Home Blog Page 2437

Virginia News Headlines: Thursday Morning

2

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, February 14. Also check out Rachel Maddow ripping Marco Rubio for attacking Obama over things he never said.

*The GOP’s epic gamble (“I’m open to hearing – whether from more reporting, or from smart conservative writers – that Republicans have a much more cleverly thought out master plan. But right now, it isn’t clear from everything we know that there is anything else going on here.”)

*Activists arrested at White House protesting Keystone pipeline

*Jeff’s Notes: Will Bolling run? (Schapiro says Bolling probably won’t run, that he’s already achieved his #1 goal of seriously wounding Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial candidacy.)

*New Hampshire Dems: We’ll pay Cuccinelli’s way here (“Democrats in Virginia and elsewhere are having trouble containing their glee over Cuccinelli’s just-released book”)

*Planned Parenthood targets Ken Cuccinelli

*Cuccinelli to sign new book in Fredericksburg Friday (I strongly encourage everyone int he Fredericksburg area to attend the signing – not to buy his atrocious book, of course, but to let Cuckoo know what we all think of him and his ultra-reactionary views towards women, LGBT people, science, etc.)

*Virginia House Subcommittee Kills Ebbin’s Nondiscrimination Bill (“Ebbin: Proposed law was aimed at protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender state employees.”)

*Anti-uranium groups launch radio ad opposing mining

*The makings of a plan for roads

*Editorial: McDonnell meddles with Obamacare (“Don’t ban abortion coverage from private insurance sold through a health care exchange.”)

*Editorial: A half-baked grading scheme for schools (“Preliminary labels assigned by Gov. McDonnell give Ds to some schools that are fully accredited by the state.”)

*Roanoke’s Ware on House transportation negotiating team

*Virginia lawmakers headed for showdown over transportation

*Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling backs gas tax hike (This is a no brainer: Virginia hasn’t raised its gas tax in years, it’s one of the lowest in the nation, and we need billions for transportation. So raise the d*** gas tax already and let’s stop talking about transportation!)

*No foundation to McDonnell transportation plans (“The only thing worse than having no plan to fund transportation is having one that is doomed to fail.” Like McDonnell’s idiotic “plan,” in other words.)

*MWAA Board Targeted Pro-Labor Members In Silver Line Struggle

*Fairfax senator’s ‘dooring’ cyclist safety bill fails on tied committee vote; seven delegates are no-shows

*On Washington Redskins’ name, it’s time the grown-ups talk sense into Daniel Snyder

*D.C. area forecast: Lovely mild sunshine today, holiday weekend cooler; snow Friday night?

Video: Virginia Del. Todd Gilbert (R): Anti-LGBT Discrimination “really doesn’t exist”

1

If you hadn’t heard, SB701 – a bill that would have protected lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender state employees in Virginia – was tabled in the House subcommittee last night. Here’s some video demonstrating the type of mentality that leads to a no-brainer bill like this being voted down, as opposed to being passed unanimously as it should be. Sadly, it’s the unbelievable ignorance of people like Virginia Del. Todd Gilbert (R-15th) – as exhibited in this video; see transcript of Gilbert’s remarks below – that result in the kind of travesty we saw last year, with Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland being rejected simply because of his sexual orientation (note that Del. Gilbert refused to vote for Thorne-Begland’s nomination last year). And no, although judicial nominees would not have been affected by this bill, Thorne-Begland’s example demonstrates in a glaring way that discrimination is alive and well in Virginia, and in public employment.

I’ve heard this bill several years in a row. Among all the people who spoke, there was not a single example of  one that was discriminated against in public employment.  I challenge those in the room to bring forth an example.

I was told the following year that there would be a line out the door of people with examples of having been discriminated against in public employment. There was not a single example anyone that felt that except that abstract fear that we’ve heard testified here today. I heard the gentlewoman today say that Virginia Commonwealth – VCU is this oppressive and intolerant environment.  I dare say that’s probably not true.  The examples we’ve heard from today have actually reaffirmed that people are interested in coming to Virginia and engaging in careers here and are thriving in the process of engaging in those careers. I think the many people that testify in their roles in higher education demonstrate that there is no problem this bill solves and once again, we’ve heard from many people about this specter of oppression that really doesn’t exist because we don’t have a single example of anyone who has been discriminated against for this reason.

Jeannemarie Davis Throws 70-Year-Old Staffer Under Bus; Bashes Ben Tribbett as “Obama apologist”

6

(UPDATE: Ben has some more background, including on Pete Snyder’s New Media Strategies. Verrrry interesting. – promoted by lowkell)

This interview would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic. Actually, on second thought, it IS hilarious, on several levels. First, here’s a transcript of Jeannemarie Davis’ comments, starting a bit after 13:00. Also, you might want to skim the NLS article that triggered this (“JMDD VOTE BUYING SCHEME EXPOSED”). Now, take it away Jeannemarie Davis!

