President Gilmore?

I have a very hard time understanding why in the world former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) is running for president.

Jim Gilmore, Virginia’s former tax-slashing Republican governor, on Tuesday took the first step in a long-shot bid for the presidency.

Gilmore filed papers with the Federal Election Commission in Washington to form the Jim Gilmore for President Exploratory Committee, said his aide, Matt Williams.

Citing the absence of what he considered a true conservative, Gilmore said in interviews last month that he would assess his own chances for a presidential run.

I lived in DC’s Virginia suburbs through Gilmore’s term as the state’s governor, and I think it’s entirely fair to say — in an objective, non-partisan fashion — that the guy was among the worst governors in modern history. I can’t begin to imagine what he’s thinking now.

He ran for office on a pledge to eliminate Virginia’s car tax, and once in office, successfully pushed it through the legislature. The move ruined the state’s finances, prompting Republicans in the legislature to revolt and insist that Gilmore reverse course. The governor refused, sending the state’s political and budgetary system into a tailspin. Gilmore’s entire tenure set the stage for Mark Warner (D) to get elected, and more broadly, turn this once solidly “red” state considerably more “purple.”

Better yet, after his one term ended (Virginia law prohibits governors from seeking re-election), Gilmore ran the Republican National Committee — run up until Karl Rove decided to fire him.

With this record in mind, Gilmore now believes he should be … president of the United States?

The WaPo recently editorialized on Gilmore’s interest in the presidential race, concluding, “Heaven help us. For if Mr. Gilmore does to the 50 states what he did to the Old Dominion, the federal government might as well declare bankruptcy now.”

Let’s review the sorry Gilmore record. After taking office amid boom times in 1998, Mr. Gilmore immediately set about draining Virginia’s coffers by promoting ill-advised tax cuts that, when the predictable economic downturn arrived, left the state penniless. He pushed ahead with his narrow political agenda of eliminating the state’s car tax despite repeated warnings of the dire consequences, which included diverting funds that should have gone to transportation and public education. (If you’re mad about traffic and the state’s neglected roads, Mr. Gilmore is high on the list of people to blame.)

As a swan song near the end of his four-year term, Mr. Gilmore forced a bitter budget impasse with the legislature, unprecedented in Virginia, that enraged Republicans and Democrats alike and torpedoed the election prospects of his own party’s nominee to succeed him as governor. When he finally left office in 2002 — condemned by both liberal and libertarian think tanks for his managerial incompetence — Mr. Gilmore bequeathed to his successor, Mark Warner, a budgetary mess that Mr. Warner spent a good part of his own governorship trying to clean up. All in all, a terrible performance by Mr. Gilmore.

Let’s summarize: A former governor from the South, zealous about tax-cutting and allergic to opposing views, who stubbornly insists on ill-fated policies despite abundant and well-founded warnings that they are leading to ruin. Maybe this guy is presidential material after all.

Shouldn’t presidential candidates have something to point to? A record of accomplishment, an ability to inspire, a vision for effective government? Gilmore has an abysmal record and a dull personality. If he comes in seventh in Iowa, I’ll be very impressed.

The Republican field is really devoid of any “talent” other than McCain and Giuliani, neither of whom appear to be stirring up any real excitement among the GOP base.

May a 3rd party candidate be their Nader (pun intended).

  • What R.M. said.

    Bush hasn’t just lowered the bar for what it takes to be PoTUS, he’s buried that thing, possibly in the same hole that is Iraq.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Alan Keyes crawled out of the woodwork for an ’08 bid. Disgusted? Yes. Surprised? No.

  • Thomas the clown, always good for a laugh.

    It’s fun to watch idiots that don’t realize they are idiots, well, until they get elected.

  • Damn, I thought it was Lorelei Gilmore. I’d vote for her (if I was a US citizen)…

  • Unholy Moses:

    I suppose you would have been against World War II then? Luckily, most Americans realize one can be pro-life and pro-war.

  • Since W made the White House a shrine for incompetence, can you blame Gilmore for going for the brass ring of ineptitude?

