Home Blog Page 2071

atast

By
blue bronc
-
0

astat

Monday News: “Fall of the House of Bush;” Virginia Budget Does Not Expand Medicaid — #FAIL

By
lowkell
-
16

by Lowell

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Monday, February 22. Also, check out The Simpsons

Predictions for the March 1 Virginia Primary: Trump and Clinton

By
lowkell
-
4

It’s amazing, but with the South Carolina GOP primary in the rear-view mirror, we’re now getting really close (eight full days to go) until March 1 and “Super Tuesday,” when voters in a slew of states, including Virginia, head to the polls. With that, here are my fearless predictions for the Democratic and Republican primaries in Virginia.

Democrats: There have been two recent Virginia 2016 polls (by CNU and PPP), and both show Hillary Clinton well ahead of Bernie Sanders (12 points in the CNU poll; 22 points in the PPP poll). Also note that in Virginia, Clinton leads Sanders by 58 points among African Americans, who make up something like 34% of the likely Democratic primary electorate according to PPP. There’s your “fire wall” right there. Finally, there’s the support for Clinton from Governor McAuliffe, Senators Kaine and Warner and the vast majority of elected officials in Virginia. Combine all that, and it should be “game set match” for Hillary Clinton to win Virginia by a comfortable margin (15-20 points?) on March 1. Oh, and if Clinton can rack up a “yuge” Super Tuesday, which is highly likely, and a strong month of March in general, she will be well on her way to the nomination, if she hasn’t clinched it outright.

Republicans: This one is tougher to predict, given that there’s been only one public poll of Virginia Republicans in 2016 (one by CNU on February 16 — after Iowa and New Hampshire, but before South Carolina’s primary yesterday). That one poll had Donald Trump leading with 28% of the vote, followed closely by Marco Rubio (22%) and Ted Cruz (19%), with other candidates basically left in the dust (John Kasich and Ben Carson at 7% each; former candidate “JEB” Bush at a pathetic 4%). With “JEB” withdrawing from the race, his 4% is now up for grabs and…yeah, who cares.

Anyway, so let’s say Trump gets around 30%-35% of the vote in Virginia, similar to how he did in NH and SC. And let’s say Kasich and Carson get around 7% each. That adds up to 44%-49% of the vote to be divided between the other two remaining candidates, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. And therein lies the problem for anyone not named “Donald Trump”; the egomaniacal demagogue and bigot can keep winning with 30%-35% if he’s got two fairly evenly matched main competitors (Cruz and Rubio) splitting up that 44%-49%. And unless one of those guys (Cruz or Rubio) pulls away from the other one, getting around 35% of the vote (and leaving the other one with just 9%-14%), then Trump wins. Given that I don’t see either Rubio or Cruz pulling out or collapsing by March 1, and also that both have solid cores of strength in Virginia (and other states), I’m betting on Cruz and Rubio running close to each other here in Virginia. Bottom line: Virginia’s GOP primary on March 1 is likely to go for Donald Trump, with Rubio and Cruz battling it out for second place, and Kasich and Carson mostly afterthoughts.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem for Republicans horrified at the prospect of Trump as their nominee: by the time either Cruz or Rubio drop out of the race (also note that Carson’s presence in the race tends to hurt Cruz and Kasich’s presence tends to hurt Rubio, so hopes of stopping Trump assume that Carson and Kasich drop out soon), it might be too late to stop Trump. I mean, look at the list of upcoming GOP primaries and caucuses and tell me where Trump loses, assuming both Cruz and Rubio stay in the race? Heck, Cruz this morning wouldn’t even guarantee he’ll win his home state of Texas on March 1, and it’s quite possible that Rubio won’t win Florida (“winner take all”) on March 12. Which would mean, again, a likely Trump nomination. Yet again, it’s hard to see either Cruz or Rubio pulling out of the race anytime soon, let alone throwing their support to the other one. Which means we may actually see how many Republicans will hold to their vows to support the party’s nominee, even if it’s Donald Trump. Should be interesting!

Lori Haas Explains Why Gov. McAuliffe’s Gun Deal with the NRA is Sorely Lacking

By
lowkell
-
3

There are a lot of bad actors involved in Virginia politics, but fortunately there are also a few great ones. One of those is Lori Haas, the Virginia state director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, whose daughter Emily was shot twice, but fortunately survived, the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. By all accounts, Lori Haas is also one of the most respected people in Virginia when it comes to the issue of gun violence prevention. That respect is well deserved, as Lori is hard working, knowledgeable, level headed, and reasonable. Which is why when Lori talks, people should – and do! – listen to what Lori has to say.

