Anonymous Is A Woman: Politics and Religion and Culture

The Last Waltz - One Last Update

2009-12-19T16:57:00.001-05:00

UPDATE: I will be taking this blog offline and making it private on Sunday night. I will not delete it or abandon it because I do plan to eventually get back to blogging in about four years - or whenever I actually retire. Until then, I've decided to simply keep it private. But I won't actually be updating anything so nobody will be missing any new posting, I promise. Once again, my readers have given me great joy for the past five years. See you all in the next permutation of life :)

Readers may have noticed that I've been posting less and my posts have not been as overtly political as usual. I won't be coy about it. I have been slowly disengaging from blogging because it's time to close up shop.

I did this once before because I was getting burned out and wanted to move on to try different forms of writing. But once I had taken a much needed break, I realized how much I truly missed blogging and came back. This time is different.

First of all, I'm not burnt out. And I already know that I will miss it. My reason for leaving is much simpler now than it was the first time I took a break. I have a new job that would make blogging a conflict of interest. I won't go into the details about the job, but please believe me that it would present a real conflict for me and my employer if I were to be running a blog and publicly sounding off about politics and other controversial issues.

I will still keep my Twitter and Facebook accounts as those are personal social networking sites. But even there, my writing will be less about politics and more about personal sharing although, of course, I will still avidly be following politics. I just won't be as expressive with my own opinions.

As much as I have enjoyed sharing those opinions through my blog, it is time for me to move on and to once again try something different and in this case, that something different pays very well.

I hope my readers are happy for me. Please know I will miss all of you very much because I have had the best audience a political blogger could ever hope for. You have been thoughtful, intelligent readers whose comments, even when disagreeing with me, have always challenged me and made me think about my own positions and why I held them. I will miss that give and take.

And I am profoundly grateful to all my fellow bloggers whose support for my efforts have meant so much to me. Across the aisle and across the political spectrum, I have truly found a group of people who have shared my passion for better government and for improving people's lives, even when we've disagreed about the best way to do so.

To be honest, I don't consider this leave taking permanent because in four years I will be thinking about retirement. No matter how much I may love a job - and I very much expect to be loving the new one - I believe there is a time for everything under the sun and that includes moving on and discovering still other adventures. One of those might be coming back to blogging. Or by then, there may be even more innovative media and fresher opportunities.

For now, though, that new opportunity lies in a change in my day job that will present challenges and adventures which will engage my time and energy in fresh directions. While I will miss what I leave behind, I am looking forward to what lies ahead.

So, till we meet again...

Christmas Warning: Do Not Try This At Home!

2009-12-09T21:15:00.000-05:00

This was sent to me by a friend with a rather odd sense of humor. One that matches my own. Enjoy!

Try Chrome - Update: Chrome Measures Up - and This is the Last Plug for It

2009-12-06T19:42:00.001-05:00

UPDATE: I have now been using Chrome for about a week and so far it has more than measured up to its initial promise. I haven't had one freeze or crash and it is fast. It loads Huffington Post and the Washington Post, both sites that have always given me the most problems with the screen freezing. Again, I always thought it was the fault of the site but now I am rethinking that. And every once in a while, I'll try loading both those sites on Internet Explorer, and guess what? Same crap as before. The difference is Chrome. But this is the last "commercial" for it - promise! It's just that it has turned my surfing and blogging experience back into pure joy, when I had gotten so frustrated with IE's performance that I was actually avoiding my computer.

Ok, I got a Google Wave invitation and when I went to retrieve it and install it I kept getting messages that I needed an additional plug in for it to work. Now, that was helpful. NOT!

What plug in? Where do I find it? There was no explanation. So, I started Googling. What else would you do? I am convinced you can Google and get instructions for anything. I learned how to thread a sewing machine needle, download YouTube videos, and perform a root canal by Googling.

Ok, I wouldn't actually try doing the root canal. But I did find a description of what to expect at the dentist that went into pretty explicit detail of how it's done. And I also have used Google to get instructions for how to do various things in Excel, Word, and Power Point since nothing comes with a user's manual anymore and Googling is the quickest way to find anything.

And when I Googled for instructions on using Google Wave I discovered that Internet Explorer doesn't support Wave. Chrome does, so I downloaded it and sure enough Google Wave is now accessible. And I discovered something else.

My whole computer Internet connection is better. Everything from this blog to all the other blogs and sites I go to runs better than it did on IE.

I was forever having problems with stuff loading too slowly, the computer freezing up entirely, and crashing. At first I thought it was caused by Verizon and I've been contemplating switching to cable. Then after some research, I thought it was because Microsoft keeps running constant updates. And that did have a lot to do with it. I've disabled automatic update. I still do the updating religiously, but at my discretion, not when Microsoft decides it should be done.

That way, I'm not losing work because my computer is going down and rebooting after I've written 10 pages. I just pick a time every few days and do my computer maintenance and it works out great. But the biggest shock came when I installed Chrome.

For the first time ever my computer functions smoothly. There were some sites that always gave me trouble and I just assumed that it was the fault of the site because it had so many videos, pictures, graphics, links that made loading slow. Nope. Not with Chrome.

Since the FTC now insists that, as a blogger, I disclose any financial arrangements I might have with Chrome, Google, or IE, let me assure you I have only one. I'm a customer. It's a free service. And I make no money by telling anybody about my experience. But if I can save some readers the same type of frustrations that I had been dealing with by passing on some info, then I am happy to do it.

If you are having problems with your computer running slowly while you are on the Internet, don't assume the problem is your computer (unless, of course, you are also having difficulties in other programs). Give Chrome a try. You may be as pleased as I am with it.

Wafer Wars and Bare-Knuckled Politics

2009-12-05T18:23:00.000-05:00

The Roman Catholic Church has recently inserted itself into a couple of public policy/political debates with a ferocity not seen in many years. Today, in a Washington Post op ed, Joseph Califano takes aim at the Church for its aggressive pursuit of its policy agenda and more specifically at its use of the Eucharist as a weapon with which to browbeat Roman Catholic politicians into following its dictates.

Citing Rhode Island’s bishop, Thomas J. Tobias, who denied communion to Representative Patrick Kennedy, here is what Califano said:

American bishops didn't used to do this. Even when they disagreed sharply with policies pursued by Catholic officeholders, they were willing to sit down and discuss alternatives. I know. I saw this when I served as chief domestic adviser for President Lyndon Johnson and as secretary of health, education and welfare for President Jimmy Carter. In the 1960s, LBJ became the first president to aggressively promote family planning abroad and at home. Abroad, he refused to send grain to India during a famine until Indira Gandhi committed to a family planning program. At home, he ordered federal agencies to make contraceptives available to the poor. I was the (Catholic) White House aide responsible for enforcing those policies.

Johnson's actions prompted a stinging attack from Catholic bishops, who charged that he was coercing the poor to practice birth control. The president told me to "work something out" with the bishops, who were our needed allies in battling poverty and racial discrimination. At meetings with Father Francis Hurley, the bishops' top Washington staffer, and Detroit Archbishop John Dearden, leader of the American bishops, I assured them that we were offering an option to the poor, not coercing acceptance. We ultimately agreed that if the president phrased his policy in terms of "population control" (which allowed for more food and the church-approved rhythm method of family planning as well as contraception), the bishops would cool their rhetoric. LBJ kept his word, and when he later signed a U.N. declaration supporting population control, the bishops were silent.

Carter and I opposed federal funding of abortion unless the life of the woman was at stake, a position Catholic bishops shared. Congress authorized funds for abortion in that circumstance and in cases of rape or incest "promptly reported." My options were to resign or to enforce the law by issuing regulations that defined "prompt" reporting. Back then, women generally did not report rape or incest unless they thought they were pregnant, so I set prompt reporting at within 60 days. The bishops were furious, and their attack vehement. Some said that I should have resigned rather than enforce the law. But none suggested that I be denied the Eucharist.

Califano argues that Catholics in public office must be free to exercise their conscience in the decision-making process. They also have an obligation to listen to many voices, including those of non-Catholics. As Califano points out, we live in a pluralistic society, where citizens may have legitimate religious, political, and ethical differences of opinion. While nobody should expect silent acquiescence on the part of the nation’s Catholic hierarchy, neither should they use raw political clout – and especially not the threat of denying the Church’s most important sacrament – to its members as a way to impose their views.

On the other hand, the Church, like any other religious institution, certainly has both a right and obligation to use its moral suasion to convince and persuade. Here are Califano’s final, eloquent words on this, as a Catholic caught up on the dilemma:

As Catholics and as citizens, we have a right and obligation to assert our convictions on public issues clearly and vigorously -- to hope and to work that they should prevail. To expect less from a public official would ask that he leave his conscience at home.

But to have convictions of conscience and be guided by them is not a license to impose such convictions indiscriminately on others by uncompromisingly translating them into policy. If public policy is to serve the common good of a fundamentally just and free, pluralistic society, it must brew in a cauldron of competing values such as freedom, order, equity, justice and mercy. Public officials who fail to weigh these competing values serve neither private conscience nor public morality. Indeed, they offend both.

Where we cannot find unanimous answers, there is at least one point on which Catholic bishops and Catholic politicians can find common ground: insistence that those who search for the right answers are doing so with integrity and sincere conviction. That was what the church leaders I dealt with in the 1960s and '70s recognized, as their successors should today.

I can only add that coercion is an admission of defeat. All types of institutions resort to it when they know they are losing their influence on their followers. As the Catholic Church suffers a shortage of priests and religious vocations and its membership rolls among well-educated Americans remains flat, it is resorting to bare-knuckled bullying to substitute for real moral authority. And that is its biggest tragedy.

I'm Still Here

2009-11-30T13:53:00.001-05:00

Still in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and here is the palm tree I promised to send. It's a view from my father's catwalk

I will be back to cold, late fall reality by tomorrow afternoon. But for now, I'm enjoying one more 80 degree day visiting with my dad.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

All That Glitters

2009-11-28T15:31:00.005-05:00

All that glitters not only isn't necessarily gold, it could be as bold and cheap as brass. Here is a perfect example

By now most people know who the Salahis are. But just in case you spent this past holiday weekend as a castaway on a desert island, they are the couple who crashed the President's first state dinner. In the process, they seriously compromised White House security.

This Washington Post story paints a pretty good picture of a couple who, though affluent, wanted desperately to play polo way out of their league. They lived larger than life, mingled with the elite, posed as a debonaire, fun loving couple, and assiduously sought the spotlight. Indeed, Michaela Salahi was aggressively seeking a spot on Bravo's new Housewives of Washington television series.

On the night of the state dinner, a witness saw the Salahis car turned away from the White House driveway. The same eyewitness later observed Michaela hop out of the car while a makeup artist, who was following the couple, jumped out of a second car to brush more makeup on Michaela. All the while, a cameraman was filming these antics.

Pictures of the Salahis mixing with Joe Biden, the Indian Prime Minister, and other high profile celebrities showed up the next day on the Salahis Facebook page. The White House later releases photos of President Obama and the First Lady greeting them on the receiving line.

But the Washington Post story delves into the darker side of the Salahi story. The law suits between Tareq and his father. The ruined family business, a well respected winery in Fauquier County. The trail of unpaid bills and creditors left holding the bag.

In some respects, though, there are aspects of this escapade and the whole Salahi story that could hold a romantic appeal for many of those reading about it. Could the book and movie deal be far behind?

The truth is America has a tradition of admiring its clever con artists and lovable scoundrels who stick it to society's muckety mucks. It's the stuff of countless Hollywood screwball comedies.

But make no mistake, the Salahis were no populist heroes pulling off a simple scam against the rich and famous. They wanted to be rich and famous themselves. And more often those scammed turned out to be small business men and women, florists, caterers, cleaning companies, and their condo association, whose dues they stiffed. These were careless people so intent on pursuing a self-aggrandizing fantasy that they didn't care whose business or life got wrecked in their wake.

But there is a larger issue at stake here. And that is the security breach at the White House.

As others have pointed out, something went very wrong that could have exposed the President and India's Prime Minister to great harm. Although Secret Service issued a statement that all guests passed through multiple layers of security, including a magnometer, that begs the question that some of the worst threats, like bioterrorism, still could have gone undetected.

The White House does a good job of vetting guests. But any enterprise is only as good as its weakest link. And here its weakest link broke down badly.

Serious questions remain about what was going through the mind of the guard who allowed these people who were not on the White House guest list, and were therefore completely unvetted, to enter a secure area.

Given that it is common knowledge that President Obama has endured a historically high number of personal threats since early in his candidacy, it's highly unlikely that this was a routine slip up

I doubt I'm the only person questioning whether money crossed palms. And if so, did the Salahis act alone in offering a bribe or was the reality TV company involved?

I'm not saying that I know for sure that anything like that happened. But it sure better be one of the avenues being investigated because as well trained as the Secret Service is, I would have a lot of problems attributing this to mere carelessness on their part.

Please tell me I'm not alone in this.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Happy Thanksgiving!

2009-11-25T20:13:00.000-05:00

Yes, this is the iconic Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving poster. I grew up with it because it was used as an ad in my local supermarket in New York. Every fall, as November's holiday season approached, this was the poster that graced our local grocery store's front window - the all American holiday family gatheing.

I also grew up with several of Norman Rockwell's grandchildren. My home, Rockland County, was a suburb of New York City. As such, lots of artsy folks lived there. Besides the Rockwell offspring, the actor Burgess Meredith, the composer John Cage, and his domestic partner, dancer/choreographer Merce Cunningham, and actress Ellen Burstyn all lived in Rockland County. And the first lady of stage, Helen Hayes called Rockland County home. I didn't know all of them, of course. But I did meet Meredith once and I also did pal around with the Rockwell grandchildren.

I won't tell you what a real "Norman Rockwell" Thanksgiving might have been like - but let's just say that one year it involved one of the grandchildren being carted off to Rockland State Hospital, a notorious state mental institution. Such are the realities behind the myths we tell ourselves

All that said, those same myths are often what keep us sane in a world rapidly unraveling all around us. So, in this holiday season, let's embrace the stories we tell ourselves about the comforts of family, brotherhood, and compassionate love.

In that spirit, I am off, as usual, to visit my dad in Fort Lauderdale. That means that between now and the Christmas holidays, blogging will be light. Unlike in years past, I do have my trusty iPhone. That means I may post an occasional picture of a palm tree from New York's sixth borough.

For all the iPhone blogging apps I've accumulated, let's be real. In depth, well researched, link-heavy political posts with lots of blockquotes ain't gonna happen. But, yes, an occasional photo or paragraph is a possibility. And of course, there are always Twitter updates on my sidebar.

But most of all, I'll be otherwise occupied with family because the biggest myth is also the truest. Cherish your families. None of us are forever so enjoy the moment. That means I probably will play with my toys a lot less and pay attention to my father and my husband a lot more - so don't expect much posting. And get away from that computer and enjoy your own friends and family live and in person. There are just times when virtual reality doesn't cut it. You need live reality!

So, on that note: A happy, safe, and healthy holiday season to you and yours!

Advice President Obama Should Heed

2009-11-22T20:59:00.000-05:00

Lowell Feld has an amazing post up on Blue Virginia, where he offers heart felt advice to President Obama. Like a lot of us, Lowell is getting a disquieting feeling that the change we believed in is being replaced by the same old Washington dysfunctional politics we all worked so hard to replace.

Like Lowell, I think President Obama is one of the most talented leaders to come along in our generation. He could be a truly great leader because he has the personal charisma, elogquence and brilliance to move our country in a new direction, one that many of those who voted for him hunger for.

But there are two sides of him that are at war with one another. There is the visionary who sees where he wants to take us versus the gentle, cool, brainy technocrat who truly wants us to get there by building bipartisan consensus. Both sides are in a conflict because the reality is that Republicans do not want to build consensus. They sense that in order to regain power, they must make President Obama fail. But they are playing a dangerous zero sum game where we all go down with the president.

If the economy continues to tank, if we don't get health care reform, if we don't reverse climate change, if we don't build a fairer society where the middle class and working people can flourish, the nation and the world will be broken into so many pieces that even if the Republicans get back in power, they would be no more able to fix it than we are now. Indeed, with any further deterioration of our current economic, environmental, and security conditions, it will be beyond repair.

In a zero sum game, the winner takes all. But even a winner can't multiply anything by the number zero and that's all that will be left. It will be a phyrric victory at best.

For those reasons, I hope somebody who has an ear to this administration reads Lowell's incredible article and can get through to Obama that he must abandon his cool, detatched stance and show Americans that he cares passionately about fighting for his signature policies. For now, he needs to abandon the quest for bipartisan compromise because it takes two sides to build a consensus and only one has been trying. That quickly devolves into unilateral disarmanent, never a good plan for implementing policy.

Here's some additional advice to Obama, along the same lines as Lowell's counsel.

First, do the things that were promised. Reverse the economy, build the middle class back up, bring prosperity and peace back to our land. Fix the failed health care system so that every American has access to decent health care. Do what you promised even if the Democrats have to go it alone to get it done. When you succeed, the Republicans will compromise. Because it will be far harder for them to argue with success than with timidity.

Connolly Wins Sally Ornsby Environmental Award. Also Announces Workshop for Open Season FEHB

2009-11-22T19:18:00.002-05:00

I have a couple of announcements regarding Congressman Gerry Connolly.

The first is to congratulate him for winning the Sally Ormsby Environmental Award last Friday in Fairfax County. For those of us who knew Sally Ormsby for years, this award is especially meaningful as she was a dedicated environmental activist who served as the Director of the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District. I remember seeing her at many Democratic Party functions, talking with her, and listening to her and always admiring her breadth of knowledge and dedication to making Northern Virginia a better place for all of us.

Connolly received this award for his own long work to improve the environment, including his early embrace of the Cool Counties initiative when he served as Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Besides that, he also championed smart growth and mixed use development clustered near metro stations to fight suburban sprawl.

Here is an excerpt from a press release I received from Connolly's office:

In accepting the award, Connolly said his efforts were aimed at “humanizing our community and leaving a wonderful legacy for future generations.” Connolly stressed the importance of parks in rapidly urbanizing and developing areas of the County. Mason District Supervisor Penny Gross, who presented the award to Connolly, said, “He is a man of accomplishment and vision. He is an environmentalist and a realist. He has demonstrated the ability to make positive environmental change and to lead others to understand why those changes are important.”

Connolly is recognized as the “father” of the recently-completed 41-mile Cross County Trail from the Potomac River to the Occoquan, which he cited at the ceremony as one of his proudest achievements. Working with the late Sally Ormsby, he developed the County’s first 20-year environmental plan. His proposal to create “dog parks” where dogs could run and play without leashes was met with skepticism at first, but over time they have become some of the most popular parks in the county.

More than 1,500 acres of parkland were added to the county during Connolly’s tenure as part of his plan to increase the total amount of the county’s parkland holdings to 10 percent of the land mass in Fairfax. Today, nearly 1 out of every 10 acres in Fairfax is open space. Similarly, Connolly started an aggressive program to halt the elimination of the tree canopy in the county with a goal of increasing it to 45 percent. Today the canopy has reached 41 percent.

Once again, congratulations to Representative Connolly for his dedication and hard work on environmental issues in Fairfax County.

In addition to this, Gerry Connolly's office is announcing an Open Season Workshop for Federal Employees on November 30 to help federal employees navigate their health benefits package and make any changes.

Every year, the federal govenment holds an open season so that feds can switch health insurance plans, add coverage, and make any changes to beneficiaries who are covered under their plans. As a service to any readers who work for the federal government, I will print the press release from Connolly's office in its entirety:

FAIRFAX – To help federal employees and retirees navigate through the many changes in the 2010 Federal Employees Health Benefits plans, dental and vision insurance programs, and flexible spending accounts, Congressman Gerry Connolly will hold an Open Season Workshop on November 30.

Connolly’s Open Season Workshop for Federal Employees and Retirees will take place at the Fairfax County Government Center on Monday, November 30, from 10 am to noon. The address is 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, VA.

“Most FEHB plans have benefit and rate changes for 2010 so it is important that federal employees and retirees know the details on how their current plans are changing and whether or not there is another option that better suits their needs,” Connolly said. “Some plans are changing their coverage options or service areas, while others are dropping out of the FEHB program so it is important that every federal employees and retiree reviews the status of their current coverage.”

Connolly urged every federal employee and retiree, as well as survivor and former spouse annuitants to make sure they review their FEHB plan coverage and other benefits before Open Season ends on December 14. “Federal employees, retirees, and annuitants who have questions or want to make sure that they have the coverage they need and want under the FEHB plans is welcome to attend my Open Season Workshop on November 30,” he said.

Congressman Connolly’s Open Season workshop will feature:

· Dean Schleicher, the Office of Personnel Management’s project leader for the FEHB program annual Open Season and an expert on health plan performance and quality

· Walt Francis, an economist and policy analyst who has authored CHECKBOOK’s Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees for three decades and worked for the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Health and Human Services.

· Representatives of various FEHB health plans who will be available to provide information and answer questions concerning plan offerings for 2010

Federal employees seeking further information about FEHB plans can visit OPM’s FEHB Open Season website at: http://www.opm.gov/insure/openseason/ .

Federal retirees, survivor annuitants, and former spouse annuitants can get additional information concerning their Open Season options at: https://retireefehb.opm.gov/index.asp .

Both of these OPM websites contain detailed information about FEHB plans, dental insurance, vision insurance, and flexible spending accounts for federal employees and dependents. The sites also provide links to frequently asked questions and other information that federal employees and retirees might need to help them make decisions about their current and future coverage.

Federal employees, retirees, or annuitants seeking more information about the Open Season workshop may call Connolly’s District Office at 703-256-3071.

Thank you to Congressman Connolly and to his staff for presenting this workshop for federal employees, who make up a large percentage of his constituents.

Further Testing

2009-11-18T13:26:00.001-05:00

This is an old picture of Dan.

- I am testing to see if this works better for posting pics than Blog It or Blogger's mobile posting via email, neither of which worked very well.

If this little experiment works, it will be the last one. Promise!

Stupid Blog Tricks

2009-11-18T13:15:00.001-05:00

In my continuing effort to find new and annoying apps for my iPhone, I just bought a new blogging app and now I want to test it.

Now the thing about these little experiments - my adventures in mobile blogging series - is that they have the distinction of 1) making my blog look like it was written by a two year old having a bad day; 2) it frequently embarrasses me; and 3) it probably irritates my readers because they then have to endure a badly written post and also my whining about the whole thing.

Nevetheless, because hope springs eternal that I will find the perfect app to justify my buying the iPhone in the first place and because I will be traveling quite a bit with no access to my desktop, here goes another stupid blog trick - or as I prefer to call it - "testing, testing."

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Thank You Congressman Perriello - New Ad

2009-11-09T21:13:00.006-05:00

Americans United for Change has just released this ad thanking Tom Perriello for his courageous vote in favor of health care reform. As many Virginians know, Perriello won an upset victory in the conservative 5th District. Throughout August there were countless teabagger protests at his district offices and protesters disrupted his town hall meetings. Perriello met with the protesters numerous times, earning a reputation for grace under pressure as he listened respectfully to their objections and engaged them in civil conversation.

In the end, he voted his conscience, kept his promises to his constituents, and voted for the best interests of his district and the country.

I will admit that I have a sharp disagreement with Mr. Perriello over the Stupak amendment, which would prevent women from purchasing coverage for abortions, even with their own money, from private insurance companies, which will be on the new exchange. But Perriello promised his constituents that he would never vote for funding of abortions. Again, I disagree with him on this, but I respect him and the fact that he is keeping his word in a district where that is the majority view. If we don't like it, let's try to change hearts and minds with civil and well reasoned arguments rather than blaming a congressman for doing his job and keeping his promise. Anyway, here is the video from Americans United for Change.

Thank you, indeed, Representative Perriello. Everybody knows you have had a target on your back from the national Republican Party from day one. Congratulations for your grace and courage.

And on another note, my own congressman, Gerry Connolly, is also under siege from teabaggers. I received a robocall tonight from Americans for Prosperity inviting me to attend a protest at Connolly's district offices in Woodbridge and Annandale tomorrow afternoon.

Let's not forget that most of those in Congress who voted for health care reform have spent months under siege from extremist groups who have exhibited rude and insulting behavior, comparing those with whom they differ to communists and Nazis (I believe you can either be a communist or Nazi but not both since they are diametrically opposite groups - one being extreme left and the other extreme right - but let's not apply logic here).

So, please show your support for those in Congress who stood up and supported us. Once again, in Virginia that includes Gerry Connolly, Jim Moran, Bobby Scott, and Tom Perriello. We need to remember and see that their courage is rewarded in the midterm elections.

In any case, all those who voted to make health care reform possible have my profound appreciation.

Thank You Connolly, Periello, Moran, and Scott

2009-11-08T11:43:00.005-05:00

I spent most of last night watching the C-SPAN debate and the votes for the historic health care bill, which passed with the public option. Lowell, has up an excellent "Cheers and Jeers" post and I agree with his assessments.

Last night, some on Twitter expressed anger at Tom Perriello for voting yes on the Stupak Amendment, limiting access to funding for abortion (those in the health exchanges would not be able to use federal funds or subsidies to pay for insurance that covers abortions). But Perriello has taken fire in his district, including a bruising summer meeting with teabaggers and holding townhalls meetings throughout his district. I believe he actually has spent more time dealing with angry citizens than most of his counterparts. He's put himself in the line of fire. Here's what Lowell said.

Cheers
Tom Perriello (5th CD): It wasn't easy, but in the end he did the right thing on the overall bill, voting "yes." More than that, Tom Perriello proved himself a courageous leader when he faced dozens of angry "town hall" meetings in August, presented his views firmly but respectfully, listened to his constituents, read the bill, thought long and hard about it, and then voted the way he thought was right. That's extremely admirable, and I just wanted to thank Tom Perriello for being a thoughtful public servant who takes his job extremely seriously.

I heartily concur with that assessment. Personally, I strongly oppose the Stupak Amendement and will do all I can to encourage Congress to remove it in conference. If that fails, I will continue to work behind the scenes to help create more understanding of why this is bad law and needs to be changed. But we couldn't let a good bill be shot down by one bad amendment. The old cliche that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good applies here.

That said, a productive response is to move on, pass the bill, but know that our work is not over. There is nothing to prevent us from continuing to press for a change in law down the road.

Others who deserve our thanks include Gerry Connolly, my representative; Bobby Scott; and Jim Moran, all of whom voted for the health care bill and also voted no on the Stupak Amendment.

On the other hand, two Virginia Democrats voted against the health care reform bill, Glenn Nye and Rick Boucher. Again, I agree with Lowell, who writes:

Glenn Nye (2nd CD): Arguably, the biggest disappointment among any Democrat in the House of Representatives, Glenn Nye added a "no" vote on this historic legislation to his previous "no" vote on historic climate and clean energy legislation. Unfortunately for Glenn Nye, voting over and over against history could make him...well, "history" in 2010. Bad, bad mistake, both on substantive policy as well as political grounds by Nye. I'm already hearing serious rumblings of a potential primary challenge to Nye. Stay tuned... [Note: in fairness, I should mention that Nye voted "no" on the Stupak amendment, but that hardly makes up for his vote against the overall health reform bill]

And of Boucher

Rick Boucher (9th CD): For years, many of us progressive activists figured that Boucher was simply the best we could get from a tough district politically. And, indeed, Boucher votes about 98% of the time with his Democratic colleagues. Still, last night's vote by Boucher against health reform was not good. Not good at all. [Again, in fairness, Boucher voted no on the Stupak amendment.]

