Home Virginia Politics Virginia News Headlines: Wednesday Morning

Virginia News Headlines: Wednesday Morning

257
14
SHARE

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Wednesday, September 25. As for the debate last night, my main takeaway was that EW Jackson is a great actor. Last night, he played a sane person, which clearly he is not if you’ve looked at his long history of insane, extremist remarks. My concern is that if you have NOT looked at his long history of insane, extremist remarks (as most Virginians have not done), you might think, “hey, this guy’s not as bad as he’s been portrayed to be.” And that really worries me.

*Democrats see shutdown threat as 2014 opening (And 2013 in Virginia as well, I’d add…)

*Sen. Cruz continues attack on Obamacare through the night (And the Teahadist crazies lap this stuff up…)

*What Obama’s U.N. speech means for the U.S. relationship with Iran

*Gov. McDonnell’s approval rating drops to new low, poll finds (“Amid gifts scandal, fewer than half of Virginia’s registered voters approve of the job he is doing.”)

*Romney to headline Cuccinelli fund-raiser (Mr. 47%, “corporations are people my friend,” etc. is baaaaaack!)

*McDonnell: Navy Yard shouldn’t bring new gun limits (Schocker, huh?)

*Ralph Northam eventually draws contrast with E.W. Jackson in Virginia lt. governor’s debate (“To fault him for speaking out on religious issues, Jackson said, was to create a religious test for holding public office…[Northam] blistered Jackson’s argument on two points.”)

*Jackson, Northam Face Off in Lt. Gov. Debate (“Virginia’s lieutenant governor candidates – as starkly different in style as they are in politics -clashed Tuesday night over health care, how to care for the dangerously mentally ill and women’s access to reproductive health services”)

*Virginia gubernatorial candidates head to 2nd debate

*Lawsuit seeks contacts between Cuccinelli’s office, Star Scientific CEO

*As shutdown of government looms, Virginia makes plans

*Tonight’s debate key test for Cuccinelli, McAuliffe

*Absentee voting open in Virginia for Nov. 5 election

*Schapiro: Tonight’s debate – channel-changer or race-changer? (“The potential for reaching vast numbers of voters is considerable. The reality is that relatively few will tune in. That does not diminish the debate’s significance, especially in shaping the final six weeks of the campaign.”)

*Virginia Beach gives approval to city’s first mosque

*McDonnell’s Education secretary takes U.Va. post (Ah, the revolving door…gotta love it. Or not.)

*Chamber PAC backs Northam, sits out 2 other races (Chambers of Commerce are overwhelmingly Republican. My attitude is that they SHOULD endorse Republicans, and that if they don’t, it really says something about how extreme they think the Republicans up for election that cycle are.)

*Staying in the September sweet spot (“What Mother Nature is lacking in creativity, she is making up for in consistently magnificent weather.”)

*Nationals nearly make the wrong kind of history in loss to Cardinals

  • freedom of religion excuses it all. #FAIL

  • Glen Tomkins

    The bishop is a con man.  He’s made a pretty good living at it, so no one should ever have assumed he’s not competent at it.  No one should be surprised that he has enough control to project the image that will sell to the audience at hand.

    And the excuse for all of his past extreme statements, that they are covered by the blanket of religious freedom, is actually an excuse that is quite likely to be accepted by the swing voter.  Even mainstream denominations have their share of beliefs that the majority would not want imposed on them, but which we assume that they won’t impose on the rest of us even if their believers get into public office.  We’re used to the idea that a Catholic can believe that it’s a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday, yet is not at all likely to vote for a bill making it legally required for everybody to go to Catholic Mass on Sundays.  To carry it further, even the average voter who belongs to some other denomination is likely to be reassured that a Catholic running for office goes to Mass every Sunday.  We like people running for office to have strong religious convictions — even if those convictions aren’t our own — which is why you don’t get candidates out loud and proud as atheists and agnostics.

    The bishop can have all sorts of things on his record of past public statements that would curl the average voter’s toes, but as long as he refrains from saying such things in his capacity as a candidate for public office, he reassures people that he respects the difference between private religious belief and the power of public office.  Sure, you can still try to make the case that the bishop’s expressed beliefs strongly imply that he won’t actually respect the separation of church and state if he gets into office, that he doesn’t actually follow the sane consensus on religious belief that the voter assumes is universal in this country.  But those past statements don’t make the case for you.  You have to make the case, and that’s tough to do without coming across as intolerant of religion, which is why our side isn’t making that effort.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s still odds on that the other side will lose, and the bishop hasn’t helped them at all, probably dragged them down a bit.  But his religion isn’t what’s done that, certainly not as some decisive factor.  I don’t see him adding anything for them, and he’s therefore a wasted opportunity because they could have someone in that slot who does help them.

