Tommy Denton tries his hand at comedy

That was the only thing I could imagine he was doing when he came up with this line (Roanoke Times - emphasis added): "On transportation, even conservative pillars in the Senate like John Chichester . . ."

Thanks, Tommy; I haven't had a laugh that good in a long time.

Transportation Passes in Spite of Chichester

Bearing Drift did a great job of live blogging the transportation frivolity in the General Assembly.

The two Repu… (I can’t even say it) Senators who voted against the bill were Potts and you know who, Chichester. This should be the last straw. If anyone was on the fence on the Chichester issue, this shows that Chichester is against any kind of progress in this state. Chichester votes like a Democrat. He is a Democrat. He could probably win as a Democrat. In fact we are starting the Draft Chichester to Run for the Democratic Nomination for his Senate Seat Movement (DCTRFTDNFHSSM).

It looks like Monday should be interesting in Stafford.

The beginning of the end for Chichester's career could come on Monday

On Monday, February 26, the 28th Senate District Republican Committee (i.e., the GOP committee for John Chichester's district), will entertain a motion to disassociate Chichester from the local Republican Party. It could mean the beginning of the end for John Chichester politically. Here's why.

In Virginia, the law allows an incumbent to choose his method of nomination. Republicans like Chichester almost always choose a primary, which by law must be open to independents and Democrats. Thus, Chich can thwart the will of the party by controlling the method of his nomination.

However, as part of the legal brouhaha over the validity of open primaries, the State Board of Education has acknowledged that local parties can "disassociate" incumbents, and thus deprive them of pulling stunts like the open primary (see Cory Chandler's comment in Bacon's Rebellion). The committee can even go so far as to call a convention (i.e., a caucus, which usually attracts genuine party members as it requires folks to sit through a meeting of 1-3 hours - depending on the size of the gathering - before casting a vote).

The point is this: if the local party disassociates Chichester, it means Chich can no longer determine the process of his nomination, the committee does. Not only does it mean Chichester may lose in a convention or closed primary, but more importantly, it returns control of the nomination process to the party.

That is, if the committee moves to disassociate. Right now, that's up in the air. In fact, one person holds the fate of disassociation in the balance - Stafford Republican Committee Chairman Bob Hunt. If Hunt votes for disassociation, it passes; if he doesn't, it fails.

So, if you wish to see Chichester finally put to pasture, make yourself and your views known to Mr. Hunt. Please be civil and respectful, and ask Hunt to vote in favor of the disassociation measure.

If Hunt can be convinced, we may finally see the beginning of the end of John Chichester's political career.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Chichesters’ Wingman Retires

Russ Potts, the cohort of Senator Chichester, announced today that he will not be seeking reelection. With Potts gone this begs the question will Chichester loose some of his power. With one of the Three Blind Mice no longer able to support him, Chichester will have to look elsewhere. It will only make him look more liberal when he joins the Democrats in voting.

This is a decisive victory for the movement against Chichester. Thank you Mr. Potts, good-bye, and good riddance.

Now its your turn Chichester!

Chichester worms his way into the transportation conference

How, you may ask? He does it by keeping the brakes on the conference committee finalizing budget amendments. Check out the money quote (pun intended and apropos) by Chich in the Free Lance-Star:

Chichester, however, told senators yesterday that he'd rather have the transportation talks concluded before the budget is finalized.
That's because the transportation plan may include spending $250 million a year from the general fund--something the House wants and Chichester doesn't--and if that's the case, budget writers may be more "cautious," Chichester said.
"We have to move forward with caution, because if this bill that comes back after we complete our work we don't know whether we're going to be faced with a $250 million a year outlay, and if we don't know that, we have to conduct ourselves with some degree of caution in dealing with our budget," Chichester said.

On one level, this is just responsible budgeting - Chich et al would be fools to write budget amendments without knowing what (if any) effect the transportation folks will have on the money available.

