The Obama administration today announced plans to sell leases for preliminary offshore wind energy development activities in two areas of federal waters recently identified and reviewed off the coasts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The leases will be sold through a competitive auction in 2013:

“Wind energy along the Atlantic holds enormous potential, and today we are moving closer to tapping into this massive domestic energy resource to create jobs, increase our energy security and strengthen our nation’s competitiveness in this new energy frontier,” said [Interior Secretary Ken] Salazar. “We are implementing the President’s all-of-the-above strategy by focusing on developing areas with the lowest potential conflicts and the greatest expected gains. As we experience record domestic oil and gas development, we are moving forward at the same time with efforts to ensure that America continues to lead the world at developing the energy of the future.”

The lease sales, which will be held next year, will be the first-ever competitive sales on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for wind energy, and are major milestones in the Administration’s “Smart from the Start” wind energy program to facilitate the siting, leasing and construction of new projects. These lease sales cover two WEAs along the Atlantic coast that have high wind resource potential. […]

The proposed lease area offshore Virginia will be auctioned as a single lease and totals about 112,800 acres about 23.5 nautical miles offshore southern Virginia. It is expected to support more than 2,000 MW of wind generation – also enough electricity to power 700,000 homes. For a map of the proposed area, click here.

Learn more about why developing offshore wind energy is so critical for Virginia’s environment & economy – and how you can help keep it moving along – from the Virginia Conservation Network’s Chelsea Harnish.

As you may have heard, Bill McKibben of 350.org has been traveling the country on what he calls his “Do the Math tour”. The goal, as McKibben puts it, is “to jumpstart a new movement…that will change the terrifying math of the climate crisis.” The means by which McKibben et al. hope to achieve their goal are simple but powerful: “cut off the [fossil fuel] industry’s financial and political support by divesting our schools, churches and government from fossil fuels.” In other words, defund the fossil fuel industry.

With that in mind, there’s a website dedicated to petitioning your college or university to “immediately freeze any new investment in fossil-fuel companies, and to divest within five years from direct ownership and from any commingled funds that include fossil-fuel public equities and corporate bonds.” By doing so, we all send a powerful message, voting with our wallets, that it’s not acceptable for fossil fuel companies to keep trashing our planet – the only one we’ve got – for any reason, let alone in the name of massive profits for themselves.

Not. Acceptable.

So, time to pressure your college or university to divest, just like the anti-apartheid divestment movement did, but in this case for an even more important cause: the future of life on our planet. You can see a list of colleges with active divestment campaigns here. In Virginia, I see George Mason University (go Patriots!), James Madison University (go Dukes!) and Virginia Tech (go Hokies!), as well as the College of William and Mary (go Tribe!). Great going by students on those campuses.

Now, it’s time for a few other Virginia colleges and universities to step up to the challenge of their generation, and all generations, by joining this movement. So, how about it: University of Virginia; Old Dominion University; Virginia Commonwealth University; Radford University; Norfolk State University; Christopher Newport University; Virginia Military Institute; Roanoke College; Shenandoah University; etc? You’re not going to let those other colleges and universities beat you on this, now are you? 🙂 Good, didn’t think so. So please click here to read the latest from Bill McKibben, then here to start a petition on your campus. And good luck!

P.S. If you had any doubt as to the urgency of this crisis, see Science Stunner: Greenland Ice Melt Up Nearly Five-Fold Since Mid-1990s, Antartica’s Ice Loss Up 50% In Past Decade. It’s far worse than anyone had thought, even a few years ago. So much for the crazy (and/or bought-and-paid-for) “deniers” and “skeptics.”

On Monday, December 10th at 8 PM, The Farm Team and State Senator Barbara Favola, House Democratic Whip Delegate Charniele Herring, Black Caucus Chair Senator Mamie Locke, The Farm Team Board Member Delegate Jennifer McClellan, Senate Democratic Caucus Chair Senator Donald McEachin and House Democratic Caucus Leader, Delegate David Toscano will host a pre-session Tele-Town Hall meeting reaching 20,000 women in Virginia.

The agenda will include legislation affecting women and their families, how women can get involved, run for office and help other women running and serving in Virginia

RSVP to farmteam.va@gmail.com with a phone number and we will call you on December 10th.

