KAINE: Gov. Allen called General Assembly members "dinosaurs, monarchical elitists," frequently name-called John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, when he served with them in the Senate. During this campaign he continues it.
ALLEN: John Kerry and I really
don't agree on many issues, but we did agree on wi-fi. There are other senators who we rarely agree, but we worked together to keep taxes off Internet access on the national nanotechnology initiative, of which I was a leader, as well as cyber- security.
Source: CNN State of the Union on 2012 Virginia Senate debate
, Jul 22, 2012
No online sales tax for out-of-state websites
Kaine indicated he was open to forcing online retailers to collect sales taxes, although he said the rates should not be onerous and some small businesses should be exempted.
Allen said he opposed asking businesses without a physical presence in a state to collect sales taxes.
Source: Washington Post coverage of 2012 Virginia Senate Debates
, Jun 28, 2012
OpEd: Internet allows candidates' own words against them
In the era of broadband and cheap video cameras, there is no more powerful evidence to employ than a candidate's own words, particularly if they resonate with people's views about his true character. Eric Schmidt, Google's
CEO, recently said that because of the Internet and tools like YouTube, "We are witnessing the end of Rovian politics." He's wrong. Mr. Schmidt's creation,
Google, has helped many campaigns launch a smart bomb at an opponent by providing ready access to embarrassing, but often highly relevant, quotes or images.
Just ask former U.S. senator George Allen, a Republican from Virginia. He called a
Democratic opposition researcher who had been assigned to follow his campaign "macaca." The racially insensitive gaffe was all over the Internet and contributed to his defeat; it added to an existing perception that Allen was not senatorial enough.
Voted YES on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007.
An amendment to provide an additional $550,000,000 for Amtrak for fiscal year 2007. Voting YEA would increase Amtrak funding from $900 million to $1.45 billion. Voting NAY would keep Amtrak funding at $900 million.
Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
[In my state], Philadelphia's 30th Street station is the second busiest train station nationally, with over 3.7 million boarding a year. And 3,000 people are employed by Amtrak in Pennsylvania. Amtrak and the health of Amtrak is important.
Last year the Senate transportation bill had $1.45 billion for Amtrak, which is obviously more than the $900 million in the current budget proposal. I am offering an amendment to increase that funding from the $900 million which is in the bill right now to the $1.45 billion level and adding $550 million.
I support funding through the section 920 account [without a tax increase]. We have seen that without raising the cap or without raising taxes, the Senate has been able to
come up with a robust number for Amtrak which I will support within the context of a responsible budget.
We have spent less money on Amtrak in the last 35 years than we will on highways in this year alone. And highways don't pay for themselves, even with the gas tax. Neither does mass transit, either in this country or anywhere else in the world. But we subsidize them because they improve the quality of our lives.
We have never provided the kind of commitment to Amtrak that we have for other modes of transportation, and this amendment will be an important step to getting Amtrak off the starvation budgets that it has subsisted on for far too long.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
The problem with that is there is no money in the section 920 account. If we want to talk about "funny money" financing, that is it--taking money from an account that has no money. This whole budget takes money we don't have. The result is we keep running up the debt.
Voted NO on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates.
Vote to pass a joint resolution expressing congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission. The rule would therefore have no force or effect. The rule in question deals with broadcast media ownership and would allow media conglomerates to own more television stations and newspapers.