In cases like this, I would defer to the best judgment of local progressive grassroots and netroots activists on what they want to do about primarying local electeds based on votes. Based on last night, I've been hearing more anger at Nye, whom Lowell called "arguably the biggest disappointment..."

For now, we have more to be happy about because this long fought for bill passed one of its biggest hurdles - making it out of the House. Next, the Senate takes it up and then it goes to conference. So, our work isn't finished by a long shot, but let's take a moment to savor one victory down. And to thank our local congressmen who helped make it happen.

Election Results and the Art of Local Spin

2009-11-04T20:29:00.003-05:00

There are many good sites where you can find all the Wednesday morning quarterbacking and lots of bloggers all too happy to tell you what went wrong yesterday in Virginia. Most of what they say is true.

The campaign from the top down was not well managed. The lack of a coordinated campaign and the disorganization of the DPVA, the DGA's not coming through with money in the general election, our being seriously outspent, the campaign itself not having a coherent message or strategy - all true. Yes, they stayed on the thesis far too long and spent far too little time talking about who Creigh Deeds was and what he stood for. There was no positive message, no reason for voters to vote for Deeds. And the Deeds Country tour was ill-conceived . Deeds should have been campaigning in the urban crescent of Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Hampton Road. And on and on.

And, yes, they were going against a stiff head wind from history. For 24 years, the party that takes the White House loses the state house in Virginia. In addition to all the campaign missteps, a blow out this big also says that the Democratic base was dispirited and unhappy with the Democratic Party. And to deny that Obama had anything to do with it is pure self-serving spin.

Lowell is fond of quoting Jim Webb, "the fish rots from the head." Guess what? It does. And that head isn't in Virginia. Not when we also lost New Jersey and an important vote on same sex marriage in liberal Maine. It's all unconnected, all local - oh really?

Some want to claim that our loss in Virginia is all the fault of the state party and the campaign and is unconnected to what went on elsewhere.

Yeah, right!

It's as if they never read Huffington Post, which daily runs diaries by well known progressives about why they are discouraged with Obama's leadership. There is this from Arianna herself.

Indeed, reading the book, I often found myself wondering what Candidate Obama would think of President Obama. Would he look at what the White House is doing and say, "that's what I and my supporters worked so hard for?"

How did the candidate who got into the race because he'd decided that "the core leadership had turned rotten" and that "the people were getting hosed" become the president who has decided that the American people can only have as much change as Olympia Snowe will allow?

How did the candidate who told a stadium of supporters in Denver that "the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result" become the president who has surrounded himself with the same old players trying the same old politics, expecting a different result?

How could a president whose North Star as a candidate was that he "would not forget the middle class" choose as his chief economic advisor a man who recently argued against extending unemployment benefits in the middle of the worst economic times since the Great Depression?

Huffington goes on to rightly castigate Obama's reliance on Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser and former Clinton-era Treasury Secretary, who opposed extending unemployment benefits and favored bank bailouts but no aid to middle class homeowners facing foreclosure.

Following Huffington's blog post, is this one from Dave Zirin, sports correspondent to Nation Magazine.

But if last night's election results reveal nothing else, the time for swooning over photo-ops has long passed. This is not rocket science. Throughout the country, Republican turnout stayed the same as in 2008 while Democratic turnout cratered. That's what happens when you don't deliver the goods. For all the people who voted Democrat because they wanted to bring home the troops, stand for civil rights for all people, and see real job creation and union protections, the last year has been a thin gruel indeed.

It's not about accomplishing my personal laundry list of wishes. It's about forward progress -- or even effort -- from the Oval office. The White House didn't say one word about the Maine referendum to protect LBGT marriage equality. AG Holder even said last week that he didn't "know enough about it" to comment, which was both a lie and a slap in the face. Obama hasn't fought a lick for the pro-labor Employee Free Choice Act or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act known as ENDA. And please don't mention Afghanistan, Iraq or the Wall Street bailouts. Please don't mention an economic policy geared toward socializing debt and privatizing profit. There is no effort coming from the White House that moves the people toward the direction that people rallied, campaigned, and voted for in 2008 and that is an indictment of this administration. It also reveals something very bankrupt about the nature of our political system and the Democratic Party. The people spoke and it mattered little. Now we need to do more.

Indeed, there has been a steady drumbeat of disappointment with Obama's leadership and his choices over at Huffington Post, Firedoglake, Daily Kos, and other national progressive sites.

Don't get me wrong. None of these people dislike him. None of them want to take their vote back. But progressives nationally are growing disheartened as they watch health care reform, the public option, EFCA, cap and trade and a bunch of other Democratic legislation being pushed to the back burner by delay after delay. After all, this is the party that won 53 percent of the presidential vote, 59 seats in the Senate, and should be claiming a mandate, not kissing Queen Olympia's ring and begging for her approval.

To be sure, I think a large number of people really do want bipartisanship. And they want civility. They can see clearly that Obama is civil and has tried his level best to achieve that bipartisan cooperation. He's stood up to his own party's liberal to attempt compromise with Congressional conservatives . I think most voters get it that he's done his level best and that the other side has been intractable. Now, those voters who went to the polls last November really want the change they voted for.

While Virginia Democrats squabble that Deeds lost young people and blacks didn't show up, the reason that happened was both that Deeds didn't give them a reason to, and neither has Obama, Emanuel and Harry Reid. Voters wanted civility. But they didn't want real reform sacrificed to a false god of bipartisanship. And the public hungers for a leader, not a capitulator in chief. That's why a good deal of the base stayed home.

That is especially true in Northern Virginia. Look, lots of voters here are federal employees. Or they work for contractors. In either case, they are more plugged into Washington than Richmond. And they have a better grasp of beltway politics than they do of state politics. Perhaps more than in any other part of the state, what happens in Washington, DC actually is local for them.

Finally, Nate Silver, one of the best statisticians offered this comparison between Virginia and New Jersey, the other state that switched from blue to red, though with not nearly as devastating a result.

In New Jersey, you had an electorate that gave Barack Obama a 57 percent approval rating -- the identical fraction to the 57 percent that elected Obama last November. In Virginia, Obama's approval rating was 47 percent, a significant drop from the 53 percent of the vote that he earned.

In New Jersey, it was Jon Corzine who tried to nationalize the race, making sure that everyone knew that Chris Christie was a Republican. And insofar as this went, it worked: voters who said their main issue was health care went for Corzine 78-19 (!), according to exit polls, and he won voters focused on the economy and jobs 58-36. Christie won because he focused on two local issues that are very important to New Jerseyans -- corruption and property taxes, and won overwhelmingly among voters who keyed in on these issues. In Virginia, meanwhile, it was Bob McDonnell who won the economy voters -- 57-42, and the candidates split the vote among those most concerned about health care.

As much as I hate to go against the wind in the Virginia blogosphere, Democrats have to realize the truth, which is that all politics isn't local - that oft-quoted statement was made by a very wise man in the middle of the last century who didn't live long enough to experience the instant connection of today's Internet, blogs, and Facebook and Twitter feeds, which make the whole globe local.

Indeed, a bank that fails on Wall Street can bring down an economy in London, Germany, and Singapore. So much for our definition of local

All politics is local, national and global. It's all interconnected now. So Creigh Deeds' bad campaign, growing impatience with change that is getting harder to believe in, and Democrats running for cover from governing by hiding in Olympia Snowe's coat pocket all had a hand in the debacle. Because it wasn't local. We lost Virginia big. We lost New Jersey, and we lost an important vote on same sex marriage in Maine. That's lack of leadership and competence from the top down.

Anything else is just spin.

Brian Moran Rallies GOTV at NoVa CLC

2009-10-31T11:48:00.001-04:00

Attempt 116 to post this update via the truly dreadful iPhone. There will be no editing and no proofreading because frankly Ive given up on this as a viable texting device amnd am only waiting for my contract with ATT toven and I'm so otta there

Anyway pictured in an earlier post was Brian eith CWA activist Delore Gerber. Brian wkas at the NoVa Central Labor Federation to rally everyone for Creigh Deeds Jody Wagner and Steve Shannon

while there I asked him about recent rumors that he was running for DPVA. He shot me am quizzical look and said he didn't know where the rumor started but thinks maybe Richmond. He didn't completely rule out a run but said emphatically that it had not been his original idea or plan

Brian Moran Rallies Troops at CLC GOTV Rally

2009-10-31T10:44:00.000-04:00

Ignore WaPo: Kaye Kory is Superior Candidate in 38th District

2009-10-24T12:38:00.010-04:00

I will be honest with you. Overall, I am pleased with the Washington Post's editorial endorsements in the Northern Virginia House of Delegates races and with their statewide picks. The only exception is in the 38th District, where they picked Danny Smith over Kaye Kory. But I understand it.

I think it makes the WaPo nervous to be seen as primarily Democratic. Despite the carping from the far right, the Post is not a liberal or even a Democratic newspaper. Nor is it a conservative paper. It views itself, accurately, as a centrist, pro business publication opposing either the extreme social agenda from the right or more progressive economic positions from the left. They are certainly anti-union. And they have allowed George Will to prattle on and on with his disinformation about climate change. The main thing that seems to get them to support Democrats is that they are pro choice. I am pretty sure that if they found an unabashed pro choice Republican, they would support and endorse that candidate to the hilt.

So, the Post must have been distressed to find there was not a single Republican candidate in Northern Virginia who was moderate enough for them to endorse. Except for Danny Smith. The problem is their endorsement was so vague and general that it was almost damning with faint praise.

Here is the Washington Post endorsement, which I am reprinting in full because it is so short (and is only a small section of a much larger round up of endorsements)

District 38: Danny R. Smith, the Republican candidate, is a bright, independent-minded civic leader who cares about promoting affordable housing. A Realtor and corporate executive, he would bring a refreshingly bipartisan sensibility to Richmond. He's a better choice than his opponent, L. Kaye Kory, a sincere but lackluster Fairfax school board member who beat incumbent Robert Hull in a Democratic primary.

The only thing lackluster here is the Post's embarrassingly short and exceedingly generalized writing.

As a matter of fact, if you read Lowell on this, you will find that Kaye is anything but lackluster. Instead, she has been an effective and independent leader who has accomplished a great deal as a school board member and a civic leader. Here are just a few of the points he enumerates.

Second, Kaye has an excellent record on the school board, including leading the fight to rebuild Glasgow Middle School as a "green" school, with solar panels for hot water; motion sensor, high efficiency fluorescent lighting; low flow fixtures for faucets, toilets, urinals and shower heads; etc....

...In addition, Kaye served as a VISTA volunteer, as a counselor for troubled youth at "Runaway House" in the District, and much more

That much more includes the fact that Kaye served on the Annandale Chamber of Commerce, the Virginia League of Conservation Voters, and the NAACP.

Furthermore, if you go her campaign website, Kaye does not simply list a catalogue of bullet point positions consisting of boiler plate generalities, as Danny Smith does on his website. She provides detailed explanations of her plans and positions so that voters can see exactly where she stands.

First, here is an example of Smith's inventory of positions:

0 Danny believes Northern Virginians should not send 40% of the revenue going to Richmond and get only 15% of it back.

0 Danny will work hard to make sure we get more of our tax dollars returned to address gridlock and traffic congestion

0 Danny supports the expansion of the Metrol rail system and improved mass transit measures.

0 Danny believes in utilizing the latest technologies for improving our infrastructure so our communities can reap the benefits for years to come

0 Danny believes we should minimize the tax burden on small businesses.

0 Danny supports a tax structure that will help create new jobs.

0 Danny will support measures that will help attract investment in Virginia.

0 Danny supports the elimination of the food tax.

Now those are all admirable goals. But this is like supporting mom and apple pie. Who exactly doesn't support minimizing tax burdens, getting our fair share of tax revenue back in Northern Virginia, or supporting the latest technology for everything? There's nothing refreshingly bold or innovative about any of this and the Washington Post should be embarrassed to spin it that way. It's straining at gnats.

Indeed Smith - if you look at his website - doesn't even seem to realize that he is running for an open seat. He says here:

For too many years, the representation of the 38th District has been ineffective. In the past, your votes have been taken for granted. And for far too long the same old politics have produced the same old ineffective results. At the end of the day, our entire community pays the price for that ineffectiveness.

That looks like it was originally written to challenge Bob Hull and nobody ever bothered to update it. Does Smith's campaign team not realize that Kaye won a primary and wasn't the ineffective one? Further, if you are really tired of ineffective leadership in the Virginia House of Delegates, then you should consider replacing the GOP leadership team there by voting for a Democrat so that the Democrats could be the majority party and replace that other obstructionist team. Or is Smith running against his own party? Not an effective website at best.

Kaye Kory's website, by contrast, provides a list of priorities too. But each one has a link so that voters can click on the ones that interest them and get detailed explanations of Kaye's thinking on any given topic, such as this:

As your delegate I will work to reverse a rule created during the 2009 legislative session that caps the pay for non-educational teaching staff. This rule cripples school boards’ abilities to hire guidance counselors, school medical staffs, custodial staffs, lunch room staffs, and more. We need to do all we can to make sure our schools run safely, securely, and effectively — academic achievement is a team effort.

Or this

The formula used to fund our schools is broken. It leaves out key factors such as the number of “English as a second language” students, and the number of special education students within the education system. I will work with my fellow Democrats to fix the funding formula and end this unintentional unfunded mandate so that all of the 38th District’s children get the education they need and deserve.

Or even this

Kaye supports the 2009 Northern Virginia Business Community Resolution drafted by the Northern Virginia Transportation Coalition. This coalition of sixteen major Northern Virginia private organizations wants state politicians to secure transportation revenues that will eliminate the transportation deficit. The coalition believes that solving the existing transportation problems is necessary to achieve economic prosperity. The resolution is available in entirety at http://www.nvta.org/index.asp.

VDOT Performance Audit

Virginia needs an independent, performance based, outcome driven approach to solving transportation problems. As your Delegate, I will call for a performance audit of the Virginia Department of Transportation as a foundation for future transportation planning and expenditures. This audit will give us a clear picture of the needed transportation improvements, while offering an increased level of transparency and accountability to the general public. The outcome of the audit will help Virginia set our transportation goals of the future.

Those were just pulled at random. But honestly, if you are a concerned voter who wants to really educate yourself before going to the polls on November 3, you owe to yourself to go to both websites, Danny Smith (here) and Kaye Kory (here) and take the time to compare which would be the superior candidate.

If you do this, two things will happen. First you will come away with a somewhat jaundiced view of the Washington Post endorsement in this district and a few questions about what went into their decision-making abilities. But more important, you will come away convinced that Kaye Kory is overwhelmingly the superior choice for the Virginia House of Delegates. She will be the far better representative for the 38th District and she will far better serve all of Virginia.

Dan Duncan Honored By Tenants and Workers United

2009-10-21T20:34:00.001-04:00

Tonight my husband was honored by this group as Labor Partner of the
Year at their 23rd Annual Celebration, at Cecilias in Arlington. Great
party with wonderful food, poetry, dance, and music.

Steve Shannon: No One is Above the Law!

2009-10-20T10:00:00.001-04:00

Here is a new, hard hitting ad from Attorney General Candidate, Steve Shannon, criticizing his opponent, Ken Cuccinelli, for his crony politics. Shannon reminds us that "nobody is above the law." A contrast to Cuccinelli who has stated plainly that he won't uphold laws he doesn't agree with. The question is does that extend to choosing which lawbreakers to bring to justice?

Vote for Creigh Deeds on November 3!

2009-10-19T20:11:00.009-04:00

On Sunday, the Washington Post gave Creigh Deeds their endorsement. In and of itself that was not surprising. Indeed, it's exactly what both sides have been expecting. But The Post came out swinging with these words:

A LEGACY of sound policies, coupled with the proximity of the federal government, has partially protected Virginia from the harsh retrenchments that the recession has forced on many states. Yet the commonwealth faces a daunting crisis in the form of a drastic shortfall in transportation funding, measured in the tens of billions of dollars, that threatens future prosperity. If the current campaign for governor has clarified anything, it is that state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic nominee, has the good sense and political courage to maintain the forward-looking policies of the past while addressing the looming challenge of fixing the state's dangerously inadequate roads. The Republican candidate, former attorney general Robert F. McDonnell, offers something different: a blizzard of bogus, unworkable, chimerical proposals, repackaged as new ideas, that crumble on contact with reality. They would do little if anything to build a better transportation system.

There are plenty of reasons why Mr. Deeds is the better choice for governor in the Nov. 3 election. He has stood with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, the incumbent, and his predecessor, now-Sen. Mark R. Warner, in support of the sane fiscal and budgetary choices that have made the state one of the best-governed and most business-friendly in the nation. Mr. McDonnell has generally spurned those policies, most notably by opposing Mr. Warner's landmark tax package in 2004, which attracted bipartisan support as it boosted public safety and education and protected the state's finances. Mr. Deeds has compiled a moderate record on divisive social issues that reflects Virginia's status as a centrist swing state. Mr. McDonnell has staked out the intolerant terrain on his party's right wing, fighting a culture war that seized his imagination as a law student in the Reagan era.

There are many on the right who think the editorial board's endorsement simply confirms the Washington Post's "left wing bias."

But ask a progressive and he will say nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, we see the Washington Post as solidly centrist, pro-business, often anti-union, and enthusiastic advocates of free trade and globalism policies. But despite the progressives' disagreements with the Washington Post, we have to acknowledge that they have little patience for culture wars that divide people and distract the population from solving the real problems that face us.

The Washington Post, however, acknowledged candidate Bob McDonnell's strong suit: his disciplined campaign, which managed to stay on message; his likable personality, which often displayed graciousness; and his quick wit, which served him well in debates.

As for Mr. McDonnell, he deserves credit for having run a disciplined, focused, policy-oriented campaign. As a candidate, a statewide official and a lawmaker, he has maintained a civil, personable manner. His intellectual agility, even temper and facility with the grit of policy have inspired the respect of colleagues, staffers and rivals. He is a dexterous politician.

Nevertheless, Virginia needs and deserves more than a "dexterous politician" who will remake his image at the drop of the hat and say anything to get elected. We need somebody with the political courage to tell us the truth about what we will need to do to fix our traffic mess, grow the economy, and bring jobs to our commonwealth. Here is the Washington Post's study in contrast on the two candidates. First, here is what they said about Bob McDonnell:

Our differences with him are on questions of policy. The clamor surrounding his graduate dissertation from 1989, in which he disparaged working women, homosexuals, "fornicators" and others of whom he disapproved, has tended to obscure rather than illuminate fair questions about the sort of governor he would make. Based on his 14-year record as a lawmaker -- a record dominated by his focus on incendiary wedge issues -- we worry that Mr. McDonnell's Virginia would be one where abortion rights would be curtailed; where homosexuals would be treated as second-class citizens; where information about birth control would be hidden; and where the line between church and state could get awfully porous. That is a prescription for yesterday's Virginia, not tomorrow's.

Here, meanwhile, is how they portray Deeds

Mr. Deeds has been broadly criticized, not least by stalwarts of his own party, for putting too heavy an emphasis on negative ads about Mr. McDonnell and failing to make an affirmative case for himself. If so, it reflects a failure of campaign strategy and tactics, not a lack of raw material. In fact Mr. Deeds -- a decent, unusually self-effacing man who calls himself "a nobody from nowhere" -- has a compelling life story and an admirable record of achievement as a legislator from rural Bath County.

As we noted in endorsing Mr. Deeds in June's Democratic primary, his record in the legislature ably blended the conservative interests of his constituents with an agenda reflecting the prosperous, politically moderate face of modern-day Virginia. He has been a longtime champion of a more enlightened, bipartisan system of drawing voting districts, a stance to which Mr. McDonnell only recently gravitated. He has played a constructive role in economic development by shaping the Governor's Economic Opportunity Fund, which provides incentives for investors in Virginia, and he has stood for responsible environmental policies, including green jobs and alternative energy research. Despite his rural roots, Mr. Deeds has been ideologically flexible enough to support abortion rights; press for background checks on firearms buyers at gun shows; oppose displaying the Confederate flag on state license plates; and warm to equal rights for homosexuals.

And finally, as the Washington Post reminds us

Mr. Deeds, lagging in the polls, lacks Mr. McDonnell's knack for crisp articulation. But if he has not always been the most adroit advocate for astute policies, that is preferable to Mr. McDonnell's silver-tongued embrace of ideas that would mire Virginia in a traffic-clogged, backward-looking past. Virginians should not confuse Mr. McDonnell's adept oratory for wisdom, nor Mr. Deeds's plain speech for indirection. In fact, it is Mr. Deeds whose ideas hold the promise of a prosperous future.

And that is exactly why you should vote for Creigh Deeds.

If you want to go back to the past and fight the same old culture wars and watch the same old Republican anti-regulatory policies fail again, then by all means vote for the GOP again. But if you want to move forward, grow a prosperous economy, and live in a state that promotes tolerance and moderation, then by all means vote for Creigh Deeds on November 3.

Fimian Raises Money From Same Old Rightwing Sources

2009-10-17T12:42:00.003-04:00

Well, the good news for Republicans is that their candidate for 2010 congressional race in the 11th district, Keith Fimian, has raised $2,333,832. In fact, as VA Social Conservative, reports, Fimian has outraised incumbent Gerry Connolly. The bad new, though, for Fimian is that most of the money comes from out of his district and a fair amount from out of state. And once again, it comes from the same Legatus and Ave Maria supporters who funded him last time, including Legatus and Ave Maria founder Thomas Monaghan and his wife Majorie, both of whom maxed out with $4800 each.

Folks, call me crazy but the Monaghans and all those people from Michigan and Ponte Vedra, Florida (both headquarters for Ave Maria) are not donating to Keith Fimian because they have an overwhelming interest in the welfare of the 11th CD. Do they really care that much about our traffic problems, our roadways, our local businesses? I think not. But I think they care passionately about advancing their theocratic social agenda in Virginia.

Steve Shannon on Why He is Right for Virginia Attorney General's Office

2009-10-17T11:59:00.004-04:00

Here is Steve Shannon in his own words on why he wants to be Virginia's attorney general and why he thinks he is going to win. What it comes down to is that he does not see the attorney general's job as a stepping stone to promotion of any social agenda, liberal or conservative. He sees it as a job protecting Virginians from lawbreakers, including Internet predators, payday lenders, gangs, and sexual predators who prey on children.

BTW, one disclaimer, the ads that run on this video simply were imported with the clip from YouTube. I derive no income from them, so if you click on any of the ads running on the video, most likely the revenue would go to either YouTube or the creator of the clip.

Gerry Connolly Defends Health Care Reform

2009-10-14T20:47:00.003-04:00

There's a reason that Gerry Connolly was voted president of the freshman class in Congress. He faced the lions in the den at Fox New and ably disputed both their anchorwoman and Kansas Representative Lynn Jenkins, who was spinning misconceptions and outright falsehoods. Connolly stood his ground and defended healthcare reform and the public option despite the attempt of the Faux News "journalist" to cut him off in the middle of his rebuttal.

Watch.

2009 is About Living to Fight Another Day

2009-10-12T15:32:00.005-04:00

Lowell paints a pretty grim picture for us Democrats in this analysis, but I think he's spot on.

He predicts that Deeds will lose by 7 to 8 points and it will bring down some of the close races. Overall, if Lowell's analysis holds, we will still keep some seats and maybe have a few pick ups. But there could be some upsets for Democratic incumbents in districts where Republicans are out spending them. Two districts in particular are worrisome, the 34th, where incumbent Margi Vanerhye faces a very well-funded rightwing extremist, Barbara Comestock. Here, Lowell predicts that Margi will pull it out, though narrowly. Another worrisome spot is the 42nd, where Dave Albo has the cash-on-hand advantage. But Albo also is the one delegate most associated with the hated abusive driver fees from 2007. And Greg Werkheiser lost to Albo by only 4 points in 2005. Still, Werkheiser took the 2007 cycle off and you can't count on anger from two years ago still being that strong. Fact is it has probably dissipated, so Lowell puts this as "slight lean for Albo." But he also says "hang on..."

On a brighter note, Lowell also predicts Mark Keam will beat Jim Hyland in the 35th. Keam has run a strong campaign and has a cash-on-hand advantage here. And he remains optimistic about Scott Surovell who has run a very strong campaign in the 44th. That's a Democratic stronghold and Lowell rates it "likely Democratic retention."

Here is Lowell's overall prediction for this year's election cycle:

To sum up: I see a likely Democratic pickup in the 52nd (Torian), a pretty good shot in the 93rd (Abbott), a possible shot in the 86th (Miller), and a longer shot in the 13th (John Bell). On the other hand, I see possible Democratic losses in the 83rd (Bouchard), possibly even the 34th (Vanderhye), the 51st (Nichols), and/or the 67th (Caputo). On balance, it's looking like a wash on election day, maybe +1 or +2 in either direction, but probably more likely +1 or +2 in the Republican direction if Deeds loses to McDonnell by more than a few points.

I pretty much agree with Lowell. Indeed, I would make an argument that Lowell is being optimistic about our chances.

I'd love it to be different. I know so would Lowell. And I'd love to disagree with him and keep spinning it differently. But at some point, even while continuing to push for progressive change and supporting Democratic candidates as much as I can, as a blogger, I have an obligation - as does Lowell, Ben and every other blogger, to tell our readers the truth and to give them our best, honest analysis of a situation, regardless of how much we dislike that reality.

Bloggers are a hybrid. We are part journalist and part political activists and sometimes those two sides come into conflict. But one thing we should always be is truth tellers. And the truth, sad as it is, is that this is probably not our year. But I've been wrong before.

The best I can honestly offer, however, is that if we don't still get out and work our tails off, it will be much worse. The blow out will be bigger and the losses in the HOD will be bigger. Sometimes you just do damage control and live to fight another day.

What Is Right For Virginia Meets AIAW

2009-10-12T14:40:00.003-04:00

My goodness, I've been remiss. I just added a new blog, one that I've read for ages and meant to put on my blogroll. I have added What Is Right For Virginia to my sidebar both in the blogroll and as one of the blogs that I follow. You would think I actually would have done this a while ago just to make it easier for myself. Instant access is a good thing. But so is the time to actually work on one's own blog.

Anyway, I met Jim White last Sunday, and he did this great post, with a very funny title about it. We were at CLUW's Bread and Roses dinner. And I promised to put up pix. Of course, with my husband taking them, there should be no excuses, but Jim beat me to it with his picture of the two of us. I promise to have some of Dan's photos up soon.

Meanwhile, Jim has a great site that I heartily recommend. Go check it out.

Time to Ditch Both Insurance Companies and Baucus Bill

2009-10-12T10:08:00.001-04:00

As this diary from Huffington Post shows, the insurance industry's greed knows no bounds. Not content to cherry pick customers, deny claims for the flimsiest of reasons, and boot people off their coverage when they get sick and need it the most, now they have taken to turning on their own Senate lackeys. Yup, they've stuck a shiv in their own waterboy, Max Baucus' back (see below)

Insurers Launch Attack Against Emerging Health Care Plan

Now I will admit that I don't feel particularly bad for Baucus for getting bit by fleas. He laid down with these dogs. But this should be an object lesson to the rest of us.

The insurance industry and Big Pharma are not our friends. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing, ever

It's time to fight for honest to God health care reform with a public option. And if the overpaid insurance company CEOs kill that, it will be time to fight for single payer insurance and eliminate them for good!

BTW, if this post seems somewhat strange (for example, I didn't use links the way I normally would and there are no blockqoutes) it's because I am posting from my iPhone. Another of my experiments

When Democrats Act Like Democrats, They Pass Good Bills and Deserve to Win

2009-10-11T12:15:00.009-04:00

Yes, I actually do remember how to blog. Sort of.