  • And here I thought it was at least a relevant question (at least for my vote) given what I have found on-line:

    “I attended a meeting of conservative leaders several months ago where a member of our (LDI’s) Board of Direc-tors asked Governor Gilmore how he could justify opposing abortion in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy and not in the first trimester,” Scott said. “Gilmore quickly evaded the question, choosing instead to talk about his support of a ban on partial-birth abortions. This does not make Gilmore pro-life. It just means he is not a barbarian. It also means he cannot logically defend his inconsistent position so he had to evade the question.”

    http://www.fightpp.org/show.cfm?page=press&action=display&ID=10

  • It’s hard to imagine that any serious Republican would want to follow W.
    Especially when it’s clear that W is desperately trying to hold off “reality” for another two years, until it becomes the next president’s problem.
    Of course, how many serious Republicans are left? (Even McCain has drunk the KoolAid.) And what chance would he/she have of getting elected (by other Republicans) under the circumstances?
    In the absence of reality based candidates, men like Gilmore see an “opportunity” where others see a “set-up” for failure.
    I recommend we send him contributions!

  • He’s probably thinking “If George W. Bush can, why not me?”

    The name, and the infrastructure (e.g. Rove).

  • I suppose you would have been against World War II then?

    My gawd … do they hand out full frontal lobotomies with GOP membership?

    You know, I was going to post a lengthy response showing just how ricockulous your post was in terms of accusation and analogy, but figured I’d have the same amount of success discussing particle physics with a half-retarded schnauzer.

  • The answer is orange:

    I am not a “spoof”, regardless of your opinion whether I am “lame” or not.

    Unholy Moses:

    I have not had a full frontal lobotomy, and you could have just as easily had posted: “No” without the personal attack. Then I would have calmly pointed out to you that some of us believe the war in Iraq is, in some ways, even MORE justified than WWII (FDR essentially provoked Japan into attacking us).

  • Thomas–
    Considering that I’ve tried having discussions with you, to no avail, results in personal attacks. Besides, it was funny, and I’m all about teh funnay.

    And you can believe that the sky is purple with big, rock solid, chartreuse clouds, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. So just stop with the WWII = Iraq comparisons, because all it does is make you look like an idiot of the highest order.

  • Welcome to Logic and Reasoning 101. Today, we’ll try to educate Thomas, who seems to need a refresher course.

    Let’s begin …

    I posted that one cannot be for the Iraq war and be “pro-life.” The reason I did was because, much like the right’s case against abortion, the war is resulting in needless deaths.

    You then posted:

    I suppose you would have been against World War II then?

    Thus, you drew the parallel that if I’m against the Iraq war, then I must be against WWII. The only way one could do that is if the person thought the two were similar.

    You then posted:

    Then I would have calmly pointed out to you that some of us believe the war in Iraq is, in some ways, even MORE justified than WWII (FDR essentially provoked Japan into attacking us).

    By using the pronoun “us,” you included yourself in a group that thinks Iraq and WWII are similar — after all, how could one think Iraq was “MORE justified” than WWII unless one thought they had similar qualities.

    So, yes, Thomas, you have, by your own posts, managed to equate the two conflicts.

    Thank you for attending, and please remember that this will be on the final.

    Class dismissed.

  • Moses,

    Spoofs cannot be idiots of the highest order. According to the Evolutionary Scale as it relates to the species of spoofs, they’re somewhere between hamster droppings and gnats. With the one parameter, you have to keep changing the wood shavings to avoid a rather bad smell; the other just causes you to swat the air a lot. Both are related to quadriped species, and are designed to distract you from other, more important things. Idiots of the highest order just sit in a corner and drool over pictures of their god: Rush Limbaugh in a lime-green Speedo….

  • The only way one could do that is if the person thought the two were similar.

    Not at all. For instance, honest and consistent pacifism would be one other way. And, when I state that “in some ways” (giving one such example) IRAQ IS MORE JUSTIFIED, that does not mean I think Iraq = WWII. Get it now?

  • Pacifism:
    1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
    2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one’s principles or beliefs.
    3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.

    Containment:
    1. an act or policy of restricting the territorial growth or ideological influence of another, esp. a hostile nation.

    Sorry, Thomas, you just failed.

  • So how is Iraq, in some way, more justified than WWII?

    Also, how is imposing economic sanctions and embargoes on Japan because of their invasion of China “provoking”?

  • Unholy Moses:

    I agree with your definitions, but I don’t see where those definitions prove that I failed.

