Home Blog Page 2439

Virginia News Headlines: Monday Morning

By
lowkell
-
3

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

*Pope Benedict XVI reportedly resigning this month (“The 265th Pontiff, Benedict would be the first leader of the Church to step down voluntarily in almost six centuries.”)

*Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people (“We are left with the profound historical irony that the party of Lincoln-of the Gettysburg Address, with its reiteration of the Declaration’s assertion of equality and its vision of a ‘new birth of freedom’-has found sustenance in Lincoln’s principal intellectual and moral antagonist. It has become the party of Calhoun.”)

*Obama’s State of the Union: Aggressive (“Emboldened by electoral victory and convinced the GOP is unwilling to cut deals, Obama plans to use his big prime-time address Tuesday night to issue another broad challenge at a Republican Party he regards as vulnerable and divided, Democrats close to Obama say.” I sure hope so!)

*Krugman: The Ignorance Caucus (“…while Democrats, being human, often read evidence selectively and choose to believe things that make them comfortable, there really isn’t anything equivalent to Republicans’ active hostility to collecting evidence in the first place.)

*Drones as job-killers?

*Bill shields disaster plans from public disclosure

*A bipartisan fight against illegal guns (“Virginia Beach Republican U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell, along with Republican and Democratic colleagues, has crafted a piece of gun-control legislation with bipartisan appeal.”)

*Editorial: Too much time for tomfoolery (“State lawmakers should spend less time reading Glenn Beck novels and more time killing dumb bills.”)

*Editorial: Safer schools, better mental health (“The governor and lawmakers should pay special attention to mental health when looking to improve the safety of Virginia’s schoolchildren.”)

*Ken Cuccinelli hits Terry McAuliffe on business move (“Cuccinelli’s campaign is charging that McAuliffe has changed his story about what happened.”)

*Sen. Warner takes in lion dance for Chinese New Year

*Tim Kaine throws big Bon Jovi fundraiser

*David Alpert: His vision for Greater Greater Washington and the District (Gotta love the focus in this article on rude commenters, as if the Post itself doesn’t have some of the nastiest, most vicious, racist, bigoted commenters around – and they let just about everything go in their desperate/frantic quest for eyeballs. #FAIL)

*Habeeb’s media week and the lawmaker he exposed (So…the guy’s a right-wing extremist AND a nasty SOB whose colleagues don’t like or trust. Nice combo.)

*New Beltway Express Lanes losing money

*Terps bottled up by streaking Cavs

*D.C. area forecast: Mild, showery start to week but it trends colder, small snow chances

Video: Caught on Camera: Part-Time Cuccinelli

By
lowkell
-
0



See the press release from American Bridge 21st Century on the “flip.”

WASHINGTON — Today, American Bridge 21st Century released a new video demonstrating Ken Cuccinelli’s inability to fulfill his duties as Virginia’s Attorney General while he runs for governor. Shunning nearly three decades of precedent, including that of his predecessor Bob McDonnell, Cuccinelli claimed that he was able to both campaign and serve as Attorney General. However, as this video shows, Cuccinelli missed a significant portion of an important meeting of the Governor’s Task Force on School & Campus Safety while he was campaigning.

 

“We may be ‘nine months, a week, five hours and 30 minutes’ from Election Day, but already Ken Cuccinelli’s efforts to obtain his next job are interfering with his current one,” said Rodell Mollineau, president of American Bridge 21st Century. “The Attorney General may have thought he was capable of handling both. Now that he has proven he isn’t, he owes it to voters to do what’s best for the people of Virginia instead of what’s best for Ken Cuccinelli.”

Two weeks ago, American Bridge released a video highlighting Cuccinelli’s decision to discard tradition by continuing to serve as the state’s Attorney general while campaigning for governor. The previous six Attorneys General of Virginia have ultimately resigned from the position to run for Governor, including Governor Bob McDonnell, Jerry Kilgore, and Jim Gilmore.

When stepping down in 2009, McDonnell said, “The Office of the Attorney General is the Commonwealth’s law firm and demands a full time Attorney General. Historically Democratic and Republican Attorneys General have stepped down from this post in order to run for Governor. It is the right, and proper thing to do.”

American Bridge 21st Century is a progressive organization committed to holding Republicans accountable for their words and actions through the use of opposition research, candidate tracking, and earned media communications.

Video of the first 40 minutes of the meeting of the Governor’s Task Force on School & Campus Safety is available here: http://youtu.be/hSwdUDyHPt8 

What can we appear to do about gun violence, without actually doing anything?

By
AndyG
-
0

While the Governor’s Commission has recommended some interesting and useful actions regarding; information sharing, threat assessment teams, lockdown drills and security upgrades for facilities, the two actions related to firearms are not particularly impressive.  Both bills, that have arisen from the Commission, are simply reactive and would do little to prevent a potential attacker from obtaining the weapons needed to carry out a school attack. Both bills rely on the unproven deterrence of increased sentencing, which would only come into effect AFTER an attack was completed.  Once an armed individual with evil intentions sets foot in a location, determined to carry out a suicidal attack, the best that anyone can hope for is to minimize casualties, not avoid them altogether.  Clearly the reaction to other legislation, that has already been defeated this session, show that there is a complete disdain by the Republican led administration for taking any proactive measures designed to prevent an ineligible or otherwise dangerous person from obtaining firearms.

