2008.11.09
Discuss Trejbal's column about the election
Old Virginny survives in the New River Valley
By Christian Trejbal
"Old Virginny is dead," Gov. Tim Kaine declared last week. "We are a new and dynamic and exciting commonwealth."
The once reliably conservative commonwealth has donned a blue cloak. Its governor is a Democrat. So are both of its senators. It even backed a Democrat for president for the first time since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
Take a closer look, though, and one finds that some parts of the commonwealth have changed more than others. Northern Virginia -- lots of change. Southwest Virginia -- not so much. Old Virginny remains alive and well in the New River Valley.
RSS feed 
You mention the return of Dave Nutter each election to the House like it is a bad thing. Yeah, Nutter has some positions that may not be good for the Commonwealth but they do keep getting him elected. The thing you can say about Dave is that is shows up, he is interested, and he is looking out for most of his constituents. Contrast that to the other Blacksburg delegate, Jim Shuler, who retired several years ago but just hasn't left the building. Shuler started out great guns and was active, engaged, and in the news looking out for Virginia Tech, the New River Valley, and state employees. But over the last several terms, one has to wonder if he is even going to Richmond in January. I'd rather have Nutter, whom I can see evidence of activity, than Shuler, who doesn't appear to be doing anything (of course, he could be doing a lot but just isn't getting any mention due to the lousy, lacking, lackadaisical reporting that we've come to expect from the Roanoke Times).
Comment by Joe Hokie — November 9, 2008 @ 10:02 am
I don't know, Joe. Would you prefer a do-nothing rep to one who does bad things for the commonwealth?
Not that Shuler is actually do-nothing. Among the stuff he pushed last session:
* Mandatory emergency response plans for colleges and universities to be updated at least every four years (in response to the Tech shootings)
* Allow localities to require carbon monoxide detectors in rental housing (in response to a mass carbon monoxide poisoning)
* Allow Blacksburg to pursue civil action against nightclubs that fail to provide adequate security (reimburse the town when cops must respond to a riot that started at a bar.)
And then there's one of the big ones, in my mind. Shuler voted to require the assembly to record subcommittee votes so that a handful of lawmakers could not kill a bill without any record of who did it. Nutter voted against that, preferring to keep Virginians in the dark.
I'm not trying to be a Shuler cheerleader, just pointing out that you're underselling the work he does (and overselling what Nutter does).
Comment by c. trejbal — November 9, 2008 @ 10:19 am
"And last week they voted for McCain and the same greed, fear and bigotry that marred Old Virginny."
Wow. Just wow. Were I to broadly paint in condescending and dismissive hues any group of Democratic voters as you have the Republicans in the area, you would likely delete my comment and chide me for it. Yet you see nothing wrong in casually accusing all who voted Republican as being racists.
Be careful; that magic club is fast losing its sting. You can only shut down the discussion with that claim so many times [and the number is dwindling fast from overuse] before everyone ignores all but the grossest behavior. Try re-reading "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
As to why McCain got all those votes here, we're not the D.C. suburbs here yet. We're not as dependent on government largess for jobs as the northern rim and we like it that way. Perhaps we just don't have the same tolerance of Socialism and infanticide you do.
Comment by kaz — November 9, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Hey Trejbal: You're the new Al Franken of the NRV! Always straightforward and non-biased! MJL
Comment by michael langley, m.d. — November 9, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
"I'm not trying to be a Shuler cheerleader"
Yeah and I'm not trying to post here.
Comment by Henry — November 9, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
OK, so Jim Shuler IS actually doing things -- so I'll chalk it up to the lousy, lacking, lackadaisical reporting that we've come to expect from the Roanoke Times.
Comment by Joe Hokie — November 9, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Kaz...
Having grown up in southwest Virginia, I can say without any reservation that there still remains a huge element of racism and bigotry in the southwest and southern portion of the state of Virginia.
As for support of socialism and infanticide...I challenge you as I have countless others to step up your support for those children that get beaten, burned, scarred, abused and in many cases murdered after they are born because the generous Republican right has said their parents are deadbeats and don't deserve any assistance in their raising.