On another level, however, this gives him more influence than an ordinary legislator outside the conference committee could ever have on the final product. I'm guessing Chichester is prepared to make abundantly clear where he wants the general fund money that the conference shifts over to transportation, and use this to inflict maximum political damage on the chances of the conference report passing the Senate. This is all but certain to make the conference more willing than it would otherwise be to seek his "advice" on their plans.

Now, I'm no fan of the transportation "compromise" (there's no need for tax increases of any kind in a budget that has risen 60% in six years), but Chichester has always pushed for higher taxes than the House and Senate leadership on this issue. If I'm right on this, and Chichester has managed to make himself a de facto conference committee member, it all but ensures whatever comes out of the conference will be even worse than we thought.

Is the conference committee taking out ALL of the tax hikes?

I'm not sure how to react to this Richmond Times-Dispatch piece on the plans of the transportation conference committee, at least not entirely. Jim Bacon over at Bacon's Rebellion certainly has his view, and normally I would agree with him wholeheartedly.

However, there is one paragraph at the end of the RTD piece that has my head spinning:

Other signs that the transportation package will largely reflect the House's priorities: Conferees have stripped out a 1.5 cent-per-gallon increase in diesel fuel that would have equalized it with the 17.5 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline. Also, an optional sales tax to pay for Northern Virginia projects has been replaced with an array of fees.

An array of fees? The House plan as passed did not use "an array of fees" for regional road projects, it used regional tax hikes that were objectionable on several levels. Perhaps the RTD authors (Michael Hardy and Jeff Shapiro) simply weren't paying attention, or perhaps, just perhaps, the regional tax hikes are gone. Hardy and Shapiro were pretty clear about the end of the diesel tax hike, which was also in the original House plan.

In other words, the conferees may have taken every single tax hike out of the plan. If so, and this is just about the largest "if" I have ever encountered, the conferees (almost all of whom are Republicans) may have managed to square the political circle and actually present a transportation plan that doesn't infuriate limited-government voters.

Of course, that depends on what kind of "fees" we're discussing (and whether or not Hardy and Shapiro are correct), but this could be the best news to come out of the transportation soap opera in a good long while.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

In the News

The Free Lance-Star has a great article on the movement to oust Chichester. The article mentions Chichester Must Go and the role that we have played in this grassroots movement. Where the Free Lance-Star does not entirely get it right is where they pin the movement against Chichester to be that of Anti-Tax Republicans. I would argue that the movement is more general about responsible government. I am not anti-tax – I don’t like taxes but at times they are necessary. Taxes have their place, but Chichester is in love with them. He wants higher taxes when we have a surplus. He always wants new taxes.

Chichester’s liberalism is not limited to taxes. There are many other issues that Chichester has left the Republican Party Platform on. Taxes, however, are focused upon because tax issues are the most common with Chichester.
Tax increase or no tax increase, transportation or no transportation, Chichester must go.

We made the Free Lance-Star

Fredericksburg's local version of MSM comes across our little piece of the blogosphere (read here).

Chichester WON’T be Ruining Transportation

As reported today by Raising Kaine via the Washington Post, Senator John Chichester will be conspicuously missing from the conference committee on transportation. The Senators who will be on the committee are Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City), Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell), Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), Frank W. Wagner (R-Virginia Beach) and Martin E. Williams (R-Newport News). This is great news for those who are tired of the reign of Chichester. As the most powerful member of the Senate, Chichester should have had is pick on this committee. However, the grassroots movement to see him removed from power is having its first success. No Chichester or any of the other Three Blind Mice on the transportation conference committee means the possibility for conservative’s success on transportation.

This is one win for Chichester Must Go and a huge step for Virginians.

Meanwhile, Chich wants even HIGHER taxes

As he was once again killing the House transportation plan (or so he thought) Chichester hinted that more tax hikes were - or in his mind, should be - on the way: "If you think we've solved transportation, you're wrong" (Richmond Times-Dispatch). In other words, he'll be pushing for more tax increases in 2008 - unless the voters of the 28th District send him into retirement.