Once again, it was just, you know, like I said, Savannah…she’s 70 years old, she doesn’t write her email well, she absolutely garbled what she was intending to write. Once again, we did not ask her to send any emails out and to reach out to the College Republicans through an email, that was just something she just decided to do on her own volition and unfortunately did it very poorly. As I said, she feels very badly about this.

And I also want to add that Ben Tribbett, the person who decided to go viral on this, he’s a liberal left-wing Obama apologist, and he worked for my Democrat [sic] opponent who ran against me back in 2007. So, I know Tribbett well, I know what his agenda is. Curiously, he used to work for Pete Snyder. But I think this just speaks volumes to why we have conventions instead of primaries; the party chooses to have conventions to keep liberals out of our nominating process, and why we would allow Ben Tribbett, who is a well-known, left-wing Obama apologist, to have any influence over our convention, I have no idea…this is just a poor older woman who made a very bad mistake, and to throw her under the bus like this is just a terrible thing to do...she just sent out an email that she shouldn’t have sent out, that she didn’t even reread before she sent out to make sure her message didn’t come across differently from what her intent was.

Hahahaha. OK, a few thoughts.

1. Ben Tribbett may be “well-known” and “left-wing,” but anyone who has ever read his blog knows that he’s anything but an “Obama apologist.” To the (stark!) contrary, Ben was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter during the rough-and-tumble 2007-2008 Democratic primaries. To this day, Ben remains a huge Hillary fan, but an “Obama apologist?” That’s just utterly laughable.

2. You’ve gotta love the way that liberal Republican (“RINO”) Jeannemarie Davis has mastered the lingo of the Tea Party and the far right in general, with all their juvenile verbal tics like using “Democrat” (as opposed to proper English: “Democratic”) as an adjective, like pretending that Barack Obama is left wing (more like worst Socialist EVER! LOL), etc. It’s just particularly amusing coming out of the mouth of someone who used to pride herself on being a liberal-moderate Republican. Whatever. Obviously, she’ll say whatever she has to say, pretend to be whatever she has to be, in order to try and win the GOP nomination. Which she won’t, of course – pretty much zero chance of that happening at a convention dominated by right-wing activists.

3. I’ve gotta say, I did enjoy Jeannemarie Davis’ clever attempt to tie her rival, Frank “Big Lie” Luntz protege Pete Snyder, to this supposed “left-wing Obama apologist” Ben Tribbett. True, Ben used to work at Snyder’s New Media Strategies, but if we really want to start examining where everyone has ever worked, this could get real interesting real fast. On the other hand, I hope whatever Davis is trying to do to Snyder succeeds, as he’d make a horrendous Lieutenant Governor and should certainly not be elected to anything, ever (plus, from a Republican point of view, he was a total #FAIL heading up “Virginia Victory 2012”).

4. I find it highly ironic that Jeannemarie Davis criticizes Ben Tribbett for throwing this “poor older woman” under the bus, when Davis herself repeatedly and viciously…throws her (now former) staffer under the bus! For starters, Davis informs us that this “poor older woman” has now “tendered her resignation [from the Davis campaign] and she’s no longer working with the campaign.” Speaking of throwing someone under the bus – nice going Jeannemarie Davis! In addition, if you read the transcript and/or listen to the interview, you may notice Jeannemarie Davis repeatedly bashing this “poor older woman” for being sloppy, a bad writer, irresponsible, etc, etc. And, of course, for this entire incident being the “poor older woman”‘s fault, not Jeannemarie Davis’. Nice, huh?

5. If Jeannemarie Davis really believes that Virginia Republicans switched their nominating process from a primary to a convention to keep liberals from somehow influencing who their nominee will be, she’s either an ignoramus or a paranoid wackjob (or both). In reality, of course, liberals don’t generally waste their time voting in Republican primaries, certainly not in numbers that would make any difference. More to the point, everyone knows that the reason the 2013 Virginia GOP nominating process was changed was because of a coup by Ken Cuccinelli and his supporters, who wanted to force out Bill Bolling. It worked, by the way, but it had nothing to do with whatever Jeannemarie Davis is blathering about.

6. Finally, I find it hilarious that Jeannemarie suddenly hates Ben Tribbett, given that she and her husband were quite friendly with Ben prior to 2007 (when Ben played a big role in helping Chap Petersen tossing Jeannemarie Davis out of the State Senate – thank goodness!). I mean, I understand how after an experience like that, Tom and Jeannemarie Davis would be bitter, angry, and terrified of Ben Tribbett, but it’s just hilarious how over the top she goes in this interview to bash her old friend. Ah, politics…gotta love it huh?

Compromise Transportation Bill Passes Virginia State Senate, 26-14

2

From the Virginia Senate Democratic Caucus:

 

Va Senate Democrats Support Bipartisan Compromise: A New, Long-Term Transportation Solution

With over 60% support, this transportation bill has the most 
support of any proposal this year

With 30% of Republicans supporting, this is the most bipartisan 
transportation bill of any proposed this year


RICHMOND, VA — 
Today, Senate Democrats joined Republicans to support a transportation solution that generates sustainable new revenues to fix our transportation problem once and for all. This proposal, a substitute to HB 2313, passed the Senate on a vote of 26 to 14.

