Republicans Want To Own The Sullivan Ouster


The McDonnell forces, not content with a furious effort to control the upcoming board vote on Tuesday, to maintain the ouster of Sullivan, have now enticed the Wall Street Journal into one of the most astounding editorials in the paper's history.  This editorial is so full of factual inaccuracies and outright distortions as to make you wonder about the facts cited in other editorials that the Journal runs.  Read it in today's WSJ.

The conservative right is apparently vying to support Governor McDonnell's effort to claim credit for Sullivan's ouster.  They are turning this into a right versus left controversy, even though the entire episode seemed to have been originally engineered by the left.  But, maybe not.  It is becoming increasingly clear that Governor McDonnell was in on this from the very beginning as the now-famous Darden email stated.

The McDonnell forces are pulling out all of the stops to control the vote to oust Sullivan and to keep the University in a state of turmoil for years to come.  This will be the principal legacy of the McDonnell governorship.  Far from his stated policy of "neutrality," the Governor and his team are doing everything in their power to remove Sullivan with finality.  Such action will never, ever have the stamp of legitimacy.

As Gilmore did in years past, McDonnell is on a path to alienate his Republican base.  Having worn out his welcome with Republicans, Gilmore found his political future in Virginia destroyed.  His crushing defeat by Mark Warner was accomplished by a substantial number of Republicans voting for Democrat Warner.  McDonnell is headed for the same future.  He is systematically fighting the very people that elected him and he will find out, as Gilmore did, that his Republican base in Virginia is withering away.

It is not only the Board of Visitors that displays a remarkable lack of transparency.  The Governor of Virginia should be honest and admit his role in the sacking of Sullivan.  His team is fighting furiously, as I write this, to maintain her ouster.  Why not be open about it instead of more hypocrisy?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Work Ethic of 70s, 80s, 90s

Image
Different generations have their own view on working. You like it or not, working is part of our live. No work = No life. However, this equation has since changed to " Working = No life ". Do you agree? Generally, those born in 70s were perceived to be loving their job. They work hard mainly because of 3 meals/day. For them, a secured life means having a stable job with stable income. They believe that with every efforts you put in, that will reward you back later. As such, over time (OT) is nothing for them. As a responsible 70s, losing their job is a serious matter they tend to avoid. That's why they usually found another job first, before resigning. How about 80s? Other than chasing for stable income, those 80s working adults will also look into the job scope , opportunity for promotion , or working environment . They will take initiative to find for better job. Hence, job hopping is very common for them. Notably, 80s are reluctant to sacrifice their quality of life b
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsidiary of the US g
Read more