That brings me to the point of this column, which is to highlight Lori’s op-ed in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch (“What’s missing from the governor’s gun deal?“). I strongly recommend that you read the entire op-ed, but here are a few key points that jumped out at me.

  1. The decision by Attorney General Mark Herring on “concealed carry reciprocity” with other states, far from being some kind of rogue action by an out-of-control, anti-gun AG, was actually (as Lori Haas points out) was actually a move “to enforce existing law and rescind reciprocity agreements with states that were putting armed individuals with a history of violence on our streets.” That move came after many years in which previous Virginia AGs “ignored the law and signed reciprocity agreements with 30 states whose standards failed to meet these requirements in Virginia code.” Which is outrageous, when you think about it, and should be troubling to anyone who cares about the rule of law.
  2. Gov. McAuliffe’s gun deal with the NRA, which followed AG Herring’s long-overdue enforcement of Virginia law: “not only repeal[ed] Herring’s decision but also allow[ed] blanket reciprocity with all 49 others states, many of which fall well short of the requirements in Virginia code.” It even allowed “Virginia residents who are unable to obtain a concealed handgun permit in the commonwealth to go out of state to get a permit and carry on our streets!”
  3. As for the part of the deal with the NRA dealing with protective orders, Haas notes that “making firearm possession prohibitory for those under a permanent protective order for family abuse…is laudable but does nothing to address the nine other types of protective orders in Virginia,” nor is any process “defined for abusers to safely dispose of firearms, and no direction is given to law enforcement to seize weapons when abusers refuse to relinquish them.”
  4. With regard to voluntary background checks at gun shows, Haas says this “is hardly worth mentioning,” and that instead Gov. McAuliffe “should have fought for mandatory universal background checks on private sales, a wildly popular policy supported by 88 percent of Virginians, according to a recent poll from Christopher Newport University.”
  5. Finally, as for the ridiculous talking point by McAuliffe’s team that this must be a good deal because “both sides are unhappy” (or words to that effect), Haas points out that the “glee the radical NRA and Virginia Citizens Defense League have expressed about this deal, as opposed to the anger and disappointment of gun violence prevention advocates, is a dead giveaway that McAuliffe did not get the best public safety package he could have.”

Now, I’m well aware that Gov. McAuliffe and his team have been putting tremendous pressure on Democrats to fall in line over this deal with the NRA, at least with regard to the protective orders piece. And to be clear, I have no serious problem with McAuliffe signing the bills dealing with protective orders and even the toothless voluntary background checks piece. As for the reciprocity piece, though, McAuliffe absolutely should veto that legislation and support his Attorney General’s enforcement of Virginia law 100%. If nothing else, it will be great to watch both the NRA’s “glee” and the “anger and disappointment of gun violence prevention advocates” disappear.

 

Sunday News: “The GOP’s Three-Headed Monster”; “Virginia’s Cavalier Attitude Towards Ethics”

By
lowkell
-
7

by Lowell

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Sunday, February 21.

Clinton Wins Nevada Caucuses: Open Thread

By
lowkell
-
7

With this win, and with likely big wins for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina next Saturday and in the “Super Tuesday” states on March 1, it’s looking good right now for Clinton (also note that this is a big victory for Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook). On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has plenty of resources – money, enthusiastic supporters, etc. – to continue for a while. And certainly Sanders has helped to change the conversation, the narrative of this campaign, in an overwhelmingly positive way if you ask me. Anyway, feel free to discuss the Nevada caucuses or whatever other 2016 presidential political stuff (including tonight’s South Carolina GOP primary results) you’re interested in.

UPDATE 7:30 PM: Trump projected by AP, CBS, etc. to win South Carolina. The big questions now are who finishes second and when “JEB” drops out.

“Oil-spill fine, if any, to be negotiated between Virginia and Dominion Power.” SERIOUSLY???

By
lowkell
-
4

Unless I’m reading the following (see below) wrong, the Code of Virginia (Article 11: Discharge of Oil Into Waters)  calls for potentially harsh civil – and even criminal – penalties for those who “knowingly and willfully” or “negligently discharges or negligently causes or permits such discharge” oil into Virginia waters. Same thing for anyone who “who knowingly or willfully makes any false statement, representation or certification in any application, record, report, plan or other document filed or required to be maintained by this article or by administrative or judicial order issued under this article.”