Senator Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) said, “I'm glad this plan passed the Senate with such bipartisan support. It raises enough money to fix our transportation problem. The Senate plan raises over $900 million per year for state transportation needs, and gives localities the flexibility they have been asking for to solve their unique problems. As long as the conference report resembles the Senate plan, we will have a transportation bill this year. If it varies too widely, we likely will not.”

Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) said, “I'm pleased the Senate approved this long-term plan to address Virginia's transportation crisis. I'm especially pleased so many of my Republican colleagues voted for this plan, which raises sufficient revenue to address long-overdue construction needs across the Commonwealth. In the coming days and weeks, I look forward to working with the House of Delegates and Governor McDonnell to craft a final package that we all can support.”

Senate Democrats, who had previously opposed using general funds or Marketplace Equity Act (MEA) revenue to fund transportation, compromised with the Governor and Republicans in the legislature and unanimously supported a bill that would do both of those things in moderation. The plan moves about $50 million of general funds annually to transportation.

Background

The Governor's transportation bill passed the House of Delegates with only 53% of the vote, and only 12.5% of Democrats. The plan passed the House with 53 votes, of which just 4 were Democrats.

Key Facts

This plan raises the gas tax by 5 cents and indexes it to the cost of the construction materials it takes to build roads. It imposes a new 1% tax on wholesale gasoline (a “rack tax”), and increases the car registration fee by $15.

The plan directs an additional 0.05 percentage points of the state sales tax toward transportation. This moves about $50 million of general funds to transportation.

In the event the Marketplace Equity Act (MEA) passes Congress, two-thirds of that online sales tax revenue will be earmarked for transportation. Just under 20% will be directed to public education, with the balance going to localities. If the Marketplace Equity Act fails to pass, the wholesale gas tax mentioned above will rise to 2%.

The plan also gives the three heavily congested urban regions the flexibility to raise revenue to address their unique transportation needs. Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Central Virginia will each be allowed to create and earn revenue from a new regional sales tax of up to 1%. 

LCDC Applauds Stamos for Delgaudio Grand Jury

0

From the Loudoun County Democratic Committee:

The Washington Post reported this morning that the Arlington Commonwealth’s Attorney, Theo Stamos, has empaneled a grand jury to hear evidence against Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio. Delgaudio has been under investigation for months for his alleged misuse of office staff in improper political fundraising activities. Allegations were first made against Delgaudio one year ago, but those allegations were kept under wraps by Loudoun Board of Supervisors Chairman Scott York until Caitlin Gibson of the Washington Post uncovered the story last September. Since the allegations became public, the Loudoun County Democratic Committee has consistently called for an impartial and professional investigation of Delgaudio’s actions.
 
In the wake of today’s news that Ms. Stamos is presenting evidence to a Loudoun grand jury, LCDC Chair Evan Macbeth issued the following statement:
 
“I am heartened to learn about Ms. Stamos’ work with the grand jury. I have long thought that Supervisor Delgaudio’s actions were worse than improper probably illegal – despite Chairman York’s statements to the contrary. I am glad to see that Ms. Stamos is taking the matter seriously and using all the tools at her disposal to fully investigate the matter. I trust that she will pursue this matter wherever it leads, including investigation of any possible cover-up by Chairman York and then-Vice-Chair Clarke, and criminal prosecution of Mr. Delgaudio, if warranted.
 
As to the people of Sterling, who have been deprived of effective representation on the Board for the past few months, I can only hope that Supervisor Delgaudio will recognize that this grand jury investigation and the allegations against him make it impossible for him to fulfill his duties and responsibilities, and he will resign. Failing that, the LCDC remains committed to working with all like-minded residents of Sterling and Loudoun to ensure that the people of Sterling have responsive, honest and effective representation on the Board of Supervisors.”

Transportation Politics: The Emerging Deal and the 2013 GUV Contenders

2

(Sorry, Paul, I disagree: Dems need to hang tough and RAISE the gas tax, not eliminate it. Also, I’m not convinced that transportation is going to be much of an issue in the 2013 campaign; we’ll see. Finally, I’m perfectly fine with Dems being the reasonable ones politically, getting something done, while Cuccinelli sticks with the far right wing/Tea Party types. Works for me. 🙂 – promoted by lowkell)

by Paul Goldman

Yes, Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus. But if Virginia Democrats and the Washington Post – based on its latest editorial – believe Governor McDonnell and House Republicans are going to agree to a $1 billion a year in new money transportation plan based on big increases in the gas tax, then we are living on different planets, not just in different states. THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Yeah, I could be wrong: we don’t do 20-20 hindsight here, or anything of the sort. We do real time politics, without a net. So out on the limb we go.

