Home Blog Page 2323

Obama’s Syrian Moves Deserve More Respect than They’re Getting

By
Andy Schmookler
-
0

( – promoted by lowkell)

I’m not saying that President Obama has played it masterfully. I’m not even claiming that his judgments have necessarily been basically right. Maybe they were, or maybe they weren’t. But his big decisions have been at least defensible, reasonable, plausible.

Yet, as this whole Syrian story has unfolded, Obama has gotten little respect, as if he did not measure up to the American standard for commanders-in-chief.  

The right –like John McCain– has been pounding Obama for many months for being a wuss for not jumping into the Syrian civil war in some way that would get us enmeshed and incur responsibility in a situation over which our control is dubious.  Maybe McCain and Co. are right, but after our experience with their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe the ability of these Republican hawks to fully foresee the consequences of involvement should not be assumed.

Maybe Obama’s restraint is wiser –better for the nation– than the path of action the Republicans have castigated him for not acting. That is as plausible as their case.

Maybe it was not best that the President drew that “red line” about the use of chemical weapons.  My guess is that he did it because the Republicans put him in a position where he felt the need to refute their “Obama’s a wuss on Syria” attack by showing that he’s ready to flex American muscle, but there’s got to be more of our interests involved than there were then.  Hence a red line beyond which…

Once that line got drawn –whether or not Obama should or shouldn’t have drawn it (and whether or not the Republicans basically pushed him into it with their latest version of the old Republican theme of only WE are manly enough to protect Americans and be the exceptional big guy in the world)– it created a reality that must be taken into account when, as has now happened, the Syrian regime so brazenly crossed it.  

Whether we like it or not, the failure of the President of the United States to back up his threat can have serious repercussions in terms of world stability.

American power is not always used in benign ways, certainly. But overall, if the credibility of American threats were to erode in any serious way, the world would be destabilized and would move, through a dangerous process, to a geopolitical order that would likely be worse for the world than what we have now. Think of who would fill the void, and what would happen if the void stays unfilled.

Neither we, or most of the rest of the world, will prefer a geo-political system where an American threat or promise lacks credibility.  (That may be especially true with respect to the very important goal of preventing any kind of war in the Middle East over the Iranian nuclear program.)

So it was also perfectly defensible –at least as likely to be the right move involving the use of American force as most of the uses we’ve had since World War II– for the president to call for a targeted, limited strike. Not to get involved, but not to let the nerve-gas massacre pass without consequences, either.

Even if President Obama’s decision is within the range of reasonable, some of the Republicans (and some of the same ones who have been beating him up for not striking harder and sooner) have attacked Obama as aggressive and reckless. And at the same time as a wuss– a wuss now for turning to Congress for approval. Not man enough to just outright hit the enemy and make the world conform to our will.

Too much of a wuss and too aggressive, too. Neat trick.

But coming to Congress was also a most defensible move. There was no urgency.  There’s no need for the president to bypass the notion that Congress is supposed to be involved in questions of war and peace, even if we no longer declare war (and haven’t since 1941).  So why not try to re-balance the powers some in an area that’s run too far toward an imperial presidency, especially as abused by George W. Bush?  And why not also further fortify that credibility of American words and power that the right would claim to care so much about by showing a united front?

Republicans would have every reason –as patriots– to rally together to underscore that though this nation is tired of war, we are united enough as a nation to be willing to back a president whose judgments are at least defensible, and are better than those of the last president who gave us two disastrous wars.

But of course, these Republicans have always been willing to put their quest for partisan advantage, by undermining Obama every way they can even at the cost of the nation’s being able to meet its challenges of all sorts. So why not also with this Syrian crisis?

Obama, however, bears responsibility also. He has not been able to get the American people to follow him. Partly it’s because the nation is understandably and properly tired of war. But part of it is also because this president has not held his own in our domestic war.

As a result of the Republicans’ war upon him, and his failure to deal with it effectively, enough Americans don’t see him in a way that disposes them to follow his leadership on this matter. There’s the 30 percent who hate him with a passion. And there’s the segment that has been taught to have no respect for him.