Note that in a February 4 Washington Post story on Dominion Power’s January 24 spill of 13,000 gallons of oil from its Crystal City substation into the Potomac River, a spokesperson for Dominion “said there is no evidence that the oil in the river involved the utility.” {LIE?) Also note that in this February 12 Washington Post story, “Dominion [still] insisted that it had cleaned up 95 percent of the January spill, and the rest was believed to be contained within machinery at the site.” (BALD-FACED LIE?) Given all that, why is it that today’s Washington Post headline informs us that “Oil-spill fine, if any, to be negotiated between Virginia and Dominion Power.” I mean, seriously? The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is actually saying, “It’s a civil penalty, and under state law, it has to be negotiated. . . . The maximum fine is $100 per gallon?” Is Virginia really as pathetic and weak as that when it comes to punishing environmental destruction by powerful companies like Dominion? Hmmmm.

P.S. Check out this bill by Del. Alfonso Lopez, defeated by Republicans in the House of Delegates, which would have required the following seeming no-brainers: “any person who unlawfully discharges any deleterious substance into state waters to notify the State Water Control Board (the Board), the Department of Environmental Quality (the Department), or the coordinator of emergency services of the affected locality within 12 hours. Current law allows such a person 24 hours to give notice. The bill also requires that written notice follow to the Board, in addition to the Department, and specifies that the required report of potentially detrimental discharges by the Board or the Department to local newspapers, television stations, and radio stations be provided to such media outlets as soon as practicable after receiving it.” Why wasn’t this done by Dominion? Also, why has there still been no word from officials of Arlington County, where the spill originated, nearly four weeks later?!?

§ 62.1-44.34:20. Enforcement and penalties.

A. Upon a finding of a violation of this article or a regulation or term or condition of approval issued pursuant to this article, the Board is authorized to issue a special order requiring any person to cease and desist from causing or permitting such violation or requiring any person to comply with any such provision, regulation or term or condition of approval. Such special orders shall be issued only after notice and an opportunity for hearing except that, if the Board finds that any discharge in violation of this article poses a serious threat to (i) the public health, safety or welfare or the health of animals, fish, botanic or aquatic life; (ii) a public water supply; or (iii) recreational, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other reasonable uses, the Board may issue, without advance notice or hearing, an emergency special order requiring the operator of any facility, vehicle or vessel to cease such discharge immediately, to implement any applicable contingency plan and to effect containment and cleanup. Such emergency special order may also require the operator of a facility to modify or cease regular operation of the facility, or any portion thereof, until the Board determines that continuing regular operation of the facility, or such portion thereof, will not pose a substantial threat of additional or continued discharges. The Board shall affirm, modify, amend or cancel any such emergency order after providing notice and opportunity for hearing to the operator charged with the violation. The notice of the hearing and the emergency order shall be issued at the same time. If an operator who has been issued such a special order or an emergency special order is not complying with the terms thereof, the Board may proceed in accordance with subsection B of this section, and where the order is based on a finding of an imminent and substantial danger, the court shall issue an injunction compelling compliance with the emergency special order pending a hearing by the Board. If an emergency special order requires modification or cessation of operations, the Board shall provide an opportunity for a hearing within 48 hours of the issuance of the injunction.

B. In the event of a violation of this article or a regulation, administrative or judicial order, or term or condition of approval issued under this article, or in the event of failure to comply with a special order issued by the Board pursuant to this section, the Board is authorized to proceed by civil action to obtain an injunction of such violation, to obtain such affirmative equitable relief as is appropriate and to recover all costs, damages and civil penalties resulting from such violation or failure to comply. The Board shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in any action in which it is a prevailing party.

C. Any person who violates or causes or permits to be violated a provision of this article, or a regulation, administrative or judicial order, or term or condition of approval issued under this article, shall be subject to a civil penalty for each such violation as follows:

1. For failing to obtain approval of an oil discharge contingency plan as required by § 62.1-44.34:15, not less than $1,000 nor more than $50,000 for the initial violation, and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter;

2. For failing to maintain evidence of financial responsibility as required by § 62.1-44.34:16, not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation, and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter;

3. For discharging or causing or permitting a discharge of oil into or upon state waters, or owning or operating any facility, vessel or vehicle from which such discharge originates in violation of § 62.1-44.34:18, up to $100 per gallon of oil discharged;

4. For failing to cooperate in containment and cleanup of a discharge as required by § 62.1-44.34:18 or for failing to report a discharge as required by § 62.1-44.34:19, not less than $1,000 nor more than $50,000 for the initial violation, and $10,000 for each day of violation thereafter; and

5. For violating or causing or permitting to be violated any other provision of this article, or a regulation, administrative or judicial order, or term or condition of approval issued under this article, up to $32,500 for each violation. Each day of violation of each requirement shall constitute a separate offense.