The Farm Team develops Virginia women for political leadership roles who share our Democratic values.  wwww.farmteam.org

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Friday, November 30.

*Obama offers GOP an ambitious, progressive debt-reduction plan (Add a carbon tax in there and we’d be all set.)

*Warner says bipartisan deal is needed to avoid fiscal cliff (Yes, by definition, given the 60-vote Senate requirement. The question is, what’s going to be IN the deal?)

*Obama to GOP: I’m done negotiating with myself (Good for Obama standing up to these bullies.)

*Is this the planet we want to leave behind? (“President Obama should devote his next State of the Union address to climate change. He understands the science and knows the threat is real. Convincing the American people of this truth would be a great accomplishment – and perhaps the most important legacy of his second term.”)

*Out of governor’s race, Bolling still a wild card (“Narrowed field leaves Va. voters with stark choice”)

*Virginia would be better with Bolling on the ballot

*Bolling’s exit could create schism within Va. GOP

*McDonnell endorses Cuccinelli, but Bolling doesn’t

*Republicans differ over party’s future

*Bill Bolling explains decision to quit race for GOP gubernatorial nomination

*Virginia GOP Chair Attacks Republican Virginia Lt. Gov. (“I am disappointed by Lt. Governor Bolling’s remarks over the past 48 hours. Lt. Governor Bolling has a stellar record of public service, and has long been a strong voice for the conservative cause.”)

* As Bolling bows out, Radtke rants on GOP ‘establishment’

*Bolling on what might have been (“If we want to grow our party over time, we need to involve more people in our party with more diverse views, as opposed to fewer people with more myopic views, and I feel we would grow our party by having a primary as opposed to a convention”)

*Warner, Webb, Griffith want enforcement of trade duties to help Virginia furniture makers

*Senate Approves Webb Amendment to Reaffirm U.S. Commitment to Japan on the Senkaku Islands (The Senkaku Islands were a “gotcha” question by Jim Webb in a 2006 debate with George Allen, but there far more than a “gotcha” question today.)

*Sen. Webb: Focus on Defense Department’s ‘must-have’ programs

*Virginia AG claims state energy law costs customers of two largest power companies $1 billion-plus too much

*Editorial: An air ball for the Beach (“The city wants Virginia taxpayers to help pay for a pro basketball arena.”)

*Exoneration but no justice for wrongly imprisoned man in Va. (“Unlike about half the states, Virginia does have legal guidelines for compensating people who have been wrongly convicted.”)

*Nationals acquire center fielder Denard Span, send pitcher Alex Meyer to Minnesota

Before I get into my case for John Kerry – and against Susan Rice – as the next Secretary of State (after Secretary Clinton concludes her successful 4 years in the position), let me just make a couple points.

First, John McCain and Company (Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, etc.) are completely off the deep end with their absurd, over-the-top, manufactured, ad hominem “case” against Susan Rice regarding the CIA-approved talking points she used for a round of Sunday morning talk shows following the Benghazi attack. My view is that McCain et al. are doing this for purely political reasons, as they must know that there’s not the slightest shred of evidence Susan Rice did anything wrong here. The whole situation is beyond absurd, but sadly not surprising for Mr. GETOFFMYLAWN. So, screw McCain, the guy’s completely lost it, not even worth listening to at this point (if anything, his opposition to Rice makes me want to SUPPORT her, just because McCain is such a douchebag). Sad; I used to respect him, but since he picked Palin as his running mate, he’s been totally wacked out.

Second, let me just make clear that Susan Rice is extremely well-qualified to be Secretary of State. The woman is brilliant, talented, experienced, you name it. That’s certainly not the issue here either.

So, why am I urging President Obama to nominate John Kerry, not Susan Rice, as our next Secretary of State? Several reasons.

First and foremost: I’m sorry, but this is not cool. At all.

Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project.

…Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.

Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel — including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 — the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.

Rice also has smaller stakes in several other big Canadian energy firms, as well as the country’s transportation companies and coal-fired utilities…

This is deeply troubling, especially given that, “Over the past 18 months, a number of questionable relationships between State Department officials and TransCanada have been uncovered.” As Bill McKibben of 350.org notes, “The State Department has been rife with collusion with the Canadian pipeline builders, and it’s really distressing to have any sense that that might continue to go on.”