The media we now see piling on Obama, seeing in him no strength or clarity of purpose or clear game plan. Yes, maybe FDR would have managed the process better. But let’s remember how these media lionized the courageous and manly President George W. “Mission Accomplished” Bush as he led us into arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history.

So the president’s enemies in Congress get fortified how the winds of public opinion is blowing– blowing on them but on all the rest of Congress as well.

And finally, there’s the pivot to accommodate the Kerry/Russian idea. Arguably, this could be a real achievement for the administration, even if it was not planned. If it can be achieved that the consequence of Obama’s way of thoughtfully navigating this thing has had the unanticipated consequence of leading peaceful to the destruction of Syria’s supply of chemical weapons, that would be a better outcome than we’ve had with most of our forays into geo-politically important areas with our military or threat thereof.

The biggest effect of our long nightmare in Iraq, let’s not forget, has been the strengthening of Iran.  

But the involvement of the Russians is also used to portray Obama as failing in leadership.

So we watch as many of the Republicans get up on their high horses and speak disrespectfully of how Obama’s managed this crisis. After their disasters, one might hope for a bit of humility. But that implies a degree of moral integrity that is not part of the spirit that now runs the Republican Party. They’ve bungled one thing after another, left the nation in tatters in 2009, yet have not for a moment shown the slightest capacity for shame. Shame is not part of that spirit.

It just doesn’t give a damn, and so they’re no less willing to strut around and say how it should be done just because they made a hash of everything during Bush’s presidency.

In sum:  Obama’s done at least a decent, and perhaps even good, job navigating in a flexible and sensitive way the kind of decisions that we’ve not dealt with so well in recent years. But he’s faced with Republicans who damn him whatever he does, and a public that is not disposed to follow him.

Video: Robertson Rants About Church-State Separation Inviting Radical Muslim “Fifth Column” into US

By
lowkell
-
0

Here we go again with top Virginia GOP donor – Marion “Pat” Robertson – this time ranting insanely about Islam on the anniversary of 9/11. And, as always, I have yet to hear a SINGLE Virginia Republican condemn Robertson’s constant stream of bigotry. VERY telling!

…for the Western nations to welcome this fifth column [Muslims] into their midst is just committing suicide…The reason is they have lost their faith in God, they have lost their faith in Jesus Christ, they don’t believe in what the Bible says and the core values of our society have gone away…We’ve done it here in America, we’ve abolished prayer in the schools, we’ve taken out Bible-reading in the schools and little by little by little we’ve eroded the rights-we keep talking about separation and this that and the other.

$18K Repaid: Cuccinelli Can Now Write Own Epitaph

By
Goldmanusa
-
3

By Paul Goldman

In the movie “Gladiator,” the Russell Crowe character asks to be given a “soldier’s death,” befitting a General now considered a traitor by the new Emperor. At this crucial moment early in the film, he was on his knees, hands tied, a former soldier in the General’s army, but now protector of the Emperor about to cut off his former commander’s head with a giant sword. The soldier agrees with the General, setting up the scene where Crowe escapes, although destined to ultimately meet his death in a climactic scene loosely based on an alleged historical practice of the crazed Emperor.

An eon later, Ken Cuccinelli, the character running for Virginia Governor on the 2013 GOP ticket, is likewise kneeling before the grim reaper – albeit politically. Seduced by Larry Sabato and others telling him last Spring that he was a “sure” winner (apparently due to their skewed view of Terry’s “negatives”), Cuccinelli dismissed the truth that we were writing here on Blue Virginia: that Jonnie Williams might not bring down the Governor, but he would surely bring down Cuccinelli if the AG didn’t return the bad boy’s 18K in one form or fashion.

Based on newspaper accounts, it seems that Cuccinelli’s strategy team told him he didn’t have to return the gifts. Otherwise, why not do it? Anyone who has ever dreamed of running a political campaign for any office should know at least that much. Apparently not on Team Cuccinelli.

