In coming months, we can expect a flood of analysis about the 2013 Virginia governor’s race from everyone, their uncle, their aunt, their aunt’s brother in law, you name it. Why? First off, the media needs something to talk about, and with the presidential election over, 2013 is shaping up as kind of blah…except for the Cuccinelli-McAuliffe WWE/UFC Death Match&reg. Second, the two main contenders in this fight are highly “colorful” characters, with equally “colorful” supporters (just on Kookinelli’s side alone, can you imagine the parade of right-wingnuts who will be trolling around Virginia next year?), and of course the media loves that too. Finally, with Chris Christie’s popularity through the roof, it’s unlikely that there will be any serious gubernatorial race in New Jersey to cover, leaving Virginia – conveniently, a crucial “swing state” that just went for Barack Obama once again – as the main draw for 2013.

Of course, the fact that everyone and their uncle, aunt, etc. will be writing about the Cuccinelli-McAuliffe showdown also means that there will be a ton of drivel, nonsense, and pablum – much of it written by people who haven’t followed Virginia politics and/or don’t know the first thing about our state – filling the newspapers and airwaves. Can’t wait, huh? Well, actually, you don’t have to wait, as it’s already begun. For instance, take this new piece by “The Fix”, on “How the Virginia governor’s race just got very interesting.” Let us count the ways this is flawed.

1. The Virginia governor’s race didn’t “just” get “very interesting.” In fact, if anything, it just got LESS interesting, as we now don’t have months of Ken Cuccinelli and Bill Bolling pounding the bejeezus out of each other. In the end, it was almost certain to end up as McAuliffe vs. Cuccinelli anyway, so today’s announcement by Bolling just moves up the timetable, removes the intra-Republican bloodletting, and changes the main characters over the next few months. But of course the Virginia governor’s race was going to be “very interesting” no matter what. No s*** Sherlock.

2. According to “The Fix,” “Neither man could likely win a general election against anyone other than the person he is going to run against next year.” That’s utterly ridiculous, almost not even worth commenting on it’s so silly. So, let’s see, Terry McAuliffe couldn’t possibly have beaten Bill Bolling? Why not, exactly? And Terry couldn’t have beaten any number of Virginia Republicans – “Sideshow Bob” Marshall or any of the many hard-right-wing guys (and they’re almost all guys) who fill the Virginia Republican Party these days? As for Cuccinelli, why wouldn’t he be able to beat other Democrats? In fact, according to PPP, the Virginia governor’s race was likely to be close next year except under one circumstance: if Mark Warner decided to run. Other than that, it’s highly likely that this will be a close race next year in our “purple state,” with either party capable of winning it. I’m not sure what “The Fix” bases categorical statements like this one on, exactly, but he tends to do it frequently (e.g., his incessant narrative during the recent presidential race that it was a “dead heat”/”too close to call,” that Romney had “momentum,” blah blah blah).

3. Third, what really drives me nuts is the false equivalency being drawn here. Thus, in Cillizza’s view, “Cuccinelli will have rock-solid support bordering on fervor from the Republican base while McAuliffe – now that Sen. Mark Warner (D) has removed himself from consideration – should receive similar treatment from the Democratic base.” That’s completely absurd. As for Cuccinelli, there’s no doubt that he’ll have “support bordering on fervor from the Republican base” that tends to vote in odd-year elections (e.g., skews older, more right wing, more “Tea Party”) because he’s a true believer and rabble rouser. But Terry McAuliffe receiving “similar treatment from the Democratic base?” Seriously? Has “The Fix” ever read any progressive blogs? Last I checked, having been DNC chair doesn’t make progressives swoon over you. If anything, it’s the exact opposite. Don’t believe me? Ask Tim Kaine about the tremendous support (not!) he’s received from progressive, netroots activists over the years. Ask Terry McAuliffe how much support he got in 2009 from progressive, netroots activists (note: I was an exception to that, supporting Terry over Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, both of whom I thought were awful candidates). The bottom line is that there is ZERO equivalence between the fervor Cooch will have on the right, and what Terry will get from the “left” (such as it is). That’s just corporate media false equivalence run amok.

4. Also silly: “But neither man is a natural fit to appeal to the centrists – fiscally conservative, socially liberal – who populate the far suburbs and exurbs of Washington, D.C. (Prince William and Loudoun counties, we are looking at you) and tend to decide elections in the state.” Actually, Terry McAuliffe is socially liberal for the most part but fairly conservative fiscally, so why wouldn’t he bet a good fit for Virginia suburbs and exurbs based on ideology? Got me.

5. “…nor will McAuliffe’s high-profile defense of all things Democratic during his tenure as the titular head of the party.” Yeah, tell that to Senator-elect George Allen. Oh wait, you mean Allen’s strategy of relentlessly reminding people that Tim Kaine had been Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and thus a supposed hyper-partisan figure, didn’t work? You mean that being a Democratic partisan is NOT the same thing as being far-left or even progressive? Oh, I know, details details, don’t mess with the simplistic narrative the corporate media loves so much! LOL

Anyway, other than that, it’s a simply brilliant analysis by “The Fix.” Well, ok, it’s not. At all. Unfortunately, something tells me we’re in for a lot more of this silliness in coming months from the usual suspects…

( – promoted by lowkell)

Many of us are at least fleetingly aware of Uganda’s so called “kill the gays bill,” a bill before their parliament which would make homosexuality punishable by death.  

