Home Blog Page 2427

Will Supreme Court’s Conservative Men Guarantee Cuccinelli Defeat, or Will Liberal Women Save Him?

0

( – promoted by lowkell)

By Paul Goldman

Will the most powerful liberal women in America save Ken Cuccinelli from the 200-proof political disaster being urged by a few Arrogant Alabama firebrands? These Deep South conservatives were at the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, urging the Justices to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They were making surprising legal headway with their 200-proof political dynamite until the court’s reliable liberal bloc – three increasingly influential female jurists – intervened in an effort to rescue the Virginia AG’s gubernatorial campaign from fellow conservatives. In their prime, hard rockers AC/DC shook up Washington one night with the opening lyrics to T.N.T. their mega hit:  

          See me ride out of the sunset.

          On your color TV screen.

          Out for all that I can get.

          If you know what I mean.

          Women to the left of me,

          Women to the right.

          Ain’t got no gun.

          Ain’t go knife.

          Don’t you start no fight.

For 50 years, Section 5 has required every jurisdiction in Alabama and also Virginia, to “pre-clear” even the smallest change to their voting laws with the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal court in DC. Conservative scholars regard this legal situation as making Alabaman’s second-class citizens, wards of the national government, having to get permission to change even the location of a polling place.

They note that all the 9 state’s fully covered under Section 5 are from Dixie. They consider the requirement of “preclearance” to be a the modern equivalent of “reconstruction”, the term given to the post-civil war period when the Northerner’s running Congress required the former rebellious slave state’s to be run by federally appointed overseers.

For 50 years, conservatives have chewed this old rag. You would think conservatives would give their constitutional argument a rest. The Civil War Amendments provide Congress the right to ensure the most important political promise ever penned by anyone – “All men are created equal” – by “appropriate legislation.” What is “appropriate”? This is a fair question, and the Supremes will likely have to answer it in the Alabama case.

This column, however, is about 200-proof politics, not constitutional law. So the above is only to set the stage for the following discussion: The 100% guarantee that if the three liberal female Justices can’t stop their colleagues from overturning Section 5, then Ken Cuccinelli is a sure loser this November.

 

It has been almost a quarter-century since five Supreme Court Justices, at the urging of conservative legal thinkers, decided to elect a Democrat as the next Governor of Virginia. Until the Supremes took a chunk out of Roe v. Wade in June of 1989, Democratic candidate, Doug Wilder, had no – as in NADA – chance to win. He was done big in the polls with no path to victory apparent. But the 5-4 decision in the Webster case put the abortion issue front and center. Wilder decided to take the most radical and unorthodox position on the issue for a candidate for governor in a Southern state, at least one that had won. The strategy worked, barely. As several books have noted, the way the Wilder campaign conceived the issue changed the abortion debate forever.

Here in 2013, the Supremes seem determined to hand the historic Virginia Governor’s Mansion over to yet another Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Terry McAuliffe. This time, however, T-Mac is the strong favorite. Underdog Ken Cuccinelli still has a chance of winning: if the Supreme Court’s liberal women justices – all three appointed by Democrats – can save him.

“They didn’t have no guns, they didn’t have no knife: and they didn’t come looking for no fight.”

But when conservative legal guru Justice Anton Scalia showed his utter contempt – or perhaps only a total insensitivity to the realities of American history – the women decided it was time to put on a legal clinic. I think they pulled a rabbit out of the legal hat with several brilliant points, especially the one raising the question of whether the petitioners in this case made the proper plaintiffs for such an historic overturning of years of Supreme Court precedent. This was truly an inspired audible at the line of scrimmage. If you are going to overturn 50 years of jurisprudence, you had best have winners who seem worthy. The Alabama petitioners are not, as the women pointed out.

Thus the 200-proof politics. If Section 5 is overturned, there will be a major backlash from key Democratic constituencies and a smaller but important one from moderate Republican voters. It will not boost conservative turnout in 2013. Thus, on a net-net basis, it will be worth 2-3 percentage points to T-Mac and the entire Democratic state ticket. The Cuccinelli for Governor campaign doesn’t seem able to carry that much extra weight.

But fear not Ken: The women, on the left, are trying to make things legally right for you. The VRA is not a big issue anymore in Virginia politics. It was as recently as 1981, when it nearly caused Chuck Robb to make a huge mistake out of political fear. To be sure, Section 5 still rankles conservatives like Cuccinelli. “But if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is still the motto for sensible conservatives.