Looking at the bills individually:

SB 1377 Stewart:  Increases the penalty for bringing firearms or explosives onto school property, with the “intent” of using them in a felony.

SB 1378 Garrett:  Increases the penalty for straw purchasing a firearm, both for the straw purchaser and the actual ineligible buyer.

Violent individuals that are already barred from owning firearms obtain those weapons from 3 main sources:

1.  Purchase from unlicensed sellers in transactions that are totally anonymous and require no background check.  Several efforts to change that were defeated.

2. Theft from gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons, either directly by the individual or through a black market sale from the original thieves.  It is hard to deter theft by legislation, but requiring gun owners to take measures to better secure their weapons and creating some form of liability for negligence would help.  A bill that would have done that was defeated.

3. Straw purchase by individuals with clean backgrounds on behalf of ineligible buyers.  This is very difficult to spot and to prosecute due to several inadequacies in the law.  First it is too easy for the buyer to simply claim that a firearm traced back to them from a crime scene was “lost or stolen” from them at some point.  Requiring lost/stolen firearms reporting would take away that excuse and make straw purchasing much more risky.  A bill requiring that was defeated.  Currently a person can buy a firearm from a dealer and then legally sell that weapon to anyone without any regard to that person’s eligibility to own a firearm.  In order to prosecute for straw purchasing it would be necessary to observe the purchase and to prove that the individuals involved had prior knowledge that the subsequent transfer was illegal.  The straw buyer would still be able to claim that they purchased the weapon in good faith, but then decided to sell it as they “changed their mind” or “didn’t like the feel of the weapon” etc.  It could also be difficult to prove without doubt that the straw buyer was aware that the person to whom they subsequently transferred the weapon was ineligible to own it.  Simply increasing the penalty for such an action does nothing to make that activity easier to detect or less likely to occur.

It used to be said that “an ounce of prevention was better than a pound of cure”, however these two bills SB 1377 and SB 1378 seem to concentrate on just “an ounce of cure”.

A Few Thoughts on Straw Poll Turnout and Results

By
lowkell
-
1

The Mt. Vernon Democrats straw poll results are in (Aneesh Chopra 148-Ralph Northam 61; Mark Herring 128-Justin Fairfax 108), and my friend Ben Tribbett has some thoughts. For instance, Ben argues, the fact that “none of the candidates have enough support to even get 200 people to show up and vote for them on a Saturday night in a location within 30 minutes of about 75% of the NoVA population…tells me everyone is really weak right now with very little organization behind them.” It’s an interesting argument, but do the facts back it up?

Looking back on past editions of this straw poll – and also Gerry Connolly’s St. Patrick’s Day (“the holiest day of the year,” as Connolly half-jokingly calls it) straw poll – helps provide perspective, both in terms of the polls’ raw numbers and also their predictive accuracy (or lack thereof). Here are results from a few previous NOVA Democratic straw polls.

Gerry Connolly St. Patrick’s Day 2007

Hillary Clinton (96 votes)-John Edwards (68 votes)-Barack Obama (63 votes)

In sum, that straw poll was completely wrong (Obama ended up winning Virginia, while Edwards had dropped out by then). It also was not particularly well attended, with just 227 votes cast, very similar to last night’s Mt. Vernon straw poll. Meh.

Mt. Vernon 2008

Hillary Clinton 56%-Barack Obama 44% (note that Obama went on to win the Virginia primary overwhelmingly just 10 days later)

Leslie Byrne 52%-Doug Denneny 22%-Gerry Connolly 13%-Lori Alexander 11% (note that Connolly went on to win the primary by 25 points over Leslie Byrne, with Denneny and Alexander a distant 3rd and 4th).

In other words, the straw poll was not accurate in the least bit in terms of predicting election outcomes. As for the number of votes cast, Tim Craig reported that there were 180 votes cast for president (with presumably a similar number for Congress). That’s fewer than candidates received this year, actually, yet I doubt anyone would argue that Democratic campaigns for president were “weak” in 2008.

Mt. Vernon 2009

Governor: Brian Moran (83 votes); Creigh Deeds (43 votes); Terry McAuliffe (33 votes).

Lieutenant Governor: Jody Wagner (62); Jon Bowerbank (44); Pat Edmonson (18), Mike Signer (15), Rich Savage (10).

On the governor’s straw poll, clearly the results weren’t accurate at all, as Creigh Deeds ended up winning the Democratic nomination, with Brian Moran in third place and Terry McAuliffe in second place. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. As for the LG race, the results were more accurate, although still far from perfect (Edmonson beating out Signer?). As for the numbers, they were miniscule, with just 159 votes cast for governor and 149 for LG.

By the way, the Connolly St. Patrick’s Day straw poll results that year were even less indicative of the primary results, with Terry McAuliffe romping over Brian Moran, and with Creigh Deeds FAR behind in last place. Uh, no. Turnout, on the other hand, was strong, with 934 ballots cast, but of course the gubernatorial campaigns paid for hundreds of their supporters to attend, so I’m not sure what that means exactly.

