Terry McAuliffe Visits Manassas
By Greg L | 10 January 2009 | Illegal Aliens, Virginia Politics | 32 Comments
Former Clinton advisor Terry McAuliffe wants to buy his way into the Governor’s office despite never having held elected office before, and came down to Manassas today in order to make his case to local voters. My first impression of his candidacy falls pretty flat, based on what his vision for the state seems to be. This is not the part of Virgina to start advocating for public health care for illegal aliens, nor is it a place to start talking about granting them amnesty. McAuliffe has been spending far too much time in comfortable liberal circles closer to DC and listening to fellow liberals to have any grasp of how Manassas residents feel.
California spent a lot of effort providing publicly-financed healthcare to illegal aliens, and that didn’t work out so well for them. Since 1990, nearly a hundred emergency rooms have had to close due to the financial burden of providing uncompensated care to uninsured patients, of which a large number were illegal aliens. About a third of Medic-Cal funded infant deliveries there to illegal aliens mothers, amounting to over $200 million in costs annually.
Arkansas had to deal with this as well. According to a hospital administrator there, that didn’t work out too well, either:
In 2001 we had a Guatemalan, an illegal patient, in our hospital. He was there from 2001 until 2003. He had over 1.5 million in health care services. We forcibly returned him to his home country of Guatemala at our own cost of $30,000. You ask why I am telling you about a case that happened in 2003. Because today that case is not over. We have spent and are spending up to a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees because his family here in the United States is suing us because they think it was inappropriate for us to return this illegal patient to his home country.
As of today I have a patient from Mexico who has been in my hospital for 760 days. He has severe brain damage. He has no family, no friends. His charges to date for almost two years is $1.5 million dollars, and we have contacted the Mexican consulate four times. We have contacted immigration, and nobody will help us return this patient to Mexico. We are even willing to spend our own $30,000 to return this patient. We can’t get anyone to help us with that.
In 2005 New Jersey was spending $200 million a year providing free health care to illegal aliens. Other states and localities have been hammered even worse:
Although a national total of annual unreimbursed medical expenses for illegal aliens is not available, it is clear that those costs are more than one billion dollars, given estimates for Texas ($393 million), Los Angeles ($350 million), Florida ($40 million), and U.S.-Mexico border counties ($300 million).
Of course this problem shows up right here in Virginia.
Is this what McAuliffe wants for Virginia? That we pay for illegal aliens to get free health care while we’re on the hook for providing our own health insurance?
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
32 Comments
Views: 1085
Loading ...
I’m no fan of McAuliffe, except in the sense that I think that if the Dems are silly enough to nominate him, it will make things easier for Republicans in 2009. Having said that, I can’t tell from the post exactly what McAuliffe said about health care for illegal aliens or granting them amnesty. There’s no link or quotation that identifies any particular position on these issues. What exactly was the content of his program that raises those issues?
From the Manassas JM:
On an issue that’s been on the minds of many in the Prince William area over the past few years, the candidate said he believes immigrants here illegally should get on a path to citizenship but not be denied basic services such as medical care.
“I don’t want to demonize anybody,” McAuliffe said.
http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/for_mcauliffe_a_manassas_meet_and_greet/27676/
The content of his program is no mystery… and nothing new.
He does not want to “demonize” illegal aliens or their employers who are in violation of immigration and labor laws - but will “demonize” the taxpayers who balk at having to pick up the tab in this Privatize the Profits - Socialize the Losses scam.
If nothing else, he said the magic words for me:
“I think we need to take power away from Richmond,” McAuliffe said.
Finally! A candidate that is willing to take on the political elite in Richmond. finally!
One reason NoVA counties can’t put sufficient teeth into enforcement of their local ordinances is because of the giant vacuum like sucking of money from up here to everywhere else in the state. Give the local politicians some clout and some control over our money. I find my county supervisor a whole lot more accountable than a convocation of part time publicity hounds from every nook and cranny of Virginia (i.e. the General Assembly).
Does Bob McDonnell feel the same way about taking power away from Richmond? Or is he just another of Virginia’s political elite? Frankly, I am willing to donate to Terry McAuliffe and vote for him soley on his stated willingness to slap the snot out of the clown show in Richmond. Please tell me McDonnell feels the same way.
Finally!
Careful what you wish for, Groveton, unless you want all of NOVA to become a welfare paradise like we have in Arlington!