    2Manchu:

    For starters, Japan had neither the intent nor the possible ability to kill millions of Americans.

  • Thomas–
    Well, since you still have yet to give a single rational explanation on how the Iraq was was more justified than WWII, and have failed to explain why you were not equating the two, I figured you saw Clinton’s Iraq policy as pacifism when, in reality, it was containment.

    I guess my wingnut-to-reality translator is on the fritz again.

    Oh, and this is a gem:

    For starters, Japan had neither the intent nor the possible ability to kill millions of Americans.

    Well, from all evidence, Iraq didn’t have the ability to either. The desire? Sure. But so does half the planet now, thanks to your boy Bush.

    Again, tell us how Iraq was more justified than WWII.

  • Well, since you still have yet to give a single rational explanation on how the Iraq was was more justified than WWII,

    In 1941, there was no prospect of a Republican White House and Congress being taken over by the opposition party.

    In 2002, and in 2004, there was.

    Ergo, Iraq was more justified.

    Iraq — not so much a war as the world’s most expensive campaign commercial.

  • Davis and Unholy:

    I obviously disagree. We don’t KNOW that Iraq didn’t have the ability, just like we don’t KNOW if Israel has nuclear weapons. We do KNOW that Iraq used WMD on Kurds and, if you really buy the conspiracy theory that we knew Saddam didn’t have any left, why were our soldiers prepared with WMD protection gear?

  • We don’t KNOW that Iraq didn’t have the ability, just like we don’t KNOW if Israel has nuclear weapons.

    Yep … I was right.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m heading down to the local pet store …

  • So much for that “patience is a virtue” -jay- was talking about. When you get back from the store, let me know if you want to discuss the facts we do know and the facts we do not know.

  • You mean all those WMDs Saddam had secretly UPS’d before the 2003 invasion to Syria/Iran/Libya/up Bush’s ass?

    And actually, Japan did have a operational chemical/biological program (Unit 731) based in northern China. Here’s the Wiki entry:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Biological_warfare

    I also remember reading in Thomas Allen’s “Codename: Downfall” that Japan had devised plans to use their balloon bombs to spread bio-weapons across the American mainland.

    “We do KNOW that Iraq used WMD on Kurds”
    And the Ameircan response back in 1988 was,….nothing.

    So why was this an important issue in 2002-03, but not 1988?

    And my battalion still took our MOPP suits and protective masks into Panama during Operation Just Cause. It’s part of your TO&E wherever you deploy.

  • Edo:

    I am not a single-issue voter.

    2Manchu:

    It’s wasn’t me, but Unholy Moses who claimed “from all evidence” Iraq did not have the ability to kill millions of Americans. Japan never did.

  • 2Manchu–
    Thanks for taking up the slack.

    Thomas–
    The schnauzer said you were an idiot. Oh, and he said not to respons to you until you ANSWER THE QUESTION I’VE POSED TO YOU MULITPLE TIMES ON THIS THREAD.

    If you don’t, then you have proved that you are not interested in real discussion, and worthy of any ban CB places upon you.

  • To reiterate:

    “Japan had devised plans to use their balloon bombs to spread bio-weapons across the American mainland.”

    I have yet to find any evidence Iraq ever devising plans to use biological or chemical weapons on American citizens.

    Moses,
    Anytime. The geek in me loves research.

  • Thomas,

    I am not a single-issue voter.

    then why was your first post asking about a position on a single issue?

  • Thomas–
    What? You’re argument that Iraq wanted to kill millions of Americans, yet Japan didn’t? That was it?

    You’re kidding me, right?

    First of all, there were NO WMDs IN IRAQ. Evidence here, here and here.

    Israel does have nuclear weapons — according to a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Air Force.

    And your crack about how Japan didn’t want to kill “millions of Americans” isn’t just a strawman, it’s the Scarecrow because it’s lacking any type of intelligence whatsoever.

    So … you’re either

    a.) spectacularly ill-informed;
    b.) completely delusional;
    c.) a flat-out liar
    d.) a complete fucking idiot.

    I’m picking “e” … all of the above.

  • Sorry, I thought it was obvious that Japan could not have killed millions of our citizens even with a WMD attack across the American mainland. The same could NOT be said about Iraq.