With regard to that last question, here’s what I wrote back in February 2009, following that year’s Mt. Vernon Dems Mardi Gras party/straw poll:

Straw polls probably only matter if the result is surprising or even shocking in some way. For instance, when Jim Webb defeated Harris Miller at Gerry Connolly’s St. Patrick’s Day Party on March 17, 2006, that was a big deal because it was totally unexpected and also because it was on Harris Miller’s home turf. Former Webb campaign senior strategist Steve Jarding said in Netroots Rising that Webb’s 58%-42% victory that night marked “a key turning point” in the primary campaign. Why? Because it was a complete shocker that Jim Webb could come into the heart of Connolly/Miller country and defeat [Connolly-allied Harris Miller] among the type of people who attend Connolly fundraisers. That level of grassroots support and enthusiasm proved to be significant, silly/flawed straw poll or not.

More relevant to what Ben’s arguing in his post, I also wrote:

4. I would argue that straw polls can be significant both as an indication of organization strength and also as a measure of true, grassroots support. For instance, the party last night was in the heart of “Moran country,” so one would expect strong grassroots support for Brian Moran there. And he got it, winning the straw poll handily (83-43-33). Other candidates had neither the grassroots support – at least not yet and not in that venue – nor the money to pay for supporters to come out and vote for them. Thus, Rich Savage received just 10 votes and Mike Signer just 15 votes. We’ll see if Savage, Signer, and the others who didn’t win last night can crank it up in coming months.

5. Finally, it matters if a campaign decides to seriously contest a straw poll or not. In 2006, the Webb campaign was leaning against competing in the Connolly straw poll until Chris Ambrose almost singlehandedly talked them into it (after contacting 300 people in Fairfax — including 60% of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee — urging those favorable to Webb to attend the party). Essentially, “you can’t win if you don’t play,” but it’s also a calculated gamble by campaigns whether or not to risk competing and losing. In the end, the Webb campaign competed, won, and reaped the benefits. But it was a strategy that was not without risk.

The bottom line of all this: I wouldn’t take straw polls very seriously, either the level of turnout or the results. Just ask Michele Bachmann about how her win in the 2012 Iowa straw poll propelled her to the presidency. Or not. By the way, the number of votes cast in that Iowa straw poll, despite massive publicity, a huge amount of money poured into it, and a presidential nomination up for grabs was…just 16,892 votes (Bachmann won with 4,823). The point is, these things don’t usually draw many people, nor are they in any way predictive of the final results. But they can be a lot of fun, if you’re into having 30-second conversations with candidates, mingling with their staffers and most diehard (at times rabid) supporters, and of course eating unhealthy fried foods of various kinds (last night: fried chicken). Hey, what else would you be doing on a Saturday night, anyway? 😉

Might Washington’s NFL team have to change its name?

By
teacherken
-
4

Washington RedskinsWhen the ombudsmen of the major paper, The Washington Post writes a column like Patrick Pexton: Listening to Native Americans, one has to wonder. In that column we learned that were the team now led by Quarterback Robert Griffin III ever to return to play its games within the city limits, the current mayor, Vincent Gray

said recently that, if the football team were once again to play its games in the District, a discussion would have to be held on its name.

This is within the context of yet another lawsuit against the team’s name coming in March, a symposium at the Museum of the American Indian on the topic of team nicknames in sports, and recent news coverage of a swimming team at a high profile girls school, Holton Arms, where the swimmers wore feathers and face paint. And as Paxton notes,

columnists have been talking with Native Americans about these issues for a couple of decades.

I will explore Paxton’s column anon, but I will start with this for those who do not know the team’s history – the nickname has absolutely nothing to do with honoring Native Americans.

Washington’s NFL team was originally based in Boston, from which it was eventually moved to DC by its owner, laundry mogul George Preston Marshall, who in the current location was the last NFL owner to have a black player, in part because his was until expansion the southern-most NFL team and he had a radio monopoly from DC south to Florida.

Boston in those days was the home of baseball’s Braves. When the NFL team was founded, the ownership tried to use that name but were forced to backdown in the face of legal opposition from the baseball franchise and the thus switched to the related – and far more offensive – name of “Redskins.” No one made any pretense that the baseball team had picked its nickname because of any respect for the traditions of Native Americans. Instead that name came from an important local – and national – historic event on December 16, 1775, when to protest an unpopular tax local patriots dressed in Native American garb and dumped the wares of the East India Tea Company into Boston Harbor. Native-American names at least could claim some relevance to local tradition in the original New England setting, but the nickname lacked even that relevance in the National Capital. It is like a team from Minneapolis or from Brooklyn still keeping what had been relevant local names in LA – Lakers or Dodgers – or team once in New Orleans continuing to call itself the Jazz when in Salt Lake City.

Returning to Paxton’s column, he writes about having talked with Native American groups and individuals about what the Holton Arms swimmers did, and admits that his words are probably insufficient to describe the depth of feeling he encountered. Consider these two paragraphs:  

Wearing face paint and feathers, many Native Americans feel, is a taking of their cultural and religious traditions. The paint and feathers have distinct meanings for each tribe and nation, and they often are worn only because an individual has earned them through tests, deeds and ceremonies of which white culture has little knowledge or appreciation.