So yes, we can presume Cuccinelli agrees with the basic conservative argument about Section 5 being a federal overreach, and that Virginia’s voting record now is way different than when the VRA was first enacted. But Congress recently extended the law with few dissenters. Congressman Eric Cantor and others get it: the VRA has been great for the country, great for Virginia, move on.

Fighting to repeal Section 5 is a no-win political position for conservatives. A Supreme Court decision this June overturning Section 5 is a political disaster for Mr. Cuccinelli.

My bet: The liberal Supreme Court women will save the GOP conservative. They are tough, they are smart, and between them they don’t need no gun, they don’t need no knife, because the guys in those robes ain’t ready for no fight.  

Virginia News Headlines: Thursday Morning

0

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, February 28 (the last day of meteorological winter – thank goodness!). Also check out Tim Kaine’s first floor speech as a U.S. Senator.

*Supreme Court conservatives express skepticism over voting law provision (This was reauthorized close to unanimously by Congress. Can we say “right-wing judicial activism?”)

*Justice Scalia’s contempt of Congress (Scalia and Thomas are disgraces to our nation, should have resigned long ago, but of course they never would…)

*Predicting impact of sequester is guesswork at best

*Ending the permanent crisis (“What Obama can do is expose the cause of this madness, which is the dysfunction of the Republican Party. Journalists don’t like saying this because it sounds partisan. But the truth is the truth, whether it sounds partisan or not.”)

*Jeff’s Notes: Tim Kaine’s backhanded compliment

*Kaine on sequester: “We are drifting toward something that is very bad”

*Kaine says Va. transportation bill is model for federal budget compromise

*Tim Carney: Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell sides with business over conservatives

*Cuccinelli on sequestration and liberal Va. newspapers

*The GOP’s Cuccinelli Conundrum

*Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to headline fundraiser for Cuccinelli next month (Oh, lovely, a few of the Koch brothers’ favorites in one room together – don’t miss it! LOL)

*Bolling’s Last Stand (“Shunned by his party, one of Virginia’s top Republicans may give voters their first credible independent candidate for governor.”)

*Anti-abortion group to pledge $1.5M to Cuccinelli (More extremists for Cuckoo, hence the “Cuccinelli Conundrum” for Republicans…)

*Virginia Dems mock Ken Cuccinelli’s anti-sequestration stance (And rightfully so; this guy’s a total hypocrite and also a total joke!)

*Big Virginia road tax hike poses a new challenge: How best to spend it? (That’s one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, problem with this transportation deal: if the money goes into more sprawl and billion-dollar road boondoggles, it’s worse than nothing…)

*Bills make government less visible, open-government advocates say

*Alexandria police officer shot; cab driver in custody

*Mallek, Sabato Comment on Dumler Situation

*On CNN, Va. Beach shop owner defends gun discount

*Outer Banks watermen are struggling more than ever to stay afloat

Video: Del. Surovell Explains Why the Hybrid Tax Has Gotta Go

0

Great job by Del. Surovell in explaining why the hybrid fee is terrible public policy, illogical, arbitrary, and needs to be repealed by Gov. McDonnell. Also, make sure you sign the petition here. It’s now nearing 4,000 signatures in just 48 hours or so; let’s kick it up to 5,000…10,000…and beyond!

P.S. One interesting note from this interview is that Del. Surovell – and possibly Sen. Petersen as well – apparently agrees with Paul Goldman that the transportation package may very well be unconstitutional.  

My Response to a Climate Change Denier on Op/Ed News

0

Interpretation # 1:  “MAN MADE global warming is, not a hoax, but a horrendous scam designed purposely to amass even more power within government and those who benefit from its stupidity and corruption” [my interlocutor, with the handle “Techknowledgie”  wrote].  In other words, [I said,]for the very first time in history, in the world of science, there has been an international conspiracy of scientists, fully trained in the techniques of scientific research and ethics of the scientific quest for the truth, to “scam” the people of the planet.

Interpretation # 2:  The scientists know what they’re talking about, but a couple of the richest industries in the world are trying to sew doubt so that our society will stay addicted to what they sell and they will get even richer.

The first interpretation (yours, Techknowledgie) requires one to believe that something (a widespread conspiracy of scientists to deceive the rest of the world) that is completely unprecedented –and I would wager that anyone who knows the world of science well would declare such a conspiracy impossible to create, even if one wanted to– is taking place, and has been taking place for decades.