After being absent for far too long, due to family, work, and training commitments, it's time to pick up pen - or at least pixels, or something - again. I am going to start with this YouTube video, which many viewers have already seen. That's because repetition is vital to making any point stick.

Cynics have stated that if you repeat a lie loud enough and often enough, the public will believe it. If that's true, it's vital to repeat the truth even more often and even more loudly so that it overrides the lie, also sticks in the public's memory, and ultimately gets believed while the lie is drowned out. And freshmen Florida congressman Alan Grayson has told a vital truth that Democrats are in danger of forgetting. So we better repeat it loudly and often. That truth is a reminder of how we retook the House, the Senate, and the White House. First the video, and then I will have a few things to say about it.

Besides all the important things Congressman Grayson says about actual health care reform, the most important truth is that Democrats got elected by defining their core principles, and presenting themselves as the party of change. They promised new ideas. Then something terrible happened to them once they succeeded in winning. They got scared of being Democrats.

With Republicans vowing to obstruct them in Congress, tea baggers and assorted crazies showing up at their town halls, people who didn't even live in their districts outshouting those who did at those gatherings, and other shenanigans Democrats began scurrying for protective cover. Part of the problem is that one of President Obama's most attractive promises was to usher in a new era of bipartisanship and political civility. That was an irresistible promise, especially to the many Indpendents who had grown weary of the arrogance and swagger of the Newt Gingriches, Tom DeLays, and even George W. Bushes. The desire for a more inclusive and civil discourse appealed to moderates and progressives alike. And they really thought Obama could deliver on that promise.

Although sincere and well-meaning, they underestimated the depth of anger that the extreme right wing, which composes the base of the Republican Party, harbors for the new president. I think most of us were genuinely shocked to realize that these people actually wish for America to fail rather than risk seeing an Obama presidency succeed. In short, they are the sorest of sore losers. For them, politics comes before true patriotism and don't you ever forget it.

That's why it's time - actually long past the time - to move ahead and use the Democratic majority to bring about the change that the public voted for, even without one single Republican vote if necessary.

One reason senate Democrats aren't doing this, however, is because, despite having 60 votes, they are scared that if their legislation fails to do what it's supposed to do, they will have nobody to share the blame with. So, what they are doing is seeking the cover and protection that can only come from a bipartisan bill. It's not about politeness or civility. It's about cowardice. They want somebody in the other party who can deflect some of the blame from them should health care reform fail.

But guess what?

If the Baucus bill passes, as it now stands, it will be a boon to insurance companies, will raise premiums for those in the middle class who have good benefits, will force working class people to buy coverage they can't afford, and will anger everybody just as they fear. In other words, if the Democrats sacrifice true health care reform, with a public option, at the altar of faux bipartisanship, they will indeed be blamed and be swept out of office in the next election cycle. And Olympia Snowe will not be able to save their sorry butts.

On the other hand, if they do nothing, they face the same fate.

The only thing that will give them half a fighting chance to avoid that fate is to get health care reform right. To pass a bill that actually improves health coverage, provides affordable health care insurance, and improves our health care delivery system and that funds it with fair taxes, including a surtax on the wealthy. There is no reason for those making over a quarter million dollars a year not to pay their fair share as long as they reap the same benefits as everybody else.

This is not about soaking the rich or sticking it to them. It's about everybody contributing to the common good and benefiting from it equally.

And it's also about Democrats remembering why they joined the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. I would hope it's because we are the party that actually still believes in a common good that benefits everybody. That doesn't make us socialists. It doesn't make us enemies of capitalism. It just means we realize that markets, while very good at doing what they are designed to do - sell goods - doesn't have the answer to every problem. Neither does government.

It's important to figure out what the markets are best at doing and what the government is best at providing and not confuse the two. That's what Democrats used to know and understand. They should reacquaint themselves with that principle.

Important Endorsements for Steve Shannon in AG's Race

2009-09-28T20:43:00.008-04:00

Congratulations to Steve Shannon on winning two important endorsements. First, the Democratic candidate for Attorney General of Virginia won the nod from 40 police and first responder groups including the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, the Fairfax Coalition of Police, the Fairfax Deputy Sheriffs Coalition, and the Virginia Professional Firefighters. Here's the press release from Shannon's campaign announcing these prestigious endorsements:

Fairfax - Steve Shannon, candidate for Attorney General, has announced the endorsements of 40 law enforcement and first response organizations and officials and across the state, including the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, the Fairfax Coalition of Police, the Fairfax Deputy Sheriffs Coalition, the Virginia Professional Firefighters, seventeen city and county sheriffs, six Commonwealth's Attorneys, and twelve other leaders in Virginia's law enforcement community.

"I've known and respected Steve for a long time, as I've followed his career as a tough prosecutor, a strong advocate for children, and a steadfast supporter of law enforcement officers," said Beth Arthur, Arlington County Sheriff. "As a prosecutor and a legislator, he has worked closely with the law enforcement community to crack down on the criminals who threaten Virginia's kids, and to keep our towns safe for families. Steve is experienced, committed, and focused, and I know that as Attorney General he will be a strong leader for Virginia's public safety community."

"I am humbled and honored to have the support of these brave men and women," Shannon said. "Our law enforcement officers and first responders put their lives at risk every day in order to keep our children and our communities safe. Virginia needs an Attorney General who will put public safety ahead of his own personal political agenda and work with our law enforcement to keep families safe by cracking down on gangs, drugs, and Internet predators who target our kids."

Shannon's career in public safety began when he and his wife Abby helped create Virginia's first AMBER Alert program, a public safety initiative that uses the broadcast media to help police recover an abducted child.

Following that experience Shannon went to work as a Fairfax County prosecutor where he prosecute hundreds of cases involving drugs, drunk driving, gang violence, and Internet crimes against children. In 2003 Shannon was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates where he helped passed numerous pieces of legislation making Virginia safer.

In this year's Attorney General's race Shannon is running against Senator Ken Cuccinelli, who has yet to unveil a single independent public safety policy proposal. During their time in the legislature each has had the opportunity to vote on numerous pieces of legislation aimed at making Virginia safer. Below is a comparison of some of their votes, and a list of the law enforcement leaders who have endorsed Steve Shannon.

Below is the list of police and firefighter groups who have endorsed Shannon, as well as individuals who support him:

Organizations

Virginia Police Benevolent Association
Fairfax Coalition of Police
Fairfax Deputy Sheriff's Coalition
Virginia Professional Fire Fighters

Individuals

Fred P. Newman, Sheriff, Washington County
Stan G. Barry, Sheriff, Fairfax City
H.S. Caudill, Sheriff, Tazewell County
Herald Holt, Sheriff, Roanoke County
Beth Arthur, Sheriff, Arlington County
J.T. Whitt, Sheriff, Montgomery County
Gabe A. Morgan, Sheriff, Newport News City
Bill Watson, Sheriff, Portsmouth City
Paul W. Higgs, Sheriff, Fredericksburg City
Stephen Bittle, Sheriff, Falls Church
Vernie W. Francis, Sheriff, Southhampton County
John Puckett, Sheriff, Scott County
Streve Draper, Sheriff, Martinsville
Robert J. McCabe, Sheriff, Norfolk City
W. Randolph Hamilton, Sheriff, Buena Vista City
Lenny Millholland, Sheriff, Winchester City
Vanessa Crawford, Sheriff, Petersburg City
Kevin Pittman, President, Fairfax Deputy Sheriff's Coalition
Bobby Mathieson, Delegate and Former Virginia Beach Police Officer
Marshall Thielan, President, Fairfax Coalition of Police
Mike Scanlon, Vice President, Fairfax Coalition of Police
Dan Kalbacher, Executive Board Member, Fairfax Deputy Sheriff's Coalition
Bob Horan, Former Commonwealth's Attorney, Fairfax County
Ray Morrogh, Commonwealth's Attorney, Fairfax County
Dennis Godfrey, Commonwealth's Attorney, Washington County
Michael Doucette, Commonwealth's Attorney, Lynchburg City
Joan Ziglar, Commonwealth's Attorney, Martinsville City
Gregory Underwood, Commonwealth's Attorney, Norfolk City
Paul B. Ebert, Commonwealth's Attorney, Prince William County
Mike Mohler, President, Virginia Professional Fire Fighters
Robert Bragg, Vice President, Virginia Professional Fire Fighters, District 2
Michael Staples, Vice President, Virginia Professional Fire Fighters, District 3 and President, VPFF Arlington Local
Andrew Water, Vice President, Virginia Professional Fire Fighters, District 4
Ken Pravetz, Vice President, Virginia Professional Fire Fighters, District 6
Hanh Deniston, Past Secretary, MWAA

Additionally, Shannon won the support of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce/NOVA Biz PAC. Here is their announcement:

Vienna, VA – NOVABizPAC, the political action committee of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, today announced it has endorsed the candidacy of local Fairfax Delegate Steve Shannon in his bid to become Virginia’s next Attorney General.

The PAC trustees made their decision following an exhaustive research and interview process, during which the records, positions and statements of the two candidates were closely examined.

The decision came with great difficulty as both candidates have strong backgrounds of supporting the northern Virginia business community. However, Delegate Shannon’s consistent support of Chamber specific legislative policies edged him ahead of his opponent for the endorsement.

“The Trustees voted to endorse Delegate Steve Shannon in recognition of his hard work promoting and protecting the interests of the Fairfax Chamber and our members. I commend he trustees for examining the records and positions of these candidates, and for their commitment to making a decision that best supports the policies of this organization and the businesses it represents,” said NOVABizPAC Chair Fran Fisher.

“I also want to thank both Shannon and Cuccinelli for the time and effort they put into meeting with the PAC trustees and for their cooperation in helping us reach this decision. We look forward to continuing to work closely with both individuals following the election.” Fisher concluded.

It should be noted that it is highly unusual for the Chamber of Commerce to endorse a Democrat in most states. Virginia is one of the exceptions for a couple of reasons. The first is that the Democrats are moderate, business friendly centrists. Probably too centrist for my more populist taste, but nevertheless, they reflect the mainstream of where Virginia is at. It is a pro-business, centrist state. But not one with much patience for cultural warriors who want to inject their personal religious beliefs into the public square or turn the commonwealth into a theocracy.

What most Virginians want is a well run, efficient state government that attracts business and grows jobs. Under the Democrats the commonwealth has done this, maintaining a AAA Bond rate and being voted by Forbes as the best state to do business for four consecutive years.

Besides this, Shannon brings to the table his experience as a prosecutor and his role, with his wife, in creating the first Amber Alert in Northern Virginia to keep our children safe.

It's a winning combination for our commonwealth - a strong, pro-business candidate who has dedicated his career to keeping Virginians both safe and prosperous.

Doug Wilder's Non Endorsement of Deeds Says More About Wilder, Less About Deeds

2009-09-24T21:33:00.005-04:00

I have to admit that I have been both puzzled and irritated by Doug Wilder's non-endorsement of Creigh Deeds. For a long time, Wilder has played the spoiler in Virginia politics, but Terry Rea sums it up well here. This quote says it all:

In his statement, the former governor of Virginia and mayor of Richmond gave some clues as to why Creigh Deeds couldn't win his endorsement. In doing so Wilder mentioned Deeds three times by name. Bob McDonnell got one such mention. That while Wilder wrote "I" 13 times.

So, for the most part, Wilder used the space to remind his readers of what he sees as pertinent highlights of his own record. He made no mention of the many feuds he has (had) with various Democrats along the way.

Meanwhile, Lowell gives a brilliant point by point refutation that skewers the faulty logic that Wilder brought to his statement. Here are some highlights:

1. Wilder asks, "Who is best suited by temperament and training to govern in hard times?" I mean, seriously, is there really a question here? I mean, does Governor Wilder really believe that person would be Bob McDonnell, who opposed Mark Warner's bipartisan (and courageous) actions to save Virginia's AAA bond rating from the ravages of Jim Gilmore's governorship? Does he really believe that person would be Bob McDonnell, who thinks that Bush economics is the a great model for America? And does he really believe that person would be Bob McDonnell, who has focused his entire career on pushing an extreme, divisive social agenda? Finally, does he really not believe that person would be Creigh Deeds, a pragmatic/moderate Democrat who will govern in the Mark Warner mold? Whatever.

2. Wilder asks, "Who has presented to the people realistic plans for Education, Transportation, Health Care, Public Safety and Social Services, etc.?" Puh-leeze, this isn't even a close call! As the Washington Post (correctly) has said, Bob McDonnell's transportation "plan" is all "smoke-and-mirrors, wing-and-a-prayer" stuff that "relies mainly on raiding other areas of the budget such as education and public safety to pay for new roads." Wonderful. Or, as Dan Casey put it in the Roanoke Times, McDonnell's transportation plan is "a patchwork that's overloaded with complexity, chock full of wishful thinking and seriously flawed overall" (Casey nicknames it, "Booze, borrowing, tolls and BS"). Or, as Republican State Senator Marty Williams said about McDonnell's transportation non-plan, "It's a disaster." Meanwhile, Mark Warner says that Creigh Deeds' approach to is "exactly the right approach Virginia commuters and businesses need to solve our transportation challenges." Again, tough choice!

3. Wilder asks, "Who has the vision that can inspire confidence and assure people that Virginia can still move forward, even while confronting difficult choices?" Well, Bob McDonnell certainly has a vision. The only problem is, that vision is batshit crazy. What's amazing is that McDonnell's been so open about it, whether in his infamous theocratic thesis at CBN University, or when he urged "the General Assembly to exploit the gap in state road funding as a rationale for reducing state spending on education, public safety, health care and conservation." As the Daily Press wrote about this extreme, Grover Norquist view of government, "That such an ideological purpose lies behind the Republican transportation proposal has been implied all along. McDonnell made it explicit." And that is certainly NOT the "vision" we need for Virginia the next four years.

4. Wilder claims that the Creigh Deeds' position on the one-gun-a-month issue "is puzzling and inexplicable." But what's actually "puzzling and inexplicable" is how Doug Wilder can possibly think that Bob McDonnell - who promised god knows what to gain the NRA endorsement - will be any better on this issue than Creigh Deeds. Also, if Doug Wilder really believes that the gun issue is on the top of most peoples' minds right now, he must not be talking to many ordinary Virginians (you know, the ones struggling to make ends meet, get or keep a job, provide health care coverage to their families, etc.).

5. Wilder states that "it is the time to put our fiscal house in order," completely ignoring the fact that Virginia maintains a AAA bond rating, a sure sign that the Commonwealth does have its fiscal house in order. What does Wilder want, a AAAAAAAAAAAA bond rating? What the hell? And in what conceivable way does Wilder believe that Bob McDonnell will do a better job than Creigh Deeds in maintaining Virginia's long string of AAA bond ratings, "best managed states in the country" awards, etc? That this is even a question is utterly nonsensical.

6. Finally, and to be brutally frank about it, Doug Wilder sounds like a Grover Norquist/"Club for Growth" Republican with his blather about funding "'necessities' rather than 'niceties'". What next, does Wilder want to shrink government - as Norquist famously said - to a size where he can "drown it in the bathtub?" I mean, with all due respect, Governor Wilder, when you refer to "niceties," what in god's name are you talking about? Are you perhaps talking about education, whether pre-K, K-12, or colleges and universities? Are you talking about transportation? Public safety? Environmental protection? Health care? What? And please, Governor Wilder, enlighten us all as to where the "fat" is in a state budget that has now been slashed by billions of dollars the past year as the Republican Recession devastates state revenues (and increases state expenditures for unemployment insurance, etc.) across the nation?

The bottom line is this: on the merits, and with all due respect to Doug Wilder's past accomplishments (as well as his deserved place in Virginia and U.S. history), today he is completely, wildly, bizarrely, laughably off base. On "one handgun a month," Bob McDonnell will certainly not be any more "liberal" than Creigh Deeds would be. And on keeping Virginia the "best managed state in the country," we've seen the results of the ideological Republican approach vs. the pragmatic Democratic approach the past 8 years. That there can be any question in Doug Wilder's mind as to which approach is completely inexplicable and nonsensical. Given that Doug Wilder is a very smart man, and employing Occam's Razor, that leads to one simple conclusion: Doug Wilder simply doesn't get along with Creigh Deeds personally (maybe Creigh hasn't kissed Wilder's you-know-what sufficiently over the years?) and is taking it out on him - but more importantly, on the people of Virginia - yet again. That's just pitiful.

It is indeed sad that personal vendettas and pettiness have clouded the judgment of the man who was the first African American to be elected the governor of any state in the U.S. His accomplishments and his service to Virginia are admirable and nobody can take away his proud legacy or his role in history. That makes it even more poignant that he has chosen to let ego override logic.

But Lowell has a strong point. If it's Creigh's position on guns that Governor Wilder objects to - McDonnell's is no better and is most likely worse - at least, from Wilder's perspective. After all, it's McDonnell who has won the NRA endorsement. So, if Wilder objects to Deeds' votes, helping McDonnell puts Virginia no closer to gun control. For that, Wilder should go out and win the hearts and minds of Virginians, not ruin political careers.

If it's Deeds' position on raising revenue to fund fixing our transportation mess, that is hardly a "nicety" for the millions of Northern Virginians stuck every day in two hour traffic jams. Likewise for those who struggle in Richmond and the Hampton Roads area, or any urban center, with traffic problems. Indeed, if we don't fix our transportation problems by investing in infrastructure and public transit, we will lose out in the race to attract new business to Virginia since business companies do look at quality of life issues and are concerned with how their workers will commute to work. Additionally, these issues impact the environment and pollution control.

Meanwhile, Virginia was just named the best state to do business for the fourth consecutive year by Forbes magazine. All that has been under Democratic governors. Deeds has already pledged to follow in the tradition of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine when it comes to fiscal responsibility and maintaining a strong business environment.

So, whatever Doug Wilder's beef with Creigh Deeds, it's not for any of the issues that really impact Virginia or its citizens well being. More likely, it's all about Doug Wilder, an increasingly petulant old man who has been rapidly winding his way into irrelevance.

Experiment Number 2

2009-09-22T11:11:00.001-04:00

Ok in my continuing quest to try new things, I found an app that let's me blog directly from my iPhone. I'll write more about it when I am home. For now it is enough to know that this is possible!

Test Post

2009-09-21T11:34:00.002-04:00

This is basically just a test to see how posting from a mobile device
would work. The truth is I couln't imagine trying to actually compose
a real substantial blog diary on an important topic from an iPhone.

But for short blurbs this could work. Of course that is also why I
signed up for Twitter.
#30

Sent from my iPhone

L'Shanah Tovah!

2009-09-17T21:37:00.004-04:00

As I usually do at this time of year, I will be heading to Fort Lauderdale to visit with my father for the High Holidays. Dan and I will be enjoying sunny Florida, where it's 90 degrees, sticky and humid. It's actually a terrible time to be leaving Virginia, with the elections and all. But the Jewish holidays have been around for far longer than Virginia's off-year gubernatorial elections, so I'm off to see my 96 year old dad.

This year, I have a brand new iPod to play with. It will keep me connected to Virginia, the blogs, and my email. And I finally broke down and signed up for Twitter, which is now on my sidebar. I'm not sure how much I'll actually tweet, since my reason for going to Florida is to visit with my dad, not micro-blog. But look for brief, dyspeptic complaints about the airport, at least. And probably comments about some of my weirder relatives.

When you are part of a family of New York Jews, Pittsburgh Polish Catholics and Florida evangelicals, every holiday is fraught.

I'll be back next week!

Searching for the Real Bob McDonnell

2009-09-16T10:55:00.001-04:00

Interesting discussion among reporters about Bob McDonnell and his credibility problems. This is not from McDonnell's political opponents but from working press, including a reporter from the usually conservative Washington Times.

And apparently the doubts about who is the real Bob McDonnell are starting to take their toll, as this latest poll shows the race tightening. According to this non-partisan Clarus poll, McDonnell now leads Creigh Deeds by only 5 points. According to the poll, McDonnell is at 42 percent to Deeds' 37 percent. Previously, McDonnell led in the double digits, polling as high as 10 or 12 points. So, that's quite a shrinking number with another month and a half to go.

According to this report in Reuters:

McDonnell's margin, at 5 percent, is smaller than it had been in other publicly reported polls conducted between the first week of August and the first week of September, when McDonnell's average lead was 10.2 percent.

In the Clarus poll, Republicans lead in all three statewide races that will be
on the November ballot.

"The McDonnell thesis story has not -- so far -- damaged McDonnell as badly as
Democrats had hoped, but it hasn't left him unscathed, the way many Republicans had hoped," said Ron Faucheux, president of Clarus Research Group.

The story's major impact has been to solidify the Democratic base for Deeds. It has had less impact on independents -- McDonnell beats Deeds by 7 points among them."

A big factor in this election will be Election Day turnout, especially by race," said Faucheux. "If African American turnout approaches the 2008 presidential election levels, it would be a major boost to Deeds' chances."

The major reason for optimism is that the thesis story has indeed energized the Democratic base and it's managed to knock McDonnell off message and make him stumble. The now famous F-bomb heard round the world (ok, around the media) won't really damage McDonnell's chances. It's just a dumb stumble. But it shows that the candidate has been knocked off his game, if only temporarily.

The real key to winning for Democrats is not so much the abortion issue or other social issues but the doubts sown about McDonnell's character, especially his authenticity. That's what the Deeds campaign needs to keep hammering at, not the specific issues but the fact that voters don't really know what this guy stands for because he won't tell them. He won't discuss anything that he even suspects voters don't wish to hear. And that's not an attribute of leadership.

Voters may not believe that abortion, gay rights, or any other social issue is really relevant to them as compared to jobs, education, and transporation. But what is relevant to every voters is whether they can trust the candidate to deliver on his promises. And with Bob McDonnell you just don't know because what you see isn't necessarily what you will get.

Those People Who Died, Died! RIP, Jim Carroll

2009-09-15T20:35:00.004-04:00

It was an anthem for a generation caught between the hippies of the sixties and the punks of the seventies. Jim Carroll spanned both. But he always belonged more to the punk sensibility – a blue collar New Yorker originally from lower Manhattan, the son of a bartender.

Jim Carroll lived in my neighborhood during my own scuffling days. Yeah, I scuffled, and hung out with poets and poseurs, punk rockers and philosophers. It seems like a strange combination, but not really. One of the seminal Punk groups, The Tuff Darts, had a hit with the song "Your Love Is Like Nuclear Waste," which was actually composed by an art school graduate, Jeff Salen, who was a middle class intellectual who knew the difference between cant and Kant. I know because I once dated him.

And Jim Carroll, who died last Friday, lived in my neighborhood. Actually, our neighborhood was home to Mount Sinai Hospital, which was the border between the edge of the middle class, professional Upper East Side and the beginnings of Spanish Harlem. It was conveniently located in close proximity to some of the most renowned smack dealers on the one side and respectable employees of Mount Sinai’s hospital and medical school on the other side. I worked for the medical school, writing grants. But that was just my day job.

I also wrote poetry and belonged to the St. Marks-in-the-Bowery Poetry Project. Luminaries of that writers’ cooperative included Allan Ginsberg, Gregory Corso, Richard Hell (also here), Ann Waldman, and of course, Jim Carroll. I certainly wasn’t one of the luminaries, but my poetry was decent enough that I once got to read it once on WBAI, the New York Pacifica station.

And, of course, I had a nodding acquaintance with my neighbor, Jim Carroll.

One day I walked out of the small corner candy store. and there he was, leaning against a car, waiting for somebody. I had just seen him perform at a lower Manhattan club with the ironic name The Ritz. It was a retro 1950s Punk Rock club with Zebra striped banquettes, plush purple velvet upholstery, and Formica tabletops. The place stunk of stale beer and cigarettes.

When Carroll broke into his hit song, “People Who Died,” the crowd of young people shouted out the chant at the top of their lungs, raising their clenched fists in the air. It was part keening for those we had lost and part a howl of protest at life itself. It was tribal, cathartic, and ecstatic.

So, when I saw him just hanging out on the corner where I lived, I introduced myself and we had a conversation about his performance, the St. Marks Poetry Project, and the neighborhood. After that, I used to see Carroll a lot. We had a few things in common besides writing poetry. Both our fathers had been bartenders, so we knew what it was like to have an absent parent – bartenders don’t usually work 9 to 5. We swapped tales of the mean things we had done to guilt our fathers for not being there for us during normal waking hours, which was usually when they slept.

One day I told him about a woman I had seen at open mike night at St. Marks. I think her name was Helen. She was a burn-out case. Jim laughed, “She was a bag lady even when I was there.”

I asked him how somebody like that would know when it was time to quit poetry and leave Manhattan. I wasn't really thinking about Helen, though. I was thinking about my growing sense of futility at chasing the seemingly elusive dream of success as a poet. It was increasingly looking like the old Zen conundrum of seeing the reflection of the moon in a lake and thrusting your hand into the water to grasp that reflection. The mirror-like reflection shatters into a million pieces and the water just runs through your fingers, but you can never grasp a reflection. Is that what my dreams and ambitions were like? An impossible to realize mirror image of reality?

As if knowing what I thinking, Jim fixed his pale blue eyes in a laser-like stare and said, “Karen, you will know when it’s time to quit and go home.”

And I did. Our paths certainly diverged. I moved to Fort Lauderdale, met my husband, Dan, and started a completely different life. Jim really and truly cleaned up his act and went on to be the brilliant writer and poet he always was meant to be. And he stayed in Manhattan, which for him was always home. It's where he lived and where he died.

Jim Carroll was compassionate, talented, and smart. But I find it amazing that he died of something as mundane as a heart attack at 60 years old. I never figured him to live so long or die of natural causes. Rest in peace, Jim Carroll. You wrote our pain, you chanted our nightmare, and you lived our worst fears. It was not an easy road but you traveled it and wrote it with your own grace and dignity.

Market-Based Reality and Economic Theory 101

2009-09-13T12:07:00.006-04:00

Everybody likes to tout the "free market" as the solution to every problem from health care reform to protecting the environment. Let's be clear, there is a lot that a market-based economy gets right. But not everything. Yet, it would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water.

So, I'm all for market-based solutions to our problems, but I'm against the unexamined, knee jerk reaction of some on the right that the markets are all wise, all rational, and all accurate. Far from it. And Elaine from Roanoke explains, in what should be Economics 101, exactly what the free market is, including some of its very real limitations.

principles of free market capitalism are competition and the supply-demand curve. Ideally, competition will keep the markets efficient. The supply-demand curve, in a perfect world, will regulate price. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an ideal world...

Examples of how business can get around having competition include: the concentration of the market by the most successful groups who destroy their competition (i.e., the auto industry in the 20th century), thus creating a few market actors who divide up the market (oligopolies) and avoid the hassles of competing (plus, avoid that efficiency); or the creation of monopolies that ideally should be regulated by government (i.e., cable TV companies).

The creation of such oligopolies is what has happened in the health insurance market. Most areas of the country are dominated by one or two insurance industry actors who collude on prices; they don't compete. That's why there has to be some alternative to them, like a non-profit public option, if we are to control these people and their demands on our pocketbooks.

Elaine goes on to explain the law of supply and demand and the difference between elastic demand - the kind where people stop buying discretionary goods, like cosmetics, fashion, and new iPods, when prices go up beyond what they can afford - and inelastic demand.

The inelastic demand, the demand for basics of survival such as food, housing, and health care, are the goods we will continue to pay for regardless of price increases because we need them to survive.

That difference is important. It's why a monopoly, like the insurance industry, can raise premiums, deny claims even to those who have paid their premiums for years, and throw people out of plans when they get sick. They can do those things with impunity because there is little regulation to stop them and no competition. People can't vote with their pocketbooks.