There will be a transportation deal, the parameters outlined below. It will reject the silly moralizing by the Washington Post. On the other hand, it would be fun to see the General Assembly pass the Post package — and then hold a contest to see who could most accurately predict the size of Governor Cuccinelli’s landslide victory. And then of course there would be this: Governor Cuccinelli suing to shut down Kaplan University, the private college living off government funds, whose profits are keeping the Post from having to go 100% internet (or 100% belly up). Former Democratic Chairman Brian Moran – of the family the Post seems to despise – would then have to be hired to defend the newspaper. That would be priceless. Brian is a good lawyer, he might win the case. But Cuccinelli would sue the Post as surely as President Jefferson tried to get Chief Justice Marshall to find Aaron Burr guilty of treason. Yeah, there was some constitutional technicality with the evidence. Except for CJ Marshall, however, few others would have had the guts to back Burr over TJ.

But alas: While I think the Governor and the Speaker would enjoy watching the spectacle, they also want to have a future in Republican politics. For Governor McDonnell and the Speaker to sign onto a bill that raises the PRICE OF GAS – I am using McD’s own analysis, which bases the brilliance of his own plan on the claim that it will LOWER the price of gas at the pump – would risk a mutiny in GOP ranks, national and in Richmond. Plus, the governor’s base – Tidewater – is already mad enough at him for forcing on them big tolls for a very questionable deal, not to mention outrage at his wasting a $1.3 billion on a “Road To Nowhere”

As an aside: Why aren’t Democrats – and I am taking this brilliant point from a very brilliant guy, one of the top political thinkers in Virginia who unfortunately doesn’t want the credit – demanding that as any part of any transportation deal, the Road to Nowhere isn’t built, since even the governor’s own Transportation Department couldn’t find experts to justify the expense! Plus, we all know the $1.3 billion price tag is way low (it is just “spin” to get the thing approved; the actual cost will be way more, may $3 billion when all is said and done). Tidewater is thus going to be a potential hotbed for a populist anti-tax revolt if legislators raise the gas tax as proposed in the Democratic Plan.  

But back to the real deal emerging (and yes, there will be one, in my view). We all have our own take on what is doable. True, as we are now in the 200-proof political zone where optics are key, even the smallest misstep can kill a deal this year. But Saslaw is a savvy player, McEachin too, and Speaker Howell in matters legislative. McD ain’t bad himself. So I am assuming no deal-breaking error.

So let’s play the politics of the deal first, as regards the three GUV contenders.                    

As I wrote yesterday, the warring transportation factions of the GOP gave Senate Democrats a once-in-a-lifetime chance to guarantee a 2013 Dem sweep. All they had to do was pass HB 2313 as is, easily done with the help of Senator Watkins, who would have voted for it had Senator Saslaw said this is all the Dems will support this year. That would have provided the 21 votes needed for a revenue bill  under the constitution. At which point: done deal, both houses passing the same bill.

Saslaw decided to go another route. Thus, the Senate Finance Committee, led by Democrats, fundamentally altered HB 2313, a move expected to be endorsed, perhaps with minor changes, on the Senate floor today.

Which gubernatorial contender potentially benefits the most from this Senate power play? Ken Cuccinelli. Ol’ Saint Nick couldn’t have given him a better gift. Fortunately, the AG has often been one to look a gift horse in the mouth, despite the adage. The Senate move gives him an opening he didn’t earn, indeed could never have gotten on his own. Right now, everyone in Richmond knows the AG isn’t backing the governor’s transportation plan. Cuccinelli prefers the one proposed by conservative GOP Senators. But that plan is DOA.

So there are only two horses to ride right now if you want a deal: the House/Governor’s plan or the

Senate Dems/some GOP Senators plan.

Remember: The media is watching. So either the AG wants to let the press spin his image as opposed to any deal, not engaged, or supportive of one or the other.  He is the AG, he has a platform unlike say Terry. He stayed AG instead of resigning, for a reason presumably to have this platform. Standing on the sidelines raises the question: Why take the heat for not resigning if you aren’t going to use the platform on something this big?

At this point, his play, his only play is making it clear he backs the governor’s plan. It is a sure winner thanks to Senate Democrats. Why? Run the computer program. As Joe Louis said about Billy Conn (who had the champ beat), he can run but he can’t hide.

Cuccinelli is running for governor, so he will have to take a position at some point on the transportation situation. If he thinks it through, the perfect play is for him to come out now and back the governor’s plan. Yes, he doesn’t really support it because it is not “revenue neutral.” So yes, backing it will get him a lot of grief on the anti-tax and spending Tea Party right.

I ask: Where are those people going in November? Are they going to desert the most conservative guy ever to get a Republican nomination for governor, a guy who likes to say he was “tea party before there was a tea party” or words to that effect? If they wanted to back Bolling, they would not have changed the rules to run him out of the party. They surely aren’t backing Terry Mac.