The second interpretation (mine) requires that one believe that the oil, gas, and coal industries would be willing to do what every other industry that turned out to be dealing in death –the tobacco companies and the asbestos industry, to name two prominent examples–have done when science found that changes were required that would cost them money:  lie to people to keep them hooked to their product, or working for low wages and with lousy protection.

Which is more likely:  the unprecedented, or the par for the course?

Rep. Connolly Statement on Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

0

Congressman Gerald E. Connolly (VA-11th)

Floor statement re: Republican substitute to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

 

Mr. Speaker,

 

Last week, the Senate again passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in a bipartisan 78-22 vote.

 

I am proud to cosponsor the House companion, which now has 200 cosponsors, because the need for these protections continues to grow. Turning Points, the only domestic violence intervention program in Prince William County, in my district, served 6,000 clients last year. In neighboring Fairfax, there were more than 8,000 cases of domestic violence reported, and we have seen a 40% increase in homelessness due to domestic violence. 

 

Yet House Republicans still insist on politicizing these vital services for women, children and families at risk of abuse.  Their alternative falls short of addressing key areas of the Senate bill like improving college campus safety and protecting human trafficking victims.

 

No doubt we have some tough battles ahead, so let’s claim a bipartisan victory while we can by passing the Senate bill. 

The Parable of the Tribes– Step Two: An Inevitable Struggle for Power

0

Step Two:  The Circumstances from the Human Breakthrough Make the Struggle for Power Inevitable

Step one described how the breakthrough made by humankind — about 10,000 years ago — created a situation unprecedented in the history of life: a living entity not regulated by any overarching order. I say that the terrible turn made by social evolution — toward tyranny and war and brutality — is to be explained in terms of that unprecedented circumstances. Here I provide the next step in explaining how a force emerged that has driven the evolution of civilization in directions that people did not and would not choose.

In Chapter 1 of The Parable of the Tribes, the discussion continues:



The Struggle for Power

In his classic, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes (1960) describes what he calls ‘the state of nature’ as an anarchic situation in which all are compelled, for their very survival, to engage in a ceaseless struggle for power. About this ‘war of all against all,’ two important points should be made: that Hobbes’s vision of the dangers of anarchy captured an important dimension of the human condition, and that to call that condition ‘the state of nature’ is a remarkable misnomer.

In nature, all pursue survival for themselves and their kind. But they can do so only within biologically evolved limits. The living order of nature, though it has no ruler, is not in the least anarchic. Each pursues a kind of self-interest, each is a law unto itself, but the separate interests and laws have been formed over aeons of selection to form part of a tightly ordered harmonious system. Although the state of nature involves struggle, the struggle is part of an order. Each component of the living system has a defined place out of which no ambition can extricate it. Hunting-gathering societies were to a very great extent likewise contained by natural limits.

With the rise of civilization, the limits fall away. The natural self-interest and pursuit of survival remain, but they are no longer governed by any order. The new civilized forms of society, with more complex social and political structures, created the new possibility of indefinite social expansion: more and more people organized over more and more territory. All other forms of life had always found inevitable limits placed upon their growth by scarcity and consequent death. But civilized society was developing the unprecedented capacity for unlimited growth as an entity. (The limitlessness of this possibility does not emerge fully at the outset, but rather becomes progressively more realized over the course of history as people invent methods of transportation, communication, and governance which extend the range within which coherence and order can be maintained.) Out of the living order there emerged a living entity — civilized society — with no defined place.

In a finite world, societies all seeking to escape death-dealing scarcity through expansion will inevitably come to confront each other. Civilized societies, therefore, though lacking inherent limitations to their growth, do encounter new external limits – in the form of one another. Because human beings (like other living creatures) have ‘excess reproductive capacity,’ meaning that human numbers tend to increase indefinitely unless a high proportion of the population dies prematurely, each civilized society faces an unpleasant choice. If an expanding society willingly stops where its growth would infringe upon neighboring societies, it allows death to catch up and overtake its population. If it goes beyond those limits, it commits aggression. With no natural order or overarching power to prevent it, some will surely choose to take what belongs to their neighbors rather than to accept the limits that are compulsory for every other form of life.

In such circumstances, a Hobbesian struggle for power among societies becomes inevitable. We see that what is freedom from the point of view of each single unit is anarchy in an ungoverned system of those units. A freedom unknown in nature is cruelly transmuted into an equally unnatural state of anarchy, with its terrors and its destructive war of all against all.