No question, figuring out how to run a winning campaign for Governor is hard, and in that regard, the chance of being brilliant is likely just a requirement to make a virtue out of a necessity. Most of the time the guy with the most money wins, because most of the time, the other guy doesn’t have the guts to run on a bold policy idea. In Virginia gubernatorial history, only Doug Wilder in 1989, Jim Gilmore in 1997 and Tim Kaine in 2005 risked it all on what might be seen as a bold policy. Wilder broke new ground on abortion policy in terms of a GUV race: but it was a matter of necessity, so who knows what happens if he hadn’t been down double digits. Gilmore’s “No Car Tax” was shrewd, as being against taxes always popular: but he still would have won without it due to George Allen’s popularity at the time. Kaine cleverly figured out how to turn his opposition to the death penalty into a plus (basically be against it morally but be okay with it in the Governor’s chair). But again, Warner had his back (and the Kigore campaign ran the “Hitler ads,” which backfired big time).

In that regard, Cuccinelli is like Wilder in 1989:  he has to do it on his own, no coattails, no General Sam Houston changing his mind and riding to the rescue of his political enemy Colonel Travis trapped at The Alamo (lot of politics there folks, don’t believe the John Wayne version totally). But Wilder had this advantage: if his issue worked, he had a statistical chance to win. Right now, Cuccinelli has no such potential winning issue. He is in the Godwin position of 1973: he needs the Democrat to mess up big time.

Meaning, as with Russell Crowe’s character, the GOP GUV guy has only one chance: ask for a “soldier’s death”. In political terms, this means running the rest of the campaign on the high road, championing an issue worthy of a candidate for Governor. There are any number of PACs and other entities who will attack Terry, whatever. If Terry screws up, then maybe he gives Cuccinelli an opening.  

But as for Cuccinelli and his campaign per se, they need to see these last weeks as his political epitaph, telling people what he would like them to remember about could have been. In these last few weeks, there is only time to get one issue across, and even then, it will take skill to do it. The mistakes of a year of botched campaigning can’t be erased in the time left.

There was a time when $18K donated to charity would have been worth political millions. This is not true now, especially the way it was (mis)handled: doing the about-face yesterday, when Cuccinelli knew the President intended to speak on Syria; not holding a press conference in every possible media market to announce it; not being able to simply make an honest, uncluttered apology; all tells me that he still feels a victim to a double standard. This means he still doesn’t get it. Same for his staff. As Laurie Morgan would ask them: what is it about NO that you don’t understand?  

“Freedom is nothing left to lose” sang Janis Joplin. Cuccinelli is free to free his campaign from a failed brain trust and go out like a winner, whether he wins or not. Instead of spending the remaining time explaining why the other guy doesn’t deserve to win, Cuccinelli has the option of putting all his resources into explaining why he should win.

I stand by my sweep prediction regardless. But like Russell Crowe’s character, there is honor in dying a “soldier’s death.” Why? Because then you –  not your detractors – get to write your epitaph.  

Was Lincoln Wrong to Fight to Preserve the Union?

By
Andy Schmookler
-
0

Some Southerners still call the Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.”  I’ve already shown that — it being an act of outlawry to secede the way the South did it — it was no such thing. But was Lincoln, even though he was entitled to use force, nonetheless wrong in his judgment that it was worth a war to hold the Union together?

Abraham Lincoln is generally rated by historians as the nation’s greatest president ever.  He was certainly an extraordinary man with a great spirit.  His level of compassion, his inclination to forgive those who wronged him, his craving for peace-in all these ways, he seems to us now, and seemed to a great many of his contemporaries, an exceptionally humane man.  Also, his navigating of the most complex of waters, during our nation’s greatest crisis, suggests a man of astonishingly acute and subtle judgment.

But for at least a decade I have been wondering about the wisdom and rightness of the main decision of his presidency, the judgment on which almost everything else about his presidency rested: to go to war against the secessionist South in order to preserve the Union.

Lincoln decided to use force to hold the Union together for two main reasons.  One is that he believed the secession unconstitutional, and thus that his oath of office, to defend the Constitution, required that he enforce the irrevocability of the states’ membership in the Union.  That position was at least arguable, so I don’t think Lincoln needed to feel absolutely honor-bound to resort to war.

His other reason was that he believed profoundly in the American experiment in democracy – a government of the people, for the people, and by the people – and he believed further that the nation’s breaking apart into two nations would grievously discredit the American experiment and therefore the very idea of democracy.  He believed that keeping alive this “last, best hope on earth” required keeping the Union together, by force if necessary.