The Tea Party has no place to go, and they aren’t staying home. Most successful politicians had to go against type and their constituency at some point to win. So Cuccinelli can afford to make them mad on this one, indeed it might be necessary to do it. What he can’t afford to do is oppose any reasonable deal McDonnell can make with the Democrats, unless Cuccinelli is prepared to go “all in” on a daring populist gamble as I outlined yesterday. It might work, depending on how the transportation deal details finally come down.

But there is no evidence he is considering that route. He has never done it before. Given his financial backers, he might not even have room to run on the side of the field. So let’s assume all this true.  Accordingly, Cuccinelli has backed himself into this corner: he has to go along with whatever McDonnell and the House Republicans want right now. He is too smart politically to think he can win for governor running against the McD transportation plan unless, like I say, he is counting on McD to make a huge blunder and agree to a plan that is clearly rejected by the people of Virginia.

That being the case, Cuccinelli has to make a virtue out of a necessity. As long as he stays quiet, he gains nothing by waiting and then backing the compromise deal. McAuliffe and Bolling will do the same: it is a wash, meaning Terry is the big winner since he is the front runner.

But the chess board changes if Cuccinelli suddenly backs McD. Given the current optics, it can be spun as Cuccinelli, even though this isn’t his first choice, making a “governing move”, showing a practical side on the bread-and-butter type issues, as opposed to being a one-note ideologue on social stuff. This is almost surely going to be the best, if not the only, high profile moment for the AG to address a huge political problem with his image.

But you say: “Paul, the Governor’s plan can’t pass, Democrats will laugh at him.” My response: Like that’s bad for Cuccinelli? He earns real street cred with Governor McD, the business community (now not big fans of him), and in doing so, makes it harder for Bolling to justify an independent run. Plus, it allows Cuccinelli to attack the gas tax increases in the Dem plan without being seen as just another anti-everything Tea Party idol.

While I know a lot Democrats think the sales tax is more regressive, that is not what the people think, and not what is easily the facts with a little tweaking of the final transportation plan. In this regard, Bolling can’t be critical of him. As for Terry, as we said yesterday, he is rightfully leery of doing anything which gets him crosswise with Saslaw and crew right now.

Suddenly, it is the McD/Cuccinelli plan for transportation, based on eliminating a tax, always good seller, especially one as disliked as the gas tax.

Now comes the negotiation between McD and Saslaw and Howell. Here is my real-time guess on a solution. Democrats will have to accept a phaseout of the gas tax over, say, 5 years. McDonnell will have to accept a phase in of the sales tax increase to 5.8% (this is selling cars, I don’t see how he can go to 6%, bad optics but maybe not) over 5 years. The idea here is to balance stuff so Republicans can keep their politics in balance too.

Democrats will have to drop their idea for a new “rack tax” on gas at the wholesale level and cross their fingers on the Congress changing the law to overrule the Supreme Court decision allowing Amazon, etc. not to collect sales taxes. This is really not much of a concession, since this change is coming, as Amazon has indicated; it is a matter of basic economic fairness to local homegrown merchants.

In return, McD has to drop his proposal to increase from 1/2 to 3/4 percent the share of the current sales tax on non-Internet stuff going to transportation, a big part of his current transportation “solution.” Plus, the Governor will have to agree to a change in his proposed distribution formula for Internet sales tax revenue to an equation more pro-education. Finally, McD agrees to a small refundable tax credit for the very poor should Dems propose it, as they might well do.

Those are the big items that I see. The other stuff – registration fees, some other wrinkles – are not deal breakers at all, just politics in the final analysis. This then is the outlines of a deal that I think it doable. The amount of new transportation revenue would be roughly $500 million a year, in the zone of fixing the maintenance funding hole. As for local option stuff, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of support for it in NOVA, I am not sure about Tidewater or Central Virginia. It raises less money than either the McD or Senate Dem plan, only half of what the Post wants.

                                          Perfect? Of course not. But a good first step given the realities. As to reality: Cuccinelli can back this deal because it eliminates the gas tax. Moreover, unlike Gilmore’s “no car tax”, there is a guaranteed funding stream to make it happen.

Yeah, the increased sales tax is an issue, but the voters Cuccinelli needs to win have historically been generally receptive to small such increases when carefully explained. Besides, the actual increase in the sales tax starting July 1 will be less than 5.8% — and the gas tax will be cut, a good political point for November.

If Bolling were going to run as a populist, then Cuccinelli might worry about someone saying the gas tax cut will only help the oil interests to get windfall profits. But Terry MAC ain’t going that route if the Dem cut the deal outlined above, and neither is Bolling.

                                                THEREFORE: Cuccinelli can back the compromise deal and get credit for helping the governor stand firm to do it. Like I say, my analysis is based on a belief that Governor McDonnell and Speaker Howell need to have at least the fig leaf of a gas tax elimination to justify their rhetoric.