This malarky about Democrats being anti-life is just about as absurd a remark as any human being can concieve. The choice is between a woman, her doctor/family and HER God. I merely point out the hypocracy of your argument about being so pro-life, yet Republicans want to continue to reduce funding for underpriveledged children.
Your argument is tired, worn out and simply doesn't fly anymore.
Comment by Will — November 9, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
So you're good with denying medical care to the infants that survive the attempt on their lives? After they're out of the woman's body and breathing on their own?
Comment by kaz — November 9, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
I realize that in the United States of Trejbal nobody has a right to a different opinion than yours, but even though I don't agree with the 'red' voters, they, like the other 46% of Americans who voted with them, have a right to their opinions. Why don't you stop whining about how backward these people are and try to convince them your way is better. I never hear any positive action from you, just mewling.
Comment by NRJMike — November 9, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Oh, and on the other point, while I've no doubt you can point to specific individuals and claim they fit your definition of bigot and/or racist [and they may fit mine as well], my objection was to the tarring of all of McCain's supporters as such.
There are plenty of reasons to object to Obama that don't touch on his race. I can say without hesitation that any white politician who came through the valley spouting the same nonsense that more government and more regulation is the answer to all of society's ills would likewise have had to look for someone else's vote because they wouldn't have gotten mine.
Comment by kaz — November 9, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
Kaz, did you even read the column? It specifically didn't label all McCain supporters as racists.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 9, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
"It specifically didn't label all McCain supporters as racists."
It is clear you didn't read the article.
Comment by Henry — November 9, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
"And last week they voted for McCain and the same greed, fear and bigotry that marred Old Virginny."
And so how was I supposed to interpret that statement?
On the surface it clearly appears to make the sweeping claim that McCain voters [the 'they' in the sentence] were all about greed, fear and BIGOTRY.
You care to make a stab at explaining how it could mean something else?
Comment by kaz — November 9, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
No stabbing necessary, Kaz. As the column explains, there are many reasons people vote the way they do. Racism is certainly one of them, but that is not even unique among the bigotries. There's also bigotry against gays, against people of other faiths and against "elitists" whatever those are. Other things people might make paramount in an election include religious faith, economic philosophy, the environment and so on.
It's naive to paint every voter who votes for candidate A with a broad brush of racism. We all have priorities that we rank and self-interests that we look out for that differ from person to person. Just on this blog in the months leading up to the election we saw many different justifications for voting one way or the other.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 10, 2008 @ 7:45 am
Good try at misdirection.
In the body of the column itself, the only mention of bigotry was: "Confederate flags still fly in the New River Valley. Segregation and bigotry persist as "heritage" in pockets of the region."
How were readers supposed to know that the meaning morphed between that statement and the summation?
Even taking what you say at face value, denigrating Republican voters as greedy, fearful, and bigoted while taking a passing shot at their religion is not exactly the way to bring them over to your brand of thinking.
Analysis is not inherently bad. Analysis with loaded terminology and broad stereotypes makes you sound every bit as bigoted as those you would hope to persuade.
Comment by kaz — November 10, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Kaz, I hope other readers read the column more carefully than you. It does mention gays and gay marriage as well as religion. You select the bits you like in a futile attempt to make it all about racism, but it is not.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 10, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Christian
If you had written that editorial and said "Some black people in Roanoke are criminals and those criminals voted for Obama", it wouldn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out what you were saying. And you wouldn't be able to hide behind "you need to read it better" when we drew the natural conclusion.
You were attempting to paint your customers in the New River Valley as a bunch of racist rednecks because they didn't vote for your candidate.
Comment by Henry — November 10, 2008 @ 9:29 am
Oh, I read it carefully. It was a long form exercise in name calling wherein you attributed all of the negatives you thought you could get away with to a particular group.
The short version of the column would be something along the lines of "Republicans are unenlightened Neanderthals who are blind to their own best interests because they don't vote the way I do." Close enough?
Comment by kaz — November 10, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Not even remotely close, kaz.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 10, 2008 @ 10:09 am
I might be slightly over the top, but there surely wasn't anything positive said about McCain's voters.