I’ve not come across serious Civil War scholars who question that judgment.  But I am unconvinced of its validity.

It is not clear to me that the example of the American democracy would have been discredited if the two regions — which had become in many ways like two different cultures, aside from the deep polarization that had antagonized the two against each other — had negotiated a separation.  When Czechoslovakia divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that peaceful division seemed an accomplishment to their credit.

If I could place myself back in early 1861, and were in a position to advise the newly-elected President, this is what I would have counseled:  

“Offer to sit down with the Confederates and negotiate over the question of their independence.  Keep the military option open, use it subtly as an inducement to come to terms favorable to the Union of which you would still be president.  Your unwillingness to allow slavery to spread further into the American territories can guide the terms you would accept.  See if this can be accomplished peacefully.”

Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight:  I know that the war would be more terrible than either side expected at the outset.  (Nonetheless, during the 1850s, as the specter of secession loomed, many did anticipate that the outcome might be a nightmarish war.)  

Still, as with all counter-factual history, my hindsight doesn’t enable me to see whether my proposed alternative would have worked out better.

In The Federalist Papers, one of the arguments presented for the former colonies to form “a more perfect Union” is that if the colonies break into more than one nation, history suggests the great danger that these sovereign entities would in time find themselves at war with each other.  My proposal to Lincoln, the logic of The Federalist would suggest, might only postpone the war.

Indeed, I expect that danger is even greater than the general history of intersocietal relations would suggest.  For I do believe that the spirit animating the South was one that was itching for a fight, and I am quite uncertain whether peace would have been possible. Here are three reasons I might be wrong about the chances for a peaceful resolution.

First, I wonder if the Confederate States of America would have been willing to cede to the Union, as part of the price of secession with peace, ownership of the territories of the West that were not yet admitted as states.  If I’m right about the spirit animating the South, it might well have been impossible for Lincoln to have achieved acceptable terms.

Second, having read about the appetite of the Southerners for additional territories into which they could take an economy based on slavery — Mexico, Central America, Cuba…– the Confederacy might have been an especially difficult neighbor with which to live at peace.

Third, if I’m right about the South being, at some level, driven toward conflict – driven, I might say, to destruction (this will be the subject of the next installment) – then that, too, might have made a peace between the USA and the CSA difficult to maintain.

Despite all those, I believe that an attempt at negotiating the division of the United States into two nations would have been preferable to the course taken.

Lincoln never considered it.  (Many others in the North advocated a position like mine:  let the South go, they said, weary of the trouble-making and bullying they’d experienced from that region.)

Perhaps Lincoln’s reasons were good.  Perhaps this compassionate man – who was also a very complex man– had a dark side that expressed itself in his rigid determination to undo the secession of the South through war.  

I don’t know if Lincoln is to be faulted here. But I hold some space in my thinking for the idea that, in the course Lincoln took, the North bears some responsibility for the fact that the central issue of that era was decided not peacefully but through a monstrous war.

Former GOP Delegate, Senator Endorse Mark Herring, Rip Mark Obenshain as “Extremist”

By
lowkell
-
6

I just got off a conference call, in which the Mark Herring for Attorney General campaign announced the formation of a Republican coalition supporting Herring’s bid for Attorney General. Two speakers on the call, former Republican Delegate Katherine Waddell, and former Republican Senator Russ Pots, ripped GOP Attorney General nominee Mark Obenshain as an extremist, and explained their many reasons why they are strongly supporting Mark Herring for Attorney General. Here are a few highlights from the call.

*Mark Herring said he’s “excited…to announce the launch of Republicans for Herring, a growing coalition of former Republican lawmakers and party activists who are supporting my campaign for Attorney General.”

*In Herring’s view, “this may very well be the most important Attorney General’s race in a generation…because who our next Attorney General is will directly affect Virginians and shape our image as a state around the nation for years to come.”