The best analogy I could come up with is the way we treat U.S. military uniforms and insignia. It is against federal law for a civilian to wear the uniform of a U.S. soldier, sailor, airman or Marine for personal gain. Similarly, within the military, if you wear a medal or insignia that you didn’t earn, it is a crime under military law.

Paxton does not mention that at least some educational institutions have dropped nicknames – St.John’s University in New York City changed from Redmen to Red Storm, and Stanford changed from from Indian to Cardinal.

Paxton quotes Suzan Shown Harjo, a Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee, who was part of the first suit against the NFL teams name, which the team lost on original hearing but won on appeal. She was herself a competitive swimmer.  She does not think the Holton Arms girls need to diminish their own strength by using “symbols they don’t understand or respect” – a lack of understanding I think very relevant to the nickname of the NFL team.

Allow me to quote somewhat more extensively.  Paxton has spoken not only with her, bu with other Native Americans, and all see that nickname as racist:  

It hearkens to the early European settling of this country, when French and British authorities put bounties on the heads, or skins, of Native American men, women and children.

“Every major national Native American organization has declared that the name of the pro football team in our nation’s capital is the most offensive thing native peoples can be called in the English language and has called for it to be changed,” she said.

“It’s okay if others aren’t offended by it,” she added. “They should respect that we are offended and that this is something they can do something about – in our world where we can do little about most things, this is something we can actually do something to fix. They should care about it even a tiny bit because we care about it so much.”

Paxton is not alone among writers from the Washington Post who have offered their words in support of the move to change the team’s name.  

And I note that there are precedents for professional sports franchises changing their nicknames because they were offensive.  Two of those involve our national capital.  When the former baseball franchise moved from DC to Minnesota, it changed from the Senators to the Twins (in honor of the location within the Twin Cities metro area).  THe city obtained an NBA franchise that for a while kept its original name from Baltimore, the Bullets, a name in recognition of an ammunition factory of some prominence.  In light of the great gun violence a few decades back its then owner Abe Pollin dropped that name and replaced it with alliterative name of the Washington Wizards.

I have often explained to students that to Native Americans the term “Redskin” is just as offensive as are the words “Kike” or “Hebe” are to Jews, “Wetbacks” to Mexican-Americans, “Polack” to Polish-Americans, “Slant” or “Gook” to Asian-Americans, or “Coon” or “Nigger” to African-Americans.

One has to wonder whether Dan Snyder, the current owner of the NFL franchise, is sensitive enough to these matters that the rising storm of protest against the name will have any effect upon him. Based on his track record, he is unlikely to change the name unless forced to legally. My suggestion has always been if he wants to keep the name he should change the symbol to a potato.  Until recently Redskin Potato Salad might have been considered complimentary to the team’s performance, at least since the first departure of Joe Gibbs. The presence of RGIII has somewhat changed that.

So perhaps the best we can hope for is that, like Patrick Paxton, DC’s fans will begin to recognize that Native-Americans

flesh-and-blood Americans, as much a part of the warp and weft of the living fabric of this country as George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.

Those who have been a part of this community for any period of time have experienced that – among our prominent members of Native=American descent are Meteor Blades, Navajo, and Ojibwa. At the annual conventions there is a Native-American caucus. Some of us who are not ourselves of that descent participate in helping with actions such as fuel bought through a Native American owned company for those on a reservation, and to support a house that provides protection and assistance to victims of sexual abuse.

Remember, Redskins is the most offensive thing native peoples can be called in the English language according to many native people.

I hope Paxton is correct when he begins his final paragraph by writing

I don’t think this city’s football fans or the Holton-Arms swimmers are racist.

I know he is correct in the rest of his words in that paragraph:

I’m sure they feel they’re honoring the warrior spirit. But most Native Americans don’t feel that way. We honor them most by listening.

It is long past time that this shame in our national capital be erased.

It is long past time that we recognize the offensiveness of the team’s nickname.

It is long past time that the NFL itself demand that if the ownership will not change the name on its own, the league demand it.

In the meantime, those of us who understand the offensive need not only to speak out, as has Paxton, but refuse to support that name in any way –  in our words, in any purchase of team merchandise.  

One would hope that some of the team’s stars would recognize the offensiveness of the name and also speak out against it.

We can hope.

And knowing that the ombudsman of the paper has now joined other prominent voices, maybe this glacier is starting to melt?

Bolling Bombshell: Cuccinelli Strategists May Want a 3-Way Race

By
Goldmanusa
-
0

( – promoted by lowkell)

by Paul Goldman

Sure, it could just be some “reverse psychology” or part of a clever “your momma” mind game. But to what end though? The recent remarks by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (posted on YouTube by Rick Sincere), concerning – or more accurately a seeming lack of concern – regarding a three-way race for governor got me thinkin’ the seemingly unthinkable. Could Ken Cuccinelli actually want a 3-way race for governor?

There is no logic for Cuccinelli to comment on the three-way race right now. Nothing he can say is going to have a positive effect on Bolling. Do you wave a red flag at a bull in order to make him less likely to fight? Perhaps Hemingway got it all wrong?

