Washington, DC – Congressman Jim Moran, Northern Virginia Democrat and Ranking Member on the Interior and Environment Appropriations Committee, today released the following statement on President Obama’s remarks outlining his ‘Climate Action Plan’ to reduce carbon pollution and prepare for the impacts of climate change:

“I was proud to be in attendance for President Obama’s remarks detailing his ‘Climate Action Plan’ and look forward to supporting his efforts to ensure that our children and grandchildren have clean water to drink and air to breathe.

“The President’s plan includes sweeping efforts to cut greenhouse gasses from existing and future power plants, aiming to reduce carbon pollution by at least three billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030. We need look no farther than our region’s successful effort to shut down the GenOn coal-fired power plant to see the benefits of these new regulations. The President’s plan will make it easier for communities across the U.S. to follow in our footsteps and close down the oldest and dirtiest coal-fired plants. It will further provide the investments we need for newer, more sustainable sources of energy, resulting in a more efficient and productive economy, and cleaner environment.  

“Though I support the plan outlined today, I was disappointed that the President has not categorically ruled out the Keystone XL Pipeline. Not only would the construction of this tarsands pipeline reinforce our dependency on a dirty fuel, it will deliver unnecessary risks to the communities within its pathway. Our future is with cleaner sources of energy that spur the innovative, technology-based, high-paying jobs our nation’s economy needs for long-term success.

“The longer we delay action on climate change, the costlier the consequences will be to our financial and physical health. The rest of the world turns to the United States to be a leader in so many areas. I look forward to the day when we can lead on environmental protection.”

###

According to civil rights icon/hero, Rep. John Lewis, as reported on Twitter, “What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act.”

And he’s right. What the Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts Supreme Court just did was right-wing, completely-out-of-control “judicial activism” (which so-called “conservatives” claim to hate when anyone else does it) at its worst. It also a potentially major gift to the GOP:

Ten years ago I might have had a smidgen of hope that this would turn out OK. There would be abuses, but maybe not horrible, systematic ones. Today I have little of that hope left. The Republican Party has made it crystal clear that suppressing minority voting is now part of its long-term strategy, and I have little doubt that this will now include hundreds of changes to voting laws around the country that just coincidentally happen to disproportionately benefit whites. There will still be challenges to these laws, but I suspect that the number of cases will be overwhelming and progress will be molasses slow. This ruling is plainly a gift to the GOP for 2014.

The only potential bright side here? That Democrats will be so angry about this disgraceful decision that it will galvanize our voters to turn out in droves at the polls in 2013, 2014, 2016 and beyond. Clearly, what we need to do is keep winning the White House and the Senate until we have the opportunity of tilting the Supreme Court back in the direction of sanity. This ruling, though, is EXACTLY why I’ve said in just about every presidential election that if you need one reason to turn out and vote Democratic, it’s the Supreme Court. Today, once again, we see the consequences of what happens when the Supreme Court is controlled by the Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases of the world. Nothing good, that’s for sure.

P.S. As ThinkProgress explains: “Section 4 is the formula which determines which jurisdictions are subject to ‘preclearance’ under the law, meaning that new voting laws in those jurisdictions must be reviewed by the Justice Department or a federal court before they can take effect. Although today’s opinion ostensibly would permit Congress to revive the preclearance regime by enacting a new formula that complies with today’s decision, that would require a functioning Congress – so the likely impact of today’s decision is that many areas that were unable to enact voter suppression laws under the Voting Rights Act will now be able to put those laws into effect.”

UPDATE: My friend Josh Israel writes over at ThinkProgress about the impact on Virginia and other states.

Strict voter ID laws. Earlier this year, Virginia’s Republican-controlled legislature enacted strict photo identification requirements for all voters. While a 2012 state law had survived Department of Justice review due to its flexible list of acceptable ID options, the tougher 2013 photo ID-only restrictions will likely have a discriminatory effect and would thus have been unlikely to receive approval. Now, the strict requirements will go into effect and any challenge will require a disenfranchised vote to sue and prove injury. Similar restrictions will also now take effect in other states.

Two years ago, almost to the day, I posted a diary on Blue Virginia bemoaning the fact that there were only 15 “R” vs. “D” House of Delegates races listed by VPAP. That’s right: in June 2011, only 15% of the 100 House of Delegates seats were being contested between a Democrat and a Republican. And today?

Well, let’s just say, what a difference 2 years makes! As of today, by my count, there are 43 “R” vs. “D” House of Delegates races listed on VPAP. That’s nearly three times as many as what we had two years ago. Of those 43 races, I count 28 districts where Democrats are challenging incumbent Republicans. I count only 6 districts where Republicans are challenging incumbent Democrats.

Also of interest, the 28 districts where Democrats are challenging incumbent Republicans include 14 districts (2nd, 12th, 13th, 21st, 31st, 32nd, 42nd, 50th, 51st, 67th, 86th, 87th, 93rd, 94th) won by Barack Obama in 2012. Of course, that doesn’t guarantee – or even make it likely – that the Democratic challenger will defeat the Republican incumbent in November. However, it DOES mean that if Democrats can get out as many “Obama voters” as possible, we’ve got a good chance of picking up at least a few of these.

Anyway, the bottom line is that we’re doing a lot better in 2013 in terms of fielding Democratic candidates for Virginia House of Delegates compared to 2011. That’s a testament, in part, to the strong recruiting efforts by Democratic House leadership. Now, the key will be adequately funding the Democratic candidates with the most realistic shots of winning. How much money are we talking about? Looking back at 2011 statistics, we’re generally talking in the range of $100,000-$500,000 for victorious candidates of the seriously contested races. That means we could fund all 14 “Obama district” Democratic challengers for $7 million, assuming $500,000 per candidate.

