No one likes a sore-loser.

Comments Off

By Marc, February 26, 2010 11:06 am

Where do the democrats running for the nomination in the 1^st CD stand on gun control? At the Stafford 1^st CD Candidate Forum this past Saturday, Scott Robinson and Krystal Ball had the following to say:

Scott and Krystal are supporters of the 2^nd Amendment. In case their was any doubt in your mind on where Scott stands on guns, he wants you to know that he guesses he is “a big supporter of guns.”

Both candidates were asked on where they stood on guns in bars. Scott is “uneasy” about guns in bars and does not ultimately support it. Krystal left no doubt in anyone’s mind on where she stands on guns in bars:

Guns in bars is just a bad idea. Anybody knows that beer and guns are probably not a good mix.

In typical Scott fashion, on the issue of gun legislation in general, he refused to stake out any real, concrete positions. Instead, he kept repeating that

it’s not really a federal issue; it’s really a state issue.

What a cop out! Can he provide any straight answers or opinions on issues? With current federal and state gun legislation on the books and several bills pending in the 111^th Congress, what is Scott’s position and what, if any, legislation would he support at the federal level? Simply saying that it is a state issue helps him avoid taking any positions. This has become an all too familiar theme in his campaign.

On a quick side note, the Supreme Court is set to take up, on Tuesday, a constitutional question that depending on the ruling may have far reaching implications on current urban gun laws throughout the country.  I’ll actually go into a little more details about this under a separate post.

So while Scott waffles and weaves, Krystal leaves little doubt in folks mind on where she stands. She explains that

we need to focus on how do violent criminals get their weapons. By and large they do not get them from retail outlets, they are getting them on the black market, they are getting them from friends who bought them on the black market. And what we really need to focus on to cut down on violent crime, which is absolutely a plague of this nation, is anti-trafficking legislation.

Krystal points to recent anti-trafficking legislation introduced by Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) as being “on the right track.” Krystal explains that

anti-trafficking legislation at the federal level is the way to really have an impact in cutting down on violent crime.

Krystal also understands a thing or two about prioritizing needs. She actually pointed to a recent bill introduced by state Sen. Creigh Deeds that would allow lifetime hunting licenses for children younger than 2. She explains that

with all the problems that we’re facing in the state, is this really what we want to be spending our time debating. Infant hunting licenses. So, my daughter Ella for her second birthday in two weeks I can get her a hunting license.

I think Colbert does a great job of explaining all of this:

This election will come down to one of ideas and prioritization of needs. Krystal clearly has the best ideas and understands how to prioritize needs. With regards to electability, I believe that Scott is the 2010 version of Creigh Deeds. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.

Comments Off

By Marc, February 25, 2010 6:04 pm

Where do the democrats running for the nomination in the 1^st CD stand on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” At the Stafford 1^st CD Candidate Forum this past Saturday, Scott Robinson and Krystal Ball had the following to say:

Simply put, Krystal supports Adm. Mike Mullen’s, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opinion that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed. Adm. Mike Mullen provided some pretty powerful testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee recently. He said that

allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.

He went on to say that

no matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens or me personally,  it comes down to integrity, theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.

With regards to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Scott will support whatever the results of a study currently being conducted on this very question.  If there is one thing I have learned is that people, rightly or wrongly, support leaders that are principled and wiling to take stands on difficult issues. Scott seems neither principled nor willing to take a stand on this issue (let alone any).

Heck, even former Vice President Dick Cheney has weighed in on the subject. In an interview on “This Week,” he was quoted as saying that

When the chiefs come forward and say, ‘We think we can do it,’ then it strikes me that it’s – it’s time to reconsider the policy.

Sen. Joe Lieberman plans on introducing a bill next week to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Yes, Joe Lieberman.

In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 75% of all Americans said that they support openly gay people serving in the military.  This same poll also indicates that this is widely supported by folks of all parties. 82% of Democrats, 77% of independents and 64% of Republicans support repealing it.

As John C. Maxwell once said, “a leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.” Krystal is just that leader.

UPDATE: Lowell has additional insight on this subject at Blue Virginia.

Comments Off

By Marc, February 23, 2010 8:41 pm

Over the next week or so, I will be comparing the positions of Krystal Ball and Scott Robinson on a myriad of important issues. Krystal and Scott are both seeking the democratic nomination in the First Congressional District this year and they both appeared at a candidate forum hosted by the Stafford Democratic Committee this past Saturday.