“I’m no fan of McAuliffe, except in the sense that I think that if the Dems are silly enough to nominate him, it will make things easier for Republicans in 2009. ”
McAuliffe would be the toughest of the three for Republicans to beat. Not because he has superior ideas. Rather, he has superior fund rasing abilities, and can tap rich liberal friends nationally. If nominated, he will outspend the COMBINED GOP warchest 20 to 1. Sad but true.
McAuliffe wants to take power away from Richmond?
Remember that talk is cheap Groveton . . .
Please let the dem candidate be Moran, oh please . . .
Nova,
I agree. I dont think this guy is sufficiently known politically to even nail down his views (at least I’ve never heard of him) it looks to me that he’s just a rich dude who wants to run for office.
Superior fund raising abilities are usually the result of superior management and organizational abilities. It takes someone who “thinks like a CEO” and harnesses today’s technology to both organize on the ground and run a successful campaign (think Obama). He’s the reason Clinton came so close to winning (although no one stood a chance against our President-elect).
Regardless of what you think of McAuliffe, his beliefs, or his policies; any objective observer will recognize that he has the skillset we need in Richmond (and Northern Virginia). The Obama ground team and Hillary hold-overs will “bring it home for him”.
The only means McAuliffe has described about taking power away from Richmond is by eliminating the Dillon rule, which is the only bulwark that prevents liberal NOVA jurisdictions from enacting measures that would restrict Second Amendment rights, allow public funding for illegal aliens, and a whole host of other goofy ideas. This rule ensures consistent policies across the Commonwealth, and while it can sometimes be a pain to have to go to Richmond in order to get a lot of things done, the Dillon rule generally serves the interests of the citizens well.
McAuliffe trying to knock it down shows just how out of touch he is with the electorate. If he was going to wrest control from Richmond, he ought to be looking at how corporate and special interests exercise so much control over the legislative process. It is not the state level elected officials that are the problem, it’s the lobbyists and their campaign contributions that thwart the will of the electorate. Limiting campaign contributions from non-individuals and easier access to information on what corporate lobbyists are doing would make much more sense, but since McAuliffe doesn’t seem to have ever wandered down to Richmond during a session of the General Assembly to see what’s going on, he wouldn’t know.
Despite his residency in Virginia for over a decade, he seems to know precious little about what the heck goes on in Virginia. I guess he was too busy raising money for Hillary and Bill in new York to ever learn.
Actually, McAuliffe’s interest in eliminating the Dillon rule surprises me. That is an issue Conservatives should own… returning control of Government to the lowest level possible vice centralizing control at some higher level. It is a “big Government” (Liberal) vice “small Government” (Conservative) issue.
Overturning the Dillon rule would have no legal impact on Federal Constitutional issues (such as the Second Amendment) although it would probably take a Supreme Court case or two to prove the point. Second Amendment rights would probably only be challanged in Northern Virginia, anyway.
He’s probably in touch with the new Northern Virginia electorate (and will probably win based upon what I’ve heard); however, I’m guessing he won’t play well in the rest of Virginia.
Check out the “blog” on McAuliffe’s slick site … scroll on down to “Dottie Goldman of Virginia Beach asks about the Dillon Rule.”
http://www.terrymcauliffe.com/home
I see an elitist, socialist, fascist apparatchik:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPK3_uQbG6I
Don’t sell the cretin short. He will bring in the Hollywood crowd and the ignorant denizens will swoon and kiss his ass just to fit in with crowd. Hussein will pump a ton of money into his campaign and insist he needs the wannabe in order to maintain his momentum and the illiterates will swoon again because that is the Messiah’s wish. If Beefelt and company has any brains they will figure that out and get an effort going for McDonnell now.
I do not understand how some people do not grasp very simple facts. If a person is here illegally that means they are not supposed to be here. If they are not supposed to be here then it should mean that if you find them you should send them back from where they came. If they are having a medical crisis you would stabilize them and then send them back. What is difficult about that. When it is becoming more and more difficult to take care of our own citizens I think we need to draw the line with people that have come here without permission.
The question of the second amendment has been asked and answered by the US Supreme Court. Sorry Greg but that’s just more hyperbole. No different than the liberals who claim every Republican will revoke a woman’s “right to choose”.