So I ask: Might the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign team actually want a three-way race this November? Ask UVA Professor Larry Sabato and the other certified political gurus in academia here in Virginia, and they will unanimously opine: an independent gubernatorial candidacy by Republican LG Bill Bolling will be a net negative for Mr. Cuccinelli. This conclusion will not be primarily based on the “second choice” indications pro-Bolling voters are giving to pollsters when asked who they would support in a two-way race. Rather, the gurus will focus on the difference in how a three-way race plays out over the ensuing months as compared to the normal head-to-head contest. All things being equal, a candidacy by a sitting Republican Lt. Governor in a race between a Republican AG and a qualified, politically smart Democrat who isn’t in jail, certified crazy, or plagued by scandal, plays out as hurting Cuccinelli when played over and over on X-Box (whatever the gaming level).

Or does it? Cuccinelli, in his remarks, suggests his camp has the contrary view. Admittedly, the AG didn’t expressly state this contra view. But let’s logically dissect his comments.  

 

First we ask: Consider Cuccinelli’s comments saying he wasn’t sure a Bolling candidacy would hurt him in the final analysis. But you say: “Paul, of course Cuccinelli is going to say that.” I agree, what else can he publicly say at this point? But that is my whole point: Bolling doesn’t give a damn what Cuccinelli says on this subject. So why say something which, in effect, makes it impossible for Cuccinelli to now say a Bolling candidacy is nothing but a “spoiler.” The AG is now on record saying Bolling might actually hurt McAuliffe. Does this make Republicans more prone to pressure Bolling not to run? It doesn’t.

But you say: “Yeah, but it might pressure anti-Cuccinelli power brokers to think twice about backing Bolling if they can live with Terry.”

My response: Those folks don’t believe a word the AG says anyway. All the AG has done is to force Bolling to call his backers and tell them not to listen to Cuccinelli. This draws Bolling closer to running, not the other way around. If Cuccinelli doesn’t want Bolling to run, how does that help?

Next, Cuccinelli said Bolling can not make an intellectually honest argument as to why the LG feels compelled to run. As the AG pointed out, the two of them had very similar records in the State Senate. In effect, Cuccinelli is calling out Bolling and his effort to be the “moderate independent voice” as nothing but an intellectual fraud.

So I say again: Cuccinelli is basically daring Bolling to run. It is a “your momma” move. On the B-Ball court, you didn’t do a “your momma” except to enrage your opponent. How does enraging Bolling make it less likely he will run? I don’t see it.

                    To which you say: “Cuccinelli is telling Bolling backers that the LG will not wash as some “moderate” alternative in some mystical political universe.” To which I respond: All Cuccinelli has done now is to give Democrats a way to drive people off Bolling and towards Terry. Under the Cuccinelli view of things, two Republican conservatives, splitting the conservative vote, somehow don’t give McAuliffe an advantage over a two-way race. Does anyone anywhere not under a doctor’s care believe such a thing? Apparently, smoking weed is already legal in VA.

My conclusion: Cuccinelli knows his comments will not “soothe the savage beast” as the saying goes. Quite the opposite. Having studied this matter enough, I can state with certainty: if Cuccinelli truly feared Bolling’s candidacy, he would be refusing to comment, afraid of saying the wrong thing. You don’t have to take Professor Sabato’s renown government class to learn Poli Sci 101, with all due respect to Larry.

I defy you to look at the chess board and give me a strategy that says waving a red flag in front of Bolling makes him more likely to get out of the race. True, it might make no difference, but that means the risk vs reward equation provides Cuccinelli with NO REWARD for speaking out vs A POSSIBLE NEGATIVE REACTION MAKING BOLLING MORE LIKE TO RUN, for whatever reason.

What kind of political strategy is based on doing things that won’t benefit you but might hurt you on a net-net basis? NONE. Thus, there is only one reason for Cuccinelli to discuss a three-way race at this point: He and his camp honestly, really, take-it-to-the bank don’t believe Bolling’s candidacy will hurt them.

This may be what the polls say now. But if Cuccinelli is right, that Bolling’s image remake will fail, then it defies political math to think the AG is not worse off in a three-way as opposed to a two-way race. This may turn out to be the exception that proves the political rule,

I am not smart enough to know. But there is a reason why any sensible strategy person would be advising Cuccinelli on ways his camp might persuade Bolling not to run. Instead of following a strategy which says a Bolling candidacy is of no moment, intellectually dishonest, and might even help Cuccinelli defeat McAuliffe when all things have been said and done.

So I think we need to take the AG, aka Clark Gable, at his word: “Frankly Scarlett, I don’t give a damn.”

Virginia News Headlines: Sunday Morning

By
lowkell
-
6

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Sunday, February 10. Congratulations to Sen. Mark Herring (full disclosure: I’m consulting on social media for his campaign) and to Aneesh Chopra, who won the Mt. Vernon Democrats’ straw poll last night at their Mardi Gras party. Finally, check out the video of Republicans “then and now” on the sequester. Note that they’ve totally changed their story.

*In speech, Obama to shift emphasis back to economy (In that context, the president should talk about the huge economic benefits of jumpstarting a clean energy revolution in this country.)

*Climate change and the president (For once, I wholeheartedly agree with the Post on something; we need to put a serious price on carbon ASAP!)

*664,000 Residents Without Power After Massive Storm Hits The Northeast

*The immense cost of Washington’s budget gridlock (Thanks a LOT Teapublicans!)

*Why did I challenge the Boy Scouts’ anti-gay policy? Because I am a loyal Scout.