Comment by kaz — November 10, 2008 @ 10:34 am
It was just a another cheap shot at its customers by the Roanoke Times. All of Christian's predecessors wrote the same type of article at some point. We've heard it all before.
Comment by Henry — November 10, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Boy you sound like a disgruntled democrat..Obama did win after all. I do not under stand why you have to badmouth southwest virginia as you often do. We are proud of our Southern heritage and it does not equate to hate as you often say it does. You generalize too much when you say segregation and bigotry still persist in our region and to call all of bigots because some of us voted for republicans is grossly overstating your point Fact is many of us voted split ticket to send Rick Boucher back to congress. In closing may I remind you that the same road that brought you here will take you away if you so unhappy living among us.
Al Wayne Dublin Virginia
Comment by al wayne — November 20, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Very well said Al! I personally am one of those folks you spoke of that voted split ticket for McCain and Boucher. I do not consider myself to be a bigot. My problem with President Obama is not the color of his skin but his policies that I do not agree with. That, and only that, is the reason he did not get my vote. I'm very proud to be from Southwest Virginia and proud of my Southern heritage, a heritage that for me has nothing to do with hatred for others but pride for the southern area I was raised in and have never left because of the deep love I have for the area and it's people. You sir are a great American and I thank you for your comment.
Comment by Diana L. Fain — November 20, 2008 @ 10:44 am
As noted above, the column was about all of the reasons people might have voted for McCain around here. Race was only one.
That said, how nice that you voted for Democrat Rep. Boucher -- who ran unopposed.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 20, 2008 @ 10:56 am
I just have to point this out though...the policies of other Democrats like Boucher or Warner are not really that disimilar to those of Obama, because they all generally come from roughly the same point of view and are all from the same party with a common agenda. What specific policy ideas of Obama's do you disagree with that Boucher and/or Warner also differ from Obama on?
Comment by Other John — November 20, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Mr. Trejbal wrote "That said, how nice that you voted for Democrat Rep. Boucher -- who ran unopposed."
Yes, he ran unopposed THIS time, but for the record I have always supported him because he does a wonderful job for the people of our area.
So, what's your point exactly? Don't you have one or did you just wanted to write something mean spirited. This from a member of the party of "tolerance and compassion". Nice job.
Comment by Diana L. Fain — November 20, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Dear Other John,
Actually I agree with you about Obama and Boucher having the same agenda. But the reason I support Rick is because, when he's 'home' he does many things to help the people of the area more on a 'one on one' basis and I have always admired that about him. However, when he gets back to Washington, you are correct, and that he is on board with the rest of his party.
Comment by Diana L. Fain — November 20, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Diana, though the commonwealth has shifted into a New Virginny, as the governor puts it, our corner has not. Voters here still vote the same way for a host of reasons, economic self-interest not being among them.
And for the record, I am not nor have I ever been a member of a political party. (Criminy, that sounds like I'm before Nixon and HUAC.)
Comment by c. trejbal — November 20, 2008 @ 11:50 am
There are definitely a lot of voters who feel the same way about Boucher, even some staunch Republicans, who vote for him because of the work he's done to boost the economy of the region and bring local issues to a better light in DC. They highly disagree with his policies, but feel his work for the region outweighs his larger policy goals. We actually had a similar situation in my hometown of Virginia Beach. The city was largely Republican, but we had a Democrat in Congress for many years because he was very strong on the military and on several committees dealing with military affairs. Because he was a strong advocate for the Navy families, sailors, and the military in general, a lot of people looked beyond his policy leanings and felt that his voice for the military was far more important.
Comment by Other John — November 20, 2008 @ 11:54 am
"Voters here still vote the same way for a host of reasons, economic self-interest not being among them."
Translation: We don't vote the way that the esteemed editorial writer believes we should vote. If we voted the way he votes, we would be enlightened.
Comment by Henry — November 20, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
The best part of this is how few people realize that their getting fired up about the column is exactly what this media outlet wants. However, most don't realize how separate opinion writing and news reporting staff of a newspaper are.
Comment by Clarke Allen — December 7, 2008 @ 1:43 am