Wasn’t it the Prince William County Board of Supervisors who passed the Rule of Law amandment that I read so much about on this blog? Or was it the General Assembly? Meanwhile, Prince William County and the rest of NoVA are being robbed blind by the Richmond political elite - from both parties. Have you ever noticed that the state politicians we elect from NoVa won’t even provide an accounting of the sources and uses of state funds by region? The simple reason is that if any of them ever admitted just how much money is transferred they’d all be ridden out of office on a rail. In fact, if the local Republicans had any sense or credibility - accounting for the sources and uses of tax money would be at the top of their list. But they don’t have any sense or credibility (as a group), so they miss their best chance to get back in power. Meanwhile, people like you cling to the hopeless hope that the state politicians from rural Virginia will somehow be able to hold the statehouse and give the Republicans their last foothold of power in the Commonwealth. The Republican Party of Virginia needs a “reboot”. A good place to start would be a full and honest accounting of the sources and uses all state an local tax receipts by region. The next step would be to give the localities more autonomy to meet the needs of the voters and taxpayers in those localities.
“It is not the state level elected officials that are the problem, it’s the lobbyists and their campaign contributions that thwart the will of the electorate.”.
That’s almost comical. While I agree with the special interests being the source of most problems, I really can’t see how you exonerate the very politicians who cave in to the special interests. And it’s these same elected officials who refuse to put any limits on campaign contributions.
As for Terry McAuliffe - I would neither under-estimate him nor over-estimate him. He might just “cancel out” with Brian Moran and leave the nomination to Creigh Deeds. In fact, I’d guess that Deeds has a better chance of beating McDonnell than McAuliffe or Moran. Deeds will automatically get a good percentage of teh NoVa vote just by being a Democrat and he’d be a lot more acceptable to Virginians outside of NoVA. But McAuliffe is already thinking ahead. He (like your pal Keith Fimian) has never held elected office. So, he talks about reducing the power of those who do hold elected office. Whether he wins or not the Republicans ought to watch how he runs his election. Unlike Fimian, he’s out early and he’s staking out positions hard for his opponents to take (they will be forced to defend the concentration of power in Richmond since they are elected officials who have helped preserve that concentration). In two months he’s gone from a non-entity in the governor’s race to being the center of attention.
About the only time Fairfax asks for permission to do something that would be prohibited by the Dillon rule, it’s to turn public buildings into gun-free zones. I’ve never seen anyone petition for greater liberties for citizens, it always seems to be an attempt to eliminate liberties. Were it not for the Dillon rule, every locality in the Commonwealth would have different prohibitions on firearm possession making it incredibly easy for a law-abiding citizen to run afoul of some unforeseen technicality and be prosecuted for a local gun crime that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
McAuliffe will take the power away from Richmond — but give it to Washington, not the localities.
You can say that McAuliffe’s visit may be part of his “Global Crossing.”
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Groveton,
I’m so glad you admit you support child rapists and murderers. You support of the carpetbagger makes sense now.
Liberals want to take guns away and to take our gun rights away. Liberals say they want to protect live, yet have no problems with supporting baby murder. How you can compare guns to baby murder is beyond me.
Owning a gun does not equal murder. Having an abortion means murdering a baby.
Mcobamanation will run a stealth candidacy just like the lying thief nobama did. Tons of out of state and out of country money will fill his coffers and he will easily dupe the idiot voters of this once fine commonwealth just like the other one did. Cant you folks see the writing on the wall? We are MARCHING toward a socialist police state where a pal of America hating terrorists, racist church going, know nothing, say nothing illegal alien is YOUR president elect. C’mon get with the program you cretins!
My, my Citizenofmanassas -
Let’s try again. First, for the record, I oppose abortion and capital punishment. I also support an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, I recognize the people’s right to bear arms. The comparison of abortion to gun rights was an example of political game playing. Staunch Republicans will try to convince you that county politicians will come take away all the guns if they are elected. Ridiculous. If the city council in DC couldn’t do it then neither can a NoVA Board of Supervisors. Gun rights are guaranteed by the Constitution not handed out by county government. The argument against the reducing Virginia’s adherence to the Dillon Rule based on gun rights is absurd. Democrats, on the other hand, often argue that governors or local politicians do not support “a woman’s right to choose”. This is an equally absurd argument since the US Supreme Court guaranteed that right with the very questionable discovery of an unwritten right to privacy in Roe v. Wade. No state or local politician is going to recind that “right” either. Both of these debates are red herrings used by extremists in both parties to deflect attention from serious economic issues. The fact that McAuliffe has focused on job creation instead of blathering on about a “woman’s right to choose” is a sign that he’s on the right track. He might not end up being a good candidate as the election unfolds but he is on the right track.