In stark contrast, John Kerry has been a climate and clean energy champion. When the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Kerry for president in 2004, it called him “a man whose unparalleled record on environmental issues has earned him an extraordinary lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), and he is clearly the strongest environmentalist in the field.” In endorsing him for reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2008, the LCV touted Kerry’s “clear commitment to protecting America’s environment through bipartisan action, not mere rhetoric.” They specifically pointed to Kerry being an “original cosponsor of the bipartisan Four Pollutant Bill, which would limit mercury, sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants,” as well as “an outspoken proponent for addressing the threat of global warming through national and international efforts.”

The contrast between Kerry and Rice on energy and environmental issues would, in and of itself, be sufficient for me to support Kerry over Rice for our next Secretary of State. There are other reasons, however. For starters, I believe that Kerry is superbly qualified to be Secretary of State, given his 25 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (he’s now chair). I’m greatly impressed with Kerry’s work on nuclear arms control issues, as well as – in his website’s words – his work in “Spreading Democracy and Human Rights Throughout the World,” “Fighting Global HIV/AIDS,” and “Fighting International Crime, Corruption and Drug Trafficking.” Clearly, John Kerry has everything it takes to be a superb Secretary of State. I doubt almost anyone would disagree with that.

On that last point, I presume that Kerry would win quick, easy, probably unanimous, confirmation by the U.S. Senate as the next Secretary of State. No fuss, no muss. More importantly, President Obama won’t have to spend any political capital on this one, which is important given all the other important issues he’s focused on.

The only downside to Kerry becoming Secretary of State, frankly, is political: the possibility that Democrats could lose Kerry’s U.S. Senate seat, possibly to Scott Brown. On the other hand, if Democrats come up with a strong candidate, there’s no reason to think they can’t hold that seat in solid-blue Massachusetts. There’s also the possibility  that Brown won’t even run for the seat. Plus, even if Kerry’s not nominated as Secretary of State, he might be nominated as Secretary of Defense, which would once again open up his Senate seat. So, bottom line, I’m not going to lose any sleep over this one.

Bottom line: Kerry would be a superb choice as Secretary of State, easily confirmed, with no political capital needing to be expended. Susan Rice, in contrast, would be a knock-down, drag-out fight, over a nominee who’s certainly not more qualified than Kerry, and who has extensive ties to fossil fuel interests at a time when global warming is arguably THE most critical crisis facing our country and our planet. Is this a no brainer or what?

The conventional wisdom, which I’d point out is almost always wrong, is that Ken Cuccinelli is much more “conservative” (in quotes because the word today has essentially lost all meaning; many of these self-proclaimed “conservatives” are actually far-right-wing extremists and radicals) than Bill Bolling. Is there any truth to that? Let’s look at their interest group ratings, courtesy of Project Vote Smart, from when they were in the General Assembly.

Bill Bolling (looking at his last year in the State Senate, 2005, unless otherwise noted)

ZERO from NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia

ZERO from Planned Parenthood of Virginia

100% from the Virginia Chamber of Commerce

ZERO from Equality Virginia

100% from the Family Foundation of Virginia

ZERO from the Virginia League of Conservation Voters (although other years are all over the place)

11% Lifetime Rating from the Virginia AFL-CIO

ZERO from the Virginia National Organization for Women (2000 rating is the last available)

Also, the NRA said “Bolling’s strong support of the Second Amendment has earned him an “A+” rating.”

Ken Cuccinelli (looking at his last year in the State Senate, 2009, unless otherwise noted)

ZERO from NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia

ZERO from Planned Parenthood of Virginia

89% from Virginia FREE (note: Cuccinelli’s last rating from the Virginia Chamber of Commerce was 82% in 2005)

67% from Equality Virginia

91% from the Family Foundation of Virginia

10% from the Virginia League of Conservation Voters (note: other years are all over the place)

ZERO from the Virginia AFL-CIO

A rating from the NRA

Comparing these ratings, it looks like Bill Bolling was actually a bit more right wing than Ken Cuccinelli while in the General Assembly in a number of areas (social issues, business), and about the same in other areas. So much for Bolling being more “moderate” in any way than Cuccinelli? Looking at their actual voting records, that sure seems to be the case.

