( – promoted by lowkell)

Immediately after watching the President’s forceful remarks after the Senate failed to pass the gun bill, I posted, with some enthusiasm, about his statement:

He spoke about the willful lies from the gun lobby. He spoke about 90% of Republicans voting against something 90% of the American people want. He spoke about the abuse of the filibuster rule.

I’d have had him stress these points more than he did, but he did come out swinging. Which is what we need from him.

Stand and fight.

Then I got to wondering:  maybe Obama should have given some of that speech BEFORE the vote, rather than after. By talking about how the gun lobby was “willfully lying,” and how the Republicans were poised to thwart the will of the American people, perhaps he could have changed the field of forces enough to get the bill passed.

Maybe he could have. But then I saw that doing it AFTER, as he did, was what I would have advised.

Why? Because the bill itself was not all that much of an accomplishment. Yes, it would constitute “progress,” but very minor progress: how big a deal could it be if Wayne LaPierre was all for it back in 1999?* Besides which, even if it passed in the Senate, how likely was it that it could get past the Republican-dominated House?

So getting the bill passed through the Senate isn’t something that should be given overwhelming weight.

On the other hand, USING THIS FAILURE TO STRIKE A BLOW against the destructive force– that’s important.

My guess is that President Obama was thinking that way in coming up with his strategy.

If one looks at his remarks, they are strongly geared to the idea of people getting passionate enough, and organized enough, to influence the elections coming up. All the talk was about the gun issue, and changing the nature of the political forces on the politicians. But the EFFECT would inevitably be broader.

If we replace all those politicians who vote with the willful liars on this issue, we drain away Republican power. My guess is he went out there thinking not just of the gun issue, and not just of the Senators who voted wrong, but of 2014 and the need to end Republican control of the House of Representatives.

After all, what can be accomplished in this country so long as John Boehner’s caucus has to sign off on any legislation that gets enacted.

Striking the blow using an issue on which 90% of the American people are on the president’s side is good. But the blows of this sort have to keep coming, which means that he cannot require that kind of overwhelming public support on every issue that he employs.

But choosing the long-term politics over the immediate legislation looks to me like the strategically right choice.

* I would like to ask: why is it that LaPierre and the NRA worked to defeat in 2013 what we can see on video that LaPierre supported in 1999? My guess is that a good answer would tell us something important about what’s happened in the realm of politics –about the rise of the “It”– in the intervening fourteen years.

Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia’s 6th District.  He is the author of various books including The Parable of the Tribes:  The Problem of Power in Social Evolution.  

Following yesterday’s disgraceful votes in the U.S. Senate, which went against the vast majority (90% in the case of background checks, smaller majorities in the case of limits on the number of bullets, assault weapons, etc.), I thought a few thoughts from Founding Father James Madison might be relevant.

It was November 22, 1787, but it might as well have been yesterday, when Madison talked about the need for safeguards against domestic factions, like uh…the NRA? Here’s Founding Father James Madison, speaking to us across the ages:

*”By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” (That describes the NRA and other gun groups, which have a huge edge in passion over the MUCH larger number of Americans who want reasonable limits on gun ownership, firepower, etc. in this country, to a “t.”)

*”It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” (You can say THAT again!)

*”…the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.” (That’s the question; in this case, they weren’t removed OR controlled in their “adverse” effects.)

*”If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.”  (That’s the answer right there: we need to toss out the Senators holding these “sinister views,” who are attempting to “mask” their “violence under the forms of the Constitution.”)