As I said above, I don't favor throwing out the baby with the bath water. So, the alternative isn't ditching the market-based economy altogether. That's because the economic alternative, socialism, really is not more efficient. Critics of socialism have a point that too much government intervention and central planning stifle the incentive to be productive and to innovate. Without a monetary reward, entrepreneurs won't experiment or take risks to produce new products and services. Government sponsored socialism does not create wealth.

But the current cowboy capitalism of the past couple of decades has not served us well either. Perhaps the situation is not quite the all or nothing - either/or - situation that ideologues on both sides pretend that it is.

Overall, a market-based economy with less regulation works well. But what many on the right seem to want is no regulation at all. Indeed, they come close to being economic anarchists.

But just as every sensible person realizes that you need laws and regulations in other areas of life, so you need them in the marketplace too. First, let's take an example from something other than economics.

We all want the maximum freedom to come and go as we please, to make decisions about where to shop, what we can say, what movies we can watch, what we can read. We want these basic freedoms. But nobody wants to walk out on to a lawless street where muggers are free to hit us over the head and grab our money - or worse. We understand that to preserve freedom for everybody we have to curtail illegitimate freedoms. Criminals don't have the right to grab what is not theirs from us. So, although most of us do not want to lose our liberty, we support law and order, police, and jails. But we want the right balance.

The same should be true in the economic order. We should want the most freedom and least regulation to encourage entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to produce goods, provide services, invest in promising enterprises, and make a profit that rewards them for their risks and their work.

But markets don't work perfectly. That's because we don't live in a perfect world. That's why we have government - a government democratically elected by the citizens - us!

We need sensible regulations in food production to ensure that we don't get sick from food borne illnesses, a real problem as more and more people have evidence-based concerns about our food supply. We have seen first hand over the past few years what inadequate oversight has done in this vital area, as people have gotten sick from lettuce, spinach, peppers, and peanut butter.

It's just not realistic to expect consumers to equip their homes with laboratories to conduct their own food safety experiments before making a peanut butter sandwich for their children. The same is true for making sure toys are safe, drinking water is clean, etc. Ensuring safe, wholesome food and other goods is a real and legitimate function of government oversight, just as much as protecting our streets and keeping them safe.

Then we get to proper oversight to ensure transparency in our financial system. The current economic meltdown was caused by huge financial companies that were too big to fail, but did fail. Without the government's timely intervention last year's financial meltdown, we would be in far more dire straights than we currently find ourselves in.

Large oligopolies, like AIG, created and sold exotic mortgage backed derivatives that nobody in their industry even understood. To this day, nobody really knows how many toxic assets still exist on the major banks' books. Left largely unregulated, these companies created a domino effect that rippled through our economy, taking down businesses as far away as Europe and Asia. They are largely responsible for the severe drop in revenue in states as disparate as New York, California, and Virginia. Virginia is one of the better managed states. But even here, the rise in foreclosures and the drop in consumer spending dried up two of the state's most reliable revenue streams, property and sales taxes. Because of that were plunged into a frantic attempt to stave off a deficit. States, unlike the federal government, are not allowed to run deficits, so our commonwealth has been frantically cutting costs, often cutting not just fat but muscle and bone to do so.

Additionally, many of us have witnessed our 401Ks plummet in value. For many of us, that is our nest egg, our retirement funds, our college funds for our children. Without proper oversight, small investors get hurt and hurt badly - but the huge bonuses for Wall Street moguls just roll on, business as usual.

Large corporation left unchecked, have also watched profits, in the good times, gobbled up by greedy CEOs and top executives, while small investors had little return on those investments. Just as bad, while CEO salaries have soared, their employees' wages have stagnated for years, even before the economic downturn. Heck, I began writing about this in 2005, when our economy was roaring great guns, profits were soaring, and wages were languishing.

So what is to be done?

Markets are good, but they need rules. They need regulation. And they need oversight. Consumers need protection so they are ensured that the goods they buy are safe and wholesome. Investors need transparency so their investment choices can be rational and evidenced-based. And workers need protections that provide for safe working environments and fair wages. And businesses need oversight to make sure they provide these things.

There will always be a debate about how much is too much oversight or how large is too large for the government. It's a fair and necessary debate. But the notion that markets run best with no rules is not a free market, it's an anarchy. The notion that there is no legitimate role for government and that any regulation is an illegitimate encroachment is a recipe for more disaster.

We need to find the right mix between regulation and freedom. Both freedom and fairness do not need to be mutually exclusive concepts. Heck, even a game like Monopoly has rules that all the players abide by. And nobody plays football or baseball without rules and referees.

The economy, though, is more important than a game. It's our livelihood and the key to our future. It is the very heart and soul of the American Dream. And that can't be left to economic anarchists and cowboy capitalists with no sense of fair play.

So, don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water. But dry the baby, wrap it in a blanket, and watch over it so it can grow and thrive.

The Public Option According To Robert Reich

2009-09-12T11:02:00.004-04:00

H/t to Vivian Paige.

This is a concise, simple explanation of the public option, a plan which has been made unecessarily complex by pundits and politicians with a vested interest in killing it.

Thanks to Robert Reich for boiling it down to the simple, non-scary concept that it actually is.

Bob McDonnell Taking Virginia Backwards.

2009-09-09T22:13:00.000-04:00

Jackson Miller Ducking Debates in Prince William County

2009-09-08T17:57:00.005-04:00

In the continuing "he said/she said" soap opera over whether Delegate Jackson Miller, from the 50th District, turned down the NAACP debate with his challenger Jeanette Rishell in Prince William County, Norma Fields, the NAACP member who attempted to schedule the debate has chimed in with her version of the events.

Tired of being accused of partisan bias in leaking the fact that Miller turned down the October 17 forum, Ms. Fields provides her version and the time line of her attempts to arrange this event.

We offered the same opportunity to the candidates in the 52nd District and both candidates accepted.

My contact with the Miller campaign was Cory Bliss. I will not question Mr. Miller’s integrity, as he unfairly did mine, but I will suggest that perhaps Mr. Bliss did not keep him informed of our conversations. I telephoned Mr. Miller in July to schedule a forum between him and Mrs. Rishell for Oct. 17. Cory called me a few days later, informing me that Delegate Miller was considering the invitation. Several weeks passed with no word from the campaign. During this time I left one or two messages. None were returned. I sent an e-mail inviting him to the forum; no response.

Cory called Aug. 21, leaving a message that Miller could not fit Oct. 17 into his schedule.

I have no memory of Cory mentioning Miller had a family obligation on the 17th.

I called Cory on Aug. 24, asking him to provide me with any date that fit their schedule. He agreed to get back to me by week’s end. When I did not hear from him by Friday, I called him and left a message requesting a date.

Mrs. Rishell called Friday, leaving a message requesting confirmation of the forum date/time. I called Cory on Aug. 31; he informed me that Miller’s schedule would not allow him to participate. After learning this, I called Rishell’s campaign to let them know Miller had refused our invitation because he could not fit the forum into his schedule, and that we intended to proceed anyway. I was surprised and disappointed by Mr. Miller’s refusal.

I don't wish to question Mr. Miller's integrity either. I don't know the man. But I do know Jeanette Rishell and she's not a liar.

Further, I have been a political scheduler so I know all the tricks of that trade and how the game is played. Of course, Jackson Miller, and his campaign scheduler wouldn't out right tell the NAACP that they didn't want to debate Rishell at that particular forum. Instead they used stock phrases to duck the debate. Let's examine one of the most abused of those phrases (which I am embarrassed to admit I used far too many times myself)

Phrases like "my schedule will not allow it..." are logically silly when you look at them literally. Schedules can't permit or refuse invitations, people do. And they make their decisions based on what they think will further their interest. I'll get back to this point in a minute.

When a candidate's scheduler gets an invitation in July for a debate in mid-October and doesn't give an answer by the end of August something is going on. And to hang it on "a family obligation" is as lame as it gets. Here's why.

If Miller had a family obligation back in July and really wanted to do the debate, his scheduler would have been back on that phone immediately to try to reschedule it. Instead, they hemmed and hawed and stalled as long as they could and then came up with as transparent an excuse as you could find. Again, if Miller had a scheduling conflict with a family event that he knew about in July or early August, there was plenty of time to suggest an alternative date by October 17. If the NAACP or Ms. Rishell had refused that alternate, Miller would have been off the hook.

So, why didn't he do that?

Because campaigns, and especially good schedulers, make a calculation when accepting any invitation. Before doing so, they estimate how much benefit the candidate will get from a personal appearance.

I'm willing to bet that Miller's scheduler, Cory Bliss, doesn't think he's going to pick up enough votes from an NAACP appearance to make it worth the candidate's valuable time. That doesn't make either of them a racist. It makes his scheduler a pragmatic campaigner who is trying to utilize his candidate's time where it will pick up the most support, and in Bliss' calculations an NAACP event is not it.

Now, Miller's and Bliss' foot dragging might fool some bloggers on both sides of the aisle. But it doesn't pass the smell test with this former scheduler. I know the tricks. I know the pet phrases and Bliss used them all.

It's time for somebody to be honest.

Benefits Bearing the Union Label - Happy Labor Day!

2009-09-07T16:39:00.003-04:00

H/t to Lowell for this:

Excerpt from speech:

So let us never forget: much of what we take for granted-the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, health insurance, paid leave, pensions, Social Security, Medicare-they all bear the union label. It was the American worker-union men and women-who returned from World War II to make our economy the envy of the world. It was labor that helped build the largest middle class in history. So even if you're not a union member, every American owes something to America's labor movement.

There's much more, especially on healthcare reform, so go over for the full report at Blue Virginia.

Irony Alert - the RPV Needs Business 101

2009-09-07T11:50:00.005-04:00

Actually, they may simply need one of those "Basic Business for Dummies" books that are ubiquitous in Borders and Barnes and Noble. I'll explain in a minute.

First, though, it seems the Virginia Republicans want you to know they have a sophisticated sense of humor and they appreciate irony. According to this press release, from August 5,

RICHMOND - Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Pat Mullins today noted the obvious irony inherent in Creigh Deeds' fundraising event with President Barack Obama tomorrow, given that Deeds notoriously picketed the very hotel franchise hosting the event. Obama is scheduled to appear with Deeds Thursday evening at the Hilton McLean Tysons Corner less than seven months after Deeds joined hotel union workers picketing the Hilton in Crystal City in Arlington.

"This is rich," said Chairman Mullins. "Creigh probably doesn't know if he should grab a sign and start marching up and down the sidewalk or go on inside and start grabbing fat checks from donors. What a quandary."

Unfortunately, the only quandary is why Republicans don’t know the difference between a corporate owned hotel and a franchise, owned and operated by a separate company. Perhaps if Republicans, like Mullins and Bob McDonnell, spent more time in college taking business classes than writing theses on how to turn the Republican Party into a theocratic organization, they would understand what a franchise is.

I’ll go into more detail in a minute, but first here’s an email I received from an official of Unite HERE, Local 25:

Ok. I think the main thing is that the republicans were too lazy or uninterested to find out that the Hilton Cc is a franchise owned by csx while the Mclean is owned by Hilton which actually does have a good record with us.

So, the Hilton that Obama and Deeds appeared at has a good labor record with Unite HERE, but the one in Crystal City does not. And they are actually owned by two different corporations.

The difference is the McLean Hilton is owned outright by the Hilton Corporation, which has very different corporate policies than the owner of the Crystal City Hilton, which is a franchise of a Kentucky company called Columbia Sussex Corporation.

Columbia Sussex holds a lot of franchises of big name, well known hotels and it doesn’t limit itself to Hiltons, though it owns a few of those throughout the country. It also owns the Sheraton Inner Harbor in Baltimore. In fact, it owns Holiday Inns, Courtyard Marriotts, and Crowne Plazas all over the country. And everywhere it goes, it foments union problems by trying to break pre-existing union contracts that were in place before they bought their hotel franchises.

Whatever you think of unions, it’s simple Business 101 to know the difference between a franchise and a company that is owned and operated by a parent corporation. So, even though both the McLean Hilton and the Crystal City Hilton share the same name, they are not owned and operated by the same central company. Columbia Sussex pays for the name, as they do for their Sheratons and Holiday Inns, etc. Here’s the complete list, from their own website, of all the different franchises they hold besides the Crystal City Hilton.

As the Unite HERE official, who contacted me, points out, the Republicans were too lazy to check their facts.

Intellectual laziness from a party that stresses respect for hard work, failure to understand the basic definition of a franchise from a party that claims to champion and understand business, dishonesty from a party that says it upholds traditional values – now that’s irony!

Happy Labor Day!

Pull the Trigger for a Public Option

2009-09-05T18:50:00.003-04:00

My friend, Ben Tribbett, sent out an email asking for those of us who support a public option to help by "pulling the trigger" for a public option. In order to help the campaign to keep that in any health care reform, go here to contribute to Firedoglake's campaign to keep the public option alive and in any health care bill that gets through Congress.

I am going to keep the link up in my sidebar as well because I can't think of a more worthy effort.

Bob McDonnell's Shell Game With Virginia Voters

2009-08-31T22:24:00.003-04:00

The media, both old and new, has been lit up like a busy switchboard by Amy Gardner's startling expose of Bob McDonnell in last Sunday's Washington Post. Ever since then, Democrats have been going viral and Republicans have been trying to back pedal, ignore it, distract the public with something else, or worst still, portray McDonnell as the mainstream of Virginia.

No, Bob McDonnell is not in the mainstream of even Republican conservatism in Virginia. But he's playing a dishonest shell game with voters. Here's what he really is - what you'll find if you know which shell to look under.

He's an out there theocrat on the far right of his own party. And his thesis was no academic exercise by an 18 year old, as some Republicans are trying to portray it. Bob McDonnell wrote his now widely reported thesis when he was a 34 year old, just a few years before launching his political career. What he did was lay down a blueprint in that paper, and then he executed it and followed it doggedly until it was time to reinvent himself for a different era. Here's what Andrea Mitchell of CNN has to say:

McDonnell and his fellow travelers are saying don't pay attention to McDonnell's words as a 34 year old grad student, but examine his record in office instead. So, ok, let's do that. Here's an eye popping list of just some of the theocratic positions, completely consistent with his post-grad thesis, that he tried to enact while in the Virginia legislature:

AS GOVERNOR, MCDONNELL WOULD BAN HEALTH CENTERS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES FROM DISTRIBUTING PLAN B BIRTH CONTROL
2004: McDonnell Voted To Ban College Health Centers From Distributing Plan B Birth Control. The Virginian-Pilotwrote that McDonnell, on February 17, 2004, was one of 52 state House members who voted to pass HB1414, which was a bill sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall to ban “health centers on college campuses from distributing the morning-after pill.” More specifically, this was a bill to prohibit “state supported colleges from distributing the morning-after pill at their health centers,” wrote AP. (The Virginian-Pilot, 02/18/04, History of HB1414, 2004, and The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 02/16/04)
Deeds Supported Expanding Access To The Morning-After Pill. In 2001 and 2002 Deeds voted to make the morning-after pill available from pharmacists without a prescription. (HB2782, 2001; SB623, 2002)

AS GOVERNOR, MCDONNELL WOULD CLASSIFY SAFE METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL AS ABORTION AND SUBJECT BIRTH CONTROL TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS AS ABORTION
2003: McDonnell Voted To Kill A Bill That Would Have Defined “Contraception Not To Constitute Abortion.”Bob McDonnell voted to kill a bill that defined contraception “as the use of any process, device, or method to prevent pregnancy, including steroidal, chemical, physical or barrier, natural or permanent methods for preventing the union of an ovum with the spermatozoon or the subsequent implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus.” The bill passed the Senate unanimously. [History of SB1104, 2003]
Deeds Voted to Define Contraception Not To Constitute Abortion. Deeds supported legislation clarifying that contraception does not constitute abortion, subsequently ensuring that restrictions placed on abortion were not placed on legal contraceptives. [History of SB1104, 2003]

AS GOVERNOR, MCDONNELL WOULD ALLOW PHARMACISTS TO DENY LEGAL BIRTH CONTROL TO WOMEN
2001: McDonnell Voted Against Allowing Pharmacists To Dispense Emergency Contraception. In 2001, McDonnell voted against HB2782 in every instance. It was a bill that would have allowed pharmacists or health professionals to dispense emergency contraceptives, much like “pharmacies to dispense immunizations even to persons who are not patients.” The bill would also ensure “that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians may dispense emergency contraceptives.” [History of HB2782, 2001]
Deeds Voted To Allow Pharmacists To Dispense Emergency Contraception. In 2001, Deeds voted for HB2782, a bill that would have allowed pharmacists or health professionals to dispense emergency contraceptives. [History of HB2782, 2001]

AS GOVERNOR, MCDONNELL WOULD SUBJECT WOMEN TO DEMEANING “INFORMED CONSENT” LAWS
McDonnell Introduced Informed Consent Bills For 4 Consecutive Years As Legislator. As a member of the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell introduced legislation 4 years in a row for a “requirement that each woman be given, at least 24 hours before the abortion, an explanation of the proposed procedures or protocols; an instruction that she may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the procedure; an offer to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion; a statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the procedure is to be performed; and an offer to review printed materials that must be developed by the Department of Health.” McDonnell also introduced a similar piece of legislation in 1997 requiring informed consent and including a $500 fine for non-compliance. (HB1371, 1998; HB2108, 1999; HB1482, 2000; HB2570, 2001 and HB2778, 1997)

Deeds Voted Against McDonnell’s Informed Consent Bills For 4 Consecutive Years As Legislator. As a member of the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell introduced legislation 4 years in a row for a “requirement that each woman be given, at least 24 hours before the abortion, an explanation of the proposed procedures or protocols; an instruction that she may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the procedure; an offer to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion; a statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the procedure is to be performed; and an offer to review printed materials that must be developed by the Department of Health.” McDonnell also introduced a similar piece of legislation in 1997 requiring informed consent and including a $500 fine for non-compliance. Creigh voted against all forms of this legislation and (HB1371, 1998; HB2108, 1999; HB1482, 2000; HB2570, 2001 and HB2778, 1997)

It seems that if you examine McDonnell's record it stands as part of the same radical, theocratic, dominionist philosophy as his thesis. It's cut from the same cloth and its perfectly consistent.

What is inconsistent is his insistence, now, that it was a mere academic exercise of a school boy. But even that is consistent with the kind of stealth campaign he is waging. As Kos points out:

However, a less-noticed passage is potentially more explosive, and could form the foundation of a potent narrative if the Deeds campaign ever gets off its ass and runs a real campaign. Turn to page 55 of the McDonnell thesis:
It is also becoming clear in modern culture that the voting American mainstream is not willing to accept a true pro-family ideologue because as then-Representative Trent Lott (R-MS) observed, "Americans
think of themselves as conservatives; they want government reduced. But in their hearts they are liberals, they want all the goodies coming in. Leadership, however, does not require giving voters what they want, for whimsical and capricious government would result. Republican legislators must exercise independent professional judgment as statesman, to make decisions that are objectively right, and proved effective
Got that? "Leadership" means hiding your "true pro-family" ideology from the voters, who don't want it and aren't willing to accept it, but then governing in that fashion once elected. It is the height of cynicism -- openly violating the trust of the voter by pretending to be something you are not, masking your true intentions from an electorate that would never endorse that agenda with their vote

McDonnell would not be the first radical rightwinger to win an election by painting himself as a moderate and then veering sharply to the extreme right once in office. And in Virginia, governors only serve for one term. That's enough time to do a boatload of damage and never be held accountable by voters afterwards.

But one thing becomes clear. That is that if you take McDonnell at his words and examine his past history, including his record in Virginia, you would find that it is perfectly consistent with his thesis and every thing else he has stood for from the time he studied at Pat Robertson's Regent University until right now. He's a dangerous theocrat willing to fool the public to get in office and enact his religious agenda.

The only way to stop that is to lift up all the shells and look under them. Then, you'll find the real Bob McDonnell. The one who is radical right and wrong for Virginia.

Don't Let the Democrats' Failure Be the Right Wing's Opportunity

2009-08-18T20:36:00.012-04:00

AN UPDATE ALREADY: This post by Michael in Norfolk also sums up the growing disillusion and why something needs to be done quickly by Democrats to stanch it.

The zeitgeist, at least for today, seems to be the growing disillusionment with Democrats in Congress and even with Barack Obama. First, in response to a comment by the very astute Gretchen Laskas on Lowell's Blue Virginia, I posted the following, which Lowell turned into its own diary (with my approval). The money quote:

It makes my blood boil that Democrats are always mopping up after the Republicans back us into a corner and bloody us. Every time we have a good policy or concept, they manage to successfully mount an offensive that so discredits it that we have to scramble to "rebrand" it. And ultimately abandon it for compromise.

The Republicans have just presided over two monumental failures, a failed foreign policy and an economic collapse that is the worst since the Great Depression, and one that was caused by the very same factors that caused that Depression. Yet, nobody has managed to back the GOP into a corner. They are not wringing their hands and talking about rebranding their free market ideas, which are the root cause of the economic disaster we are now in.

Democrats don't need to cower and rebrand constantly. They need to agree on what they stand for, get the messaging right the first time, and stand up unambiguously for what they believe.

(snip)

Oh, and bipartisanship was always DOA. I have been around the block too many times to ever have thought otherwise. When Republicans lose elections, they engage in sustained temper tantrums and can never be counted on to do anything constructive for the common good. They don't even believe in a common good. In fact, they think "the common good" is a communist code word.

After reading their blogs; magazines; and books, and watching and listening them on TV and radio talk shows, what part of that don't Democrats get?

The emphasis, by the way, was Lowell's but I liked it so I decided to leave it.

Meanwhile, when I got home from work, I read this op-ed piece, by Robert Kuttner, in the Washington Post. Kuttner argues that the beneficiaries of the collapse of capitalism and the free market economy have actually been the far right wing and not the liberals.

Incredible as it seems, with everything they believe in - unregulated markets, globalism, and free trade - a proven failure in the real world, it is they who are managing to exploit the real and justifiable anger of the ordinary citizen who has lost his job, his home, and his health insurance.

Kuttner lays the blame on a left that has failed to make its arguments or its case to the public. We have no clear narrative that we all agree on and can present in an understandable way. Even worse, nobody sees a sense of outrage at the privileged classes that not only brought the economy down but are benefiting even now by its collapse.

Here's what Kuttner says.

Wall Street and the abuses of corporate America crashed the economy, leaving regular people anxious and financially insecure. Yet the far right, not the reformist left, is getting the political windfall.

Something is severely off when economically stressed Americans confront members of Congress about "death panels" in the Obama health plan. The rumors, fanned by talk radio with a little help from Republicans, are false and even delusional. Yet the anger, if misdirected, is genuine.

People should be plenty angry about their jobs and their mortgages and their health insurance. With health care, however, virtually all of the fears attributed to the Obama health reform efforts more accurately describe the existing private system.

It is private insurance companies that ration care by deciding what is covered and what is not. Private plans limit which doctor and hospital you can use, define "preexisting conditions" and make insurance unaffordable for tens of millions. For many, all this can cause suffering and sometimes even death. Our one oasis of socialized medicine, Medicare, has the most choice and the least exclusion.

Kuttner also rightly sees that the citizen anger, however misdirected, is a genuine backlash against a broader array of discontents, not the least of which is the way the Obama administration and Congress handled the AIG bailout, including the huge bonuses that went to the very Wall Street vultures who caused the financial meltdown to start with.

After receiving nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer aid, Wall Street is returning to business as usual. Consider: Firms that received government help, after losing fortunes in 2008, still found money to pay out exorbitant bonuses at public expense.

Far too little of the government's aid to Wall Street is trickling down. Because of the administration's decision to target $75 billion in mortgage-relief aid to banks and mortgage companies rather than to beleaguered homeowners, foreclosures are still increasing far faster than loan modifications.

Despite the premature triumphalism about a trivial drop in the measured unemployment rate in July, more than 25 million Americans are either unemployed, out of the labor force, or working part time when they need a full-time job. No wonder there is widespread pocketbook anger.

Meanwhile, Kuttner lays the blame solidly where I think it belongs.

One is Obama himself. This president recoils from confrontation, even with those who are out to destroy him. He has had ample opportunities to put himself on the side of popular economic grievances and to connect America's economic troubles to the forces that Roosevelt called "economic royalists." But Obama, whose propensity for consensus is hard-wired, keeps passing up those opportunities.

Even now, he won't make clear that the private insurance industry is the problem. Recent administration statements on the "public" insurance option have been classics of mixed messaging. Obama's economic team is far too cozy with Wall Street, fanning populist suspicions.

Despite the president's history as a community organizer, his style as president is to tamp down popular protest, not rev it up. I know of several cases in which the White House requested allied progressive groups to cool it. When government-subsidized AIG disgracefully paid culpable executives "retention bonuses," Obama dispatched Larry Summers to the Sunday talk shows to helpfully explain that "We are a country of law. There are contracts." Tell that to laid-off and outsourced factory workers. It's hardly surprising that regular people resent the corporate-connected Washington of Barack Obama.

Kuttner also blames the "Wall Street dominated economy" for the weakening of the labor movement, which has suffered from the illegal union busting tactics of large corporations. As he points out, organized labor was one of the main forces that protected workers' rights and fought for wage increases and safe working conditions. Since the deliberate weakening of labor, workers' wages have stagnated while corporate executives' pay and perks have soared even when their performance created economic disaster for investors, homeowners, and consumers. People see the palpable unfairness. And they also see Democrats failing to stand up for them or even to fight to keep the promises they made on the campaign trail.

So, when tea baggers, birthers, and assorted crazies come along, yes, they capture and channel the frustration the public is feeling. As Kuttner wisely points out, the thing about economic upheaval and the anger and fear it creates is that it could be an opportunity for liberals to extend concepts of fairness and fight for prosperity for working people or it could be an opportunity for demagogues to tamp down those very things and channel the outrage into darker outcomes. As Kuttner points out.

When economically stressed and frightened people are anxious and sullen, you never know who will capture their fears and hopes. In the 1930s, economic anxiety produced leaders as different as Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler. History shows that if the reformist left doesn't offer a plausible story and strategy of reform, the lunatic right will gain ground even with an implausible one. So where are the liberal protesters? The initiative has passed to the know-nothing right for two big reasons.

As Robert Kuttner concludes

One way or another, hard times produce popular anger at callous elites. Presidential leadership and progressive organizing energy to connect the mounting outrage to the real economic abuses are overdue. Otherwise, even a ticket of Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford could pick up the pieces.

Coming off of this thoughtful article, I saw Ben's post of Jane Hamsher on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell. Ben is right, by the way, that Hamsher rocks, so I'll let her have the last word on the Democrats and health care reform.

Happy 40th Anniversary, Woodstock Nation!

2009-08-15T12:54:00.010-04:00

It’s hard to believe forty years have past since I was there. Yep, I’m one of those aging hippies who attended. Actually, I was fifteen years old, and my eighteen-year-old cousin offered to let me tag along with her group of friends if my parents approved.

Now, before you begin to wonder about my parents’ judgment – let alone sanity – in letting a fifteen-year-old go to such an event, you have to realize a few things.

One, we lived about an hour away from Sullivan County, New York and had relatives scattered throughout the area. In fact, it was the heart of the Catskills, long a Jewish resort area and we were familiar with all the Borscht Belt hotels there. So, my mother’s first thought was that if an emergency came up, an aunt or uncle could get to me in fifteen minutes, and they could be there in an hour. In other words, for us, it was a local event.