                                                Could they live with a big cut in the gas tax offset by a rise in the sales tax? It doesn’t seem to me to be the kind of political play both have been pushing, and used to sell the McD plan to a skeptical House Republican Caucus. Working class voters don’t like the gas tax. This is an election year for the House Republicans, not the Senate Dems. So you asked me to choose, I would say no. But assume they say yes.

At which point, Cuccinelli can say: Sorry guys, I was willing to back the McD plan, but the governor has gone back on his word, and I am not going that route. He would technically be going against McD, but what could McD, the Democrats or the press say credibility in that regard since the AG had been willing to support the original GOP plan passed by the House? Thus Cuccinelli may preserve a populist-lite play if he simply can’t abide the compromise plan.

                                                    Where does this leave Terry Mac? Again, he  has to wait until he knows where Saslaw and posse are going. At which point, he really can only be seen as lending help, not leading the pack. So that’s why it is tricky for Terry to do anything now, since the risk of getting out front seems way to high given the likely rewards.

                                                   As for Bolling, his whole rationale for running is that Cuccinelli isn’t a mainstream player. That analysis doesn’t hold if Cuccinelli is seen as backing the governor or a compromise transportation plan. It only holds if Cuccinelli goes populist. Thus Bolling is not in control of his own destiny here.

SUMMARY: While it is tricky, a transportation deal with a gas tax phase out seemingly can work for McDonnell if he gets the numbers right. Democrats would be giving up the most, but in 2004, Republicans gave up the most on the Warner tax deal. This how the thing goes. Cuccinelli has the most to win, and thus the most to lose. Presumably he knows that.

To me, of all the players, Cuccinelli has the best possible move in terms of the potential political upside. It would be out of character no doubt. But he is the underdog, so a tie goes to the front-runner.  Terry would likely make a good deal maker in these kinds of situations. But I don’t how he gets into the game publicly. And even if he does, then he takes on a big risk. Why do it? As for Bolling, he will need to do more than bang the Senate gavel to get into the game. But if he is seen as pressuring or complicating the governor’s situation, it could be fatal.

                                                    Saslaw is playing Santa right now for Cuccinelli. I understand the Democrats’ thinking on user fees and policy. But my analysis says they will have to let it go unless McD makes a huge mistake somewhere in the next week or so. This is why I wrote what I wrote yesterday. For if in the end you are going to have to agree to eliminate the gas tax, why not just “man up” as they say, pass the governor’s plan, block the Cuccinelli move, and basically set it up so that McD would have Terry’s back on taxes and transportation?

                                                        As I run the simulation, it seems a better move politically. But in politics, the wheel is always spinning and the game can change at any moment. Stay tuned.

Virginia News Headlines: Tuesday Morning (Marco Rubio #FAIL Edition)

7

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Tuesday, February 13. Also, check out the video of Marco Rubio grabbing for a bottle of water, mid sentence, during his SOTU response last night. Maybe he needed to wash his mouth out, given all the Big Lies (and falsehoods, and tired old Teapublican talking points, and nonsense) he was telling, or the bull**** that was spewing out from his oral orifice, or both? Or maybe he’s just wildly overrated? Regardless, total #FAIL by the Great GOP Non-White Hope.

*Obama urges lawmakers to boost jobs, strengthen middle class

*Obama’s incredibly ambitious second-term agenda

*President Barack Obama State of the Union 2013 speech

*A visual statement of progress, followed by the same old story (“At a moment when the Republican Party needs rebranding, Rubio offered nothing new. The thrust of his speech was ‘government bad, capitalism good.’ Yet he recounted how beneficial government assistance has been to his own success. I expected him to resolve the contradiction, but he didn’t even try.”)

*Fact-checking Marco Rubio’s State of the Union response (This guy’s getting close to Romney level in his lying.)

*Tea party State of the Union 2013 rebuttal: Rand Paul response (And then there’s crazy “Aqua Buddha”/”Atlas Shrugged” man! What a party…)

*Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Tim Kaine Weigh In on State of the Union

*Kaine votes to advance Hagel nomination to Defense post

*Jeff Schapiro: For GOP, it’s clear a makeover is needed (“…, the GOP – particularly in Virginia, a purple state that increasingly is a microcosm of the nation – continues to press an agenda that suggests anything but common-sense solutions to kitchen-table issues.”)

*Bill to raise road money clears Va. Senate committee

*Senate committee overhauls McDonnell’s transportation plan

*A transportation deal in Virginia? (The Post’s “reasoning,” using the word loosely, is that the governor’s transportation proposal makes very little if any sense, so let’s meet him halfway! Uh, no thanks.)

*Democrats urge sales of Va. governor candidate Ken Cuccinelli’s book

*Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s book tour begins this weekend

*Fairfax Grad Supports Immigration Reform at State of the Union (“Warner brought undocumented 19-year-old to President Barack Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address to emphasize the need for new policies.”)

*Report compares Virginia with other states

*Is voter ID contingency clause in jeopardy?