*Herring says, correctly, that Ken Cuccinelli has used his power to “bend and twist the law,” and “use the office of Attorney General to impose his extreme agenda on Virginians.” The scary thing is, “Mark Obenshain would be a continuation of that,” as Obenshain has said repeatedly that “he and Ken Cuccinelli are like peas in a pod philosophically,” and that he views Cuccinelli as a “role model” who he’d “pick up the baton” from and continue along the same path.

*In stark contrast, Herring will take the politics OUT of the Attorney General’s office and return its focus to protecting Virginians – including their civil rights – and returning ethics to the office.

*Former Senator Potts said it is a “privilege and honor” to support Mark Herring for Attorney General, calling him a “class act” for whom he has the “utmost respect.”

*Potts said there are “glaring differences” between Mark Herring and Mark Obenshain, with the only similarity being that they share “the first name of Mark.”

*Potts said Obenshain has been, “without a doubt…one of the most far-right, extremist Senators in the history of the Virginia Senate.” Potts specifically cited Obenshain’s efforts to “make the Republican Party the party of exclusion and not inclusion” – for instance, making it tougher for people to vote and suppress voting; also the fact that Obenshain “led the way” in opposing the transportation bill, along with Ken Cuccinelli.

*Bottom line: “If you like what you see in Cuccinelli, you will LOVE what you see in Obenshain in terms of an extremist, right-wing platform, because both of them are birds of a feather…mirror each others’ political philosophy.”  

*Obenshain and Cuccinelli are also, in Potts’ view, “classic examples of the abuse of power.” Referring to the saying, “power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely,” Potts said you’ll never find two better examples than Mark Obenshain and Ken Cuccinelli.

*In stark contrast, Potts believes that if we want someone “who wants to move Virginia forward…who reaches out across the aisles…you couldn’t find a better, more honest, decent, fine man…[who] represents all the best in Virginia politics” than Mark Herring.

*Katherine Waddell said that she’s “very proud to be supporting Mark Herring…the right choice for Virginia women in this Attorney General’s race.”

*Waddell said that Herring “strongly believes that women’s health care decisions are personal matters, and that lawmakers in Richmond have no right to be involved in them.”

*Waddell explained that “as someone who always believed in the Republican principles of limited government, individual freedom, and the right to privacy, there’s no way I could ever support Senator Mark Obenshain.”

*Waddell argued that Obenshain has been concealing his “extreme record against women’s reproductive rights” because “he knows that voters – whether they are Republicans, Democrats or Independents – will reject that record.” In fact, Waddell concluded, Obenshain is one of the “worst offenders on this Republican ticket…the most extreme ticket we have ever seen in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” Waddell specifically noted Obenshain’s support for “personhood” legislation, as well as the “transvaginal ultrasound” bill (Obenshain called it “commonsense legislation” and voted in favor of it), and his support for a bill that would have required women to report miscarriages to the police. Even worse, Obenshain “continues to rewrite history…promoting the ridiculous theory that he, Mark Obenshain [sponsor of that miscarriage bill], didn’t know the effect that bill would have on women, and remember this is coming from a man who wants to be Virginia’s top lawyer; all he had to do was read his own bill.”

*In stark contrast, Waddell said Mark Herring “believes that women are perfectly capable of making their own reproductive health care decisions without government interference,” which is why he is the “right choice for Virginia women.”

University of Virginia’s Decision to Cut Funding From AccessUVa Is Unnecessary & a Slap in the Face

By
iamnotaloan
-
0

Last month, the University of Virginia's Board of Visitors voted to cut funding for the college’s financial aid program known as AccessUVa. Despite the university's $5 billion endowment – which has more than doubled since 2001 – the Board of Visitors decided to cut aid for those who need it most: Students from the lowest-income families.

Having benefited from AccessUVa myself, I decided to do a little digging.

Here are the facts:

UVA is the single wealthiest public university per capita in our country. It also has one of the least economically diverse student bodies in the nation in terms of low-income student access. According to U.S. Department of Education data, we rank in the bottom five percent of colleges in terms of low-income student access, as measured by the percent of the student body receiving a Pell Grant.

Despite these facts, the University still decided to cut it’s financial aid program, forcing the poorest students to graduate with up to $28,000 in debt – if they aren’t deterred from attending in the first place. For a student from a poor family, $28,000 in additional debt is often unbearable – it could be at least ⅔ of their family’s income.