As for Fairfax and Dillon’s Rule - the best example of state interference in local matters was the construction / expansion of Rt 28. This was a clear debacle where ever-changing state decisions delayed a necessary construction project that should never have come onto the state’s “radar”. As for gun rights - try shooting at cans in the backyard of an Arlington house. You’ll be quickly talking to Arlington’s finest. As for gun possession - ask DC how well their prohibition went. Was it Virginia’s Dillon Rule that led the Supreme Court to overturn DC’s handgun ban? Of course not. It was the US Constitution - the same protection you would have in a state that does not strictly adhere to Dillon’s Rule.
Finally, a bit of definition. Dillon’s Rule is not a law, it is a philosophy based on a long-ago argued Supreme Court case. The philosophy basically holds that local government only has power to the extent granted by the state since state governemnt is described in the US Constitution while local government is not. 45 of the 50 states have granted some form of home rule to their localities. These grants of home rule vary in nature and extent. No state has ever abdicated all power to localities and none ever will. The argument that granting home rule over economic matters will result in a gun ban in Fairfax County is no more believable than claiming the same limited home rule will result in an abortion ban in Wise County. Home rule would do neither. Neither the state nor the localities have the power to amend or ignore the Constitution, with or without Home Rule.
They’re all legal Salvadorans! We must give them citizenship!
Groveton,
Sorry, but you are wrong about Dems wanting to take our gun rights away. Washington DC very much took away that right for 35 years. While they of course did not outright ban hand guns, the laws the City passed made it very difficult to own one and in fact discouraged the owning of guns by passing such harsh laws. The City of Chicago has also taken away that right. NY has too. Obama is on record stating he wants to do away with hand guns.
I sure hope you understand that Dems want to make it difficult to own a gun by passing laws to make it illegal to have a gun not broken down, by making it against the law to have it outside the house, etc, that it is their way to “ban” guns and to infringe on the rights of the people to enjoy our rights.
There is a bill filed by a Dem from the VA Beach area that wants to chip away at our right to carry guns in Government buildings( http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+ful+SB832).
There is no question Dems would use the repeal of the Dillon law to push for tougher gun laws. All one has to do is look at what localities did before the State passed preemption laws. The NOVA Park Authority did not allow guns into their parks. The City of Fredericksburg did not allow guns on City property. There are of course other examples, but these are two I thought of first.
The Dillon Rule is used more by local legislators as an excuse to avoid making tough decisions than it is by state officials to stop legislation at the local level.
Advocator,
agreed! I’ve found nothing with regard to the Dillon Rule that would lead me to think otherwise. Short, sweet and to the point!
If idiots can elect (possibly) the likes of Al Franken, nothing will surprise me here as well. Too many folks think electing wack jobs, do-nothings or “progressive thinkers” is so chic, in vogue and soooooo hollywood-ish. Bobby (that is what he used to really call himself - don’t get upset with me) Obama is no exception as well. Empty suits, nitwits, half-brains, and no brains, regardless of the party, can get elected by those who serve themselves and not the country.
Virginia goes democrat because the republicans have no ideas, no substance and certainly no leadership on a scale sufficient enough to make folks understand that hard decisions must be made, dollars wisely spent and government does NOT solve problems. I know, I know, I am now the “minority”. May be that is a new mantra we can build “hope and change on”.
Groveton,
Just as a follow up as I was thinking more about what you said regarding the Supreme Court protecting the Second Amendment. The DC case was decided on a 5-4 vote. Obama will be sworn in as the next President, he likely will have the chance to place at least one new Justice on the Supreme Court. If a conservative Justice retires, that 5-4 vote gets switched around, and guess what? No more individual right to own guns.
So, please tell me again how the Supreme Court with another liberal on it will protect the Second Amendment? Please tell me again that liberals do not want to do away with the Second Amendment?
You see, while many Dems in Congress say they support the Second Amendment, and have voted in favor of gun rights, do you really think they would turn down an Obama nominated Justice based on the fear the justice might be anti Second Amendment? I do not think so.