*Virginia can’t afford not to embrace Obamacare

*National parties gear up for Virginia governor’s race

*Virginia governor election: Terry McAuliffe aims to break election trend (It’s so funny how the media loves “trends” and other simplistic, easy-to-remember “rules” they can talk about and try to sound smart in the process.)

*McDonnell Urges Democratic Leaders to OK Roads Bill

*Kaine is adjusting to his new role

*Schapiro: Budget fine print has big impact

*Odd legislation puts Virginia General Assembly in national comic spotlight (Once again, thanks a LOT Teapublicans!)

*Northern Virginia officials cool to proposal allowing local tax hikes to pay for roads

*McDonnell says U.S. education is “slipping” behind other nations (“Mostly False” for McDonnell)

*Editorial: A promising start on better broadband (“The Roanoke Valley is falling behind its neighbors in access to high-quality Internet service, but a regional authority can help it catch up.”)

*Vultures Beware: Virginia Town Targets Flock Of Unwanted Visitors

*Capitals break out of their funk (“Washington’s offense and defense click against the Florida Panthers in front of an appreciative crowd.”)

Press Release :Mark Herring Wins Mt. Vernon Straw Poll

By
lowkell
-
0

From the Mark Herring for Attorney General campaign: 

HERRING WINS MOUNT VERNON STRAW POLL

Leesburg – In a sign of his campaign’s growing grassroots momentum, Democratic Attorney General candidate State Senator Mark Herring (Loudoun & Fairfax) won tonight’s Mount Vernon District Democratic Committee Straw Poll.

“I want to thank the Mount Vernon Democrats for hosting tonight’s straw poll,” Herring stated.  “I am honored to have the support of so many Fairfax County Democrats.  Fairfax County has been pivotal in electing Democrats to statewide office in Virginia. Our campaign is building momentum for a strong victory in Fairfax County and in Virginia this November.  Virginia Democrats are looking for a candidate with a proven record of fighting for the values we share, and that’s what I’ve done as a member of the State Senate.”

“In my first run for public office, I defied the odds by beating a six-term incumbent Republican mayor who had never lost an election,” Herring stated. “I am confident we will defy the odds again this November when I become the first Democrat in 24 years to be elected Virginia’s Attorney General.”

“Everywhere I go, Virginians tell me they are ready for fundamental change in the Attorney General’s office,” Herring stated. “When I’m Attorney General, I’ll put the law first, not politics, and I’ll use the powers of the office to serve all Virginians. That is a message that is resonating across our Commonwealth.”

Video: Cuccinelli Shares His Thoughts on Bill Bolling’s Possible Independent Candidacy

By
lowkell
-
4

Verrry interesting; thanks to Rick Sincere for shooting this video of Ken Cuccinelli speaking this morning at the Albemarle County GOP breakfast.

I met with the LG a couple weeks ago for about an hour and one of the things I told him was I didn’t meet with him sooner because everything I saw him saying suggested that even if we were on a desert island together he didn’t want to talk to me…We talked for a while, and it wasn’t the most comfortable set of circumstances…I’ve worked with Bill for many years, he has over 20 years of great Republican service. Frankly, when we were in the Senate, our voting records, there was hardly a hair’s breath of distance between us…

I have a lot of good things to say about Bill…he’s going to make his own decision here, he’s set an announcement for March 14, and obviously I hope this will be a one-on-one race. But I also don’t want you to get too wrapped up in that…the two polls I’ve seen that included him, he’s drawn as much from McAuliffe as he has from me…

It would be a more difficult year, we’d much rather run with Bill as an ally and a supporter and continuing as a Republican as he has been for so long, and I hope that’s the way it goes, but it will not be solely determinative of the outcome of the race. I expect that unless he thinks he can win, that he isn’t likely to get in…he’s got to formulate a path to do that somehow, where he and I have very, very similar political records. That presents a challenge intellectually for him to think through how that would happen and then to get behind it…

By the way, one amusing – also highly telling – thing about this video, is that it’s pretty much one conservative, older white guy after another asking questions; no Latinos, no Asian Americans, no African Americans, no LGBT Americans, no young people, no women (at one point Cuccinelli practically pleads for a woman to ask a question…none do, at least that I saw on the video). That’s why the Republican Party keeps losing national elections, and it’s a huge challenge for them going forward. We’ll see how they respond.

Bob McDonnell as Poet Robert Frost. And Will Ken Cuccinelli Gamble on a Tax Revolt?

By
Goldmanusa
-
0

( – promoted by lowkell)

by Paul Goldman

Governor McDonnell as Robert Frost, the favorite poet of the Massachusetts liberal elite for many years, winner of (4) Pulitzer Prizes in a field sneered at by "he man" conservatives? As the saying goes, "who would have thunk it?!" But right now, Frost's "The Road Not Taken", at least by any other governor, is required reading at the Statehouse. So far, Senate Democrats and Republican Tea Baggers are resisting.

It is an odd game of Three Card Monte for sure, but about to change. It is difficult to see Senate Democrats siding with Tea Baggers and not McDonnell in the end to enact some transportation plan. McDonnell has thus thrown down the gauntlet to Tea Party conservatives, a significant perhaps pivotal event in current national, not just, Virginia politics. This has aspect has received little attention here in Virginia, much less around the country.