As people stepped across the threshold into civilization, they inadvertently stumbled into a chaos that had never before existed. The relations among societies were uncontrolled and virtually uncontrollable. Such an ungoverned system imposes unchosen necessities: civilized people were compelled to enter a struggle for power.

The meaning of ‘power,’ a concept central to this entire work, needs to be explored. Power may be defined as the capacity to achieve one’s will against the will of another. The exercise of power thus infringes upon the exercise of choice, for to be the object of another’s power is to have his choice substituted for one’s own. *

* As used here, power is a coercive capacity. Power may also be defined as the ability to restrict the range of another’s choices. It is thus differentiated from the kind of persuasive power that changes how others decide to exercise choice (except to the extent that, as, for example, in brainwashing, and less obviously in many other forms of indoctrination, coercive power creates the situation in which persuasion becomes possible).

Power becomes important where two actors (or more) would choose the same thing but cannot both have it; power becomes important when the obstacles to the achievement of one’s will come from the will of others. Thus, as the expanding capacities of human societies created an overlap in the range of their grasp and desire, the intersocietal struggle for power arose.

But the new unavoidability of this struggle is but the first and smaller step in the transmutation of the apparent freedom of civilized peoples into bondage to the necessities of power.

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 and Sowings and Reapings: The Cycling of Good and Evil in the Human System.

If McEachin Thinks Hybrid Tax is So Bad, Why’d He Vote for It?

9

the.biggest.loser-logo.jpgGov. Bob McDonnell’s transportation package included a new tax on hybrid cars, because apparently Virginia is not addicted enough to expensive energy that gives our kids asthma and fuels climate change. Democratic Sen. Adam Ebbin and Del. Scott Surovell, who wisely voted against the transportation package, launched a petition this week calling on Gov. McDonnell to veto the new tax on fuel-sippers.

Sen. Donald McEachin voted FOR the terrible transportation package. (Did I mention there’s plenty of evidence the gas tax cut will mean the same gas prices for Virginia drivers but a massive giveaway of higher profits for oil companies?) But today, McEachin sent an email claiming the hybrid tax, which made national headlines, was “hidden” in the transportation bill and linking not to the existing Democratic petition, but to a petition of his own calling for the hybrid tax’s repeal.

McEachin’s disingenuous email puts him in a long line of Virginia Democrats who’ve helped Republicans achieve their goals, then afterwards claim they wuz robbed (see: Mary Margaret Whipple on the Dominion re-regulation bill; anything Dick Saslaw has ever done). Why not just vote the right way in the first place? Dispiriting “leadership” like this is why Virginia Democrats turn out for Barack Obama but stay home for Creigh Deeds.

But it’s also an example of how too often, Virginia Democratic leaders would rather fight over the crown of the Biggest Loser than stand together to achieve bigger victories. Is this about delivering wins to middle-class families to improve our roads and public transit and lower energy costs, or using losses to add a couple of names to your email list?

Virginia News Headlines: Wednesday Morning

2

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Wednesday, February 27. Also check out the video of Republican Joe Scarborough ripping Ken Kookinelli as a “conspiracy theorist” and “John Bircher” who should be thrown out of the party. The question is, why haven’t Virginia Republicans shunned Kookinelli? Do they agree with his insanity?

*In emotional farewell pope says he resigned for good of Church

*Austerity Kills Government Jobs as Cuts to Budgets Loom (“The federal government is cutting back at a pace exceeded in the last half-century only by the military demobilizations after the Vietnam War and the cold war.”)

*Obama at Newport News yard: Sequestration threatens jobs (“Standing in front of a massive propeller in a facility used to build submarines, the president called on Congress to compromise or risk harming the economy in Hampton Roads.”)

*A sequester intervention (“House Republicans are acting like drunk drivers.”)

*Hagel Approved for Defense in Sharply Split Vote

*McCarthyism 2013 (“With confirmation, Hagel wins, but integrity loses”)

*Editorial: Court will find record of voter suppression (“After substantial review, Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act in 2006 because the powerful still try to prevent the weak from voting.”)

*Terry McAuliffe attacks Ken Cuccinelli on transportation plan

*GOP’s Ideological Split Appears in Virginia Governor’s Race

*Scarborough mocks Cuccinelli on national TV (“‘Remember when Buckley went after the John Birchers?’ he added. ‘Threw ’em out. Threw ’em out of the movement. These are the people that are now infiltrating the movement, excluding winners like Chris Christie and embracing conspiracy theorists like Cuccinelli.'”)

*Schapiro: Cuccinelli can’t talk issues because he is one.

