It’s getting rough down there in Virginia’s 10th State Senate district between Alex McMurtrie and Dan Gecker. All the more reason to vote for Emily Francis in the Democratic primary on Tuesday, especially given that she’s the only true progressive and environmentalist in this race!

If you don’t read Greater Greater Washington (GGW), you definitely should; that is, if you care about transportation and growth – smart or not – in this region. In short, GGW is a “great” blog, although of course it could be even “greater,” to paraphrase their own slogan. Heh. 😉

Anyway, GGW’s “Virginia-based contributors” have some thoughts (although not GGW endorsements) up on Tuesday’s “Democratic primaries for Arlington County Board, Alexandria mayor, two Fairfax supervisor seats, and the 45th legislative district.” Here are a few highlights.

*I strongly agree with this: “[Arlington County Board members] John Vihstadt, fellow member Libby Garvey, and their political backer Peter Rousselot have built their political bases by criticizing county spending on a wide range of infrastructure projects. Perhaps some initiatives were unnecessary or overly expensive, but Arlington now needs board members who can articulate a vision to make the county better instead of simply doing less.” I urge all Arlington Democrats to think about when they go to the polls on Tuesday, and to NOT support any candidate in the Vihstadt/Garvey camp. The danger, as GGW puts it, is that Vihstadt/Garvey could gain an ally in “halting investment in the county’s future rather than continuing the kinds of policies which have made Arlington County a national model for sustainable growth.” That would be, to put it mildly, not good. Not good at all.

*For Arlington County Board, GGW’s Chris Slatt writes that “Peter Fallon and Katie Cristol are both solid pro-smart-growth candidates,” that Andrew Schneider “turned in some of the most spot-on answers in a cycling issues questionnaire, but he has taken some potentially anti-transit positions,” and that Christian Dorsey is “a passionate, compelling candidate but has the support of Peter Rousselot (publicly) and Libby Garvey (privately), which is troubling.”

*For Mayor of Alexandria, an unnamed GGW contributor says that Allison Silberberg’s “votes have been anti-growth of any kind, even to the point of voting against an Alzheimer’s care facility on busy Route 7 between a cemetery and a nursing home.” GGW says that Bill Euille “appears to strike the right balance between listening to citizen input and getting things done,” but adds that it’s possible “Donley and Euille will split the pro-growth, smart growth, fiscally responsible vote and that both will lose.” Another contributor, Jonathan Krall, says his “friends in the bicycling community…are supporting Donley,” in part due to “Euille’s abandonment of the Royal Street bike boulevard project, and Silberberg’s weak support on bicycling issues.”

*GGW doesn’t really come down on the Mason district supervisor’s race, but notes controversy over “a county plan [that] would transform Seven Corners’ big-box stores and giant parking lots into mixed-use, walkable (though perhaps only marginally transit-oriented) urban villages.”

*GGW also doesn’t take a stand on the Mt. Vernon district supervisor’s race, but asks: “Will Route 1/Richmond Highway remain a traffic sewer flanked with strip malls that divides communities? Can it be a chain of real places with real transit?” Good questions.

*Finally, for the 45th House of Delegates race, GGW contributor Jonathan Krall correctly observes that “biking, walking, transit, smart growth, etc.” were not discussed much at debates, adding that “Larry Altenburg, Mark Levine, and [Clarence] Tong lost points with me by suggesting that traffic congestion should be addressed rather than made irrelevant by adding transit.”

Personally, I wish we had heard a lot more discussion about smart growth and transit-oriented development in these campaigns. What I do not particularly want to hear more discussion about, though, is stuff that we have little if any control over, such as extending Metro (which will require Congressional funding — good luck with that!). I also could do without talk of widening roads, unless it’s done specifically to put in rail or possibly BRT, as well as bike lanes and sidewalks. Because as a gazillion studies have shown, adding more roads (or widening existing ones) not only doesn’t solve problems, it creates a lot MORE problems.  

You’ve got to love it when one right-wing extremist nut endorses another right-wing extremist nut. In this case, it’s 2013 Republican Attorney General nominee, Sen. Mark Obenshain endorsing Sen. Steve Martin for reelection. First, why do I call them right-wing extremist nuts? Sen. Obenshain, of course, is infamous for sponsoring legislation that would have required women to register a miscarriage with the police. As if that’s not insane enough, Obenshain also “voted in favor of the 2012 transvaginal ultrasound bill” and “Co-Patroned the ‘Personhood’ bill that would outlaw all abortion and many common forms of birth control.” Most disturbingly, it’s quite possible that Obenshain will run again, in 2017, for Attorney General of Virginia. Shuddderrr.  

As for the guy he endorsed, Sen. Steve Martin, he’s even worse than Obenshain if that’s possible. In addition to supporting the same far-right-wing stuff as Obenshain, Sen. Martin is also known for outlandish, extreme and even bigoted comments like:

*Virginia GOP Sen. Steve Martin Calls Women “the child’s host (some refer to them as mothers)”

*Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin: Muslim Americans Shouldn’t be Protected by U.S. Constitution

*“Child’s Host” State Senator: Torture Justified “no matter what body parts are lost in the process”

So yeah, Martin is “out there” — far, far “out there.” And so is Obenshain, who just endorsed him for reelection (see below for “highlights”). Yet more evidence of why we all need to make sure if Obenshain runs again statewide in 2017, that he loses badly. You can also support April Moore, Obenshain’s Democratic opponent THIS year.