I created this graphic below to summarize this issue for students and Virginia residents. Please share this image with your friends and family on Facebook, and urge them to sign the petition I started:

 

The Board of Visitors is scheduled to meet next week, September 19th and 20th, and I — along with other students from the university — plan on being there to hand-deliver this petition and demand the Board take a re-vote on AccessUVa.

Supporters all over the country have been standing with students at the University of Virginia from the very beginning of this campaign, and I know for a fact that administrators at the University have noticed. With only 10 days to go before the next board meeting, students at the University of Virginia need as much support as possible. Please sign the petition. If you have already, please ask at least five others to sign as well. Your signature or theirs could be the one that tips the scales.

Cross-Posted at I AM NOT A LOAN.

Climate Science Denier Topper Shutt Calls False, Debunked “Global Cooling” Article “Interesting”

By
lowkell
-
2

The following is a guest column by former Loudoun County Board of Supervisors member Andrea McGimsey. I encourage everyone to Tweet this article to Topper Shutt at @toppersweather or to email him at tshutt@wusa9.com
 
It is disheartening to turn on the news in one of the most educated media markets in the country and hear a local meteorologist on WUSA 9 talking about "global cooling." That's what happened last night.  Curious, I did some research and found that Topper Shutt has a history of being a climate denier as documented on Blue Virginia.  I also found that Mr. Shutt had tweeted this widely debunked article from the UK paper The Telegraph, saying it was "interesting."

Perhaps Mr. Shutt should pay attention to the American Meteorological Association, his peers, when they say, "Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal…"

Or perhaps he could pay attention to the National Academy of Science, the nation's preeminent association of scientists when they say, "The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"

It is one thing for a citizen to be misled by the disinformation of the climate denier industry, fueled by money from the oil-drenched Koch brothers.  It is another for a well-known meteorologist to do so, on air, in one of the biggest media markets in the country. Management of this media outlet needs to take responsibility for his misinformation and take some action. I encourage anyone concerned about this kind of blatant and anti-science climate denialism to contact them at 9news@wusa9.com.

Finally, to address the bogus issue of "global cooling" framed in The Telegraph's article, Mr. Shutt should take a look at this graph from Skeptical Science.  It's called noise, Mr. Shutt, as the arctic sea ice continues its death spiral due to global warming.

Virginia News Headlines: Wednesday Morning

By
lowkell
-
9

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Wednesday, September 11.

*Obama takes Syria case to the public in White House address (The speech was logical, authoritative, well delivered, clear, answered questions on people’s minds…in short, Obama nailed it. Nice job.)

*Colorado voters oust Democratic state senators over gun control (Wonderful…not.)

*De Blasio First in Mayoral Primary; Unclear if He Avoids a Runoff (Looks like a strong progresssive, Bill De Blasio, will be the next mayor of NY City.)

*Warner, Kaine praise possible diplomatic solution in Syria (See their statements in the comments section of this post.)

*Schapiro: Cuccinelli’s damage control too little, too late (“In the remaining eight weeks of this campaign, Cuccinelli must still explain how and why he allowed himself and his current office – the attorney generalship – to become ensnared in this ethical tangle in the first place.”)

*Second law firm bills taxpayers $100,000 (This is outrageous, total ripoff of the taxpayers by Ken Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell.)

*Editorial: The forest primeval (Even the Republican…er, Richmond Times-Dispatch believes that “fracking” in the George Washington National Forest is far too risky – “the damage to the forest that might be caused by opening it up to exploitation could be irreparable, at least on a generational as opposed to a geological time scale.”)

*Cuccinelli donates value of gifts from Star Scientific executive to charity (But he also, illogically, says there was nothing unethical about taking the gifts in the first place. He also contradicts his claims that there was nothing wrong in what he did by giving the money back. He makes it clear he’s doing this for 100% self-serving, political reasons. And he issued a classic NON-apology “apology.” All in all, great job Cooch! LOL)

*Ken Cuccinelli tries to unring those bells (Oh yeah, he also contradicts himself, having already said there are “some bells you can’t unring,” but now trying to do just that!)