But the most important thing to remember is that nobody ever dreamed this three-day concert would turn into the enormous event we now refer to as Woodstock, with kids flocking to it from across the nation in numbers that nobody thought possible. Indeed, when Walter Cronkite was alive, he related the story that he let his own teenage daughter attend, also never suspecting what it would become. And when he flipped on his own TV, he had the same astounded and fearful reaction that my parents had, “Omgod,what have we done!”

Nevertheless, many years later, I’m feeling a bit nostalgic for that three-day festival, especially after reading this write up in today’s Washington Post. The reporter captures one of the things that made Woodstock so special – the harmony, love, and caring that all of its participants felt. Amazingly, over a three day period, a group of half a million young people got together, many indulging in both drugs and alcohol (beer and wine were among the mildest substances present) and nobody picked a fight with anybody else. It was remarkably violence free. I couldn’t imagine something like that happening today. In fact, every attempt to recreate Woodstock, from the Altamont Free Rock Concert, in Northern California in December of 1969, to a recreation of Woodstock in New York State in 1999, has been marred by some violence. Indeed, at Altamont, occurring later the same year as Woodstock, somebody was murdered by a Hell’s Angel serving as a security guard (whose bright idea was that?).

Although most writers and historians penning stories about Woodstock focus on the unique harmony and peacefulness of the event, there is something even more astounding about this three-day concert that many have forgotten. If you are a fan of irony, I promise you are going to love this.

The Woodstock Music and Arts Festival in 1969 almost didn’t happen. Without the intervention of a local conservative Republican, it never would have occurred. I'll get to that part in a moment.

Further, it didn't even happen in Woodstock either. It was originally scheduled for Wallkill, a town to the east of Bethel, where the festival finally ended up. Wallkill was close to Woodstock, NY, which had always been an artist colony and had attracted a community of folk singers and rock musicians in the sixties. Janis Joplin lived there. So did Bob Dylan for a while. But the Wallkill town zoning board turned down the four promoters’ application for the concert. They were ready to cancel the event when a prosperous and conservative farmer, Max Yasgur, offered his farm in Sullivan County.
Yasgur, the conservative Republican, caught a lot of flak from his neighbors but he stood his ground. In fact, here is his son’s recollection:

"He said, 'You don't like these kids because of the way they look, because of the way they dress,' " said Sam Yasgur, who was 27 at the time. He said his father told the detractors, "Tens of thousands of soldiers died so they have the right to do what they're doing."

"During the festival, it was intense," Sam Yasgur recalled. "There were threats. There were neighbors who couldn't get out and milk their cows. Their fields were being chewed up by cars, their crops were being destroyed." But he said when his father was invited onstage, he surveyed that huge sea of people and defended their right to be there.

And for me, that should be Woodstock’s enduring legacy, every bit as much as the love and peace, and the drugs and hedonism. It was a time when a conservative Republican from a small town stood up for a group of hippies whose lifestyle he wouldn’t dream of emulating. Max Yasgur stood his ground for individual freedom and mutual respect despite all odds. That makes Woodstock very relevant to today and the future.

Woodstock proved that Americans of all political stripes can get along and stand up for each other's rights. All that's needed is the commitment to mutual respect and a love of liberty that Max Yasgur displayed.

Jeff Schapiro Says Creigh Has Only Begun to Fight

2009-08-13T20:27:00.003-04:00

Jeff Schapiro, from the Richmond Times Dispatch, has come up with a video that takes on Bob McDonnell's attempt to rebrand himself as the centrist candidate.

First of all, Schapiro hits the nail on the head that Democrats right now have run out of steam. As he points out, we've been on a winning streak in this commonwealth since 2001. The simple law of averages suggests that eventually, fatigue sets in and you just can't keep it up.

That's why, according to Schapiro, Deeds has finally hit back at McDonnell to rouse his somnolent base. But the abortion issue, according to Schapiro, is only one prong in a multi-pronged attempt to challenge McDonnell's likable, moderate, and easy going image. Well, watch the video because Jeff Schapiro is far better at giving his original political analysis than I am at paraphrasing it.

Agreeing to Disagree, Without Being Disagreeable.

2009-08-12T20:36:00.005-04:00

There are really two parts to this post.

The first is to announce two emergency meetings in the Danville area, to be held by a group called The Virginia Change That Works Campaign. They are holding these meetings to discuss the best ways to fight the disinformation and fear surrounding health care reform. I encourage progressives who live in the 5th district and are interested in health care reform to attend one of these meetings.

But the other reason for the post - and my title says it all - is that I am discouraged by the level of rudeness and general craziness surrounding the town halls and the discussion in general. First, though, the announcement.

I received the following email from a friend of a friend. My blogger buddy, Drew Lumpkin, who has temporarily suspended Dem Bones to work for the Deeds campaign, referred his friend, Win Carlisle, to me. Win sent me this important announcement about these meetings on health care reform to be held in Danville. Below is his announcement, which he has asked me to publicize.

It’s time to stop the misinformation, smears and falsehoods about Health Care Reform! The Virginia Change that Works Campaign will be having two emergency meetings this week to discuss the best ways to tell Virginians in the 5th district the truth about the need for quality, affordable health care for everyone.

Enough is enough, Healthcare can’t wait!

The meetings will be held on Wednesday, August 12th and Thursday, August 13th at 7pm. Our office is located at 308 Craghead, Danville VA 24541.
Choose the night that works best for you. We hope to see you there!
Any questions call Aaron at 616.648.4555

Danville is just a bit too far for me to get to from Northern Virginia, but I hope to get to a town hall meeting here in NoVa. And that brings me to the second point of this post.

I believe it's important for people on all sides of the issue to come out and have a respectful dialogue. I also believe, however, that it's important for progressives to show up at these meetings to counter the organized effort at deliberate disinformation being spread by some well funded insurance industry groups. And it's even more important for people of good will, regardless of which side of the issue they are on, to show up to blunt the efforts of those who are there simply to shout down their opponents, harrass public officials, and disrupt meetings.

Harrassment, intimidation and disruption are the antithesis of democracy. I encourage people on both sides to show up and show the bullies how democracy is conducted in a civil society where people agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

The Inconvenient Abortion Issue That Keeps Dogging Bob McDonnell

2009-08-09T14:55:00.006-04:00

Today's Washington Post reports an interesting difference of opinion on Creigh Deeds' strategy of highlighting Bob McDonnell's opposition to abortion. The Deeds campaign is attempting to call voters' attention to McDonnell's staunch social conservativism. McDonnell, a Pat Robertson ally, has been trying to downplay his positions on abortion and single sex marriage in an attempt to rebrand himself as a moderate. Although Rosalind Helderman and Sandhya Somashekhar, the two Post reporters, question the hazards of bringing up the divisive issue of abortion, some progressives disagree with their assertion that it is a risky strategy.

Ben Tribbett declares flat out that it's time to take on McDonnell on this issue. Ben also points out the obvious, that it's far more risky to fail to motivate your base. And August is exactly the time to do so because that's when your base is actually the only one listening. You want to fire up the activists or they won't be there to knock on doors, or phonebank for you in September and October when everybody else finally begins to pay attention.

Meanwhile, Shaun Kenney, former communications director for the RPV, leading conservative blogger, and very smart political strategist, is claiming, over at Bearing Drift, that Creigh Deeds embracing the issue of abortion is a strategy that will fail. He says:

Convincing women that McDonnell is somehow out of the mainstream on abortion is like one horse bucking a national freight train. Gallup polls are showing Americans to be majority pro-life for the first time in the history of modern polling.

Actually, one Gallup poll did find, back in May, that more than half of Americans self-identified as pro-life. But even if 51 percent termed themselves pro-life, that still means 49 percent do not consider themselves pro-life. Given that there is always a statistical margin of error, this means that nationally the country is divided on the issue, not pro-life by a solid majority. But reading that particular poll was tricky at best, as the New York Times pointed out right after it was released:

In advance of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame last weekend, Gallup released a poll showing that for the “first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.” This was based on a question that asked respondents if they consider themselves “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” The poll found 51 percent saying they were “pro-life,” up 7 points from a year ago to a new high.

That is a significant change.

But a close look at polls that ask a similar question reveals that responses to this question move around a bit. CNN asked the same question in April, and found the “pro-choice” response ahead by 4 points, but the “pro-life” response was ahead by 5 points a couple of years ago. Fox News polls have found the “pro-life” response ahead, “pro-choice” ahead, and the two tied in various polls throughout the years.

In addition to that ambivalence, the public actually expresses quite a bit of doubt on this divisive issue. In that same Gallup Poll, here's the actual breakdown of the way the respondents, who called themselves pro-life by 51 percent, actually answered specific questions on when abortion should be available: 22 percent said it should always be legal, 23 percent said it should never be legal, and 53 percent said it should be legal in some cases.

That means the most adamant positions were at the margins of both left and right, with the vast majority favoring neither a total ban on nor unlimited access to abortion. Most people seem to be in the middle, understanding that while abortion is tragic, it sometimes is the best of some really terrible choices a woman might have to make. One thing that's certain is that at less than a quarter favoring a total ban on abortion, the true hard right anti-abortion stand of Bob McDonnell, who opposes it even in the case of rape or incest, is definitely not the mainstream position that conservatives like Kenney or Chris Beer, whom he quotes, believe it to be.

And, in fairness, neither is the abortion on demand view a mainstream one. The majority of Americans are troubled by abortion and have a nuanced opinion of it. That, by the way, reflects my own view (in the interest of full disclosure I have to say that although I am basically pro-choice, it is not without great ambivalence).

Having said that, the Washington Post article, although it considers Deeds' strategy to bring the abortion debate into the election a risky one, admits that in Virginia, it could make sense. (The emphasis is mine)

The early statewide pitch by Deeds is a bold gamble that the demographics and politics of Virginia have shifted so quickly and decisively that raising a divisive issue such as abortion, which Republicans attempted to use to their advantage for much of this decade, is now favorable to Democrats. Although advocates on both sides of the issue rank Virginia as one of the more restrictive states on abortion, a Washington Post poll in September found that 60 percent of Virginia voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a number that has not changed significantly in recent years.

The key take home point here is that Republicans indeed used the abortion issue throughout most of the 1990s and earlier, when they thought it gave them the winning advantage. As their most socially conservative candidates began losing elections in the Northern Virginia suburbs, they began downplaying the issue and even objecting when Democrats brought it up. They had no such shyness, though, about using the abortion issue when the state truly was more conservative on the issue.

I also disagree with the Post's assessment that it is risky at all to bring it up. Although the two reporters point out that Mark Warner and Tim Kaine did not make abortion a center piece of their campaigns and David Poisson was quoted in the article as believing it should not be a key issue, I'm not sure that view is the best for this year's campaign, even if it was effective in 2005 and 2001. Here's why.

When Mark Warner ran against Mark Earley, Earley did not try to present himself as moderate on social issues. Further, even though the issue wasn't at the center of the campaign, most voters knew that Warner was the pro-choice candidate, so he never exactly tried to hide his position. Also, back then, fewer Virginians were pro-choice.

Then, when Kaine ran, he actually wasn't pro-choice. At best, he simply believed that he shouldn't impose his personal beliefs on the rest of the state. That was also his position on the death penalty, which he personally opposes but still carries out. He took a principled and consistent position, whether you agree with him or not. He did not impose his personal and religious beliefs on social issues on those who disagreed with him. But he certainly wasn't an impassioned defender of abortion rights either.

By the way, if we're talking about injecting social issues into a campaign, somebody should point out that Jerry Kilgore most certainly attempted to make hay out of Kaine's opposition to the death penalty, although it was never in danger of being repealed. So, it's obvious that Republicans will bring up all sorts of social issues if they sense it will motivate their base, scare the voters, or otherwise work to their advantage.

As for Poisson, he ran for his seat against Dick Black who, as the Post admitted, was "largely defined by his opposition to abortion." In other words, Poisson did not need to bring it up. Dick Black was notorious for his extremism and certainly wasn't trying to present himself as a moderate. There was no question of Black attempting to rebrand himself in that race. So comparing Poisson's winning strategy to this year's gubernatorial race is pretty much an apples and oranges exercise.

In fact, the real issue isn't abortion, it's who is the real Bob McDonnell.

He is now running from his own position, one which he espoused just earlier this year. And Virginia voters deserve to know where he really stands on every issues, including abortion.
Before moderates and progressives in Northern Virginia, the Richmond suburbs, and parts of Virginia Beach vote for him, they deserve to hear where he really stands, not just on abortion but on every issue that affects them.

Make no mistake, I actually agree with Kenney and other Republicans that abortion will not, and should not be the major issue. It would be a mistake to base a whole campaign on one issue, especially now when most people are worried about jobs, the economy, health care, and transportation. Both candidates need to present credible campaign platforms built around solutions to these problems and their plans for the environment, climate change, and energy needs. But abortion is certainly a legitimate issue to talk about.

And so is the candidates' stands on the availability of contraceptives, which to me is even more important. There are some on the right, most notably Ken Cuccinelli, who support bans even on birth control and morning after emergency pills, given to women after rape. Despite the claim that these are abortifacients, the science contradicts that. What those pills do is prevent a fertilized egg from lodging in the womb. They prevent pregnancy. They do not kill fetuses.

The truth is there are other issues that concern the majority of Virginians more than this one does. But as long as some citizens will be affected by abortion and birth control laws, and as long as they are concerned about this, it is a valid issue to be discussed. And voters deserve to know where both candidates stand. That's more than just a campaign strategy. Telling them where you stand is the right thing to do.

Mark Warner's Perilous Fork in the Road

2009-08-08T15:59:00.006-04:00

One of my favorite poems has always been Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Traveled.” In that poem, the narrator describes coming to a fork in the road. Although both paths appear equally pleasant and leafy, the narrator must choose which path to take. Knowing he may never pass that way again, the direction he takes will have consequences for the rest of his life. And that's the thing about difficult choices. They have consequences.

When it comes to the difficult choices about health care reform, our junior senator, Mark Warner, faces just such a fork in the road. Whichever choice he makes will have consequences, not just for his personal ambition but also for the fortunes of his party, his nation and his state. That’s a lot resting on his shoulders and those of his colleagues in Congress.

Senator Warner has aligned himself with the Senate’s conservative Democrats, who are allied with the House’s Blue Dog caucus, especially on health care reform.

Before going further, let's acknowledge that Mark Warner always was a pro-business centrist. Virginians not only understood this but embraced it. As governor, he led from the center and was largely successful because he applied good business practices to Virginia and put its fiscal house back in order, restoring its AAA bond rating and balancing its budgets. But as governor, he also found ways to balance the best practices of business with meeting the needs of Virginia’s ordinary citizens. He was successful because he did not sacrifice the well-being of the neediest on an altar of fiscal conservatism. Instead, he found a way to balance the two sets of priorities so that all Virginians benefited from the commonwealth’s prosperity.

Now, however, the nation is in an economic crisis that is the most severe since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

At the same time, we are facing a crisis of our health care system and it urgently needs reform. To reform it in a way that provides near universal coverage is going to require a lot of spending. That goes against the grain of cautious, centrist, business oriented politicians, such as Warner. But the alternative is a health care delivery system whose costs put such a strain on the economy that it will threaten our recovery. Our health care costs are far higher and our medical outcomes are far worse than those of the rest of the industrialized first world. It would seem to be a no-brainer. We are paying more money for less quality of care than countries like Canada, France, Germany, and even Taiwan.

And the problems have been exacerbated by the climbing unemployment rate because so many people’s health insurance is tied to their employers. With the loss of jobs comes a loss of health care coverage.

To my mind, the best solution would be a single payer system not tied to one’s employer. But I understand that that solution is unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans despite the fact that it actually works very well in other countries, regardless of how much the far right in this country tries to discredit it.

It’s important to note, though, that the single payer option is the solution of choice on the left end of the spectrum, supported by liberals like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders in the Senate and John Conyers, Tammy Baldwin, and Elliott Engel in the House.

On the right, especially among Republicans, the solution would not have any public option and would depend solely on market-based solutions with little government interference. It would depend on encouraging consumers to purchase private insurance plans and give them a tax cut to do so (every right wing solution to any problem depends on the so-called free market and a tax cut and little else).

The reason I am pointing that out is because it’s important to note that the plans currently under discussion in the Senate and the House are varieties of centrist compromise that would still be based largely on private insurance companies and employer based options. They are neither single payer options nor socialized medicine. What is under discussion is various ways to fund the plans, including a government subsidy only to those who couldn’t afford to purchase insurance, penalties for large businesses who don't cover employees, insurance pools and tax breaks to small businesses to encourage them to purchase insurance for their workers, and a public option for those who truly can’t afford a private plan even with a subsidy.

Supporters also hope a public option would provide more competition to the private insurers to get them to keep premiums low and provide better coverage. There would also be stricter regulations to ensure that insurers don't deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or cancel coverage for those who get sick. That is the plan of the true centrists. It’s the one progressives don’t necessarily favor, but are willing to support to get to the goal of near universal coverage.

Mark Warner does not support that plan. He has aligned himself with the conservative Democrats in the Senate, led by Max Baucus, and the Blue Dogs in the House, led by Jim Matheson and Mike Ross. They are neither moderate nor centrist – they are conservative. That’s the first thing you need to remember.

Now, let’s examine what those congressional Democratic conservatives stand for.

Both groups oppose the public option. Neither group has an appetite to fund health care reform by taxing the wealthiest one percent of the nation. Yet the Senate conservative Democrats, and their Republican allies, have no similar reluctance to tax the health benefits of those who currently have “generous insurance plans.” In fact, most of those on whom that tax burden will fall are fire fighters, police officers, government workers, and those who are professionals and middle managers. In other words, the middle and working classes will bear the burden with additional taxes, with the upward distribution of wealth once again preserved for the most fortunate – those with friends in high places.

In addition, without the public option, Americans would be mandated to buy health insurance from private providers, unless their employers provide it. Not only would this not actually help ordinary citizens, it would simply be an unfunded mandate on them. And it would create a windfall profit for insurance companies, who would reap even greater benefit under this so-called reform, as even this article in Business Week points out.

Although the Senate supports regional co-ops instead of the public option, we have even less evidence that these would work on a national level than we do that a single payer system would be effective. There are a few such co-ops operating in some states with various degrees of success but it is hard to say whether that model would translate well elsewhere. Certainly, if you object to risky and costly experiments, the regional co-ops would qualify for that description even more than the public option would.

There are many good reasons for supporting the more progressive health care reform plans out there. But for the Blue Dogs in Congress and the conservative Democrats in the Senate one very good reason is that their financial ties to the insurance industry are, by now, also very well documented, as this Washington Post article, for example, demonstrates regarding Mike Ross:

Ross has received nearly $1 million in contributions from the health-care sector and insurance industry during his five terms in Congress, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. The lawmaker founded Ross Pharmacy of Prescott, Ark., which he and his wife sold in 2007. The couple received $100,000 to $1 million in dividends last year from the sale, according to House financial disclosure forms.

Records of political fundraisers since 2008 compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based watchdog group, show a steady schedule of events for Ross sponsored by the health industry or lobbying firms that represent health-care companies. They include two "health-care lunches" at Capitol Hill restaurants in May 2008 and March 2009, as well as receptions sponsored by Patton Boggs and other major lobbying firms.

Further, the above mentioned Business Week also points out Mark Warner’s connections to UnitedHealth. Here’s the telling quote:

UnitedHealth's relationship with Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner of Virginia illustrates the industry's subtle role. Elected last fall, Warner, a former governor of his state and a wealthy ex-businessman, received a choice assignment as the Senate Democrats' liaison to business. The rookie senator landed in the center of a high-visibility political drama—and in a position to earn the gratitude of a health insurance industry that has donated more than $19 million to federal candidates since 2007, 56% of which has gone to Democrats.

UnitedHealth has periodically served as a valuable extension of Warner's office, providing research and analysis to support his initiatives. Corporations and trade groups play this role in all kinds of contexts, but few do it with the effectiveness of the insurers. In June, Warner introduced legislation expanding government-backed Medicare and Medicaid coverage for hospice stays for the terminally ill and other treatment in life's final stages. The issue isn't a top UnitedHealth priority. But the corporation wanted to help Warner with his argument that in the long run, better hospice coverage would save money. UnitedHealth prepared a report for lawmakers finding that 27% of Medicare's budget is now spent during the last year of older patients' lives, often on questionable hospital tests and procedures. Expanded hospice coverage and other services could save $18 billion over 10 years, UnitedHealth asserted.

When Warner went to the Senate floor on June 15 to offer his bill, he cited those exact figures. He thanked the company for its support and put a letter from UnitedHealth applauding him in the Congressional Record.

If voters are angry with Democrats and disillusioned by politics, it’s because after two election cycles of successfully running against lobbyists, special interests, and the culture of corruption, powerful Democrats are beginning to look exactly like those they replaced

The only way for those Democrats to stanch that anger and disillusionment and keep their own seats at the midterms is to take the road less traveled, less profitable, and ultimately more moral. It’s to stand with the ordinary working people and the middle class rather than with the powerful and wealthy special interests who usually managed to turn legislation to their advantage, regardless of which party is in power.

If they don’t, they could face dire consequences at the election polls sooner rather than later. Indeed, Ben Tribbett makes that prediction in a tweet, where he predicts that those who don’t support a public option, including Warner, Webb, Boucher, Connolly, Perriello, and Glenn Nye will all lose their seats in the midterms. But I believe electoral disaster could come even sooner than that in Virginia.

That’s because the very first election where fallout from anger at the Democrats for failing to get health care reform right will be right here in Virginia. The gubernatorial race is the canary in the mining shaft. It's the forerunner to the midterms in two years. And here is where there is a double irony for Mark Warner especially.

Currently, Creigh Deeds and Jody Wagner are running hard as Virginia Democrats in the mold of Mark Warner. How ironic, then, it would be if Warner’s own actions helped to kill the health care reform and take down with it Deeds and Wagner at home and then the Virginia Democrats in Congress a year later. Even if Warner were to survive it based on his personal popularity, that would spell the end of any ambitions he has on the national stage.

But that’s the choice he has to make as he stands at this fork in the road. Choose wisely, Mark. Your future and ours depend on it!

Rich Trumka's Statement on Mob Violence at Town Halls

2009-08-06T19:47:00.007-04:00

The following is a statement that I received from Rich Trumka, currently Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO. He will be the AFL-CIO president within a few weeks.

STATEMENT BY AFL-CIO SECRETARY TREASURER RICHARD TRUMKA
ON CORPORATE FUNDED *MOB RULE* AT TOWN HALLS
August 6, 2009

Every American has the inalienable right to participate in our democratic process. Our politics is passionate, heartfelt and often loud -- as was the founding of our nation. But that is not what the corporate-funded mobs are engaging in when they show up to disrupt town halls held by members of Congress.

Major health care reform is closer than ever to passage and it is no secret that special interests want to weaken or block it. These mobs are not there to participate. As their own strategy memo states, they have been sent by their corporate and lobbyist bankrollers to disrupt, heckle and block meaningful debate. This is a desperation move, meant to slow the momentum for change.

Mob rule is not democracy. People have a democratic right to express themselves and our elected leaders have a right to hear from their constituents -- not organized thugs whose sole purpose is to shut down the conversation and attempt to scare our leaders into inaction.

We call on the insurance companies, the lobbyists and the Republican leaders who are cheering them on to halt these *Brooks Brothers Riot* tactics. Health care is a crucial issue and everyone - on all sides of the issue - deserves to be heard.

###

A couple of points by way of explanation.

First, the "Brooks Brothers riots" that Rich mentioned refers to the November 19, 2000, demonstration organized by the GOP to shut down the hand recount of the contested Florida presidential election. Scores of young Republicans descended on South Florida to intimidate the election canvassers, and some overzealous demonstrators even pursued the chairman of the Dade County Democratic Party, who had to be escorted to his car by the Miami-Dade police. That particular incident prompted Jerrold Nadler, a New York congressman to say that he "dectected a whiff of fascism."

That astroturf action was well documented in the newspapers at the time, including the fact that many of the protestors were actually young Hill staffers. In fact, I later got to know one of them on a professional basis. She worked for John Kasich, who is now running for governor of Ohio.

To return to the point of this post, I would be the first to actually encourage those who have doubts, objections, and criticisms of health care reform to attend town hall meetings with their representatives. It is the right and duty of every citizen to participate in the democratic process. That's especially true for the loyal opposition. Of course, they should be there to dialogue with their representatives and fellow citizens.

What many of us are objecting to, however, is a well-funded, organized attempt to disrupt, shout down, and heckle elected officials and intimidate their fellow citizens with whom they might disagree. That's not democracy. That's one step away from a Beer Hall Putsch.

The Chamber of Commerce War Against Working People

2009-07-28T17:12:00.003-04:00

According to the AFL CIO Now blog, the local Findlay Chamber of Commerce, in an outburst of incredible mean spiritedness, pressured the mayor of a small Ohio town, Findlay, into canceling a parade whose sole purpose had been to celebrate the spirit of American commerce and manufacturing and to highlight American made products like Harley Davidson motorcycles. The reason for the cancellation?

The event had been organized by local unions. Featuring the big bikes and also antique cars, the event was to highlight the quality of American made - and Ohio made products, and to encourage residents to buy Ohio. But the Chamber pressured Findlay's mayor, Peter Sehnert into canceling the parade completely. Sadly, politics also reared its ugly head in the decision. Here's the money quote:

“Basically, Findlay’s a non-union, Republican area and mostly what we had were Democratic speakers and union people,” Sehnert said. “It’s not what I had in mind.”

According to the AFL-CIO blog,

Someone could infer from Sehnert’s statement that a pro-America, buy-America celebration isn’t supported by Republicans. Because the Greater Findlay Chamber of Commerce rejected an event that would have opened with a parade of U.S.-made, union-made Harley-Davidsons and classic American autos driving down Main Street, alongside floats showcasing American-made products. Speakers would have included U.S. Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Betty Sutton, the state attorney general and state treasurer. Blatt says Gov. Ted Strickland was thinking of speaking as well.

Look, labor and management have real differences and while there is understandably an adversarial relationship, there should be more things that bring them together than separate them. It's possible to find common ground. For example, no union wants business to fail. No reasonable person wants that, if for no other reason, rational self-interest. Without healthy, thriving businesses, there would be no jobs. So, unions are not out to destroy commerce or manufacturing. And this event was set up precisely to find the common ground and celebrate what businessmen and businesswomen and union men and union women have in common, the desire for a thriving economy and a good business climate.

What they should be fighting about is better wages versus holding down costs, safe working conditions versus efficiency, etc. In other words, there are issues where both sides can and should negotiate. But there is one area where there is no equivalency. Unions do not want to destroy business or chambers of commerce.

But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and groups like Right to Work in Virginia do want to destroy labor. They are engaged in nothing less than a war against working people.

Creigh Deeds Wins NARAL Endorsement

2009-07-27T14:35:00.002-04:00

I just received this press release with very good news, though hardly unexpected. Creigh Deeds, long a defender of a woman's right to choose, just received the NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia PAC endorsement. (Emphasis in third paragraph is mine.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 25, 2009

NARAL PRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA PAC ANNOUNCES
ENDORSEMENT OF CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Endorsement highlights organization's dedication to building pro-choice
leadership in the Commonwealth

(Alexandria, VA) - Today, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia PAC, the Commonwealth's
leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman's right to choose,
announced its endorsement of Senator Creigh Deeds for Governor.

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia's PAC views this election as critical in
determining the future of reproductive choice for the state of Virginia, and
Senator Deeds is the leader who can help ensure that all Virginians have
comprehensive, affordable, and accessible reproductive healthcare. We have
worked with Senator Deeds over the past five years and know him to be a
thoughtful, consistent, and dedicated pro-choice advocate, invested in
promoting commonsense practices to reduce the number of unintended
pregnancies and the need for abortion, statewide.