  • despite massive corruption. In a line that brought laughter from the crowd, he said that “we have found out about these indiscretions, so something obviously worked.” WTF? Also, according to crazy EW, all we need is good, ethical people, and then we wouldn’t need any stinkin’ ethics laws. Again, WTF?  Ralph Northam, in contrast, provided a serious answer, calling for much tougher ethics laws. Huge contrast between the two candidates on this one.

  • 1. Ralph Northam opposes a “personhood” amendment (which would criminalize in vitro fertilization and most forms of contraception, plus abortion), the “transvaginal” (or abdominal) ultrasound mandate, the “TRAP” laws (which target women’s health clinics and have already caused a couple to shut down), the “criminalize miscarriage” bill (that Mark Obenshain sponsored, would have required women to report miscarriages to the police within 24 hours). In stark contrast, EW Jackson supports all those things, says he is “unabashedly pro-life,” but has VERY little to say in the debate on an area that he’s spent enormous amounts of his time and energy over the years. Fascinating, huh? Again, the guy’s a con man.

    2. On gun violence, Jackson basically says the answer is having more good guys with guns, says criminals will always get guns, and basically that there should be ZERO laws to limit guns or make them safer in any way. In contrast, Ralph Northam says we need to agree that “gun violence is a problem” here in Virginia, and that we need to sit down and figure out how to deal with it. “There are a lot of things we need to do to decrease gun violence” in Virginia.

    3. On transportation, Northam supports providing funding to fix the situation, Jackson opposes it.

  • 1. Ralph Northam opposes a “personhood” amendment (which would criminalize in vitro fertilization and most forms of contraception, plus abortion), the “transvaginal” (or abdominal) ultrasound mandate, the “TRAP” laws (which target women’s health clinics and have already caused a couple to shut down), the “criminalize miscarriage” bill (that Mark Obenshain sponsored, would have required women to report miscarriages to the police within 24 hours). In stark contrast, EW Jackson supports all those things, says he is “unabashedly pro-life,” but has VERY little to say in the debate on an area that he’s spent enormous amounts of his time and energy over the years. Fascinating, huh? Again, the guy’s a con man.

    2. On gun violence, Jackson basically says the answer is having more good guys with guns, says criminals will always get guns, and basically that there should be ZERO laws to limit guns or make them safer in any way. In contrast, Ralph Northam says we need to agree that “gun violence is a problem” here in Virginia, and that we need to sit down and figure out how to deal with it. “There are a lot of things we need to do to decrease gun violence” in Virginia.

    3. On transportation, Northam supports providing funding to fix the situation, Jackson opposes it.

  • 1. Jackson the usual Republican talking points about cutting corporate taxes (e.g., helping the wealthy and well connected, screwing the middle class), cutting regulations (e.g., letting polluters run amok), etc. Also note that he never says how he’s replace the revenue lost in cutting corporate taxes. In contrast, Northam notes that Virginia is constitutionally mandated to balance its budget; that we’ve already cut $6 billion out of an $80 billion budget; that these cuts affect education, health care, first responders, etc; and that what he will be as Lt. Governor is “fiscally responsible.” Northam also notes that he runs a business and knows what balancing a budget is all about. Northam notes that Jackson’s plan to slash the corporate income tax would “literally bankrupt the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

    2. Northam strongly supports expanding Medicaid in Virginia. The three pillars of health care are quality, access, and cost. We need to address cost, and that requires that people have coverage and not be forced to go to the emergency room, which is incredibly expensive. Medicaid expansion will open up coverage to “400,000 hard-working Virginians.” Northam points out that 100% of the money for Medicaid expansion comes from the federal government for the first 3 years, and that if we don’t use it, it will go other states. In contrast, Jackson opposes Medicaid expansion, claims it’s not the way to cover poor people, complains about the federal government, blah blah blah, but offers NO ALTERNATIVE. Zero. None. He laughably claims that “free clinics” can handle health care for hundreds of thousands of Virginians’ catastrophic care, operations, etc. That’s just insane. He also outright lies by claiming that somehow we are talking about turning healthcare over to the federal government, when in fact “Obamacare” actually entrenches and expands the number of Americans receiving private, for-profit health insurance. Not surprising, since “Obamacare” is nearly identical to “Romneycare” and the 1993 Republican alternative to “Hillarycare” (also worth noting is that the “individual mandate” is a conservative idea). Of course, Jackson doesn’t mention any of that, as it doesn’t fit his wildly false narrative.

    3. On mental illness, Jackson gives one of his most outrageous answers – basically, throw them into institutions. Of course, even if you agree with that, he offers no money to pay for it. Instead, he talks about “getting the community involved.” What on earth? We’re going to have volunteers institutionalizing mentally ill people in Virginia? Wow. Northam nails him: “I’m sorry that you have people in your family that are mentally ill, but how sad to think that you would go visit them in an institution. We can do better than that here in the Commonwealth…the answer is not to put them into an institution, and again if you want to talk about ringing the cash register, that’s the way to do it my friend.” Northam adds that we need to address gun violence, and that includes better mental health care.