*The verdict on capital punishment system (“Virginia should take up the bar association’s reforms to ensure a fair and accurate death penalty system.”)

*A 9/11 memorial rises in Chesapeake

*Va.’s power plants not among dirtiest, but they’re dirty (“…they still released as much carbon as 7.1 million cars over a year.”)

*Outcry spurs Fairfax library board to put system overhaul on hold

*Too hot through tomorrow, then refreshingly cooler into weekend

*Nats top Mets for fourth straight (“Jason Werth hits a home run and two doubles as Washington tries to make a late playoff push.” The Nats’ playoff hopes still alive. Barely.)

A Democratic mistake in SWVA

By
Iechyd Da
-
0

It’s after Labor Day and McAuliff only has campaign offices in Blacksburg and Roanoke.

Cuccinelli’s Attorney General’s office employee remains undisciplined for secretly advising a CONSOL gas subsidiary in a suit against the energy company brought by thousands (if a “class action” is granted, and it looks likely) of Virginia landowners. This nefarious action to undermine the citizens’ case “shocked” the Federal judge hearing the case.

The Bristol Herald Courier has pounded on the point that energy companies are not paying landowners for the gas sucked from underneath them. A BHC reporter received a Pulitzer prize for breaking the story several years ago. The paper has run columns of ink on this case.

This legal battle is a defining fairness issue that virtually all Southwest Virginians with a political pulse have heard about. We see it as a classical example of the “big guys screwing the little guys.” Knowledge of this issue in pervasive not only in the coalfields but also the nearby agricultural valleys.

No, McAuliffe and the other statewide Democratic candidates are not going to win in Southwest Virginia, but this issue is potent, soils the whole Republican ticket, and could effectively cut  into Republican majorities on Nov. 5th. Taking the issue to Southwest Virginians in a retail political campaign would also help Mark Herring who is unknown in these parts.

Herring Campaign Responds to Obenshain’s Reinvention When It Comes to Keeping Children Safe

By
lowkell
-
0

From the Mark Herring for Attorney General campaign:

Herring for Attorney General campaign manager Kevin O’Holleran released the following statement in response to Senator Mark Obenshain’s campaign release about keeping children safe:

 
“Candidate Mark Obenshain is again refusing to acknowledge Senator Mark Obenshain's extreme record. It’s unfortunate that during his time in the Senate, Mark Obenshain put his own personal ideology ahead of keeping children safe. 
 
“In 2008, he voted against funding for Alicia’s Law to crack down on child-sex predators. In 2004, he voted against requiring clergy to report suspected instances of child abuse, and then again in 2006 he voted against adding clergy to the list of professionals required to report suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. And he was one of three legislators to vote against extending the period of time that victims of childhood sexual abuse may file a lawsuit against their abuser. Unfortunately, again Mark Obenshain is hiding his record from voters.
 
“Mark Herring has an actual record of keeping kids safe, including working to crack down on designer drugs like synthetic marijuana and bath salts. Additionally, this year he worked to give prosecutors more tools to put child sex offenders behind bars. Mark Herring has an actual record of working to keep Virginia’s children and families safe.
 
###
 
Background:
  • Mark Obenshain, in 2008, voted against a budget that included funding $1.5 million for Alicia’s Law, which creates task forces aimed at catching online child-sex predators. Mark Herring voted to pass this budget.  (HB 29, 3/13/2008)
     
  • Mark Obenshain, in 2004, voted against requiring “clergy to report suspected instances of child abuse.”  In 2006 he voted against adding “clergy to the list of professionals required to report suspected cases of child abuse or neglect.”  (SB 314, 1/29/2004; SB 253, 2/2/2006, Associated Press, 1/29/04, Associated Press 2/2/06 )
     
  • Mark Obenshain, in 2011, was one of three state legislators who voted against extending from two years “to 20 years the period in which a victim of childhood sexual abuse may file a lawsuit against an abuser.” He called the proposed time extension unfair and “‘truly mind-boggling.’” Mark Herring supported this extension. (SB 1145, 2/3/2011; Associated Press, 2/2/11) 

 

1...2,3222,3232,324...3,299Page 2,323 of 3,299












EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©