Those of us fortunate enough to live in more civilized parts of the world have doubtless been relieved to know that the odds of us personally having to face such legislation is remote at the very worst, but Scott Wooledge’s excellent article up at Daily Kos today shines some alarming light conservative American Christian movement’s response to this bill.

Let’s pretend for a moment that fracking, something which I suspect many of us on this site oppose, was about to be declared illegal by Uganda.  Surely we would rejoice at that, but wouldn’t we also temper our enthusiasm if the bill contained the death penalty for anyone found to have engaged in fracking in any way, shape, or form, and provided for other severe penalties for anyone who even knew a fracker? 

The answer, of course, is that we would.

On the other hand, Tony Perkins, Scott Lively, and Bryan Fischer, three prominent voices in the conservative American Christian movement, see things very differently.  Perkins has tweeted that the “Ugandan Pres. is leading his nation in repentance.”  Lively calls the bill “a huge blessing.” 

Even more concerning is Fischer’s statement about the bill that “it can be done” in America. In other words, the heads of the American Family Association and the Family Research Council, two major American Christian organizations, are on the record as being in full support of executing homosexuals, and at least one of them supports the implementation of similar legislation in our country. 

As best as I can tell, they have faced no public backlash from their organizations or their membership for saying so.  This leads to a truly unsettling conclusion about the conservative American Christian movement’s attitude towards the queer community. We’ve seen them push some seemingly nonsensical measures and make some crazy statements in the past, including the legalization of anti-LGBT bullying (while simultaneously denying the existence of anti-LGBT bullying in the first place.  Our appeals to that community on those issues and others, including marriage, have been based in an appeal for compassion, empathy, and respect.

With their celebration of the advancement of the Ugandan law and their call today for the American criminalization of homosexuality, these groups have abandoned any pretense that they are even remotely based on decency.  Their “hate the sin, love the sinner” talk is now officially an antiquated joke.  They have given up their right to even pretend that their attitudes towards the queer community are anything other than those of pure hatred.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that these so-called religious leaders have found that whipping their followers into a froth pays financial dividends, much like Limbaugh and the other shock jocks in the conservative entertainment complex.  The other option is that they truly believe in the implementation of fundamentalist biblical law.   

On second thought, a combination of the two is also completely plausible (and perhaps the scariest option). In either case, these fanatics would have no choice but to stand down if their followers would stand up to them.  Surely the rank and file of the conservative American Christian movement; the millions of decent, honest, hard-working Christian folks in rural America, regardless of their personal unease with the idea of homosexuality, aren’t ok with the idea of executing queer Americans.  Surely these folks will tell Fischer, Perkins, and Lively that they’ve gone a step too far…right?

If they don’t, their silence will speak even louder for them. 

The author is an outdoor educator, activist, and first responder from rural Virginia who currently resides in Missouri.  

( – promoted by lowkell)

Governor McDonnell and Attorney General Cuccinelli hold each other in “maximum low regard,” as the saying goes in politics. But do the political math: Both men have a lot to gain, and nothing to lose, by joining  in 2013 even if it is a loveless marriage of convenience.  

by Paul Goldman

Those readers of this space, Blue Virginia, or viewing my commentary on local Richmond Television, know my take on the 2012 presidential election from the GOP side: McDonnell and Bolling were “all in” on Romney. If the GOP presidential standard-bearer lost, then it always seemed to me that Governor McDonnell would have his legacy riding on whether the Virginia GOP won the Governorship in 2013. McDonnell’s folks have been critical of me for this analysis and understandably so.

But while they are entitled to their own opinion, they aren’t entitled to their own facts. McDonnell bet his chips on a cabinet spot, which in turn would have made Bolling the MAN in Richmond. It didn’t turn out that way. McDonnell thus spent 33% of his first three years chasing the proverbial White Whale. To mix animal metaphors, he is now the lamest of lame ducks.

But this is also true: Governor McDonnell is now a player in 2016 at the presidential level. His year spent traveling the country and being on the VP final list helps big time in the arena. Moreover, Republicans finally realize the party can no longer take Virginia’s 13 electoral votes for granted. In addition, Governor McDonnell, on the national level, is an interesting political profile for a Republican. While Virginia Democrats would put him in the very conservative category, he is actually center right among Republicans on the national level, maybe even middle of the road depending on his stance on immigration (which is basically unknown at this time).

Point being: McDonnell has a legitimate chance to be the 2016 Republican presidential or vice-presidential nominee. He has earned a reputation for competence, not flash. Is he a long shot? Yes. But he could be a compromise choice for party activists and donors who don’t want to go the Southern religious conservatism of the Santorum wing, but think a Chris Christie is too Northern, Bobby Jindal too wonky, and Marco Rubio too rookie. There are other choices for sure, many in the crucial Midwest. But assume they don’t work out. McDonnell, the Notre Dame boy, ain’t chopped liver as they say in New Jersey.  