*House approves concealed handgun secrecy in Virginia

*Va. senior citizens denied no-excuse absentee voting

*VDOT maintenance still full of holes

*Keep school sports for school students

*Va. Assembly honors Olympic gold medalist Douglas

*Editorial: Keep disaster information public (“A proposed bill would make it harder for the public to know if the state is prepared for the next big storm.”)

*Panel kills proposal to ban fox-penning competitions (Nice job by Republicans, the “we love cruelty and barbarism” party!)

*Petersen’s bike safety bill dies (Republicans to cyclists: drop dead!)

*Washington Nationals suddenly dealing with the weight of great expectations

Cuccinelli’s Book: Polluter Freedom Crusade Will Go to Supreme Court

3

( – promoted by lowkell)

The Last Line of Defense by Ken CuccinelliIn Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's first book, released today, he paints a portrait of himself crusading for the freedom of the people of Virginia against federal government overreach.  In "Weird Science," the chapter about his lawsuit challenging the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health by causing climate change, it's clear he's more of a crusader for the freedom of corporations to pollute.

SPOILER ALERT: The attorney general states in the book that he intends to spend taxpayer dollars to take his crusade for polluter freedom all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, though "Weird Science" contains quite a bit of ridiculous rhetoric, I think the most preposterous and also the most significant is the way he justifies his plan to return to court- based on huge misreprestenations of quotes from the ruling against his case.

But before we get to that, let's check out how we got here, starting with some background info from the book:

Just to give you a little history, in the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, twelve states brought suit against the EPA to force the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants. The court ruled 5–4 in favor of the states, saying that the EPA was obligated under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases if it ultimately determined they were pollutants that endangered public health.

So in December 2009, shortly after Cuccinelli won the office of attorney general, EPA issued its finding that greenhouse gases do endanger public health by causing climate change, based on the consensus of 97% of climate scientists across the globe. But Cuccinelli, who points out that he has "a great respect for science" as a former engineer, disagreed with the consensus.  The only direct argument he offers in the book against the science of climate change is…well…just read it for yourself:

The EPA was attempting to transform the entire American economy and our standard of living because it said carbon dioxide was a pollutant dangerous to public health. Let’s not confuse carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide, the odorless, poisonous gas that’s also emitted during the combustion of some materials. No, carbon dioxide, or CO2—this “dangerous” threat to America and to the world—is the gas we all exhale from our bodies every second of every day. It’s also the gas that we readily and willingly consume when we have carbonated drinks. It’s also what the trees and plants feed on so they can live and produce the oxygen we need to breathe. Yes, this important part of the “circle of life” is now suddenly a dangerous pollutant. Maybe it’s worth keeping all of this in mind when we’re trying to analyze problems carbon dioxide can cause.

Yeah…so on behalf of the people of Virginia, he teamed up with attorneys general from a number of other states as well as fossil fuel industry plaintiffs like the American Petroleum Institute and Peabody Energy to sue the EPA. While labeling those who advocate against climate change as "alarmists," he offered his own alarming prediction of the consequences, should greenhouse gas regulations move forward:

We relied on that fossil fuel-based electricity daily to power our computers, our refrigerators, our lights, our televisions, all of our electronics, and even our electric cars! We relied on oil to heat our homes; power our cars; and power the transport trucks that brought the food to our grocery stores, the clothes to our department stores, and the packages we ordered off Amazon.com to our doors. Using greenhouse gas regulations to force Americans to replace these critical energy sources with more costly, less abundant, and technologically unproven and unreliable alternatives would undoubtedly slow the U.S. economy and potentially lead to energy shortages—with lines stretched around the block at gas stations, brownouts, and air-conditioning that wouldn’t work on the hottest days of the year because of blackouts.

While the attorney general's argument that soda contains carbon dioxide is clearly an intentional oversimplification, I think he really may be so in the dark about clean energy that he truly thinks renewable energy sources are "more costly and less abundant" than fossil fuels and that wind and solar power are "technologically unproven and unreliable."  For the record, he's got it backwards.  While coal, natural gas and oil are finite resources, there's enough free sunlight and wind on the earth to power all of our needs.  And there's nothing unproven about technologies that have been providing power for decades.  Solar panels were providing power to Jimmy Carter's White House more than 30 years ago, for goodness' sake.

In the end, the court ruled against Cuccinelli and the polluters, saying "This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

In building the case for his intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, Cuccinelli completely misrepresents quotes from the unaminous ruling against him as casting doubt on its strength. I have to assume that he's willfully bending the truth—assuming that the typical reader won't look at the ruling for his or herself.  The alternative—that he has actually misunderstood the ruling—seems unrealistic and would be worse in many ways. 

Here's the first quote he uses in its full context:

State and Industry Petitioners [including Cuccinelli] insist that because statutes [like the Clean Air Act] should be interpreted to avoid absurd results, EPA should have considered at least the “absurd” consequences that would follow from an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

[Having found that greenhouse gases do ultimately endanger health, EPA is creating regulations for stationery sources of these emissions. However, EPA proposed exempting sources of small amounts of greenhouse gases, like bakeries and farms. Those bringing the lawsuit said this was an admission of a potential absurd result by EPA.]