So why does Cuccinelli get most of the attention, both positive (from the Tea Party, religious fundamentalists, etc.) and negative (from Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc.)? I’d argue it has almost nothing whatsoever to do with substance, but is pretty much 100% style/tone. Namely, Cuccinelli is flashy, aggressive, abrasive, insurgent/grassroots, loud and proud of the right-wingnuttiness he stands for; Bolling is boring, dull, drab, relatively genteel/establishment, and quiet about his own right-wingnuttiness. Other than that, I’m not seeing much daylight between the two. How about you?

P.S. Per a comment, it’s also worth noting that Cuccinelli has been in a much stronger position to push his right-wingnut agenda as Virginia Attorney General than Bolling has been as the mostly powerless Lieutenant Governor.

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, November 29. Also, check out the video of President Obama calling on Americans “to speak out to keep taxes from going up on middle class families.” #MY2K

*Editorial: The latest punch line in GOP politics (“Mainstream Republicans once laughed off their party’s rightward trend until they were elbowed out of the way. The latest victim is Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling.”)

*Volume suddenly rises in Virginia governor’s race (“Bill Bolling on Wednesday abruptly dropped his long-held plans to run for governor next year, clearing the way for conservative firebrand Ken Cuccinelli…”)

*Ken Cuccinelli’s fight for conservative causes (In no way, shape, or form is Ken Kookinelli a traditional “conservative.” To the contrary, he’s a radical and extremist, nothing “conservative” about him.)

*Virginia Race Turns To Chaos Following Cuccinelli’s Rise (We’ll see; for now, it’s consolidated, not “turned to chaos.”)

*Mr. Bolling exits (sigh) (“Conventions draw the red-meat eaters, those folks who live and breathe politics while the rest of us are getting our kids to soccer games. They would no doubt favor Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Tea Party paladin and passionate defender of all things respectably right wing, over Mr. Bolling.”)

*The field clears for Cuccinelli (“Bolling’s latest decision effectively serves notice that the Republican Party of Virginia is poised to surrender to its more extreme, and temperamental, wing. The result is bad for the party and worse for Virginia.”)

*Editorial: Fewer choices in 2013 (“Bolling’s withdrawal narrows governor’s race in shrink-wrapped process”)

*Bolling hints of independent bid for Va. governor (Verrrry interesting.)

*Narrowing field could leave stark choice in Va. governor’s race (Bizarre quote by Jessica Taylor of the Rothenberg Political report. How is Terry McAuliffe not towards the “center of the party?” His best friend Bill Clinton is pretty much synonymous with centrism, the “third way,” etc., and Terry himself is a “pro-business” “centrist” if there ever was one. Does ANYONE out there in the national punditocracy know ANYTHING about Virginia politics?!?)

*Could Bolling run for governor as an independent?

*Bolling will not endorse Cuccinelli (“Bolling questions attorney general’s leadership potential.” Well, Cuckoo could certainly lead us all off the cliff pretty quickly! Heh.)

*Tom Perriello silent as speculation swirls on gubernatorial run

*Wilder says Va. gubernatorial candidates must take centrist approach (Wilder’s been wrong on pretty much everything for several years now, and something tells me he’ll be wrong on this as well when it comes to Ken Kookinelli.)

*RGA embraces Cuccinelli as nominee (Wait, national Republicans ditched Akin but embrace Cuckoo? What’s the difference exactly?)

*The ‘anti-business’ knock on Ken Cuccinelli (No doubt, Cuccinelli would be very bad for Virginia business.)

*Connolly falls short paying party dues (Not cool, especially given that he’s in a safe, “incumbent protection” district.)

*Jeff’s Notes: Running for lieutenant governor? (“The line for lieutenant governor candidates forms on the right, says columnist Jeff Schapiro.”)

*Goodlatte named chairman of House Judiciary Committee

*In Fairfax County, a tough budget season lies ahead

*Virginia Chamber to release new statewide economic development plan

*Va. Beach arena pitch gets mixed reaction from lawmakers

*Deeper water aims to keep Great Dismal Swamp fires under control

*Virginia panel gives list of dangerous animals

*Mighty chestnut may yet return to glory

*Traffic woes likely to persist for decades, officials say (Actually, thanks to Republicans’ utter failure to raise revenues, Virginia’s traffic woes are likely to get a lot, lot worse.)