I write to you today to ask for your support of my good friend Steve Martin’s re-election campaign. Steve has stood with me and other conservatives in the Senate time and time again, fighting hard for our shared conservative values and principles. He has always been someone that conservatives can count on to get the job done and take the principled stance.

…Steve has championed the family values we hold dear and has played a key role in promoting commonsense, conservative solutions. He has been a leader on education reform and stood by my side last session in advancing my constitutional amendment, which has the opportunity to open up access to charter schools for thousands of Virginia’s students.

Steve is also someone we can trust to ensure fiscal responsibility is being exercised in Richmond. He has stood in staunch opposition to every tax increase proposal and has fought hard for tax relief for working Virginia families. Steve has also been a leader in the fight against Obamacare and Medicaid Expansion. He was the chief patron of Virginia’s Healthcare Freedom Act, which enabled Virginia to file suit against the federal government.

Charming, huh?  

Bernie Taps into a Something Deep in America

The news people have noticed that Bernie Sanders is attracting crowds bigger and more enthusiastic than they’d have predicted. What’s happening here, they’ve wondered?

My hypothesis is that Bernie Sanders is tapping into something deep and strong in the American electorate: a desire to fight back against the Big Money power that’s been stealing wealth and power from the American people.

Bernie Sanders is speaking truth about several profound issues about which growing numbers of Americans are unhappily aware.

That the middle class is being hollowed out, while the rich get richer, is something they experience in their daily lives.

This is what Bernie Sanders has called the great moral, economic, and political issue of our times.

That money has become too powerful in our politics is something that, according to a poll just out from the New York Times and CBS, some 84% of the American people recognize.

Bernie Sanders has declared his intention to deal with the corruption of our democracy by money, including overturning the Supremes’ disgraceful Citizens United decision.

That climate change constitutes a crisis we are morally obliged to deal with responsibly is something that growing numbers of people – including a small majority of Republicans (according to a recent national poll) – acknowledge.

Bernie Sanders is speaking plainly about this, too.

And on all these issues, Bernie Sanders is credible, having been consistent over the years on these positions. And he is articulate and he is passionate.

With these pieces all in alignment, it seems entirely reasonable to believe that the response to Bernie Sanders – seen in these big crowds in Vermont, Iowa, and Minnesota – represents the beginnings of what could become a “movement.”

There is a hunger in America that could express itself through the candidacy of this straight-talking Senator.

The Challenge to Hillary Clinton

Maybe this “movement” will become so powerful as to overcome Hillary Clinton’s great advantages, and secure the Democratic nomination. But I would not bet on it.

But even without a victory at the convention, if the Sanders campaign does become a “movement,” that in itself will be something with which Hillary will have to contend.

The question will be, when/if Hillary becomes the nominee, how much of the enthusiasm of that movement will transfer to her?

A more extreme version of Hillary’s challenge is found in the Democratic presidential politics of 1968. That year, the central issue was Vietnam, and the “movement” that arose to oppose that war lined up first behind Senator Eugene McCarthy and then also behind Bobby Kennedy.

The candidate who got the nomination was Hubert Humphrey, the vice-president to LBJ, the president whose decisions had done the most to give us the disaster that was that war.

For Humphrey, the challenge was to appeal to the part of the party where all the deep enthusiasm lay, while also not betraying the president and the party establishment that were giving him the nomination. His success at meeting that challenge was very limited, and in an extremely close election, he lost to Richard Nixon-and the war ground on for another terrible seven years.

There are important differences between 1968 and today.

1) It is not clear that the passions surrounding inequality and the theft of our democracy are as widespread and intense as those surrounding a war into which America’s youth were being drafted to kill and die for what looked like for no good reason.

2) Primaries in 1968 determined only a minority of the delegates to the convention, so it was still possible for the likes of LBJ, John Connally of Texas, and Mayor Daly in Chicago to decide the nominee in the backroom, disregarding the preferences expressed by citizens in the primary process.

3) And Hillary is not so inextricably tied to the problem of inequality as Humphrey was to the war.

Nonetheless, Hillary’s politics have hardly been the populism of Bernie Sanders. She has strong ties to Wall Street, and she has bridges that she presumably is not eager to burn. She does face the Humphrey danger: that those whose enthusiasm may be essential to her success in a general election may see her more as part of the problem than as part of the solution.

So, assuming that the Bernie Movement continues to gather strength, it will be interesting to see in the coming months how good Hillary is at adopting – or co-opting – those issues that Bernie is using to tap into the political passion that is now becoming visible.

Will she be convincing in representing herself as someone who will fight against inequality in wealth and power-convincing enough so that, if she finally secures the nomination, the followers of Bernie are glad to rally around her to defeat the Republicans?

Will she be convincing in representing herself as someone who will lead strongly on the issue of climate change?

On both scores, her own history is mixed. So making that sale will require conveying real conviction, and not just words.

Far more than just Hillary Clinton’s fate may depend on how well she succeeds at meeting that challenge. Today’s Republicans make Richard Nixon look responsible, and this nation can ill afford having any of these Republican candidates, leading today’s atrocious Republican Party, become president.