*”In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.” (The question today is, does this remedy still work in an era of massive corporate power and essentially unlimited ability of wealthy interests to purchase and subvert our political system? Did the Founding Fathers, as brilliant as they were, ever foresee Citizens United? Did they ever foresee the 2nd Amendment, which stressed well-ordered militias in the context of an agrarian society with no standing army, with low-accuracy and low-firepower muskets (no assault rifles with 100-bullet magazines or whatever in 1787), and with the imminent threat of war with the most powerful empire on earth, being twisted the way it has been by the Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Roberts Supreme Court? I doubt it. So now, the question is, can the system created by James Madison et al nearly 230 years ago adapt, and ultimately survive, at a time when the country is so wildly different – economically, technologically, you name it – from the 1770s? We’ll find out, but I’d also remind everyone that it’s OUR responsibility as citizens to fight for the vision of America we believe in. Nobody else is going to do it for us. But one thing’s for sure: the monomaniacally-focused factions which Madison warned about are still here, whether it’s the NRA or whoever, and we’ve still got to figure out how to deal with their subversion of our Republic…)

P.S. One question: can the power of one faction (e.g., Michael Bloomberg and perhaps $100 million, $500 million of his money spent in the 2013 and 2014 elections) counteract the power of another faction (the gun lobby)?

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, April 18.

*Bombing suspect shown on camera, official says (“Investigators have isolated ­images of a suspect carrying and perhaps dropping a black bag believed to have held one of two bombs.”)

*Every proposal on gun control fails in Senate (Vote shows gulf between D.C., U.S.)

*The Senate misfires on gun control (If there was any doubt before, there’s none now: our system – the Senate’s 60 vote threshold, the obscene amount of money in politics, etc. – is fundamentally broken.)

*Cowards on Capitol Hill (“In the Senate’s gun bill vote, courage was distressingly hard to come by.”)

*Torture damages U.S. credibility

*Wemple: CNN’s double screwup on Boston (CNN is doing its best to be as pathetically bad as Faux “News.”)

*Cuccinelli financial report turns up questions about donor (Whoops!)

*Democrats unrelenting on Cuccinelli over Star Scientific (And rightfully so.)

*Terry McAuliffe Makes His Case (“A Q&A with gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe.”)

*Virginia GOP calls for McAuliffe to release tax returns (“David Winston, a Republican pollster, said broadsides against McAuliffe over his taxes or his business record won’t have a big impact on the race.”)

*Cuccinelli releases tax returns, GOP demands McAuliffe response

*Cuccinelli goes after McAuliffe, Green Tech at Shad Planking (Shocker, huh? Yawn.)

*Cuccinelli yields on Virginia roads (“GOP gubernatorial candidate tells crowd at Shad Planking that repeal of transportation overhaul is futile.”)

*Democratic predecessor defends Cuccinelli (Weird.)

*Warner: Debt worse threat than terror (“‘The broader point is one he’s been making for some time, but he acknowledges the timing of these remarks was tone-deaf,’ Warner spokesman Kevin Hall said.” Wow, you can say that again!!!)

*Women’s group emerges to boost Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign in Virginia (Yeah, it’s formed by the extremist, anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List. Nice.)

*Special election Aug. 6 for Chesapeake Senate seat

*Dulles Rail board to pick contractor for project’s second phase

*Detwiler delivers as Nats rebound

“President Obama makes a statement from the Rose Garden following the Senate’s vote to block common-sense measures to reduce gun violence. April 17, 2013.” Among other comments, a rightfully angry President Obama called this a “shameful day for Washington,” asked “who are we here to represent?”, said “the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen,” and noted today’s Senate #FAIL “came down to politics – the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections.”

Also, for the record, here’s how Virginia’s two U.S. Senators voted on Manchin-Toomey and the other gun measures today. Every one of these was rejected, as they couldn’t reach 60 votes for “cloture.” Great Democracy we’ve got, huh?

1. Manchin-Toomey (background checks): Warner and Kaine both voted “aye,” along with the vast majority of Democrats.

2. Grassley amendment: Warner and Kaine both voted “nay,” along with the vast majority of Democrats.

3. Leahy amendment (“To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.”): Kaine and Warner both voted “aye,” as did all Democrats.

4. Cornyn amendment (“To allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”): Kaine voted “nay,” along with the vast majority of Democrats; Warner voted “aye,” as did all Republicans except for Senator Kirk of Illinois. Thanks to Tim Kaine. Huge #FAIL to Mark Warner on this one. Ugh.

5. Feinstein amendment (“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”): Kaine voted “aye,” Warner once again voted “nay.” Again, thanks to Tim Kaine, another huge #FAIL to Mark Warner. Godawful.