Deeds' opponent, Bob McDonnell, has made a life-long career of denying women the reproductive healthcare they need. In his 17 years in elected office, McDonnell has patroned over 30 bills that aimed to limit reproductive freedoms, harming women and families. "For someone who is so opposed to abortion, it's mindboggling that Bob McDonnell has patroned bills to prevent access to birth control and emergency contraception," said Tarina Keene, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.

"Bob McDonnell has gone on record stating his belief that abortion should
not be legal, even in cases of rape and incest," Keene continued.
"Virginians cannot afford to have an elected leader confuse political
ideology with medical need. McDonnell has time and time again voted to move
Virginia backwards with regards to healthcare. NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia PAC
is dedicated to supporting Creigh Deeds, and defeating Bob McDonnell's
attempt to control Virginians' reproductive health."

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia supports candidates who are dedicated to family
planning, preventing unintended pregnancy, and increasing access to
reproductive healthcare for women and families. The organization's powerful
statewide network of activists will mobilize pro-choice voters throughout
Virginia to help elect Senator Deeds and other pro-choice candidates in
November.

For me, the most salient fact is that not only does McDonnell oppose abortion, but he also opposes birth control. That is an extreme position that puts him well outside the mainstream in Virginia and the country. Note carefully, I said, he OPPOSES BIRTH CONTROL.

There is no poll that has ever shown that any state opposes a woman's - or even a man's right to practice birth control. That was a battle that was won back in the 1920s, and should not even have to be refought in the 21st century.

Gerry Connolly On Healthcare Reform

2009-07-25T11:58:00.005-04:00

Below is a complete version of CBS News' Nancy Cordes' interview with Gerry Connolly on health care reform. In it, Connolly repeats his opposition to taxing those individuals earning over $280,000 and couples earning $350,000.

Connolly, president of the freshman class, and a handful of his freshmen colleagues, met with both President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to discuss their concerns.

As has been widely reported, Connolly has stated that 14 percent of his constituents make over those earning levels and "they all vote," in his words.

Connolly expressed his belief that more savings could be wrung out of health care reform, and the insurance industry could do more to contribute to funding and health savings. He pointed out that other countries pay far less for their health care, yet get more services and have better health outcomes. He may be right about that. Part of health care reform should include an exploration of how we can save money and boost good outcomes to match our European and Canadian neighbors, while retaining a uniquely American approach to health care funding and service.

On the other hand, hoping we can do it all without any tax increase may be a siren song, tempting but ultimately what lures us to founder on the rocks of frustration and failure. Often, especially in our profoundly anti-tax society, services have already been cut to the bone. The fat is gone and we are cutting into muscle and sinew to avoid raising taxes. Perhaps the discussion really needs to be about which taxes to raise and who will pay them. After all, back in 1980, when Ronald Reagan's anti-tax philosophy resonated with the public, income tax rates were far higher than now. Back in the eighties, the tax rate of the richest segment of society was 70 percent. Today, because of the Bush tax cuts and the cuts to the capital gains tax, the wealthiest one percent only pay about 17.2 percent of their income tax.

So, unlike Rep. Connolly, I'm not sure they shouldn't pay for some of the health care expenses. After all, these are the people who have benefitted the most from America's successes. I'll have more to say about this after you watch the video.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Although, I disagree with Connolly that we can avoid raising taxes by finding savings, I do agree that every effort should be made to ensure that reform is cost effective and revenue neutral. Then, I would sell any tax increase to the wealthy on the benefits of the health care plan to them and their fellow Americans.

It is an article of faith among the most progressive elements in politics that all the rich are greedy. I don't think that's true. Some are greedy, others are not. But for years, they have been told that tax cuts and supply side economics is good, not just for them but for the country. Indeed, they have been held up as heroes for getting richer. Supply siders have been giving variations of Gordon Gekko's greed is good speech, though not cast so blatantly, for at least 25 years.

But there's mounting evidence that greed is actually bad for a lot of people, including their fellow citizens, employees, and neighbors. Many wealthy people give a lot of money to charity and head philanthropic organizations. But they also are pragmatic business people.

So, what if we show them, complete with charts, graphs, and colorful Power Point demonstrations, just how much supply side economics has hurt the vast middle class, whose wages have stagnated? What if we show the wealthy what a drain our current health system has been on their very own businesses? What if we demonstrate that health care reform, done right, and funded fairly, benefits all of society and, therefore, benefits them too.

Any appeal should be to both their self-interest and their value system. Political scientists have shown us that people do not just vote their self-interest. They also vote their morals and their values. And a lot of rich people go to churches, synagogues, and mosques. They have families and they have as much empathy for a neighbor in distress as anybody else.

Rather than demonizing them and making them the bad guys of the narrative, I think the way to get their support is to include them in the story of everybody working together for the common good because it benefits all Americans, it's fair, and it's patriotic to pay for things that strengthen our country.

Because Gerry Connolly is both progressive and pragmatic, he's one of the people we need to persuade. Connolly, although often thought of as a centrist because of his pragmatic streak, is hardly one of the Blue Dogs. In fact, according to Open Congress, he has voted with Democrats 99 percent of the time and abstained zero times from votes. So, he seems to be taking principled stands, not ducking issues, and is in the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

Frankly, there are bloggers out there demonizing and ridiculing Gerry because they want to keep alive old grudges and fights. That's counter-productive. My friend Bryan Scrafford has the better approach (also here), one that is respectful but doesn't gloss over honest differences of opinion.

Connolly is one of the people we can work with and try to persuade. Like Bryan, I would urge those of my readers who agree that we need health care reform now, and that the wealthiest one percent need to be persuaded to pay their fair share for the common good, to call or email Gerry to show support for health care reform and an adequate funding stream to pay for it.

We need fiscal responsibility as much as reform and that means everybody paying their fair share, including those who have been most blessed in our society. But to get it, we have to also step up and show Congress that this is what the majority of voters want. My favorite political philospher, Aaron Sorkin, once said, "Decisions are made by those who show up."

So, show up and call Connolly's office at (202) 225-1492 or email him. Be polite. Be persuasive. And let him know that this is what you support and you will support him for stepping up.

A 6 AM Call and a Sad Farewell

2009-07-21T12:53:00.005-04:00

Every so often, reality hits you with the bluntness of a hammer on a fragile sheet of glass, smashing your dreams and illusions of safety into a millions shards. That happened this morning at 6 a.m. when my friend, Karen, whom I have known since I first moved here, called to tell me her husband Jeff just died.

This wasn’t totally unexpected. Jeff suffered intermittent infections and complications from diabetes. He was hospitalized several times over the past few months. Yesterday, in the morning, the ambulance rushed him to the hospital and he was placed in ICU. Dan and I spoke to Karen several times during the day and planned to go up to Baltimore to visit. Last night, Karen called to let us know Jeff was transferred to hospice. We told Karen we would come up today after work to see both of them. We knew the situation was dire. But his death came much faster than we all thought. Doesn’t it always?

Dan and I met Karen and Jeff eighteen years ago, when I first moved from Jacksonville, Florida to Northern Virginia. Dan moved here about a year before me to start a new job, while I stayed behind to sell our house.

While Dan was living in Southern Maryland and working at Camp Springs, his old college roommate, Daryl, brought him to meet his cousins Delores and Joe. They were Karen’s parents. Her father, Joe, had just been diagnosed with what would turn out to be a deadly melanoma. But at that point, he was a bluff, hearty man, who loved a good laugh, a beer with friends, and his Fighting Irish. He was a Notre Dame graduate. In fact, at his funeral, they played the Notre Dame fight song to honor him. Since that all happened while I was still in Jacksonville, I never met Joe, but I sure heard a lot about him, most of it funny and endearing. He was missed.

About two weeks after I moved here from Florida, the new widow, Delores, invited Dan and me, along with Daryl, to her home for a cookout. That’s where I first met her daughter, Karen, and Karen’s husband Jeff. That’s also when Dan and Jeff discovered their bitter rivalry - Jeff was from Pittsburgh and a Steelers fan, Dan a Browns fan from Cleveland. Naturally, we became fast friends.

For Delores’ first Christmas as a widow, Daryl, Dan, and I bought her a Christmas tree, set it up, and decorated it for her. In return, she cooked us all a lasagna dinner, with scrumptious deserts. Karen, Jeff, Delores’ sister Frannie, and her daughter all came and helped to decorate Delores' lovely house. A Christmas tradition was born and every December, on the first Saturday, we all descended on Delores with a tree. It became the first party of our holiday season for years.

As so many customs do in our fast and disposable society, the Christmas tradition faded, for various reasons, about five years ago when Delores moved from her private home into a high-rise condo and stopped putting up a tree. But we stayed in touch, and Dan and I helped Karen plot a surprise for Jeff’s 55th birthday last September. At a baseball game in Baltimore, during the seventh inning stretch, Jeff’s name, with the words, “Happy 55th Birthday,” flashed on the scoreboard so that a few thousand of his most intimate friends would know he was getting old. “I’ll get you guys for this,” he promised, as we all laughed at our cleverness at having surprised him - or “gotten him good.”

Secretly, he was pleased to be remembered so publicly. Karen told us that later.

Tonight, Dan and I will go up to Baltimore for the difficult but necessary task of comforting a new widow, saying farewell to an old friend, and remembering and telling each other our stories about Jeff. Through our stories, we keep our loved ones alive and always with us.

Meanwhile, I will be out of pocket for a few days sorting fresh grief.

Why I Want a Wise Latina on the Supreme Court

2009-07-15T22:02:00.007-04:00

Republicans have been aggressively fixated on the “wise Latina” phrase that judicial nominee Sonia Sotomayor used in a speech to a group of Hispanic students at Berkley in California, in 2001. And Democrats have been trying to separate themselves and Judge Sotomayor from her own words ever since she was nominated to the Supreme Court. But I think that’s the wrong tactic. Instead, they should be embracing it. It was an appropriate phrase in a speech whose purpose was to inspire young Hispanic women to achieve success and nothing more. It did not reflect her judicial philosophy, which appears to be very much in the mainstream if you judge it by the countless opinions she has rendered from the bench.

But what if it actually had reflected her understanding of her role as a judge? Would that have been a bad thing?

I don’t believe so. I also don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor should be running from the accusation that empathy is a bad trait for a judge. In fact, it’s the Republicans who are arguing on the wrong side of that divide too.

But let’s start with why a wise Latina might be a very good thing to have on the Supreme Court bench.

All judges interpret the law. If there were one cut and dried interpretation of law, we wouldn’t need appeals courts or the Supreme Court. No ruling would ever be overturned. And there would never be split decisions.

Further, every judge brings a mixture of things to his or her judgments, including knowledge of the law, reason, emotion, personal background, and experience. That’s as true of Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas as it is of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg or her former colleague Sandra Day O’Connor.

All judges also are activists judges. They all make their judicial decisions based on their philosophy and interpretation of law. And their decisions are forged out of their life experience. A perfect example of this was the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lilly Ledbetter (and here) case against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, Alabama.

As background, Ms. Ledbetter was one of the few female supervisors in the plant and suffered sexual harassment. Her boss told her he was opposed to women even working there. She suspected that she was being paid less and getting lower raises than her male peers. But she couldn’t prove it because Goodyear, like so many companies, forbade employees to discuss their salaries. When somebody sent her an anonymous letter detailing three male managers’ pay levels, she went to court and won back pay and $3.3 million in compensatory damages. But that decision was reversed by a higher court only because she had failed to file suit within the statute of limitations.

In a five to four decision, authored by Alito, who once held membership in a Princeton alumni association that discouraged the membership of women and minorities, the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit in their reversal.

Nobody contested that Ledbetter had suffered discrimination. The reversal was because her timing was bad. The problem with this decision is that Lilly Ledbetter wasn’t sitting around and dawdling. She didn’t fail to bring the case to court sooner because she had a procrastination problem. The delay was caused by her lack of knowledge. It’s dreadfully hard to discover that you are being paid less than your peers are because in most American companies, as in Goodyear, one of the most inviolable taboos is discussing salary. Many people, in fact, never know how much less they may be making than a fellow employee. That taboo protects companies and encourages both unfairness and discrimination.

It’s hard to think that if Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, herself no stranger to discrimination, had been on the bench, she would have found for Goodyear. O’Connor, after graduating at the head of her class from law school, had to work as a legal secretary because no law firm would hire a female attorney. Can anybody honestly argue that such an experience wouldn’t factor into her decision-making process - or even that it shouldn’t factor into it?

Age and gender discrimination are hard enough to prove without having an artificial barrier that raises the bar to impossible levels and gives cover to companies to cheat hardworking people. The courts are there to protect everybody - business people, corporations, and ordinary workers. I think an all male bench, comprised of only the most privileged, does not always get that. Over the many years of our country’s history, they have proven that they don’t get it many times over. So, yes, I want a wise Latina, and one with empathy.

I’m not sure I understand why Republicans object so much to that term. It simply means the ability to put yourself in another’s shoes and to understand what they are going through. Empathy is actually exactly the quality I would want in a judge - Latina, white, male, or female. Empathy, after all, can also put you in the shoes of the victims of crime. And so can growing up in a tough Bronx neighborhood.

According to Sotomayor’s brother, Juan, whom I heard discussing this on NPR, when they were growing up, in the South Bronx, she was the big sister who protected him from neighborhood bullies. Often when the bullies would surround him, she would rush over and state, “If you want to beat up my brother, you have to beat me up too.” Apparently, she was the one in the family who would duke it out with them.

And it seems that Sotomayor continues to duke it out with the bad guys. She became a tough prosecutor who continued to defend the victims of bullies, predators, and gang members, putting them away in jail. Her empathy was for those who, like her, were struggling in crime-ridden communities to raise decent children, to protect their families, and to work hard for a better future. That’s the kind of empathetic, wise Latina I want in my corner and on the Supreme Court.

And if that is being an activist judge - well, good!

Perriello Wins Over Morning Joe, Answers Critics

2009-07-08T20:45:00.006-04:00

Ok, I sympathize with the fact that the Virginia GOP lost Virgil Goode's seat last November, and that was supposed to be a relatively safe one. They never saw it coming - and heck neither did a lot of the Dems. Maybe we hoped, but we knew that seat was a long shot. Especially since Tom Perriello was not exactly campaigning as a conservative Blue Dog.

And you could perhaps even forgive the Virginia Republican Party for thinking that maybe this guy is a one hit wonder - he won on Obama's incredible coattails in a year when Bush fatigue was palpable. So, it would stand to reason that Perriello, in the very conservative 5th CD, is now one of the most vulnerable members of the freshman class in Congress. There is a target on his back, and Republicans are salivating at the chance to grab that seat back in 2010, which they hope will be a more normal year.

Except, they may have over played their hand too early with their baseless and dishonest attacks. Perriello handles himself so well in this interview with Morning Joe Scarborough, himself no liberal, that Virginia's GOP may need to re-evaluate whether they actually want to be in a pissing match with this guy. Watch the video below and tell me if you agree with me that possibly they ought to search for a more vulnerable freshman to take out.

At the very least, the GOPers are going to have to come up with different tactics. Perhaps running a credible candidate and coming up with fresh new ideas to challenge Perriello would work. After all, lying about him certainly isn't doing the trick.

Jody Wagner Challenges Bolling: Will Sarah Palin Campaign For You?

2009-07-08T20:25:00.005-04:00

I received the following press release from the Jody Wagner campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 8, 2009

WAGNER CAMPAIGN CALLS ON BOLLING TO SET RECORD STRAIGHT

LT. GOVERNOR DODGING PALIN QUESTIONS

RICHMOND - Today, the Wagner campaign called on Bill Bolling to clarify remarks made yesterday regarding his willingness to welcome Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to Virginia.

Elisabeth Pearson, the campaign manager for Virginians for Wagner said: "If Bill Bolling wants to continue aligning himself with failed economic policies-first Jim Gilmore, then George Bush, and now Sarah Palin-he should simply say so. Those policies, which have resulted in economic downturns, job losses, and budget deficits, are the opposite of what Virginia needs. Commonwealth voters have made clear that the way forward for Virginia is to carry on the Warner-Kaine record of fiscal management and economic growth, which started by cleaning up the Gilmore-Bolling mess, and resulted in preserving the state's AAA credit rating, being named the "Best Managed State" twice, and being named the "Best State for Business" six times during the Kaine administration alone. Jody Wagner has helped create nearly 200,000 new jobs in Virginia over the last seven years. After three and a half years of inaction as Lt. Governor, it's a little late for Bill Bolling to be joining the conversation."

In response to questions from the Associated Press on Tuesday, neither Bob McDonnell nor Bill Bolling-both of whom have welcomed Palin's support in past months-would commit to campaigning alongside Palin in Virginia [Associated Press, 7/8/09].
###

Sarah Palin Quits - Leaves Questions About Her Future

2009-07-04T11:40:00.005-04:00

By now, the speculation about Sarah Palin’s abrupt and startling resignation has been burning up both the Internet and the mainstream media. The conjecture both in newspapers and on the blogs ranges from guesses that she is tired of the public ridicule she and her family have suffered to suspicions that a scandal is about to break. This includes dark mutterings on some of the progressive blogs about possible criminal indictments coming down in Alaska.

Yeah, right. Absent an actual smoking gun, I’m going to go with some more mundane theories about the what and why.

The most common belief is that being governor of a state so far from the mainland – and the main media markets – is limiting to any candidate with presidential aspirations.

If Palin were to finish out her term, it would limit the amount of time she could devote to campaigning for the two gubernatorial races this year – one in Virginia and the other in New Jersey – as well as prevent her from attending prominent party events that would keep her in the national spotlight. It also would curtail her participation in events in early primary states like New Hampshire and Iowa, where candidates have to start laying down their campaign groundwork and building grassroots support early. Time-consuming retail politics is crucial particularly in those two states. Palin may have concluded, correctly, that fulfilling her obligations to Alaska was incompatible with seeking higher office given the vast distance of Alaska to the rest of the nation.

There is a big problem with that line of thought, though. Quitting as governor does not help her build her credentials, even with some conservative Republicans. She already suffers the disadvantage of being viewed by many voters, as well as pundits, as too inexperienced and unprepared to even be vice president. I can’t imagine how quitting before the end of her first term helps her to be taken seriously for national office. It just appears to be too whimsical a move.

But there is another, simpler explanation for her resignation. She may truly no longer be interested in running in 2012. Nevertheless, just because she may no longer be interested in elective office, that doesn’t mean she wants to completely give up the limelight or relinquish her very real influence among Republicans. By leaving the Governor’s Mansion in Alaska, she could easily pick up a spot as a pundit herself. Should she want it, I’m sure Fox News would happily give her a primetime spot and a show of her own. And that could be portable. She could work from a studio up in Alaska. She could take her show on the road and also campaign for other Republicans.

Sarah may no longer crave the presidency, but that doesn’t mean she wants to give up the spotlight. In fact, she could be far more influential, given her popularity with the GOP base, as a talking head and celebrity guest campaigner and fundraiser for other candidates.

Oh, and did anybody mention that she could also make far more money doing so? I’m sure the financial gain is not her main motivator. But it sure does sweeten the pot, if that is what she wants to do anyway.

The Krugman Blues

2009-07-03T12:05:00.004-04:00

It's not a secret to those who read my blog that I am a great fan of Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. But the surest sign that Krugman has entered pop culture is not that prestigious Swedish prize, his bestselling books, like "Conscience of a Liberal" or his frequent appearances on television as a talking head. No, it's that he has a song about him. It's by social satirist and folk singer, Loudon Wainwright:

H/t to Huffington Post.

Virginia Still Has Number One Pro-Business Environment

2009-06-24T21:13:00.006-04:00

This year, Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli are all running on a platform of being pro-business. And they and their supporters, including the GOP bloggers, are all attempting to paint the Democratic candidates, Creigh Deeds, Jody Wagner, and Steve Shannon as radical, anti-business, extreme leftists. Yet once again, Virginia has been designated the number one pro-business state, this time from Pollina Corporate Real Estate, Inc.

The truth is Virginia has consistently been named one of the top places to do business under the Warner and Kaine administrations. And, I might add, Jody Wagner has been a major contributor to that success in her position, first as state treasurer, and then as Secretary of Finance in both the Warner and Kaine administrations.

Anyway you look at it, the Warner and Kaine legacies have been pro-business in a way that has let all Virginians share in the prosperity and well being. The last Republican to hold the governor's office left a very different legacy, one that nearly bankrupted the state and put our AAA Bond rating in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, here is a press release I received from the Creigh Deeds campaign, proudly announcing the number one pro-business rating:

STATEMENT FROM CREIGH DEEDS ON VIRGINIA'S #1 PRO-BUSINESS RANKING

Democratic nominee for governor Sen. Creigh Deeds issued the following statement on today's announcement that Virginia has reclaimed the top spot in an annual nationwide survey of the best states for business. Pollina Corporate Real Estate Inc., a top U.S. corporate site relocation expert, evaluated states based on 33 factors, including taxes, human resources, energy costs, and economic development programs and incentives.

"Virginia's smart, businesslike approach to economic development must be a vital component of our overall efforts to create jobs and expand economic opportunity for Virginians. I have been proud to be a reliable partner with Governors Warner and Kaine in efforts to promote the Commonwealth's pro-business climate, including a focus on good schools, safe communities, an excellent quality of life, and reasonable tax and regulatory policies. That responsible, bipartisan approach is at the heart of my plan to boost Virginia's economy and put people back to work through smart, targeted investments and expanded economic opportunities."

Pollina Corporate Top 10 Pro-Business States for 2009: Rebuilding Americans’ Economic Power is an annual study that examines job retention and creation by all 50 states and the federal government. Virginia also held the top spot in the Pollina study in 2003 and 2007. The Commonwealth ranked second from 2004 to 2006 and third in 2008.

Here's a thought. When Gilmore nearly brought Virginia to ruin, from 1998 to 2001, the rest of the country was enjoying prosperity. It was his stubborn insistence on repealing the car tax even as our revenue was going down that nearly bankrupted us. It takes real talent to destroy a state economy during a time of general national prosperity.

Meanwhile, while the economies of the our nation, most of Europe and the world have been brought to its knees by the U.S. banking crisis and the meltdown of the financial markets (a product of Bush's failed policies), Virginia is managing, albeit with difficulty, to maintain a fiscally responsible environment that business leaders like Pollina still have faith in. Now, that really does take talent, skill, and ability.

Delegation Introduces Measure to Authorize Dedicated Metro Funding

2009-06-24T20:49:00.009-04:00

I just received this press release from Congressman Gerry Connolly's office:

Delegation Introduces Final Measure to Authorize Dedicated Metro Funding Resolution is Last Step in Establishing Federal and Local Commitment Over Ten Years

WASHINGTON, DC – The Members of the Washington Metro Area’s Senate and House Delegation – Senators Benjamin L. Cardin, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner, and Reps. Steny H. Hoyer, Frank R. Wolf, James P. Moran, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Chris Van Hollen, Donna F. Edwards and Gerald E. Connolly - introduced a resolution today to ratify the amended interstate WMATA Regulation Compact in accordance with legislation enacted last year authorizing $1.5 billion in federal Metro funding over ten years.
The measure, which follows a formal request submitted last week by the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, is the final step required in the authorization process and will obligate the three jurisdictions to provide matching funds for federal appropriations.
“The Washington Metro Area Delegation has long recognized the need to provide Metro with a dedicated funding stream to ensure the safety and efficiency of a system that serves millions of residents and visitors. Given the fact that Metro is the primary public transit system serving our federal workforce, as well as the millions of visitors to our Nation’s Capital each year, we believe the federal government must be a partner in providing that investment.
“We succeeded last year in establishing that commitment with legislation authorizing $1.5 billion in federal funding over ten years to be matched by the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. That legislation required the local jurisdictions to amend the WMATA Regulation Compact to reflect the dedicated funding requirement, establish an Office of Inspector General, and provide for Federal representation on the WMATA Board. The three jurisdictions fulfilled this obligation and last week formally requested Congressional approval of the amended compact - the final step in the authorization process.
“In light of Monday’s tragic accident, we believe that this funding is even more critical to provide for the safety of our citizens. We look forward to quick consideration of our resolution in the House and Senate, and will continue to fight for approval of our request for $150 million in federal funds for Metro for Fiscal Year 2010.”
Together, the region’s delegation has requested $150 million in federal funding this year for capital and preventive maintenance projects for the maintenance and upkeep of Metro. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act approved by Congress and signed by President Obama in February included $200 million to meet Metro needs in operations systems, IT, maintenance and repair equipment, passenger and maintenance facilities, safety and security, and vehicle servicing.
The authorization for dedicated Metro funding was included in the Rail Safety Improvement Act (H.R. 2095), which was passed last fall and signed into law by President Bush.

As somebody who frequently rides the Metro, I recognized several years ago that Metro needed a dedicated funding stream. Metro carries millions of passengers, including federal employees, employees of private industry, and tourists. Usually it does so safely, efficiently, and relatively comfortably. When I first moved to DC 18 years ago, local residents pointed to the Metro system with pride. It was clean, quick, and safe transportation that was affordable.

The system is now aging. Repairs are needed. But it is still a system worth being proud of. But yesterday's terrible tragedy has shown us just how much we need this system to work properly and safely. Kudos to our Senate and House delegations for stepping up to the plate in a bipartisan effort to benefit our entire community and the tourists who visit us.

Tom Davis Being Considered for a Position in the Obama Administration?

2009-06-22T21:11:00.004-04:00

Too Conservative is reporting that Tom Davis may be considering a job in the Obama administration. My initial reaction was skepticism but here's more from Time Online. According Time:

Tom Davis, a moderate Republican from Virginia, has emerged as a leading candidate for the Obama Administration's newly created position of cybersecurity czar. Sources familiar with the White House's deliberations on the subject say Obama officials feel a Washington power player would make a better candidate than a tech guru. "They want someone who understands technology issues, but more importantly, knows how to get things done in Washington," says a cybersecurity expert who has been consulted by the White House. "There are very few people who have that combination of skills, and Davis is at the top of that short list."

As Time pointed out, Tom Davis has deep connections to the DC IT private sector and is a government insider who knows his way around the halls of power. In fact, as retired Major General Dale Meyerrose, from consulting firm Harris Corp, and former chief information officer for the director the National Intelligence, pointed out, the job of cybersecurity czar would be more administrative than technical and would involve grappling with issues like what would be the role of government, what would be the role our allies should play, what role would other nations play, and other similar policy questions that require more than just IT technical skills.

Many of those most knowledgeable about the selection have urged President Obama not to pick a high tech guru, but to go with a generalist who is also familiar with Washington politics and can answer those broader policy questions. Meyerrose also said, "Most of the issues have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with getting things done in a bureaucracy and making things known to the public."

And others seem to back up that position:

Rod Beckstrom, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, points out that Obama's nominee will need political skills to deal with the many voices that will want to be heard on cybersecurity, including many government departments — the Pentagon, various intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security, among others — and private-sector bodies. "There's a lot of rice in this particular rice bowl," Beckstrom says. He knows from personal experience how difficult that can be: earlier this year, he quit as Director of the National Cybersecurity Center in March, citing interdepartmental politics.

Of course, Davis is not the only candidate under consideration for this post.

Davis is not the only candidate with Washington cred. Another leading candidate is Melissa Hathaway, who led Obama's 60-day cybersecurity review and previously advised President George W. Bush on cybersecurity issues. Also in the running are Frank Kramer, who was assistant defense secretary for international security affairs under President Bill Clinton, and Howard Schmidt, another adviser to Bush on cyberspace security and protection of critical infrastructure. Schmidt also has extensive private-sector experience, including stints with eBay and Microsoft, where he was chief security officer.