D. Civil penalties may be assessed under this article either by a court in an action brought by the Board pursuant to this section, as specified in § 62.1-44.15, or with the consent of the person charged, in a special order issued by the Board. All penalties shall be paid into the state treasury and deposited by the State Treasurer into the Virginia Underground Petroleum Storage Tank Fund as established in § 62.1-44.34:11. In determining the amount of any penalty, consideration shall be given to the willfulness of the violation, any history of noncompliance, the actions of the person in reporting, containing and cleaning up any discharge or threat of discharge, the damage or injury to state waters or the impairment of their beneficial use, the cost of containment and cleanup, the nature and degree of injury to or interference with general health, welfare and property, and the available technology for preventing, containing, reducing or eliminating the discharge.

E. Any person who knowingly violates, or causes or permits to be violated, a provision of this article, or a regulation, administrative or judicial order, or term or condition of approval issued under this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $100,000, either or both. Any person who knowingly or willfully makes any false statement, representation or certification in any application, record, report, plan or other document filed or required to be maintained by this article or by administrative or judicial order issued under this article shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one nor more than three years and a fine of not more than $100,000, either or both. In the case of a discharge of oil into or upon state waters:

1. Any person who negligently discharges or negligently causes or permits such discharge shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $50,000, either or both.

2. Any person who knowingly and willfully discharges or knowingly and willfully causes or permits such discharge shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $100,000, either or both.

F. Each day of violation of each requirement shall constitute a separate offense. In the event the violation of this article follows a prior felony conviction under subdivision E 2 of this section, such violation shall constitute a felony and shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $200,000, either or both.

G. Upon conviction for a violation of any provision of this article, or a regulation, administrative or judicial order, or term or condition of approval issued under this article, a defendant who is not an individual shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding the greater of:

1. $1 million; or

2. An amount that is three times the economic benefit, if any, realized by the defendant as a result of the offense.

Saturday News: SC and NV Vote; Trump Gives GOP Voters What They Really Want

By
lowkell
-
0

by Lowell

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Saturday, February 20.

My Two Cents: #Humphrey #Mondale #Gore #Kerry #Clinton2008

By
KathyinBlacksburg
-
4

There are few artificial constructs as specious, manipulative and deceptive as the ever-present BS term “electability.” It was pitched in 1968, yet the “electable” and “inevitable” Humphrey lost. He lost despite many of us holding our noses and supporting him anyway. Yet time and again the electability myth was used to shut down any well-thought-out or heartfelt support of an alternative candidate. (Don’t vote your heart, they argue. Vote your fears.)

The myth was pitched again in 1984 when the most “electable” Democrat (Walter Mondale) lost. We got a steady diet of it in 2000 (Al Gore) and 2004 (John Kerry). We lost again, twice. We did so, I might add, with nearly every Democrat I knew at the time stumbling all over themselves to flee the Howard Dean campaign to support the more “electable” Kerry. (“et tu Brute.”) At some point you have to ask, when will our party learn?

Electability is a hypothetical construct conceived in gaming a candidate’s chances of winning. The thing is that all the early data is biased–by cognitive biases, such as familiarity, and heuristics. You do not know who is electable until the votes are counted. But although electability is nothing more than a fiction. It can be used to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. This is what Hillary Clinton pins her hopes to, creating that self-fulfilling prophesy, her version of inevitability The thing is she does it against all evidence, the evidence that Hillary’s numbers tend to fall rather than rise and the evidence of her heavy negatives. The Clinton campaign tried this before in 2008. And lest anyone forget, she lost! Yep, President Obama was oh so “un-electable,” wasn’t he, twice!

Based on all the evidence, Hillary Clinton is not more electable than Bernie Sanders. Do I have to embolden this? And she is making all the same 2008 mistakes again in 2016. By the way, Sanders is an FDR-style candidate making the FDR-style case Democrats should have been making for the past 70 years. Need I remind you that FDR won THREE FOUR times. Count ’em–threefour.

Points of Strategy for the Scalia Replacement Battle

By
Andy Schmookler
-
2

In a few days, I will be posting a piece that argues that –with their unprecedented declaration of their unwillingness to allow the president of the United States to name a justice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court — the GOP has provided us a most opportune battlefield. Refusing not just this nominee or that, but ANY nominee.

