Editors at the Washington Free Beacon deliver a harsh assessment of Virginia’s new governor.
Has there ever been a more overhyped politician than Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger?
Flash back a few months, when the “moderate” pol, boosted by endless media profiles describing her competence and pragmatic leadership, swept into office vowing she would “focus relentlessly on what matters most: lowering costs, keeping our communities safe, and strengthening our economy for every Virginian.”
Politico told us her victory reinforced “the belief among some within the [Democratic] party that the strategy to regaining power consists of running moderate Democrats like her who are narrowly focused on economic issues.” The New York Times lauded her “strikingly bipartisan tone” and “maverick image.” The Washington Post noted she set a “theme of unity” in her Inaugural Address.
That was then. Five months into her term, Spanberger’s first big move as governor was a nakedly unconstitutional, highly partisan, and shockingly incompetent gerrymandering effort that was struck down on Friday by the Virginia Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, an appointee of that crazy right-wing Republican … Mark Warner. That came, of course, after the straight-talkin’ governor told voters on the campaign trail she had “no plans to redistrict Virginia.”
The Trump White House and most state lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, have been explicit about the partisan aims of their redistricting efforts—on the Republican side, in Texas and elsewhere, to protect the GOP majority in the House of Representatives, and on the Democratic side, in California, to increase Democratic chances of capturing the majority. All of those efforts were constitutional and by the book.
Then there was Virginia. Led by Spanberger, Senate president Louise Lucas (D.), and former president Barack Obama, they bullshitted voters with talk of saving democracy, trampled the constitution, and counted on the court to cower in the face of a referendum. …
… The justices laughed them out of court, declaring that their position “finds no support from the text” of the constitution “or the historical meaning of the term ‘election.’”