That may seem like a great deal of money, but it’s not a lot when you consider how much money’s floating around out there, how much is spent on federal elections, and also what’s at stake here. For a billionaire like Michael Bloomberg, for instance, to fund candidates at the state level who support common sense gun safety measures would seem to be a much smarter investment of his money (e.g., more “bang for the buck”) than attempting to “play” at the federal level, where Congress is hopelessly gridlocked anyway. At the state level, in contrast, it’s a much more conceivable prospect that we could take back the state legislature, then start churning out strong bills on energy, voting rights, health care, gun safety, you name the topic. Clearly, the right wing (e.g., the Koch brothers, ALEC) “gets” this, which is why they have put so much effort into winning elections – and passing legislation – at the state level. The question is, when are wealthy progressives going to slap their foreheads and realize what a huge opportunity they’ve been squandering? Perhaps that might start in Virginia 2013? Let’s hope.

(UPDATE: The Grand Jury report is here. – promoted by lowkell)

From the Loudoun County Democratic Committee, the question is when this corrupt, homophobic hatemonger (why do those traits so often seem to go together?) will be ousted from office by the voters of his district. It can’t happen too quickly.

The Loudoun County Democratic Committee issued the following statement in reaction to the report released today by the Special Grand Jury that spent the previous 5 months investigating  Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio:

The lack of an indictment by the Special Prosecutor is by no means a vindication of Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio. The Special Grand Jury investigating Supervisor Delgaudio was so disturbed by what it learned that it took the unprecedented step of issuing a report. The Court and the Prosecutor both agreed to, and facilitated, the report. And the report is damning.

The Grand Jury made clear that, despite the lack of criminal indictments, it found repeated instances of wrongdoing by Delgaudio. They found that he created a hostile work environment, including repeated instances of verbal abuse. They found that he repeatedly violated the Board of Supervisors Code of Conduct.

They found that Delgaudio “specifically instructed his aides not to answer the phones or address constituent concerns” in favor of fundraising and other projects. On at least one occasion he reprimanded an aide for trying to resolve a constituent matter instead of fundraising. They found it was general knowledge throughout the Board of Supervisors staff that Delgaudio’s office was unresponsive to the people of Sterling.

The Grand Jury found Delgaudio engaged in repeated instances of improper fundraising. They found Delgaudio failed to report significant campaign contributions. They implied that Delgaudio may have embezzled some campaign donations. They implied that Delgaudio changed his vote on a land use decision in response to receiving a large campaign donation, raising disturbing questions of possible influence peddling or potential bribery.

Lastly, the Grand Jury found an improper mixing of Delgaudio’s County staff and that of his personal business, an anti-gay hate group that specializes in raising money.

All told, the Special Grand Jury had a visceral reaction to what they found about Delgaudio. By issuing this report, the Grand Jurors made their disgust public, and made clear that the failure to  indict was not due to any innocence or doubt, but rather to lax laws and loopholes. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Special Grand Jury was never asked — or allowed — to consider whether it would indict Delgaudio or others. But they were so concerned by what they found — and the inability to issue an indictment under existing laws — that they issued recommendations for changes to the laws and to County policies.

The Loudoun Democrats hope that every voter in Sterling — every citizen of Loudoun County – reads this report, and takes action to oust Eugene Delgaudio from office.

We also strongly urge Chairman York and the rest of the Board of Supervisors to make reform of the ethics laws questioned by this Special Grand Jury the core action of the next Board meeting.

( – promoted by lowkell)

What should one make of the fact that some of the same Republican politicians who make a major issue out of “protecting the unborn” also are eager to cut the food stamp program (SNAP) that keeps millions of American children from going hungry?

If a person had it in his heart to care about unborn children, would one not expect that same heart to show compassion for the plight of children already born?

If one is truly moved at the need to protect “innocent” life in the womb, would one not be moved equally by the need to protect from hunger the more than 1 in 5 children in America who, through no fault of their own, live in poverty? (At a time when America is still suffering from the severest economic downturn since the Great Depression, even a great many of the parents of these children are facing hard times through no fault of their own.) Are these children not equally “innocent”?

Can there be any good reason why a person would care about the unborn but be indifferent to the already-born?

I make a distinction these years between the average people who involve themselves in the cause of opposing abortion rights and the politicians who push this issue into the spotlight. I’m inclined to grant that the average anti-abortion activist has some genuine feeling about what they see as the innocent human life in the womb.

But the effort by so many Republicans in Congress to gut the food stamp program, particularly in these hard times, shows pretty clearly that a lot of these politicians don’t really care about the unborn.

Clearly they must be using the abortion issue for some altogether different reason.

(UPDATE: NLS makes a great point, that Cuccinelli did NOT keep his vote to himself for the AG nomination, announcing his support for Mark Obenshain the day of the convention. How do you spell Cuccinelli? L-I-A-R. – promoted by lowkell)

I’ll give Chuck Todd credit for trying (multiple times to get an answer), but Ken Cuccinelli simply keeps dodging any and all questions about EW Jackson. What’s maddening about it is that we all know Cuccinelli and Jackson are simpatico on 90%+ of issues, as well as on their propensity to say the crazy stuff they believe out loud (and in the most offensive, divisive manner). Yet somehow, Cuccinelli is treated by the media as a serious person, while EW Jackson is treated as the tinfoil-hat laughingstock BOTH OF THEM (and let’s not forget Mark Obenshain, who wants to criminalize miscarriages, either!) truly are. Why is that?!?

P.S. An astute Virginia politico emailed me to ask, “Is it just me or did the Cooch line ‘I keep my votes to myself’…open up a great bumper sticker opportunity?”