However “absurd” Petitioners consider this consequence, though, it is still irrelevant to the endangerment inquiry…The plain language of… [the Clean Air]… Act does not leave room for EPA to consider as part of the endangerment inquiry the stationary-source regulation triggered by an endangerment finding, even if the degree of regulation triggered might at a later stage be characterized as “absurd.”

Here's how Cuccinelli quoted it:

The court said it would allow the EPA to move forward with regulations “even if the degree of regulation triggered might at a later stage be characterized as ‘absurd.’”

Very obviously written with a different meaning than it was given in the court's ruling.

Here's the original context for another quote where much of what Cuccinelli pulls out is actually the court quoting a ruling in a precedential case from 1976:

Industry Petitioners do not find fault with much of the substantial record EPA amassed in support of the Endangerment Finding. Rather, they contend that the record evidences too much uncertainty to support that judgment. But the existence of some uncertainty does not, without more, warrant invalidation of an endangerment finding. If a statute is “precautionary in nature” and “designed to protect the public health,” and the relevant evidence is “difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge,” EPA need not provide “rigorous step-by-step proof of cause and effect” to support an endangerment finding. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1976). As we have stated before, “Awaiting certainty will often allow for only reactive, not preventive, regulation.” Id. at 25.

Here's Cuccinelli's version:

The court also upheld the EPA’s use of United Nations-generated climate data because it interpreted the Clean Air Act as permitting regulation even where “the relevant evidence is ‘difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge.’ ”

Here's Cuccinelli's justification for pushing his crusade to the Supreme Court, in full:  

The court said it would allow the EPA to move forward with regulations “even if the degree of regulation triggered might at a later stage be characterized as ‘absurd.’”

The court also upheld the EPA’s use of United Nations-generated climate data because it interpreted the Clean Air Act as permitting regulation even where “the relevant evidence is ‘difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge.’ ”

Wow, those last several parts didn’t sound like a ringing endorsement of the EPA’s work. The court seemed to have a split personality in its decision, sometimes chastising us for even bringing the suit, and at other times, pointing out how absurd and ineffective the EPA regulations might be.

Ultimately, we feel that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to clarify how far it will let the EPA take its 2007 decision, so Virginia and several of the plaintiffs will ultimately be taking the appeal to the Supreme Court.

I can only hope the Supreme Court will agree with the states and will conclude the EPA doesn’t have the authority to make “absurd” economy- and lifestyle-altering regulations using “uncertain” or “conflicting” evidence without regard for their effects on the American people, their liberty, and their economic security. While the big-government statists declared the court’s decision in this round a victory, handing over that kind of immense power to an unelected federal bureaucracy willing to shortcut its own rules and work under a veil of secrecy was a defeat for all Americans, regardless of their political persuasion.

So there you have it. Cuccinelli wants to take the his crusade for corporate freedom to pollute to the Supreme Court. And the best logic he can give for this appeal is misreprestations of the court's decision. Sounds like a solid use of taxpayer dollars!

Cross-posted from ChesapeakeClimate.org

Tonight’s State of the Union: No More Yes Man?

17

President Obama’s first four years saw him attempt to say yes to everything on climate and energy – yes to both the right policy choice AND the political pander. Tougher fuel efficiency standards and new air pollution limits? Yes! The fastest expansion of oil drilling in U.S. history? Yes!

This all-of-the-above strategy has been a failure – instead, we’ve gotten the worst of all worlds. More risky drilling than ever? Gas prices near record highs? Price tag for climate-fueled weather disasters hitting $188 billion? Yes, yes and yes!

Tonight, I hope President Obama continues his inaugural theme of making good choices and smart investments. He needs to keep saying yes to clean energy investment and yes to carbon emissions continuing to go down while economic recovery continues its upward track.

But President Obama also needs to start saying no – no to America serving as the middleman for dirty, expensive Canadian tar sands. No to unlimited, untracked methane emissions from gas fracking. No to unlimited carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants.

The good news for President Obama is that making those hard choices is politically popular. Today’s Washington Post poll finds more than half of voters support action on climate change, with just a third of voters in opposition. Climate-fueled extreme weather events like superstorm Sandy have shifted the center – climate action is now a clear political winner.

Now that’s worth saying yes to.

Video: Bob McDonnell Desperately Tries to Avoid Answering Question on Divided GOP

2

Specifically, McDonnell won’t give a straight answer regarding why there’s an “official” GOP response to President Obama’s State of the Union address (by Tea Partier Marco Rubio), in ADDITION to a Tea Party response (by supposed Republican Rand Paul). The fact is, the Republican Party today is totally confused about how to deal with the extremist Tea Party monster it helped create, hence the mixed messages, awkwardness, etc. From a Democratic and progressive point of view, it’s rather enjoyable…