Cross-Posted to the right-wing liberal

Even Chichester Reaps what he Sows

Two days ago the dishonorable John Chichester and fellow blind mouse Senator Potts were out maneuvered for once on their own turf. Through the work of Attorney General Bob McDonnell and Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling engineered a procedural maneuver that sent the Chichester-Potts transportation bill packing. Making a long story short, Chichester’s bill is all but dead. This is a major victory for those that believe that Chichester has had a death grip on Virginia politics and the Republican Party.

Thank you to McDonnell, Bolling, and most of the Republican State Senators!

For more on this see Bearing Drift, V*CAP, and Riley, Not O’Reilly.

Chichester’s Deeds Brought to Light

Renaissance Ruminations has a post that everyone should read. “Virginia You’ve Been Chich-Slapped” explains the evolution of Chichester. It is the most comprehensive case yet against him. This historical take explains some of how Chichester has slowly sunk his talons into the Republican Party and Virginia. The article is best summed up:

“It is the immature mindset of a man who has always wanted to do things his own way
despite all counsel and advice…except now there is no counsel he will listen to…except his own ego.”

Can Chichester really lose a GOP primary? Yes he can.

There are a lot of people in Richmond and Fredericksburg who assume John Chichester is invulnerable, based on his 2003 primary victory. I humbly - well, maybe not-so-humbly - disagree.

First of all, throughout the 2003 campaign, Chichester promised 28th District Republicans that he would "support our shared Republican principles of smaller government [and] lower taxes." He made it even clearer to the Richmond Times Dispatch, "I’m certainly not going to favor raising taxes" (Peter Ferrara). Four years later, he has broken his word not once (2004), not twice (2006), but three times (2007). He can no longer claim to be low-tax Republican now.

Yes, yes, they say, but Chichester is focused on transportation. Surely his suburban DC district will reward him for it - even Republicans.

To this I respond with a question: has anyone actually looked at Chichester's district? While suburban Stafford County is a large piece of the 28th, the fact is that Stafford, Prince William, and Fredericksburg actually accounted for less than half of the 2003 primary vote. The majority of voters and precincts were in the Northern Neck and Fauquier county. I'm guessing voters in the Neck will be far more focused on the higher gas taxes Chichester wants them to pay than the asphalt heading for NoVa and Hampton Roads commuter routes that few of them use. As for Fauquier, Chichester actually lost its precincts in 2003.

I'm not saying a Chichester defeat is inevitable, but I don't think anyone can say it's impossible.

Last Week in Chichester

Last week the blogosphere came alive with a fervor beginning a grassroots effort to either remove Senator Chichester or pressure him to relinquish his position of leadership in the Republican Party. Ward Smythe has an excellent summary of the discussions regarding Chichester and the rest of the Three Blind Mice. In addition excellent posts have been made by Citizen Tom, The Virginian Federalist, and V*CAP. The call is loud and clear for someone in the 28th Senatorial District to stand up and run against Mr. Chichester. For the sake of the Commonwealth Chichester should relinquish his grip on the Senate or face being voted out of office.
Join the grassroots effort by emailing ChichesterMustGo@gmail.com.

Three Blind Mice

Senator Chichester is at it again joined by the other two of the Three Blind Mice: Chichester, Potts, and Quayle. Chichester is bent on bringing an reasonable transportation down and once again raising taxes. It is the talk of Virginia’s blogs: Bearing Drift, Virginia Virtucon, The Virginian Federalist, and as mentioned earlier Southwest By Southeast. For too long Chichester has been undermining Virginia’s conservative traditions. From tax increases to transportation is their nothing the Chichester will not screw up?

Why Chichester Why Now?

Senator Chichester has been a thorn in the side of Virginia for far too long. This site is long overdue. Chichester is more liberal than most any State Senator that I am aware of. Why now you may ask . . . This is the third time in as many years that Chichester has appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The latest article appeared yesterday morning. Southwest By Southeast has the full article. For too long Chichester has been allowed to be a leader in the Republican Party of Virginia and espouse some of the most liberal fiscal policies that the Commonwealth of Virginia has ever seen. Well this is it. It is time Virginians take their stand and take back their Senate.

Join the movement by emailing chichestermustgo@gmail.com.