Others in contention include Paul Kurtz, an Obama adviser who served in the National Security Council under both Bush and Clinton, and former FBI intel boss Maureen Baginski. Dark horses from the private sector include Sun Microsystems' Susan Landau and Scott Charney, currently head of Microsoft's cybersecurity division.

One thing I am struck by is that all of the candidates have genuine bi-partisan credentials, many having served both the Bush and Clinton administrations. And we all know that Barack Obama has not given up his quest to appoint the very best bi-partisan candidates he can find to his administration.

I have to admit that, personally, I have mixed feelings about Tom Davis being in the Obama administration. I spent so many years supporting good people who ran against him in the 11th CD. But compared to today's Republican Party he is a moderate. One who has not been treated all that well by his fellow party members of late. And he's been outspoken about his party's problems. While he's certainly not the only one being considered, he is an interesting choice.

GOP Gotcha Induced Giddiness on Gitmo Vote?

2009-06-21T20:42:00.004-04:00

That's such a great line, from Drew of Dem Bones, who further deconstructs the Republican bloggers lack of logic, which began with this post from Jim Hoeft. It crackled across the blogosphere with responses from Drew, Aznew, Lowell and me. Then my post spread the fire further with Shaun Kenney piling on, taking me to task for "faux outrage" and posting manufactured Democratic talking points. Here's how Drew describers it:

Although the debate over the closing of Guantanamo is necessary and important, to be sure, I want to refocus the conversation back to the actual amendment vote, hopefully exposing the disingenuous nature of the Republican faux outrage - or is it gotcha-induced giddiness? - against Perriello. Again to recap: Last Thursday, Perriello, joined by 212 mostly Democratic colleagues, voted against Rep. Jerry Lewis' (R-CA) H.Amdt 220 added to HR 2847....

But it actually seems like the shoe might be on the other foot, as Dem Bones points out here.

Basically, Republicans did not want to release funds to shut down Guantanamo Bay, to fund the President's executive order to close the base. The amendment was voted down, 212-213, mainly along party lines, and Republican's jumped on Perriello for being arm-twisted by Pelosi, for casting the deciding vote to bring detainees to Virginia.

Just two days prior, however, the house voted for a war supplemental bill (HR 2346), and it passed, 226-202, also along party lines; Democrats generally supported the supplemental, Republicans generally didn't. There, within the bill, are several important provisions disallowing the release of detainees on US soil. Click this text link, scroll down (about a fifth or a sixth of the way) to Title III: General Provisions, This Act and let's take a look:
Sec. 30004) Prohibits funds from this or any prior Act from being used to release an individual who is detained, as of April 30, 2009, at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the District of Columbia. Prohibits any such release for the purpose of detaining or prosecuting any such individual until two months after Congress receives from the President a comprehensive plan regarding the proposed disposition. Requires the plan to include: (1) the risk to national security posed by the transfer; (2) costs associated with not transferring an individual; (3) the legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer; (4) a certification by the President that any national security risk associated with a transfer has been mitigated; and (5) a certification by the President that the President has certified to the governor and state legislature of a state to which the President intends to transfer an individual that such individual does not pose a security threat to the United States.

Prohibits any funds from being used to transfer or release such an individual to the country of such individual's nationality or last residence, or to any country other than the United States, unless the President submits to Congress, at least 30 days prior to such release or transfer: (1) the name of the individual and the country involved; (2) an assessment of the risk to U.S. national security posed by the transfer or release; and (3) the terms of any agreement with another country for the acceptance of such individual, including any financial assistance related to the agreement.(emphasis mine)

...In a fever of political gamesmanship, however, Republicans - knowing that two days prior Perriello voted to close these possibilities - have tried to create trumped-up charges against Perriello. And, in light of the supplemental, Republicans are now equally accountable to the same charges levied against Perriello. If I wanted to be similarly dishonest, I could say that Republicans, in voting against the war supplemental, voted against prohibitions - thereby either allowing or in favor of - to release detainees onto US soil.

You see, here's the thing about the Republicans - even the very best of them - they really do manufacture faux outrage, attempt to distort the Democrats' actual record, and riff off the same GOP Central talking points. The funny thing is that when caught doing so, they attempt to turn the tables and accuse the progressives of doing those things.

But when you don't make logical arguments, distort true positions, and manufacture fake outrage, you must think everybody else is doing the same thing. There are some terms for this. One is projection - that is projecting your own bad behavior or bad motives on to others.

The problem is that it's not working the way it used to. The genuine source of the real Republican outrage is that Obama won the election, the Democrats have won the last few election cycles here in Virginia, and the GOP no longer dominates the message. Rush and Newt simply don't have the whole stage and don't pack the punch they used to. And neither do the other Republican talking heads and bloggers.

Republican Blogger Lies Insult Law Enforcement Community

2009-06-19T13:58:00.006-04:00

Back in the winter, I was at a New Year’s party with Ben Tribbett when he twittered that “Anonymous Is A Woman is outraged!” I was laughing at the time and hitting him on his knees with a noisemaker. It was funny because AIAW is seldom outraged. I may get testy, dyspeptic, but not truly outraged very often. Today, I am outraged. And here’s why.

Bearing Drift ran with this supposed breaking story, claiming that Democrats in Congress, including Virginia’s Gerry Connolly and Tom Perriello, voted to bring terrorists to Virginia. Quoting an unnamed Capitol Hill source (you can’t even source and link, guys?) here’s the money quote:

Rep. Perriello just voted with Speaker Pelosi on an amendment to allow for funds to close Guantanamo Bay facility and move those detainees to Virginia. Perriello voted against an amendment, offered by Rep. Lewis of California, that would have prohibited the closure - the amendment failed 212-213 with Mr. Perriello casting the deciding vote.

Now, Aznew, the Virginia Democrat, Lowell, from Blue Virginia, and Drew, from Dem Bones, have all already pointed out the various logical fallacies in this piece, not the least of which is that nowhere in this bill or the amendment does it mention anything about sending Gitmo detainees to Virginia. It simply approves money for the closing of Gitmo. According to Drew, here’s an explanation and the actual amendment that was voted down:

So, today Rep. Perriello voted against an amendment (H.Amdt 220 to HR 2847) that would have prohibited the use of funds to close down Guantanamo. Here is the actual amendment, introduced by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA):
An amendment numbered 118 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to implement Executive Order 13492, issued January 22, 2009, titled "Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities".

Good for Rep. Perriello and my representative, Gerry Connolly, for voting that amendment down!

America is built on the principle that we don’t hold people indefinitely without a trial. I have served on juries, and I can tell you that an absolute fundamental of American legal jurisprudence is that we are all “innocent until proven guilty.” Judges instruct jurors on that point all the time. Now, that doesn’t give a jury permission to acquit criminals and put them back on our streets. But it means that in America every man and woman is entitled to a fair trial. It’s who we are. We don’t keep people in prisons without their day in court. Communists, Nazis, and fascists do that. We don’t.

So, if Gerry Connolly, who I am proud to say is my congressman, and Tom Perriello, from the 5th CD, voted against an amendment that would have kept Gitmo opened, I applaud them for displaying true American values. And for having the moral courage to not buckle under to conservative political hacks who use fear to win elections.

But none of this is why I am outraged. Here’s why.

Let’s concede for a moment that because of their votes, some detainees would be brought to America, and even to Virginia. Do the BD bloggers and other conservatives really believe that America’s law enforcement community - its guards, its police - would fail to keep us safe?

Here’s where it gets personal and why I am outraged. My cousin’s husband is a prison guard in South Florida. As such, he has guarded some of the most dangerous criminals in the Miami-Dade and Broward region, including members of the infamous Columbian Medellin drug cartel. So, do you really think he’s not up to the job of guarding some of the detainees and that South Florida would be less safe if they were in his care? I don’t.

But I do believe that the fear mongering in that diary is an insult to him and to his fellow prison guards who work in maximum security penal facilities throughout the nation. These are brave men and women who have guarded some of our most dangerous criminals, including the Oklahoma bombers Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols; Ted Kaczynski; and criminals like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and members of the Crips, the Bloods, and MS-13.

However, BD and other conservative bloggers, taking their talking points, robot-like, from the Republican Party Central, have a shocking disdain for all civil servants. It is rooted in their anti-government ideology and rhetoric. But believe it or not, the government in a representative democracy is us. It is “we the people.” Sometimes your side or my side loses an election. But there’s always the next one. We are governed by those who win elections. To disdain them is to disdain America and its choices. To disdain our civil servants is to disdain our neighbors, friends, and relatives, many of whom work tirelessly to fight our fires, keep our streets safe, and guard our prisons. To insult them to score cheap political points is to put party before country. And that is unpatriotic.

The disdainful Republican bloggers owe America’s law enforcement community - especially its prison guards - an apology. They owe America an apology for their unpatriotic disdain and the cheap shot they just took.

Gerry Connolly Bill, H.R. 2874 Protects Military and Their Families

2009-06-17T20:59:00.004-04:00

I received the following press release from Gerry Connolly, announcing his bill to protect military men and women. Representative Connolly is rapidly becoming a leading light in Congress for his determined support for the military and federal workers. Many of these people, of course, are his constituents in the 11th CD. But his leadership on this benefits members of the military across the nation.

CONNOLLY BILL PROVIDES FINANCIAL PROTECTIONS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL
H.R. 2874 Makes Financial Penalties for Cell, Rental Lease, and College Contracts Illegal

WASHINGTON – Congressman Gerry Connolly believes it is wrong that active-duty military personnel can be forced to pay financial penalties for terminating contracts for cell phone service, leases on their rented residences, or unfinished college courses when they are deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or other duty stations around the globe.

That is why Connolly has introduced legislation to provide relief and make such early termination fees illegal for military personnel who get orders to deploy or change stations. On Monday, June 15, Connolly introduced H.R. 2874, the Helping Active Duty Deployed Act of 2009 (HADD Act).

“It is unjust that our military personnel, who make great sacrifices on our behalf, are required to pay onerous financial penalties when they are deployed and attempt to terminate contracts for the cell phone family plans they can no longer use, the rented housing they must vacate, and the college courses they cannot complete,” Connolly said.

“It is wrong, it is disrespectful, and I am outraged that we allow this to happen to our military men and women who put themselves in harm’s way to protect our nation’s interests,” Connolly said.

While current law prohibits charging penalties for deployed military personnel who terminate individual cell phone contracts and automobile leases, there are no such prohibitions against early termination penalties levied against deployed service members for family cell phone plans, residential property leases, or unused tuition and other college fees.

Connolly’s legislation has already received the endorsement of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. In a letter to Connolly supporting H.R. 2874, the organization’s chief counsel, Patrick Campbell, said Congress must “ensure that our men and women in uniform are focusing on their missions overseas and not bureaucratic morass back at home.”

# # #

Below is a fact sheet:

Fact Sheet – H.R. 2874 – Helping Active Duty Deployed Act of 2009

General Overview: To provide assistance to active duty, deployed military service members who currently face financial penalties for early terminations of certain contracts entered into prior to their deployment.

Section 2:
Family Plan Cellular Telephone Service: The 110th Congress amended the Service members Civil Relief Act to allow deployed service members to end a cellular telephone service contract prior to its scheduled expiration without incurring an early termination penalty. However, service members who have entered into family plan cellular telephone service cannot end those contracts without the normal penalty. The HADD Act would allow any cellular telephone service contract entered into “on behalf of” a service member, which courts have ruled to include family plans, to be ended by a deployed service member without penalty.

Section 3:
Rental Lease Early Termination Penalty: The Service member Civil Relief Act currently permits active duty deployed service members to terminate rental residential property leases and motor vehicle leases. As currently written, there is an explicit section stating that there can be no early termination penalties in the case of a motor vehicle lease. The HADD Act would amend current law to prohibit early termination penalties on real property leases ended early due to a service member’s deployment.

Section 4:
Higher Education Tuition Payments: The 110th Congress amended Title 20 of the U.S. Code to permit active duty service members who were deployed subsequent to enrollment in an institute of higher education to regain admittance following the cessation of their deployment. The HADD Act would amend the Code to permit deployed service members to obtain a refund of the tuition payments made to an institute of higher education for the portion of the educational program that the service member had not yet received academic credit prior to being deployed.

Chaos and Violence on the Streets of Iran

2009-06-13T16:39:00.005-04:00

The opposition leader is under house arrest. Demonstrators are being beaten, some possibly dead in the streets. Cell phone service, internet access, and Facebook are all down. This has all the makings of a coup d'etat. I am talking, of course, about the farce of an election in Iran, where Ahmadinejad was declared the winner by over 62 percent of the vote.

Iranians doubt the legitimacy the outcome, and their outrage is pouring out into street violence. Huffington Post's Nico Pitney has done a round up of reports from various sources on the chaos in Iran. From Reuters, comes this report:

"Canada is deeply, deeply concerned by reports about voting irregularities in the Iranian election. We're troubled by reports of intimidation of opposition candidates' offices by security forces," said Cannon.

He said Canadian embassy officials in Tehran were closely monitoring the situation and urged Iranian authorities to conduct a "fair and transparent" counting of ballots.

And Pitney, who is liveblogging this situation, also reports this:

4:15 PM ET -- A reader gets a message from his cousin in Tehran: "Please share this message on Facebook or share it in a way for us to be heard: Tehran-9:50pm: We don't have text message, cellphone network, Facebook, youTube, Twitter and lots of other websites. BBC PERSIA is gone also on HOTBIRD. 3 reformist newspapers are banned (I can't check the names I've just heard and everything is blocked on internet) If anyone can, help me share the news. They have cut us off from the world."

The situation is indeed dire. It's careening into violence. Here is some footage of the situation, with a warning, some of it is graphic.

And this:

Creigh Deed's Victory Speech

2009-06-12T21:50:00.002-04:00

I know, you've probably seen it before, but it doesn't hurt to keep it running for maximum exposure, so here's Creigh Deed's victory speech.

Jody Wagner Challenges Bill Bolling to Monthly Debates

2009-06-12T21:24:00.004-04:00

Jody Wagner's campaign released the following press release, challenging Bill Bolling to a series of monthly debates from now until November.

WAGNER CHALLENGES BOLLING TO MONTHLY DEBATES
ISSUES CALL FOR A FORUM IN EVERY VIRGINIA REGION

RICHMOND - Today, Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor Jody Wagner challenged Bill Bolling to a series of debates across the Commonwealth, to present voters with a clear choice in November. Wagner has called for one debate per month for the remainder of the campaign, each taking place in a different region of Virginia. The format and rules would be agreed upon by the two candidates and campaigns.
In a letter sent to Bolling, Wagner said: "I believe it's important that voters have a clear understanding of both candidates, including our records, priorities, and visions for the future. I believe voters throughout the Commonwealth deserve to hear from both of us, so they're able to make informed decisions in November about the direction they believe is best for Virginia. I look forward to engaging in a constructive dialog over the next five months, and hope you'll join me in these debates."

Sound interesting and it shows Jody Wagner's confidence in her message and her ideas. The question is, will Bill Bolling take her up on the challenge?

Reactions To Last Night's Election Primary

2009-06-10T10:49:00.002-04:00

From around the progressive blogosphere, I am seeing remarkably little bitterness, as everybody clamors to publicly declare their support for the newly minted Democratic ticket. The losing candidates were gracious in concession, quickly climbing on board to endorse the winners. It looks like we are determined not to blow the election in November because of hurt feelings and disappointments. That, by the way, is true grace under fire. Thank you to those who didn’t quite make it this time. Your graciousness will be remembered when we win.

As to why Creigh and Jody won, I have some thoughts. The first is that voters, overwhelmingly, and from all regions of Virginia, soundly rejected an agenda that was “too liberal.” As somebody whose banner declares that I have been “proudly liberal since 2005,” that does not upset me. The reason is that I am also a great fan of incrementalism. I never expected to convince the majority of voters to agree with me one hundred percent. I am happy just to further the discussion and win a little bit more acceptance for liberal ideas each time and to slowly push the center back to its real center. For too long, the most hard right elements of the Republican Party have been defining that center and moving it ever rightward. There is now a true left, right, and center in Virginia.

My second reason for not being upset is that I believe that sometimes - ok, lots of times - voters are smarter than bloggers. That doesn’t mean I always agree with the majority because I don’t. But lots of times, the wisdom of the masses does turn out to be more intelligent than that of the ideologues. This is one of those times.

While watching TV this morning, I was struck by some of the exit interviews, where people in Northern Virginia were saying that they were looking for the candidate who would run well across all of Virginia. Democratic voters were making pragmatic decisions in these races. Time and again, they went with the centrist.

The Republicans lost no time, in their reaction, in trying to paint Deeds and Wagner as radical leftists. It won’t stick to them precisely because the real progressives were out there and people already got to evaluate their positions. The primary did exactly its job; it strengthened the winners’ positions.

The Republicans did not trust real voters to choose their candidates because they also know that most Virginians are no more hard right than they are hard left. Virginia voters have shown time and again that they are pragmatic centrists. But the ideologues of their party couldn’t risk losing control or having to compromise their precious conservative principles. And that speaks volumes.

They have been a roadblock in the General Assembly for precisely that reason. They can’t even get along with their own moderates, let alone with any Democrat. For them, it’s impossible to reach across an aisle, even to fellow Republicans, let alone to Democrats in the General Assembly. Their ideas are radical and out of step. And every time they criticize moderates like Creigh Deeds or Jody Wagner, they will make more people more aware of that inconvenient fact.

How will the Democrats run against “sunny” Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli and win in November? By staying positive, and responding to false charges and negative attacks calmly and with the facts. The fact is Virginia has consistently been named one of the best places to do business. Compared to our neighboring states, our economy has been resilient in very tough economic times - an economic meltdown caused by Republican policies at the national level. This is still Bush’s recession because Obama has only been in office for five months and everybody except the most hard right ideologues realizes he inherited this mess from his predecessor. In fact, even the current budget is Bush’s because it was enacted in October 2008, long before the election. Even the bailouts began under Bush’s watch, orchestrated by Henry Paulson.

Furthermore, the Democrats are not socialists, and the Republican penchant for toxic and inaccurate labeling will hurt them because that too will make them look like extremists. The current economic situation is dire. It can be compared to a person having a sudden and severe heart attack and his doctor stepping in to perform emergency open-heart surgery on him.

Of course, if the patient hadn’t been a hundred pounds overweight; eaten a constant diet of junk food; and persisted in smoking and drinking, he wouldn’t have needed such extreme measures. In fact, the doctor tried to get him to change his habits, lose some weight, and adapt a healthier lifestyle. But the patient persisted until a sudden, severe heart attack landed him in the ER. So, the doctor had to perform radical surgery to save his life.

That’s the situation with our economy. Nobody really believes the government should step in and interfere with businesses, bail out failed banks or auto companies, etc. But we are in a dire situation, where not one or two businesses, but an entire economy, was having a major heart attack and needed radical intervention. We are all scared about the eventual outcome, but doing nothing was simply not an option.

Meanwhile, in a situation where our economic meltdown has taken down half the major international economies, not to mention wrecked other state economies, Virginia remains in decent shape, relatively speaking, due to the hard work of Mark Kaine, Tim Kaine, and Jody Wagner, who had a major share of responsibility for our financial health. And we know Creigh Deeds will govern in that tradition. What does Bob McDonnell have as a legacy? The failed Republican policies of Jim Gilmore, the last GOP governor, who nearly destroyed the commonwealth’s AAA bond rating. In fact, it could be argued that Gilmore’s extreme anti-tax ideology, which nearly wrecked Virginia’s economy, was a harbinger of the GOP economic failure on a national level. Republican ideas have been tried time and again and have failed every time.

Those are the facts that Democrats will run on in November. And the Democrats will win because facts are stubborn things. As stubborn as a rock. In fact, many a Republican ship has foundered on the rock of solid evidence. And those facts will carry us through to victory in November!

Congratulations Creigh and Jody!

2009-06-09T21:56:00.004-04:00

UPDATE: MORE WINNERS: The upset of the night was Kaye Kory, who beat long time incumbent Bob Hull by 50.65 to 49.34. Additonally, Mark Keam, whom I endorsed, won by 55 percent of the vote. Unfortunately, Miles Grant did not win his race, but congratulations to Patrick Hope.

I heard the election results on my way home from my Lions Club meeting. I know, I know, I'm a political junkie, so why aren't I hanging out somewhere tabulating returns or celebrating at an election night party? Well, because I am president of my Lions Club (for at least two more meetings), and charity work to find a cure for diseases like diabetes, which lead to blindness, and provide services for the sight impaired (like the famous leader dogs that you sometimes see assisting folks) just takes precedence even over politics.

But on the ride home, Dan and I had on WTOP and listened as the election results rolled in, so I knew before booting up my computer that Creigh Deeds and Jody Wagner had won convincing victories.

My sincerest congratulations to them both. No, they weren't my first choice, but they are decent people who ran campaigns that they should be proud of. All of our candidates did. Now that the voters have chosen, I certainly pledge my support, energy, and resources to helping them win. As a Democrat, I am proud of our ticket.

My condolences to all those who didn't win. The underside of politics is that lots of really good people put their hearts and souls into winning for their candidate. They sacrifice hours canvassing in the blazing sun or freezing rain, they talk to strangers, have phones hung up in their ears, and give countless hours to the cause. To come up some votes short after that is heartbreaking. And it is a heartbreaker for the candidates too. To all of them, you have my deepest sympathy because I am there with you tonight. Take a day or two to mourn the loss. To heal the wounds.

But then gird up for an even greater battle. November will come sooner than we think and we have great candidates to battle for.

I will write much more about this in a day or two. But for now I am tired. A bit disappointed, but also very pumped.

One special kudos has to go out to Terry McAuliffe. I received an email from him and as part of his concesssion, he turned around and asked for money for Creigh Deeds campaign, complete with a link to where you can donate. Creigh is going to need the funds. And McAuliffe is a class act for going out that way. Thanks Terry, you turned out to be a class act indeed!

Ben Tribbett Calls it for Deeds

2009-06-09T16:45:00.002-04:00

Of course, there are still just over 2 hours to get to the polls, but Ben Tribbett is calling this for Creigh Deeds as of 4;45 pm. The money quote:

I think @CreighDeeds has just about locked this down- impressive votes coming out of NoVA for him. Still time to get to the polls though

Ben, as you know, endorsed Terry McAuliffe. Ah, hope springs enternal :)

A Strange Election Predictor Indeed!

2009-06-09T13:56:00.003-04:00

I am somewhat reluctant to assign too much significance to this, but I checked my Sitemeter statistics and made a startling discovery. That is, besides the fact that I am getting the highest number of visitors I've ever had, mostly due to interest in the primary. Usually, my readers come from links from other blogs, people who just wander by, and occasionally from readers researching a specific topic on Google, Yahoo, or one of the other search engines.

Today, almost all of my visitors - I would say easily 4 or 5 to 1 - are coming from Google. And they appear to be people researching Creigh Deeds. They are looking for information on Deeds and guns, Deeds and choice, Deeds and religion, etc. I am not seeing as much interest in the other candidates from readers - none of them have been Googling McAuliffe or Moran. At least, not the ones being captured by Sitemeter on my Referral page. There have been a few for Signer and for the Lt Governor's race. But the overwhelming majority that I am getting are look ups for Creigh Deeds.

I suspect that these are undecideds and last minute voters who are breaking his way. They are the ones who haven't been focused on the races before, whose attention has been caught by his momentum over the last few days. Now, they are suddenly tuning in and want to know more before heading off to the polls today.

I have not broken down the geography of where they are all coming from, except that my number of Virginia hits is unusually high too. It's usually the majority of the readers I get, anyway, but not in these numbers.

I am not sure if this actually predicts anything for Creigh Deeds, but it's the first time since I've been doing this (I started after the 2005 election, so I've been blogging actual elections since 2006) that I've ever seen this type of pattern with my visitor statistics.

Get Out The Vote

2009-06-09T10:07:00.004-04:00

Well, all the words have been written, the literature mailed or hung on door posts, the phone calls made, the polling done, and the canvassers knocking on doors. All the many hours of dedication and hard work have now come down to the wire. Today is election day for those participating in the Virginia Primary. We had a spirited campaign, sometimes nasty, but mostly civil.

To reiterate my endorsements very briefly:

For Governor: Brian Moran

For Lt. Governor: Mike Signer

For House of Delegates for 35th District: Mark Keam

For House of Delegates for 47th District: Miles Grant

However, whoever wins, I know that after the primary we will be united. We will go, as Democrats, into the general election proudly supporting our candidates for election

Now, go vote. Tonight, win or lose, go party, relax after the hardwork many of you have done for your candidate, and know that in the next few days wounds will heal and we all will work together to continue turning Virginia blue!

WJLA-TV Bio of Brian Moran

2009-06-06T23:16:00.002-04:00

H/t to Vivian Paige for this excellent video biography of Brian Moran from WJLA-TV.

Remember, vote next Tuesday, June 9!

AIAW Endorses Miles Grant for HOD in the 47th CD

2009-06-06T14:40:00.007-04:00

This is my last, but certainly not least, endorsement. I am very proud to endorse Miles Grant for the House of Delegates, from the 47th District. I first encountered Miles on the Net, through his blog The Green Miles, and his contributions to Raising Kaine, where he was part of the editorial team. He also is a frequent contributor to Daily Kos, Gristmill, and What's Up, Arlington.

Miles is probably the most unique candidate this year. He presents some of the most thought provoking and challenging ideas in Virginia. He is an uncompromising environmentalist, who insists that Virginians could cut costs and dependence on coal and foreign oil by greater efficiency. And he strongly believes Richmond should provide the leadership.

According to Miles, we can cut energy use by 20 percent by 2025. That's more than 6,000 megawatts of power or, as he likes to point out, the output of the equivalent of 10 Wise County coals plants. Miles also believes we could get 20 percent of all electricity from renewable sources, like solar and wind power, which would cut carbon emissions. We need to begin cutting carbon emissions by 2 percent each year and by 80 percent by 2050 in order to avoid the most harmful effects of global warming.

To accomplish these goals, Miles is also a strong supporter of public transportation and would like to see a permanent dedicated funding stream for Metro from DC, Maryland, and Virginia. He also supports full funding for the Metro Silver Line and building a trolley line from Columbia Pike to the Pentagon. On the other hand, he opposes any expansion of Route 66 or I-395. Indeed, his goal is to take cars off the road and encourage greater use of public transportation by improving service and quality. Additionally, he supports encouraging employers to offer more telecommuting opportunities to workers.

Although Miles is best known, through his blog and his work at the National Wildlife Federation, as an ardent environmentalist, he is far from a one issue candidate.

He cares deeply about civil liberties issues and promises to fight to prohibit discrimination of any kind.

Perhaps the brunt of discrimination in the Northern Virginia region has been borne by immigrants. Miles would like to see the Virginia Commission on Immigration's recommendations fully implemented. He has also called for a comprehensive study of the impact of illegal immigration on the local economy and tax revenue to determine whether the effects of illegal immigration have truly been detrimental, as some claim.

Miles also supports a woman's right to reproductive freedom and would require all pharmacists to fill all legal, valid prescriptions, including birth control pills. Furthermore, his support for full equality for the LGBT community has earned him the endorsement of the Virginia Partisans (he also has endorsements from the Sierra Club and former Lt. Governor candidate Jon Bowerbank, among many others).

On the economic crisis, Miles points out that the same energy efficiencies he proposes for saving the environment would also save the commonwealth and its citizen money. Additionally, he supports the creation of green jobs in a new environmental-friendly economy.