CoM and Grove.:
States can easily limitedly allow gun ownership, thus not “excluding” thesecond amendment while writing an passing laws which clearly have the intent on curtailing gun ownership. Look at proposed taxes on guns, D.C.s mandatory 3 year re-registration, NYs mandatory requirement, with NO time limits, a simple permit just to buy a handgun then good luck on ever getting a permit to conceal carry. Also NY has a mandatory ID on the purchase of any ammunition. Then we have new proposals on “safe guns”, mandatory gun locks, storage and transfer laws. NY has ballastic fingerprinting which has not solved a crime but criminalizes guns and gun owners. NY has the Sullivan law and God forbid you carry an “unlicensed”, locked up, disassembled hand gun to New York - it’s a felony with several years in the pen for just exercising your right to OWN a handgun. In NJ, God forbid you have gun and you can forget a conceal permit. California has selective restrictions and MANY bans on firearms. Look at the so called Clinton Gun Ban which did much of nothing except make criminals out of ordinary citizens not to mention in Virginia you are an instant felon if you have a legal conceal carry permit, have your gun on you and step one foot on K-12 school grounds - bad person- new felon - guns and all other rights GONE!
There is no guarantee Barry Obama will NOT stop trying to ban guns and the Supreme Court is the absolute best and LAST place you can do it - no votes - no politicians and no “redress of grievances” - just gone in one swoop. That 5-4 decision gave the anti’s and the grabbers new life and they know it and so do we. Barry is an avowed gun banner. He “hired” alot of Clinton-ites - more gun grabbers. Obama himself jeered the Supreme Court decisions he disagreed with and used it as a turning point for his election.
The Constitution is under attack because those who are going into power believe in government first and last. The people just have to enjoy what the government doles out; personal choice will be limited from cars, fuel, power, doctors, health care, retirements, citizenship and tax dollars raised. The way I look at it, we are so screwed.
Red, White and Blue,
I agree with everything you wrote. People get the Government they vote for. Unfortunately, we all suffer.
Citizen, Funny how groveton doesn’t have any reply for your point isn’t it? If he replies I predict he will 1) change the subject and 2) attack conservative values. That’s what they always do.
Slick,
Yup, he was posting on a pretty regular basis, and now…..
Citizen - Sorry for the delay but I had some things to do today at work. I think liberals would try to ban guns. And I think that Obama will appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. Those liberals may or may not reopen the DC gun ban ruling (with a case from another jurisdiction). So, you could pretty easliy extrapolate Obama appointing liberals to the court and the court allowing local laws that ban guns. Of course, Bush had eight years, he hates abortion and he made no progress in making abortion illegal. So, maybe this isn’t as easy as it seems.
Regardless….
Dillon’s Rule is not a light switch. It is not “on” or “off”. For example, the state could grant counties city-like charters. And those charters could ordain that all taxes collected for transportation in a locality be spent in that locality - on transportation projects. This would be a dillution of Dillon’s Rule in Virginia, It would also have absolutely nothing to do with gun rights.
Let’s review your mistakes. First, you see Dillon’s Rule as something that is black and white, either “on” or “off”. It is not. Second, you equate any dillution of Dillon’s Rule with having gun rights recinded or curtailed. Alaska, Utah, New Mexico and South Carolina are all among the non-Dillon Rule states in the US. Have the citizens in these states lost their gun rights? Is it hard to own a gun in Utah?
“States can easily limitedly allow gun ownership, thus not “excluding” thesecond amendment while writing an passing laws which clearly have the intent on curtailing gun ownership.”. Yes - states probably can do this. And dilluting Dillon’s Rule would take power away from the state. Which would give them less power to curtail your gun rights if the dillution of Dillon’s Rule revolved around gun rights. So, in your case, dilluting Dillon’s Rule would enhabce the gun rights in gun friendly localities within a gun unfriendly state.
“The Dillon Rule is used more by local legislators as an excuse to avoid making tough decisions than it is by state officials to stop legislation at the local level.”. Maybe. Let’s clarify the roles of local vs state government by dilluting Dillon’s Rule and end the finger pointing between state and local officials.
Groveton,
Bush did his best to fight abortion. He ended funding to international groups(or was it a UN program?, I can’t recall right now) that under Clinton had used that money in part for abortion. Bush appointed Justices that were anti-abortion(not enough of course, but as many as he had the chance to appoint).
Fairfax County, Arlington County and the City of Alexandria are examples were liberal elected officials would use the ending of the Dillon law to push their anti-gun policies.
Of course people in Utah, Alaska, South Carolina etc have gun rights, those are CONSERVATIVE states. New Mexico, is not a conservative State in the traditional sense, but being in the West, they have a long love affair with the gun. Even Richardson is not that stupid to attempt to push more gun laws there.