6. Burr amendment (“To protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans and their families.”): Kaine and Warner both voted “nay,” along with most Democrats.

7. Lautenberg amendment (“To regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices.”): Kaine voted “aye” with most Democrats; Warner again voted the wrong way (“nay”), mostly with Republicans. Blech.

Paul Goldman just emailed to say, “Delegate Joe Morrissey, citing state statutes, alerts the AG and the GUV to possible problems with how special counsel was appointed in the Star Scientific tax case.”

April 17, 2013

The Honorable Ken Cuccinelli,

Attorney General of Virginia

900 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE:   IMPROPER APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEYS IN COMMONWEALTH v. STAR SCIENTIFIC MATTER

Dear General Cuccinelli:

I hope that this letter finds you well and enjoying this pleasant spring weather.  With respect to the above referenced matter, a reading of §2.2-510 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, reveals that your recent appointment of Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Hurd to represent the Commonwealth in the state tax lawsuit against Star Scientific is improper and in violation of the Virginia Code.  

As you are aware, §2.2-510 of the Code sets forth the parameters as to when and how the Attorney General can appoint special counsel to represent either the Commonwealth of Virginia or one of its departments, institutions, agencies, etc.

In the instant matter, it is clear that §2.2-510 (4) controls.  That code section reads as follows:

“In cases where the Attorney General certifies to the Governor that it would be improper for the Attorney General’s office to render legal services due to a conflict of interest, or that he is unable to render certain legal services, the Governor may employee special counsel [emphasis added] or other assistance to render such services that may be necessary”

The other provisions under §2.2-510 (1), (2), (3), and (5) respectively, simply do not apply.  Specifically, in the matter involving Star Scientific, it is not the case that the Attorney General’s office is “unable to render such service” or that it is “uneconomical for the Attorney General to render such services.” Rather, it is clear that due to your association with Star Scientific (i.e. recipient of campaign funds, stockowner, recipient of lodging, etc.), you have a conflict.  In fact, if you were to solicit an opinion from the Virginia State Bar, they would most certainly opine that you and your office should recuse itself from the prosecution of any matter involving Star Scientific because of your conflict.

General Cuccinelli, conflicts occur all the time and I am not suggesting any improper or untoward behavior by either you or your office.  However, I am strongly suggesting that the manner in which you went about appointing counsel is contrary to the law and must be corrected.  

§2.2-510 (4) clearly states that it is the Governor – and not the Attorney General – that must employ special counsel.  Accordingly, since you, and not the Governor, did the appointment of Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Hurd (two well-known and well-respected attorneys), any actions taken by them in the matter against Star Scientific could be challenged due to the failure to follow the law in their respective appointment.  Indeed, if the ultimate Court ruling went against Star Scientific, they could challenge any adverse decision due to the initial improper appointment of Messrs. Rosenthal and Hurd.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not address the following.  The appointment of special counsel by the Governor under §2.2-510 (4) begs the following question.  What if the Governor, himself, has a conflict with Star Scientific? (Unquestionably, he does.)  In that case, I believe that the Governor should do what circuit courts routinely do and write the Supreme Court and request the appointment of independent special counsel.  

General Cuccinelli, I am not writing this letter to bring you any unwanted embarrassment or criticism.  At no time have I ever suggested that you – or the Governor for that matter – have done anything improper.  Further, unlike some of my democratic colleagues, I am not suggesting a Federal investigation.  However, as a member of the Virginia General Assembly, I am specifically stating that the appointment process was contrary to and inconsistent with Virginia law and must be addressed immediately.  

Sincerely yours,

Joseph D. Morrissey

Representative – 74th District

Cc; The Honorable Robert F. McDonnell, Governor

ENCLOSURE (Virginia Code §2.2-510)

Don’t forget, this frothing-at-the-mouth bigot, Pat Robertson, has donated $715,500 over the years to Virginia Republicans, including around $100,000 to the guy he calls his “dear friend” “Bobby” – our fine governor, currently enmeshed in the “hear comes the BRIBE” scandal. What a combo, huh?