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both"

Thus began Mr. Frost's poem, a mere 20 lines, published roughly a century ago, about the time a special "user fee" tax on gasoline began to gain wide acceptance by conservatives and liberals alike, along with those in between, as the right way to finance the growing national love-affair with Henry Ford's Model-T. Way back, Thomas Jefferson supported a lottery, for example, to build roads. There were tolls. There were fees. But until Henry Ford got the combustion engine just right for his $240 dollar basic Model-T ($5,500 in today's bucks) policy makers had not considered the growing impact of the new American "dream machine."

By 1920, the gas tax had entered the American lexicon. A few years later, then State Senator Harry Byrd challenged his own party's Governor, advocating higher gas taxes, and less debt financing, for road building. The two tangled: and Byrd beat the old boss to become the new VA boss. In 1986, Governor Jerry Baliles got fellow Democrats to add 1/2 cent to the state sales tax, dedicating all this new revenue to financing the transportation grid. At the time, I pointed out this use of a general tax, as opposed to a user fee, likely would destroy the bipartisan coalition developed during the Byrd days to fund transportation. 27 years later, no governor has been able to raise the gas tax, the longest such period in state history.

THE CHANGING POLITICS OF TRANSPORTATION

What seemed self-evident to me back then has now arrived at the logical extension, the inevitable crossroad sooner or later. Such moments reveal at lot about people in politics, often far more than they wanted. Thus the recent amazing Washington Post editorial. The writers urge – no, they demand – that Democrats take monies earmarked currently to fund education, mental health and other social programs in the future and instead use said funds to finance the state's transportation grid.

It is clear the Post editorial writers failed to appreciate their Freudian slip. Senators Saslaw and McEachin have now written a letter, made public, to the governor, rejecting the Post position. There is, for sure, a fair amount of political positioning, between the two sides. But it is also true that the Roanoke Times responded in an editorial calling the Post editorial board a bunch of "elite snobs" to use a Sarah Palinism, saying the Post editorialists' children had access to far better schools in general than those in other parts of the state whose youngsters desperately needed that education money to upgrade their future educational opportunities. I bet it is the first time the Post Toasties have ever been called a bunch of elites in print by a newspaper that has regularly backed Democrats for governor. True, the Times didn't use this exact word. But out in the Western part of the state, folks are more polite.

What is happening now where the rubber meets the road as the adage goes?  

McDonnell Throws Down Gauntlet to Tea Party Republicans:

What the Governor has proposed here in 2013, and so far gotten his party to support in the House of Delegates, is truly amazing on an historical basis. It is one of those real events in politics which has the potential of alerting an upcoming gubernatorial election, rendering a candidate who takes the wrong road unelectable in March even though the voters will not deliver the bad news until November.

              "Somewhere ages and ages hence:
               Two roads diverged in a wood, and I–
               I took the one less traveled by,
               And that has made all the difference."

Those are the closing 4 lines to the Frost Poem. "The Road Not Taken" seems too short to be too complicated, a mere 20 lines in all of similar length. But it is nuanced and complicated for me, I don't claim to understand it, yet as Frost intended, I get the basic point. And so, apparently, does Governor McDonnell. Until this year, no Governor, no policy tank, no federal or state highway commissioner anywhere in America, or similar figure around the world, has ever suggested what Governor McDonnell has proposed. 

But this is not merely a transportation debate. The larger truth: McDonnell, a big backer of Mitt Romney, privately blames the Tea Party for costing his man the presidency, due to their influence in the party's nominating process. The Tea Party conservatives, by the same McDonnell analysis, has hijacked the 2013 GOP VA nomination process, reneging on calling a primary [better for McDonnell's choice of successor LG Bill Bolling] and instead substituting a convention process, far worse for Bolling, indeed the LG dropped out of the contest realizing he couldn't defeat Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Bolling is so mad, he is threatening to ruin his career by running against his own party as a retooled "moderate" independent candidate.

McDonnell has given up trying to talk Bolling out of such foolishness. But the governor knows his party can not continue down the same road. Moreover, this being his last year in office, McDonnell wants to leave his mark on transportation. He has been like Captain Ahab in pursuit of the transportation white whale, hoping to cover it with black tar used to pave roads. He thinks he has finally harpooned the elusive creature. 

McDonnell has basically told the Tea Baggers the following: If you will not help me pass a reasonable transportation package, then I will cut a deal with Saslaw and McEachin unless they overplay their hand. At which point, McDonnell is saying, you Tea Baggers will have to make a fatal choice: and if you choose wrong, the GOP ticket will go down in flames, as will the Tea Bagger movement. 

MCDONNELL VS MCAULIFFE VS CUCCINELLI: The real Transportation Story  

The current General Assembly fight over transportation funding appears to divide into three camps. But this is not true at the gut fundamental level. All three camps actually agree on the fundamental premise to McDonnell's proposal: namely, the current gas tax can no longer do the job originally intended nearly 100 years ago. There must be a new "non-user" source of said funds. The three camps differ therefore not over the fundamental strategic point, but rather over the tactical decision on how to go forward into the twenty-first century.