  • I’m afraid that, under the tender ministrations of nincompoops such as Thomas and others, The Carpetbagger Report may become typical of other political blogs, blogs which I no longer look at: A lot of time slogging through Thomas-generated shit in order to find what used to be gems of reason and writing in response to CB’s proffered topics.

    Thomas has nothing constructive to offer. “Is too, is not” is sandbox, not discussion. Ignore him or prevent him. I don’t care which.

  • “Sorry, I thought it was obvious that Japan could not have killed millions of our citizens even with a WMD attack across the American mainland. The same could NOT be said about Iraq.”

    A WMD attack across the American mainland WOULD NOT kill millions of Americans? You don’t mean a “weapon of mild discomfort”, do you?

    And what do we know of Iraq’s plan to kill millions of American citizens?

    “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

    We’re going on nearly four years now, and the evidence is still pretty absent.

  • Ed–
    Please accept my apologies. For a while, I honestly thought Thomas was interested in real discussion (something I think most of us would welcome).

    He’s obviously not. Period.

    So … all I can say is …

    Hey, Crumudgeon: Fetchez la vache!

  • Ed:

    Quit spamming. If you want to discuss the topic, let me know.

    2Manchu:

    I thought we already stipulated that Saddam had the intent, just not (using hindsight) the ability. As for Japan having the ability to kill millions of Americans with WMD, I find that very hard to believe given they hardly reached 200,000 Chinese deaths and that was with basically unlimited access and zero resistence. Between 1932 and 1945 Japan experiments included testing biological weapons on humans, and Japan attacked 11 Chinese cities with biological weapons.

    The US Army sent several investigators to Japan after the war to interrogate captured Japanese scientists. Leading the team was Dr. Norbert Fell and Lt. Col. Arvo Thompson. Working with Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s intelligence team at Supreme Commander Allied Powers (SCAP), Dr. Fell and Thompson learned the full extent of the Japanese program headed by Lt. Gen. Shiro Ishii.

    From 1938-1945, Ishii carried on experiments against POW’s, including US forces at the Mukden POW Camp in northeast China. He directed Unit 731, the secret Japanese unit engaged in human experimentation. Ishii was initially given command of the “Togo Unit” of 300 men, which rapidly grew and acquired additional “cover” identities. The first major BW facility was built at Beiyinhe, some 70km outside Harbin, known locally as the “Zhong Ma Prison Camp. Open air testing on prisoners was conducted at the the officially named “Water Purification Unit 731” at Pingfan near Harbin, a remote, desolate area on the Manchurian Peninsula. Pingfan’s 6 square kilometers housed more than 150 buildings, including administrative buildings, laboratories, workers dormitories, and barracks. By 1945, the Japanese program had stockpiled 400 kilograms of anthrax to be used in a specially designed fragmentation bomb. Studies continued there until 1945, when the Unit 731 complex was leveled by burning it.

    Slightly less than 1,000 human autopsies apparently were carried out at Unit 731, most on victims exposed to aerosolized anthrax. Many more prisoners and Chinese nationals may have died in this facility – some have estimated up to 3,000 human deaths. In 1940, a plague epidemic in China and Manchuria followed reported overflights by Japanese planes dropping plague-infected fleas. The Japanese attacked hundreds of heavily populated communities and remote regions with germ bombs. There appears to have been a massive germ war campaign in Yunnan Province bordering Burma. Planes dropped plague-infected fleas over Ningbo in eastern China and over Changde in north-central China, and Japanese troops also dropped cholera and typhoid cultures in wells and ponds. In all, tens of thousands, and perhaps as many 200,000, Chinese died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases.

    Now, compare that to what Saddam did to the Kurds and what he obviously wanted to do to us (“obvious” that is to me and Charles Duelfer at least). You do know that we found SOME prohibited WMD, just not the stockpiles most everyone assumed were there. Who knows now where (or if) those stockpiles were. That being said, there was no acceptable risk to letting Saddam continue in power without knowing for sure what else he had.

  • As Dr. Rice pointed out: “We aren’t going to wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud.”

  • I have a very hard time understanding why in the world former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) is running for president. — CB

    More money than sense?

  • First off, Thomas, my compliments on a good presentation of Unit 731. Very well done.