The first issue that we will delve into is the environment. Both candidates were asked to talk about their environmental priorities and whether they support Cap and Trade.

Both candidates agreed that the preservation and protection of the Chesapeake Bay should be a top environmental priority; however, as opposed to Scott, Krystal displayed a much more thorough understanding of the issue at hand. At times it seems that Scott was just memorizing things and simply trying to recite them from memory. Not once did he mention anything about the effect climate change is actually having on the bay.

Krystal strongly believes that the

current regulatory regime for controlling nonpoint source pollution is just broken. We’ve got to fix it, we’ve got to get the EPA more involved in controlling nonpoint source pollution.

She also understands that in order to get the bay under control that we need to directly address, and in Wittman’s case acknowledge, the effects that climate change is having on the bay. Krystal goes on to say that

we can do everything right with the bay in terms of controlling pollution and it would all be for not, if we do not get climate change under control. It contributes to the algae blooms that create the dead zones that cause all the problems.

Krystal goes on to explain that

We are home to the second most vulnerable coastline to climate change. Second, only to New Orleans. So, this is an area that will quite frankly be under water, if we don’t get this under control. And Rob Wittman has voted time and time again against renewable energy. He voted against Cap and Trade. We’ve got to get serious about controlling climate change or else the bay is in big trouble.

Krystal also spent quite a bit of time advocating for renewable energy. She noted the huge potential of wind power off the coast of Norfolk. It has some of the highest sustained winds in the country and the shallow depth makes it very cost effective. She also noted the potential for solar power throughout the district.

The candidates differed substantially on Cap and Trade. Scott does not support it and Krystal does. Scott didn’t offer any reasons on why he opposed it.

Krystal on her support for Cap and Trade:

it is exactly the sort of market-based energy reform that, again, a responsible Republican should support. It uses market mechanisms to set the price, so it is as little government intervention as possible. And it is a policy that has been proven to work. Helped us to reduce acid rain under the Clean Air Act, so we know that it works.

Another issue that arose was nuclear power. Scott is a big supporter of nuclear power plants and Krystal is not ideologically opposed to it.  Krystal thinks that wind and solar power are better ways to go. Her big issues with nuclear power plants are how to deal with the waste that they generate and the incredible construction costs to build one. Krystal noted that

construction costs on nuclear plants have gone up from an estimated $3 billion per plant 5 years ago to now an estimated $9 billion dollars.

She brought everyone’s attention to the fact that the President has decided to commit taxpayer dollars to backing loans for nuclear power plants, which she strongly opposes.  She explains that the reason why the government had to get involved

was because no one in the market thought that this was a good deal. 50% of nuclear power plants do not make good on their loans.

It simply does not make fiscal sense and unnecessarily puts taxpayer dollars at risk.

Perhaps the biggest bombshell (perhaps quite literally) was Scott’s explanation on what he would do with the nuclear waste generated. He seemed to imply that nuclear waste would not be an issue with breeder reactors, something he strongly supports. When I first heard that I was speechless and it further reinforced the fact that he doesn’t do his homework.

The one advantage of a breeder reactor is a limitless supply of fuel; however, the disadvantages seriously outweigh any benefit. The waste produced by the breeder reactor must still be reprocessed, so that the ²³⁹Pu byproduct can be filtered out and reused by the reactor as fuel. ²³⁹Pu is also incredibly dangerous. It is so dangerous that the nuclear industry puts limits on how much of it an individual can handle over a lifetime. The fuel that this reactor uses and produces can also be used in a nuclear bomb. The security concerns are enormous and puts this country at a huge security risk, as these reactors would be present a huge target for terrorist organizations. If all of that isn’t enough to scare you, the costs for these reactors are very high.

I’m shocked that Scott would strongly endorse using breeder reactors, especially based on his background in the military. His biography indicates that he managed policy development regarding weapons of mass destruction as his final assignment at the Pentagon. You would think that with all of his “experience” that he wouldn’t be proposing something that has the potential to endanger the security of this nation.

It is clear to me that Krystal has a way better grasp on environmental issues and, most importantly, does her homework before making policy decisions. This is just the sort of person that this district needs.

UPDATE: For an excellent further analysis of these issues, see Blue Virginia.