It is opportune, I will argue, both because the stakes are so high (control of the Court) that it warrants bringing all our forces to bear, and because this egregious Republican move opens a door that exposes the GOP for the atrocity it has become — an exposure that could do wonders for Democratic chances in this election year.

In the meanwhile –taking it as a given that this is a battle well worth fighting — I would like to make three points about what the strategy for this fight should be on the liberal side.

1) No one on the liberal side should talk as if it is a fait accompli that the Republicans will not confirm any nominee from President Obama.

I’ve heard some liberals speaking as if of course anyone the president sends up will be an automatic non-starter. Of course, the Republicans will block any appointment. That kind of talk is deadly to the cause. It accepts what must be continually portrayed as unacceptable.

The Republican position is outrageous, and talk about it should be infused with outrage. The public’s attention should be relentlessly focused on the point that this conduct is unprecedented, that it violates American political norms and traditions, and that the Republicans will disgrace themselves if they prevent the Senate from doing what the Senate has always done.

To the extent that any mention is made of the possibility that the Republicans will not repent and do the right thing, the talk should be about how this naked power grab — this refusal to accept what the voters decided when they re-elected this president in 2012 — should be punished by the American people at the ballot box in November.

2) The liberal side – both the political leaders and the activist public – should not confine its demands to holding hearings and casting votes. It should insist also that this president, like every president before him, gets a person nominated by him on the Court.

Insisting only on hearings and a vote would be a grievous error, enabling the Republicans to succeed in their original nefarious intention. Why limit the demands in a way that would allow them to conduct a sham, going through the motions of a confirmation process with the foreordained outcome that the vacancy will remain unfilled in order to give the Republicans a chance to get their own guy into the White House? The demands should include acceptable results in fidelity to the enduring American tradition.

The position should be that while the Republicans have the right to reject a specific nominee for appropriate reasons – as the Democrats rejected Robert Bork for being on the extreme fringe of conservative jurisprudence – they do not have the right to reject all nominees just because they don’t want this president to be able to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and powers.

If President Obama puts forward a worthy person, the Senate is obliged (even if not legally required) to confirm—just as has been the practice throughout American history, including recent times, when (quoting now from an article on slate) “majority-Democratic Senates confirmed John Paul Stevens, William Rehnquist, and Anthony Kennedy after nominations by Republican presidents that were made less than a year before an election.”

The mantra should be: The president has always been allowed to fill such vacancies, and there is no legitimate reason why this president should now be denied this right.

All public attention should be focused on the question: is the person President Obama has nominated worthy of confirmation?

3) This focus has important implications for whom the president should nominate: President Obama should nominate that mainstream liberal jurist whom the public will see as most clearly worthy of being confirmed.

Pundits have laid out a variety of ways the President should go. One of the main directions has been that he could put forward a nominee from some historically under-represented group like women, or Latino, or African-American. The idea is that this could fire up of some part or other of the base to come out and vote in November.

I think going that route would be a big mistake.

President Obama has already placed two women on the Court, one of them of Puerto Rican background. At the same time, the Republicans are in the process of alienating all those under-represented groups so flagrantly that it should easy enough for the Democrats to motivate them to go to the polls in the coming elections.

Obama’s strongest move would be a gesture not toward some minority group, but to the broadest American public. For it is that broad public who will decide the outcome of this battle — either by compelling the Republicans to relent, or in punishing the Republicans in the elections.

The purpose of President’s Obama’s choice should be to maximize the number of people who will be offended if the Republicans fail to confirm.

My advice to the president, therefore, is this: nominate the most impressive, moderately liberal white male jurist available.

In the present battle, playing for minority votes would be counter-productive. It would put the nomination into the dynamic playing out in America, where whites – and especially white males — are having to adjust to an America in which their historic dominance is slipping away.

The most impressive possible, moderately liberal white male jurist will do the most to compel the Republicans either to allow a good Obama nominee onto the bench, or to suffer maximal political damage in the elections (for control of the White House, and of the Senate) in punishment for their obstructionism.

I expect that some will objective that historically the white male has been massively over-represented on the Court and other positions of power in America. But we are now in a particular situation – a conflict in which the stakes are enormously high – and the important thing here is to end up with a Court that breaks the conservative dominance over the Supreme Court, which has already done so much damage to the nation, and to punish the Republicans for their ongoing outrageous and unprecedented behavior.

 

1...2,0702,0712,072...3,457Page 2,071 of 3,457












EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©