    Though I find “hardly reached 200,000 Chinese deaths” to be a bit cold-hearted, sorry to say.

    However, I’m still wondering what evidence there is of Saddam planning to use chemical or biological weapons against American citizens.

    Was Saddam’s WMD programs more extensive than Japan’s during the Second World War? Was the threat he posed in the 1990s greater than the one by Japan during the 1940s?

    And I’m still wondering why no one in Washington seemed really too concerned about Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds until after he invaded Kuwait in 1990.

  • (blinking)

    Thomas —

    Iraq in 2003 posed more of a threat than did Japan in 1940/1941?

    Let’s backtrack here.

    By 1940, Japan had invaded China and Manchuria, killing hundreds of thousands; by the evidence you yourself cite, they were conducting human experimentation; had a chemical/biological warfare program; formed an alliance with the Axis powers that had a stated desire to conquer Europe; and openly stated plans to conquer the Pacific Ocean, which included several territories held by the United States, Britain and France. And — the key point — Japan actually attacked a United States military base in 1941, killing 2,335 U.S. servicemen. This attack dramatically demonstrated that Japan most certainly had the military means to attack the United States. Japan immediately followed this attack with multiple attacks on several Asian nations, attacking Hong Kong, Thailand and the Phillippines. And Japan most certainly could have reached the continental United States, had the United States not counter-attacked. After all, only four years later, the United States reached Japan.

    Whatever you may or may not believe about Saddam’s weapons capability — and so far, the evidence is decidedly stating that Saddam had no long range weapons capable of attacking the U.S. — Saddam in 2003, unlike Japan in 1941, was not attacking anyone. And, unlike Japan, Saddam’s previous attempts to conquer other countries ended in flat failure: he failed to conquer either Iran or Kuwait, two countries with considerably less military might than the U.S. Again, contrast Japan. And Japan had as a powerful ally Nazi Germany, which had done a pretty swift job of marching across Germany. Saddam, fortunately, was too paranoid to attract and keep allies at all. Unless we want to count North Korea which was actively trying to scam him, but I’m not sure that counts.

    So how can you possibly suggest that 2003 Iraq was a greater threat to the U.S. than 1940/1941? You could, I suppose, argue that Germany and Italy were not immediate threats to the United States, given their focus on European domination, and not the Pacific or the Western Hemisphere. But I see no way, after Pearl Harbor, that anyone could claim that Japan was not an immediate and grave threat to the security of the United States. Japan had weapons; Japan was actively attacking multiple areas in Asia and the Pacific, and Japan had, not to overstate the point, directly attacked a U.S. military base. I can see how many people could, have and are arguing that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the U.S. in 2003.

  • ***why were our soldiers prepared with WMD protection gear? ***

    Window dressing. icing on a hollow box, to make it look like a cake. P.R. to sell the Big Lie.

    And more importantly—most of the protective gear was junk. The only nex-gen stuff, for some reason, was always shipped in just ahead of the camera crews.

    Yep—window dressing….

  • It is always amazing to read how blogs can get off the original topic. The topic is Jim Gilmore, and Gilmore was an absolute failure as governor of Virginia. Even mediocre governors of our Commonwealth are generally held in high esteem, and Gilmore can’t even reach that low bar. Gilmore’s record as a executive set a new standard for inferior and his three-word bumper sticker approach to finances (“no car tax”) is still being felt. The damage he did to our transportation system and education institutions will continue to reverberate for the next decade. Heaven help America if the best we have to offer is Jim Gilmore for president. I am a proud Virginian whose family goes back to Jamestown and I would love to see a Virginian lead our nation. But I rue the day that America thinks Gilmore is a shining example of Virginia’s style of leadership.

  • Well, STeve, w/r/t to the topic:

    Just a wild-*ss guess, but I think Gilmore had drinks with a Washington Post reporter or two who had covered him, and he got the impression, justified or not, from the reporter who covered him that he’d be thought of in the media as a viable candidate. We just seem to get a whole lot more discussion of Washington-area candidates, particularly from Virginia, than their numbers or, frankly, their competence would justify. Remember when Douglas Wilder was going to run for president in 1992? Or when Oliver North was going to win the Senate in ’94 and then run for president in ’96? 🙂

  • Comments are closed.