MCDONNELL: THE RADICAL REFORMER

McDonnell wants to go the "whole hog" and eliminate the gas tax or any special "user fee" tax paid at the pump by motorists. Is this a purely policy view or one crafted as a tactical decision based on a calculation as to what can be enacted in the House of Delegates? Surely some of both. But this is not unusual in politics, tactical considerations often are most important. In that regard, the other key part of his plan – changing the distribution formula for sales and use taxes collected from Internet/catalog sales – is consistent with finding new non-user fees revenue sources. It is not clear right now how much money would be subject to McDonnell's new distribution formula if Congress ever passed a new law overturning the Supreme Court decision allowing Amazon and others not to collect the sales tax.

Indeed, Amazon and other such retailers are beginning to voluntarily agree to collect such revenues. Thus, would joining McDonnell now actually divert sales tax money currently going, or likely to go to education for example, without such legislation? Another key question.  

VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS: A TRADITIONALIST APPROACH  

As in 1986, Senate Democrats,the leaders on this issue, want to keep the same basic hybrid system of user and non-user fees. Most would probably prefer a higher sales tax as opposed to a higher gas tax. While T-Mac has been smartly silent to date to give Saslaw and McEachin the widest possible political room, there is little reason to believe he disagrees with keeping the same basic approach as historically backed by Democrats. Can Senate Democrats endorse a change in the distribution formula for sales tax and use revenue collected from Internet/catalog sales? Again, a good question. .

TEAPARTY CONSERVATIVES: THE NEW RINO'S (Republicans in Name Only) 

While Cuccinelli, like McAuliffe, has basically stayed out of the transportation debate, there is little reason to believe the AG's position doesn't mirror that of the GOP Senators who pointedly refused to back the governor's transportation plan. In reviewing their alternative, there doesn't seem to be any philosophic base to their opposition except they don't want to give McDonnell an historic win on transportation. Why do I say this?

First, they did agree with the governor's proposal on the internet/catalog sales. This leaves the other key component, the user fee for sales tax trade (other parts of his plan are smaller and clearly designed for horse trading of some sort).

While agreeing to sack the gas tax, the Tea Party conservatives opted to trade it for a new whole sale tax they claim is revenue neutral in the next five years. However, their new tax can only do two things since gas prices are not going to say at the current level forever. If gas prices go down, then their trade effectively reduces the available transportation money generated by this new user fee on a constant dollar basis, something they concede is not in the state's best interest. But if gas prices go up, then this trade increases the user fees paid by average citizens, that is to say it is a tax increase.

BUT: The Tea Party conservatives opposed the McDonnell bill on the grounds it raised taxes! Moreover, on a purely tactical basis, surely even Tea Baggers see the political beauty of the McDonnell plan: you get to brag about your having eliminated the much disliked gas tax, which people think means lower gas prices. The Tea Bagger approach therefore totally wipes out this most useful political argument, since all it does is replace one form of user fee on gas with another. So I ask: What is really happening with the Senate Tea Baggers?   . 

THE BIG UNKNOWN: WILL CUCCINELLI GAMBLE ON A 2013 TAX REVOLT?

The Senate Tea Bag position only makes sense if they believe the Governor, the Speaker and the House Republican Caucus is missing a brewing tax revolt. Think about it: Carried to its logical conclusion, the Tea Baggers want the VA GOP this year to nominate a statewide ticket with folks who voted against their own governor's transportation plan. This is politically baffling unless you believe one of two things.

First, that McDonnell and Senate Democrats will be unable to come to an agreement both Houses of the State Legislature can pass. This is possible, but it would require a monumental miscalculation in my view on one or both sides.

This then leaves option two: namely, those in control of the GOP nominating process are convinced that McDonnell, Senate Democrats and House Republicans will be badly misreading the public mood on their transportation package. They believe the public will be against it, and reward an anti-McDonnell transportation ticket for not voting to increase taxes.

In this regard, Tea Baggers are doubling down on their bet in 2004, before they officially became Tea Baggers. They bet Warner's tax increase would backfire on Democrats at the state level: but Tim Kaine won in 2005. To be sure, in the interim, the Tea Party anti-tax movement emerged and showed great strength. But President Obama likewise won twice in Virginia.

McDonnell reads these election statistics as saying his transportation plan, which he concedes raises new revenue, is politically attractive because it fixes the maintenance problem and eliminates the gas tax. He believes the public will accept somewhat higher sales taxes in exchange.

As I have been saying for a long time now – alone among Democrats admittedly – the governor is making a shrewd albeit daring play for a Republican.  Moreover, I don't see the advantage for Democrats in helping the Tea Baggers at this point. Why does it help the Democrats at this point to kill McDonnell's plan if there are ways to make it acceptable, even if barely so?

If this analysis is correct, then in the next few weeks, Ken Cuccinelli has to make what could be a fateful decision. Does he really believe the passage of something akin to the McDonnell plan is going to spark a revolt at the polls this November?  More to the point, does he think such a revolt can carry him to victory running against a transportation plan that will be backed by both a Republican governor and united Democratic ticket? 

Remember: I have shown the small philosophic difference between what the Tea Bagger Conservatives want and the governor. The AG has to choose sides. The Road Not Taken may very well make all the difference in 2013, as Mr. Frost mused a century ago.

1...2,4382,4392,440...3,276Page 2,439 of 3,276












EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©