On an issue that is all important to Virginians, education, Miles supports universal Pre-K, raising teachers' salaries to be competitive with other states, and focusing beyond test scores. He believes a well rounded education is essential to students and he would encourage inclusion of elective classes and community service. Finally, he would encourage greater parental involvement in their children's education. He says that parents' buy-in is crucial.

In addition to his political involvement and his work on various blogs to spread his message, Miles Grant has earned an impressive array of accomplishments that speak well of his dedication to community service, including the following:

Outstanding Volunteer Award, Arlington County, 2008

Arlington Young Democrats, Community Service Director, 2008

James B. Hunter Community Hero Award, Arlington County, 2007

Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment: Board Chair, 2005-2007;

Board Member, 2003-2008

Arlington Community Volunteer Network (formerly CRM): Chair, 2006-2009;

Leadership Team member, 2004-present

Under Miles' chairmanship in 2008, the National Association of Counties recognized CVN with an Acts of Caring Award

Northern Virginia SPCA: Volunteer, 2002-2004

It is for these reasons, his community involvement, his dedication to environmental action, his concern for civil rights for all, education, and jobs creation, and his innovative solutions that I proudly endorse and support Miles Grant for the House of Delegates.

Netroots Surrogate Debate This Sunday Night

2009-06-06T14:10:00.004-04:00

This Sunday night at 7:30, three of Virginia's most distinguished progressive bloggers will participate in a surrogate's debate for the gubernatorial candidates. Common Sense Virginia is staging the debate at their website. Please go over there and leave questions for the candidates' surrogates in the comment section.

Lowell Feld will speak for the Terry McAuliffe campaign. Carla Ward, aka Catzmaw, will represent Brian Moran, and Waldo Jacquith, Virginia's blogfather, will speak on behalf of Creigh Deed's campaign.

This should be a spirited debate with some of the best informed representatives of the Virginia blogosphere.

AIAW Endorses Brian Moran for Governor

2009-06-03T21:42:00.006-04:00

I said yesterday that choosing which candidate to endorse for lieutenant governor was one of the hardest decisions I had to make. And that was certainly true. But choosing who to endorse for governor has proven equally hard.

The truth is we have three very fine candidates, each of whom would make an excellent governor. None of them could be called “lesser of the evils” running against Bob McDonnell. All three are intelligent, capable, and dedicated leaders who have served the Democratic Party well over the years. However, since we can only choose one of these fine men, my choice is Brian Moran and I endorse him proudly. Here is why.

I have known Brian personally for many more years than I can count. I can vouch for his decency and dedication. He has spent a lifetime exhibiting a sense of responsibility and concern for his family and his community. That started for him at a young age.

Brian grew up in a solid, middle class family that knew hard times, including his father’s being laid off from a job. People have joked about his statement that he still hates the taste of powdered milk. Many of those who laugh loudest have never had to drink it themselves.
Brian started working when he was 14, and he held a job bagging groceries. Later, he worked in construction and as a bartender while he was in college.

Just as his future was beginning, when he went away to school, he was abruptly called home to help care for his father, who had taken seriously ill. Subsequently, he graduated with a law degree from Catholic University. Unlike many of his classmates who went on to practice corporate law, Brian passed up a lucrative career for one in public service.

In 1989, he joined the prosecutor’s office, working his way up to become Senior Assistant Commonwealth Attorney. Then, in 1996, he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, where he quickly rose to a leadership role, being elected by his fellow Democrats as House Chairman in 2001. In that role, he traveled across the commonwealth to every small town and village to build the Democratic Party and to turn Virginia blue.

In addition to his political activism, Brian immersed himself in service to his community in many other ways. He is an active member of the United Way, has served as Chairman of the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Advisory Council for Alexandria, and is a member of the board of Stop Child Abuse Now.

He was honored as the Jaycees Man of the Year, was twice awarded the Victims and Witnesses of Crime legislative award, and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Legislator of the Year Award. The Chamber of Commerce presented him with their Friend of Business Award. The League of Conservation Voters gave him their Legislative Award, and he received the Tech Ten Award from the Northern Virginia Technology Council. The Virginia PTA named him the Child Advocate of the Year.

In the House of Delegates, his accomplishments include the following: he cracked down on drunk drivers, improved the small business climate, improved preventive health services, and expanded access to childhood vaccinations. He fought to raise teachers’ salaries.

Not content to rest on his laurels, Brian now wants to be governor so he can continue to bring his progressive vision to the commonwealth and improve the lives of Virginia citizens. Here is a sample of some of the things he would like to accomplish for Virginia.

Brian would protect homeowners from predatory lenders and deceptive mortgage lending practices. He would fight to ensure safe products. He is dedicated to investing in Pre-K education and strengthening K-12 education. In addition, he wants a greater focus on expanding community colleges, improving higher education and an increased investment in higher education research. Brian knows that more research is absolutely essential to creating the new green jobs of the future.

He also would invest in renewable energy, increase production of wind and solar energy, and he supports a Mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard. Brian is opposed to offshore drilling and the new coal powered plant in Surry. Instead, he favors reducing dependence on foreign oil through renewable energy alternatives, energy efficiency, and plug in and hybrid cars.

Brian supports a woman’s right to choose. At the same time, while in the House of Delegates, he expanded health care access for pregnant woman. That’s because the right to choose also includes the right to choose to carry a healthy baby to term and to have adequate health coverage to do so.

Finally, Brian is committed to fixing the nursing shortage and expanding access to dental care to rural Virginia, where the lack of dental care has produced a severe crisis among the poor. Brian also supports healthcare insurance pools for small businesses so they can provide coverage for their employees.

For all these reasons, Brian’s commitment to helping the middle class, his dedication to the environment and the creation of well paying green jobs, and his long time involvement in his community, I proudly endorse Brian Moran and urge you to vote for him June 9th.

AIAW Endorses Mike Signer for Lt. Governor

2009-06-02T19:00:00.007-04:00

In the Lieutenant Governor’s race, I am proud to endorse Mike Signer. Before going into the reasons and Mike’s many fine attributes, I want to admit that this was one of the toughest decisions I had to make.

His opponent, Jody Wagner, is a highly capable candidate. For starters, I would normally be naturally disposed to strongly support a competent, intelligent woman for office, if for no other reason, because our daughters need them as role models. You can say to a young girl that she can aspire to any career she wants until you turn blue. But if there aren’t models out there, it’s not believable. Additionally, Ms. Wagner is extremely talented and accomplished. She served in the Warner and Kaine administrations as state treasurer and as the first woman secretary of finance. If we Democrats love to brag that under Warner and Kaine, Virginia has maintained its AAA bond rating and been rated “best managed state to do business in the nation,” Wagner shares the credit for these successes. She was, after all, the person in charge of Virginia’s finances.

In this campaign, Wagner has staked out her position as a solid, pro-business moderate in the tradition of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine.

There is, however, another tradition within Democratic politics, and that is the progressive and populist tradition of Jim Webb. And that is the wing of the party where you will find Mike Signer, which is why he is my choice.

But this is not a hard left ideological position without regard to the candidate's other qualifications. Far from it. Mike also is enormously gifted and intelligent. And he too served in the Warner administration as Warner's former deputy counselor.

Further, Mike has worked as a national security consultant to the Center for American Progress, foreign policy adviser for the John Edwards presidential campaign and, in 2008, on Barack Obama’s Veterans Policy Development Team. He also was a senior strategist for Tom Perriello’s breathtaking upset victory over Virgil Goode.

Mike has staked out some truly progressive stances on the issue, some of which take great political and personal courage. Like his model, Jim Webb, he will work for the restoration of voting rights for felons upon their release from prison. This is an issue that is deeply important to me, as are all social justice issues.

Another issue for which I have great passion is economic fairness. Indeed, this blog has staked its own reputation on its advocacy of economic populism. The very first candidate that AIAW supported, as a blog, was Jim Webb. And it was for this very reason. Mike Signer is unabashed in his support for unions. He has said, “My grandparents were in unions. My parents were in unions. Unions helped build this country. I don’t think there is any question about that.”

It was that type of straight talk and support for labor that won Signer the endorsement of Leslie Byrne and the endorsements of the following unions:

Fairfax Deputy Sheriff’s Union
Washington, D.C. Building Trades
Asbestos Workers Local #24
Boilermakers Local #193
Bricklayers & Allied Crafts Local # 1
Electrical Workers Local #26
Elevator Constructors Local #10
Iron Workers Local #5
Operating Engineers Local #77
Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons #891
Painters District Council #51
Plumbers Local #5
Reinforced Rodmen Local #201
Roofers & Waterproofers Local #30
Sheet Metal Workers Local #100
Sprinkler Fitters Local #669
Steamfitters Local #602
United Transportation Union of Virginia

Signer, as Lieutenant Governor, would focus on the economy and jobs creation, our single biggest challenge in this current economy. Some of his ideas include creating jobs in health IT, smart grid, weatherization to make homes and offices more energy efficient, and rural jobs. He would use the federal stimulus funds to create jobs in the tourism industry, which already supports 210,000 jobs and generates $1.2 billion worth of state and local taxes.

To encourage young people to return to Virginia after college, he would work for the “Come Home Act,” which would reduce student loan repayment for those who return to their communities after graduation.

Signer has many innovative ideas to create jobs and improve the lives of Virginians. But of all the candidates, he is the one who also seems to realize that we need not only more jobs, but also good, well paying jobs and safe working environments.

As a progressive – indeed, as a proud liberal (which is what my banner proclaims me to be), I proudly endorse Mike Signer and urge you to vote for him on June 9.

AIAW Endorses Mark Keam for 35th District HOD

2009-06-02T16:03:00.005-04:00

In the 35th District House of Delegates race, I strongly support Mark Keam, and I proudly endorse his candidacy.

Mark has a compelling personal narrative. He was born in Seoul, Korea, where his father served as an Army chaplain deployed to Vietnam. Mark’s mother struggled to raise the family alone back in Korea. Then, during a temporary ceasefire, Mark’s father brought the family to Vietnam, where he established the only Korean Christian Church.

One April morning, in 1975, as Mark Keam himself described it, his childhood “abruptly came to a halt,” when he, along with his mother and his siblings, caught the first airplane they could out of Vietnam as the South Vietnamese regime was falling to the communists. His father remained behind to care for his flock and to ensure that as many of them as possible were able to escape the war torn country. As a man of the cloth, he was quickly imprisoned by the newly established communist regime. After months of negotiation, he was finally freed to join his family. Before coming to the U.S., Mark and his family also lived in Australia. So, he thoroughly understands the immigrant experience and has grown up in a multicultural and international environment.

Mark learned the lessons of sacrifice, responsibility, and caring for both his family and community from these early life experiences. After graduating law school, he immersed himself in public service for most of his young career.

He came to Northern Virginia and settled in Vienna, where he went to work at the Federal Communications Commission as a lawyer. He went on to serve as policy council to the Small Business Administration during the Clinton administration. Once the administration ended, he went to work for Illinois Senator Richard Durbin and served as chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee, where he fought the Bush administration’s rightwing agenda.

In 2007, Keam joined Verizon as a vice president and counsel to the Public Affairs, Policy, and Communications Department.

In addition, Mark Keam has been active in Democratic politics for most of his life. His love of politics began in 1988, when he served an internship for the Democratic National Committee and worked at that year’s Democratic Convention in Atlanta. In Virginia, Mark was one of the organizers of Fairfax for Obama and played a key role as a grassroots activist, who helped deliver Virginia for the first time in 44 years to the Democratic ticket.

As a delegate, Mark would concentrate on economic issues. With his background in the Small Business Administration, he would bring a wealth of understanding to the unique problems of small business owners and a commitment to solutions. Mark understands that two thirds of all new jobs are created by small businesses. They are the true economic engine that runs this country and if they do not succeed, then our economy will not recover.

Additionally, in an area where roads are jammed and commuting is a nightmare, Keam would use his telecommunications background to push for more telecommuting opportunities and flexible work schedules to ease rush hour congestion. He also will fight for Northern Virginia to receive more of its fair share of transportation and education funding from Richmond. He supports K-12 educational investment and is committed to excellence in our public schools. Furthermore, he favors use of alternate energy standards, creation of green jobs, and bringing state government buildings into compliance with LEEDS standards.

For all these reasons: His extraordinary personal story and background, his history of public service, his experience as a grassroots activist, and his vision of how to improve the lives of ordinary Virginians, I urge you to vote on June 9th for Mark Keam for the House of Delegates from the 35th District.

FCDC Straw Poll Results - Brian Moran Victory!

2009-05-31T22:32:00.003-04:00

I attended tonight's Fairfax County Democratic Committee Jefferson Jackson Dinner, where they held a straw poll. Now keep in mind that the 2007 straw poll predicted Gerry Connolly's primary victory down to accurate percentages of his ultimate electoral victory. In 2007, he won the FCDC JJ straw poll by 57 percent to 34 percent for Leslie Byrne. In the primary election, Connolly won by 58 percent of the vote, with a low voter turnout of 3 percent. This year, while it's impossible to predict the turnout, most knowledgeable observers expect it to be low too.

Here are the results for the Governor's and Lt Governor's races:

Governor

Brian Moran: 166 (40.9%)
Creigh Deeds: 123 (30.3%)
Terry McAuliffe: 117 (28.8)

Lieutenant Governor

Jody Wagner: 260 (65.7%)
Mike Signer: 136 (34.3%)

Now, bear in mind that this is just the results of a bunch of activists who attended the JJ. Both Creigh Deeds and Terry McAuliffe have had their successes in straw polls as well. McAuliffe won Gerry Connolly's St. Patrick's Day straw poll, which also has a good track record for being predictive of primary results. So take it for what it's worth and with a grain of salt.

But I certainly wouldn't count Brian Moran out for carrying Fairfax County, one of Virginia's most voter rich area. But with only 40 percent in what is supposed to be his strongest section of the state, indeed his home turf, will this be enough to win a primary and then carry him through to the general election?

There are obviously unanswered questions here and this race is still very much up for grabs.

Conventional Wisdom and General Elections

2009-05-30T11:31:00.005-04:00

Chap Petersen has an intriguing post on his Ox Road South blog. In it Chap demonstrates, by examining the results of elections going back to 1992, that the party that holds primaries eventually ends up winning the general election more often than not. To be sure, it's not foolproof and doesn't happen in every election. In fact, during the first few of years in the early 2000s, when the Democrats switched from conventions to primaries, they continued to lose, especially at the national level. But eventually by 2006, Democrats began to win elections.

During that time, the Republicans, in a reversal of strategy, went from an open primary system for picking their candidates to closed conventions. That also reversed their fortunes in the general election. Here is Chap's conclusion:

Over the past twenty years, the parties which select their nominees by primary generally win in general elections. That result does not necessarily occur immediately. For example, it took two years after the Dem primary in 04 for the results to sink in and really be utilized.

However, by 2006, the Democrats had a much better idea where their potential voters lived and how to reach them. This process then exploded in 2008, when nearly a million people came to vote for Hillary or Obama. That list was crucial for organizing the state for Obama in the general campaign.

Conventions are less costly and limit participation to party regulars. There are arguments for and against that. But the record is clear that primaries, in the long term, produce the winners.

I am going to expand on this. But first an observation, most politically engaged Virginians are aware of the commonwealth's conventional wisdom that the party that wins the White House loses the Virginia's governor's mansion the following year. One reason put forth for this is that by the following year, disillusionment sets in with the policies of the White House, so the Virginia electoral results act as a harbinger of the mid-term Congressional elections. Historically, the party in control of the presidency usually loses Congressional seats at the two year mark as well and for the same reason.

But the difference caused by holding a primary versus a closed convention might upset that bit of conventional wisdom as well. Let me add quickly that predicting results is always risky business, even if you claim a crystal ball. Since I'm no psychic, this is only guess work.

There could, however, be a logical reason that an open primary leads to success, especially in local and state elections. To start with, you get a wider cross section of voters picking the candidate, so you end up with a more moderate candidate who already appeals more to voters in a general election.

On the other hand, the problem with a convention is that it favors the choice of the party's most passionate partisans, those who are the most ideological - that's true whether we're talking about the Democratic or Republican Party. But right now, the Republicans seem to be particularly concerned with ideological purity and litmus tests. That could bode ill for them come a general election when you've got to tack to the center.

Another advantage of the primary system for choosing a candidate is that you get a far more accurate voter list to work from for the general election. You get lists of voters who have already come out and voted for a Democrat. In a small turnout election (and even the governor's race may well be a far smaller turnout than last year's blow out presidential race), you want to effectively target your voters and get them out. You don't want to spend your energy and time having to first figure out who they are. A good database from the primary gives you a one up on that.

There are some good reasons for holding conventions instead, and some people dislike the primary system. The strongest objection to open primaries is that too often members of the opposition party can vote and game the system to pick the weakest candidate, making it easier for them to beat in the general election.

One way to counter that is to have voter registration by party and closed primaries, limited only to members of one party. After all, if one is choosing the Democratic candidate, there is no reason why it shouldn't be limited just to registered Democrats.

Independents would still be able to register as such and vote in the general election. But they wouldn't be able to choose a party's candidate, whether Republican or Democrat. That has the advantage of getting some Independents who lean Democratic or Republican to get off the fence to declare for one or the other party.

But allowing Independents to vote in the primary also is a good way to figure out which of them actually lean your way. It too could be viewed as good for party building and for aiding GOTV efforts.

Lots of pros and cons here. But I think the good senator from the 34th District is on to something.

UPDATE: Washington Post Has Connolly Endorsement of Keam

2009-05-28T22:36:00.003-04:00

Honestly, things are happening so fast! I just reported that Mark Keam received a dual endorsment, along with Roy Baldwin, from the Sierra Club and as an afterthought added the Connolly endorsement, which I found on Blue Virginia.

Now, I just spotted an even fuller story in the Washington Post, written by Amy Gardner, about Connolly's endorsement of Mark Keam. According to Gardner's report, Connolly issued the endorsment one day after one of Keam's opponent, Roy Baldwin, attacked Keam's work as a Verizon lobbyist. As Gardner's article points out, Keam also served as chief counsel to Senate Majority Whip, Dick Durbin, of Illinois, and also worked at the Federal Communications Commission and the Small Business Administration.

Once again, here is the quote from Congressman Connolly:

"Mark Keam is a standout," Connolly said in a statement tonight. "He has the experience, energy and character to be an effective leader in the House of Delegates. He will fight for Fairfax and Vienna in Richmond, helping us get our fair share of transportation and education funding. I fully endorse his election."

Sorry to be redundant, but I kinda like the sound of that "I fully endorse his election."

So do I!

Sierra Club and Gerry Connolly Endorse Mark Keam

2009-05-28T21:48:00.005-04:00

Congratulations to Mark Keam, HOD candidate from the 35th District, on this very important endorsement from the Sierra Club. It was a dual endorsement that they gave to both Keam and Roy Baldwin.

Here is the press release I received from the Keam campaign:

Mark Keam For Delegate Campaign Announces
Endorsement by The Sierra Club

Vienna,VA – Today, the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club endorsed Mark Keam for Delegate from the 35th District. The Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club has over 17,000 members and is dedicated to building healthy, livable communities, and to conserving and restoring our natural environment.

“I am very pleased to have received the Sierra Club’s endorsement,” said Keam. “Protecting the environment while conserving our natural resources is a top priority of mine, and I look forward to working with the Sierra Club to preserve Virginia’s natural resources and beauty.”

Keam has emphasized environmental and energy issues throughout his campaign. Keam even held a roundtable forum with local environmental leaders to discuss the urgent need to address climate change issues. “I was impressed by Mark’s knowledge of environmental law and his outreach effort to citizens on these issues,” said Bob Pearson, Political Director for the Great Falls Group of the Sierra Club. “The Sierra Club endorsed Mark because of his progressive environmental platform and his understanding of current issues such as renewable energy, open space protection and Smart Growth initiatives.”

As Delegate, Keam will focus on making Virginia a leader in green technology and bringing new jobs to the area.

Additionally, Lowell is reporting that Congressman Gerry Connolly has endorsed Mark Keam. Here is Rep. Connolly's quote, thanks to Lowell's reporting:

"Mark Keam is a standout," Connolly said in a statement tonight. "He has the experience, energy and character to be an effective leader in the House of Delegates. He will fight for Fairfax and Vienna in Richmond, helping us get our fair share of transportation and education funding. I fully endorse his election."

So much for any charges that Mark has not been active in his community. The truth is he has been a dedicated, progressive activist in Virginia who was instrumental in winning Northern Virginia for Obama. And he continues to show his progressive street cred!

Brian Moran Worked for Virginia Democrats Before Virginia Was Blue

2009-05-27T21:46:00.005-04:00

While Creigh Deeds has definitely been on a roll (and good for him, he's a nice, decent man), Brian Moran enjoyed a couple of public boosts today too. First, there was this profile, which is part of a series examining the Virginia gubernatorial candidates, in today's Washington Post. Here's the money quote:

For 13 years, Moran was the go-to guy, the water carrier for the Democrats, the minority party in the Virginia House of Delegates. If a Republican got up to insult then-Gov. Mark Warner or Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, Moran, in an increasing crescendo, was the one who jumped to the microphone in protest. If a Republican signaled a willingness to negotiate, Moran was often the one called in to hammer out a deal, once at a diner over beers with the details spelled out on a bar napkin. Moran was the one who knew which delegate needed what and how to knit together the unruly votes to pass legislation, including a landmark increase in education spending in 2004.

For eight years, as Democratic caucus chair in the House of Delegates, he put 200,000 miles on his gold Toyota Highlander, traveling the state recruiting candidates, raising money, shaking hands at countless local gatherings, all with the aim of recapturing a Democratic majority in the House. His efforts netted 13 new Democratic seats, four seats shy of a majority, and some in areas so conservative that skeptics had told him he was crazy to try.

That's right! While some other candidates, who shall remain nameless, were off basking in the glamor of Washington, DC insider politics, hobnobbing with presidents and millionaires, Brian Moran was toiling in the commonwealth, driving miles to obscure little towns to help build the Virginia Democratic Party. At a time when it wasn't much fun to be a Democrat, Brian was doggedly working to reverse our fortunes. If this is a Richmond insider, it's only because he's been building a Democratic presence to be inside of.

In addition, Mike, at Blueweeds, wrote a really nice endorsement of Moran. Mike reminded me of what made me commit to Moran in the first place:

1. The term of the next governor will likely be dominated by the difficult issues of zero budgeting and redistricting. This is necessary and un-flashy political work for which Brian is particularly well suited;

2. Northern Virginia is rightfully out of step with the rest of Virginia on gay rights and green issues. Brian's campaign has distinguished itself from his opponents on these two issues - demonstrating a clear willingness to lead Virginia in a progressive direction based on clearly articulate political values. Brian's tact on these two issues is clear, different than his opponents, and reflects remarkable political character;

3. Brian has unusually close ties to Falls Church City. He is the only candidate with a Falls Church City business license; he shops here; plays basketball at our community center; makes appearances in our local court system; and routinely sits in our Beltway - Broad Street traffic;

4. Brian is a proven party builder. He has done the hard work of being the minority caucus leader in the house of horrors known as the Republican-led House of Delegates. He has been a terrific advocate - forceful and outspoken on party differences, able to communicate clearly and respectfully with opponents. In a place in which it is especially hard to keep personal integrity, he has managed to do so;

5. Jim Moran, our congressman and Brian's brother, has been a remarkable asset to our region and to the Democratic Party. As a local party leader, Jim's willingness to assist businesses and political leaders in NOVA on grassroots community and constituency issues has been extraordinary. The congressman's value on local issues and party building, irrespective of how one comes down on Jim's outspoken positions on national issues, is hard to overestimate. Jim has kept his distance in his brother's campaign, but supporting Brian is an opportunity to acknowledge the work Jim has done for years for our region;

6. Brian understands the importance of the Dillon Rule to small local jurisdictions like Falls Church. His opponents have either not addressed the Dillon Rule or openly called for its repeal. Repealing the Dillon Rule would polarize the political climate of small jurisdictions and greatly complicate the efforts of communities like ours to maintain independent school systems and run effective local government; and

7. Our local political stealth-zellmiller-dixiecrat dark force has McAuliffe yards signs. All good people on the planet should take note and run, run, away from whatever they are selling. Seriously.

I am not sure I agree completely with Mike. For example, I favor repeal of the Dillon Rule. But since Mike also is the husband of Falls Church Mayor Robin Gardner, I would keep an open mind about his reasons for being in favor of the Dillon Rule. Maybe he knows something about politics and governance at the municipal level that I don't.

But the take home point from Mike and from the Washington Post article is that Brian Moran has been involved with Virginia politics and worked tirelessly to improve our local communities, not just in Northern Virginia, but across the state. He's paid his dues.

By that, I don't mean he just showed up and put in the time. I mean he did the unglamorous, heavy lifting, right here in Virginia.

Leslie Byrne's Endorsement of Creigh Deeds - Update

2009-05-27T13:28:00.003-04:00

Bryan Scrafford, who has been doing an amazing job of covering the various campaigns around Northern Virginia, with both solid reporting and great video, was at Leslie Byrne's endorsement of Creigh Deeds, just an hour ago at the Old Courthouse in Fairfax City.

First, the video:

Below is also some of Bryan's rundown of Leslie's reasons for her endorsement:

*Creigh and Leslie have worked together since 1995 when they were in the House of Delegates together. They later served in the Senate together and Leslie was proud to be on the statewide ticket with Creigh in 2005 as she ran for Lt. Governor and he ran for Attorney General.

*Leslie said that you really get to know someone when you’re on the trail with them and Creigh’s “not a creation by consultants. He’s authentic.”

*Leslie said that “no other candidate is better prepared” to take on the responsibility of the Governor’s office.

*Leslie Byrne is known as a progressive candidate and in regards to Creigh’s progressive qualities she pointed outh that he has a 100% pro choice voting record, has done a lot for the environment, earned a 93% ranking for the teachers which is higher than any other gubernatorial candidate has scored, and it’s clear that he’s going to make transportation a priority.

For more, go visit Left of the Hill.

Leslie Byrne to Endorse Creigh Deeds Today!

2009-05-27T10:15:00.002-04:00

Lowell and Ben are both reporting that Leslie Byrne intends to endorse Creigh Deeds today. In fact, Lowell wonders why Leslie, the consummate liberal, would endorse the much more conservative Deeds over both McAuliffe and Moran, especially since Moran has deliberately tried to position himself as the most progressive candidate.

It’s equally intriguing that she didn’t go with McAuliffe. To my mind, that raises an even bigger question. Although T-Mac has staked out his position as the centrist, touting his pragmatism; business experience; entrepreneurial spirit; and outsider to Richmond status, McAuliffe has always been a very strong supporter of the Clintons, as has both Leslie and Larry Byrne. Both Byrnes served in the early Clinton administration. They both also were very strong Hillary supporters in last year’s presidential primaries. So, I would have expected them to be natural allies of McAuliffe’s.

I certainly have no guesses as to why Leslie chose Creigh, but I certainly hope she does explain the thought process that went into that decision.

Conspiracy Theories and Cuccinelli

2009-05-26T19:53:00.004-04:00

H/t to Too Conservative for this:

Seriously, I think Ken might be on to something with this. After all, I didn't have a Social Security number when I was two. Now, that might be because back then dinosaurs still roamed and we personally talked to them every day (damned those evolutionists who don't believe in young earth theories). And, of course, we did have to make sure those commies that had infiltrated the U.S. Government even back then weren't tracking us. Thank God for Joe McCarthy!

Ok, just kidding. I like Ken, personally, but, yeah, this sure doesn't help his cause, even among Republicans, and that's pretty scary because they have pretty much purged most of their moderates. So if even the extremist still left are worried about how this sounds, they've got worse problems than I thought.