*Cuccinelli’s Strange Lesson in Federalism

*Democrat Terry McAuliffe running in Virginia on record of Republican governor

*Ken Cuccinelli joins Virginia leaders in denouncing federal budget cuts (WTF? Didn’t this guy just write a book about how government spending is evil? What a hypocrite!)

*Virginia GOP chairman dislikes taxes in road bill

*Va. Gov. McDonnell faces conservative backlash for tax hike

*Goodlatte says drone policy raises serious issues (Goodlatte didn’t seem to mind when Bush and Cheney were using drones.)

*Kaine to make first floor speech as Senator

*McDonnell doesn’t see Bolling independent run

*Bolling’s camp dismisses McDonnell’s comments on possible run for governor (“Bolling spokeswoman Ibbie Hedrick fired back Tuesday, saying, ‘I assure you that Lieutenant Governor Bolling is seriously considering the possibility of an Independent campaign.'”)

*Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial woes (I can’t believe I’m linking to the Post’s right-wingnut joke of a “blogger” Jennifer Rubin, but this is too good to pass up!)

*Centrist Dem: Link Keystone pipeline to efficiency boost (So…trashing the planet is now considered “centrist.” Gotcha, corporate media!)

*Slamming the door on open government

*Virginia looks to recover military clout after loss of veteran senators

*School cuts, tax hikes proposed for Fairfax County

What Problem Would the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Solve?

4

Forward on Climate Rally in Washington, DCIf there’s a global oil crisis, does anyone really believe that Canada, which has bet its entire financial future on cashing in on high-priced tar sands, will give us a friend discount? Or is it more likely that, just as much higher oil production here in the U.S. hasn’t lowered gas prices, we’re just transferring our expensive addiction to a different dealer?

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) signed yet another letter today urging President Obama & Secretary of State John Kerry to approve the Keystone XL pipeline even before a public health, wildlife & climate review can be completed. Why the panic? Whose interests would approving Keystone XL even if it fails review serve?

Building the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline wouldn’t solve any of our energy problems – and would make the climate crisis much, much worse. That’s hard to explain to people who don’t follow politics. Even with Congressional approval ratings at all-time lows, people assume there must be SOMETHING in it for Virginia … right? Our members of Congress wouldn’t just go along with a terrible deal without asking hard questions … right? But Keystone XL really IS that bad of a deal:

The Canadian Keystone XL Pipeline is NOT A DONE DEAL

  • Keystone XL would raise gas prices. The whole reason TransCanada wants to build this pipeline so it can stop dumping tar sands oil at a discount in the Midwest. In fact, TransCanada admits Keystone XL would raise Midwest gas prices by 15 cents a gallon.
  • Keystone XL would leave our energy supply just as vulnerable to price shocks as it is today. You really think Canada’s trying to do us a solid by building this pipeline (or Trailbreaker in New England or any of its other schemes)? Then why is it building the pipelines to our coasts? All Canada cares about is getting tar sands oil to the international market so it can get the highest price possible.
  • Keystone XL would only create 20 permanent jobs. Total. That’s it. And not one job will be in Virginia.

But Virginia will have to deal with plenty of negative impacts. A locked-in national commitment to an expensive source of energy. Higher prices of products made in the Midwest thanks to those higher gas prices. And millions of tons of carbon pollution to make the impacts of global warming on Virginia even worse. (And we can keep that carbon pollution in the ground – Canada’s path to China & India is blocked by native tribes and Canada’s path to Europe is blocked by the fact that Europe knows tar sands are a dirty crappy fuel.)

Take a moment right now to tell your members of Congress that you want real energy solutions – not a new needle to feed our addiction to expensive, dirty energy.

Christie Now Supports Medicaid Expansion, Why Not McDonnell?

0

RICHMOND — In case you missed it, Josh Vorhees from Slate reported that Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey became the latest Republican in a growing list to come out in support of Medicaid expansion, which Governor McDonnell actively opposes.

“In the Commonwealth, Medicaid expansion would provide health coverage to nearly 400,000 Virginians, 33,000 of whom are Virginia’s veterans,” said DVPA Spokeswoman Ashley Bauman, “Maybe at Thursday’s fundraiser McDonnell is hosting for Christie in Northern Virginia he’ll have a change of heart and realize that, not only is he leaving millions of federal dollars on the table each day, but expanding Medicaid will also provide coverage to the Virginians who need it most. Governor McDonnell should follow the ever growing chorus of Republican Governors and support the Expansion of Medicaid.”