The Bigger Point Perhaps: McDonnell has to be thinking 2016. He isn’t going to challenge Warner in 2014. So if he doesn’t make some kind of play in 2016, what then, a re-run for Governor in 2017 or hang it up? A run for President in 2016 seems inevitable to me. What’s to lose?  

The First Mandatory Step Therefore: McDonnell has to keep the GOP in the Virginia Governor’s Mansion in 2013. This is the first presidential primary for McDonnell. It is all or nothing. He loses here, he is out there. Forget a legacy here, much less one in Iowa.  

If Virginia goes “all blue” on the political top line, then McDonnell fades on the national stage, especially if Christie is re-elected in New Jersey as would happen huge today according to the latest polls. McDonnell will then be seen not so much the winner, but as riding the 2009-2010 anti-Obama tide. Moreover, in 2016, the GOP is going to need someone who can bind up the party’s wounds and put a truly united front up against the Democrats. If McDonnell is seen as unable to do that in Virginia, why could he do it nationally?

So, again, the First Mandatory Test for McDonnell: Unite his own VA party and make sure when Spielberg does a Lincoln sequel, he has to deal with a GOP governor.

THE TRUTH ABOUT VIRGINIA POLITICS: Historically speaking, McDonnell’s “legacy” as Virginia Governor will be set in 2013. This was true for former Governor Robb, former Governor Allen and former Governor Warner, all of whom went to on to attempt to win their party’s presidential nominations in one way or another. If you check the polls, their images as successful governors were created largely in the gubernatorial campaigns to pick their successors.

Why? Their respective party candidates to succeed them all spent millions on television ads pumping their image. Why? Because, in turn, this helped those candidates get elected. That is to say: the better people felt about Robb, Allen and Warner, the better it was for candidates Baliles, Gilmore and Kaine. Common sense.

So Baliles, Gilmore and Kaine had reason to pump up their predecessors achievements. It was a mutually beneficial relationship for all concerned.

ENTER NOW Governor McDonnell, who can benefit from the same dynamic. Imagine how he will look to voters if the GOP gubernatorial candidate spends $5-$10 million praising McDonnell’s record. True, Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe could spend millions countering with anti-McDonnell ads. But this could prove to be a disaster. How does picking a fight with McD help McA?

THE POLITICAL NUGGET FOR THE DAY: A McDonnell/Cuccinelli alliance, even one paper thin, has real appeal to both men.

YOU GOT IT: McDonnell’s approval rating could be in the 70’s by next fall, just in time to make a crucial TV endorsement of the Virginia gubernatorial nominee.

Historically, no candidate for Governor has ever lost if he has the endorsement of the popular incumbent. Baliles and Gilmore won huge. Kaine’s victory, while much closer, was actually quite impressive given his underdog status for most of the contest.

SO NOW LET’S ANALYZE WHY BOLLING MAY BE DROPPING OUT. In terms of clout, McDonnell has NONE in helping Bolling win the 2013 GOP gubernatorial nod.  Attorney General Cuccinelli is a sure winner unless he blows it; there is nothing Bolling can do to stop the AG.

Does it help Governor McDonnell, either in the state or nationally, to back yet another loser? Of course not.

Moreover, helping Cuccinelli win the governorship can actually be a big plus for McDonnell on the national stage. The AG is very popular in that part of the national GOP constituency most leery of McDonnell. At the same time, McDonnell is very popular in that part of the Virginia GOP constituency most leery of Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli is seen as the anti-McDonnell to many in the GOP: whereas McDonnell is cautious, modulating, Cuccinelli is seen as aggressive, intense. They are flip sides of the GOP coin. Oil and Water to the naked eye: but politicians to the core.

As the saying goes, this isn’t Cuccinelli’s first rodeo. He knows his biggest liability: the image Democrats will paint the AG as being too extreme to be Governor. The Democrats have some real live powder for that cannonade. Who provides Cuccinelli the political equivalent of Israel’s “Iron Dome” anti-missile defense? A popular Governor Bob McDonnell.

Historically, incumbent Virginia Governor’s, especially those who want to stay popular, don’t attack the other party’s candidate for the job. Rather, they prefer to go “all in” praising the character of their party’s candidate for governor.

Moreover, the last thing McAuliffe will want is a popular GOP governor whacking him for 2,000 gross rating points and 10,000 pop-up ads across the Internet.

THE 2013 BOTTOM LINE: The best thing for Bob McDonnell is to settle the GOP gubernatorial fight early, to forge an alliance – admittedly one of convenience – with Ken Cuccinelli. Accordingly, the shrewd play for Governor McDonnell is to nudge Bolling out of the race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

SO TAKE THIS TO THE BANK; If Bolling is indeed dropping out of the race for governor, he did it only after asking McDonnell what he should do. And the governor said he understood why Bolling might make that decision.

Like Nixon and Gore, it may be that Cuccinelli will be either too proud, or too stubborn, to  accept the help he really doesn’t want. But if Bolling does drop out, then McDonnell has sent Cuccinelli a signal: I am not your enemy.

Cuccinelli could gloat. Or he could deal. We shall see.