So, as you probably know by now, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has rejected the attempts of four Republican’t candidates – Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum – to use liberal judicial activism sue to get their way on the Virginia Republican’t primary ballot. That’s not surprising, but the reasoning of the court is interesting. Click here for the complete ruling. A few key points:
1. The plaintiffs definitely have legal standing to sue, so the case is fine on that ground.
2. According to the court, Virginia’s residency requirement for petition gatherers is likely to be declared unconstitutional, so the plaintiffs are on strong ground there.
3. The 10,000-signature requirement is found not to be a legal problem. According to the court, “No one can seriously argue that the rule is unduly burdensome.” The plaintiffs would fail on that argument.
4. The court definitely finds that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm from not being able to appear on Virginia’s Republican primary ballot.
5. The public interest “weighs heavily in favor of the plaintiffs,” as voters should have the “ability to cast a ballot for the candidate of her choice.”
6. However, despite several strong arguments for the plaintiffs, their case was thrown out. Why? Because of something I’d never heard of previously: the “equitable doctrine of laches.” This doctrine holds that if a plaintiff has “slept on its rights” by waiting too long to seek relief. As the court writes:
The plaintiffs could have challenged the Virginia law [many months ago]. Instead, they waited until after the time to gather petitions had ended and they had lost the political battle to be on the ballot; then, on the eve of the printing of absentee ballots, they decided to challenge Virginia’s laws. In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair.
In other words: Perry, Gingrich, Hunstman and Santorum are sore losers, emphasis on the word “losers.” They failed to get on the ballot, then suddenly decided Virginia’s rules were unfair, then came crying for some judicial activism (which they usually decry) on their behalf. For all of that heaping bowl of FAIL, according to the court, Perry/Gingrich/et al. deserve 50 “laches” with a wet noodle. Actually, the court didn’t say that, but I thought it was a fun play on words, so what the heck. 🙂
(On a related note, a judge has rejected Newt’s and Missing Village Idiot’s lawsuit to get on the Virginia Republican’t primary ballot. So, it will only be Willard and Mr. Black Helicopters. Fun times. – promoted by lowkell)
by Paul Goldman
Looking at history, the longer the GOP presidential contest goes on, the less likely a Mitt Romney/Bob McDonnell combo would be the takeaway. As a matter of political math, Bob McDonnell is a good choice for Mitt Romney as long as the head of America’s latest Royal Family doesn’t have to cut any political deals to win the nomination.
Why? Because Bob McDonnell’s strength is his weakness: he is a good match to Romney in terms of a VEEPstakes defined by religion, region, record, resume, and really nice hair (plus a very photogenic family of women compared to Romney’s all-male brood). This is why, despite being laughed at by so many months ago, I raised the Romney/McDonnell combo before anyone else in Virginia. The two men matched very well…provided Romney didn’t have to fight but so hard for the nomination.
Because: If Romney needed help to cross the finish line with a key bloc of voters, then that posse would want one of its own riding in the shotgun seat.
Eisenhower took Nixon after a tough fight, because he needed someone with street cred in the conservative/McCarthy wing. Because Nixon had made his reputation chasing down Alger Hiss, the Californian fit the bill. Plus, Nixon was Ike’s “spy” inside the California delegation while Big Sur Governor Earl Warren ran for the presidential nomination that year. Later, Governor Warren would become Chief Justice Warren due to a deal Ike made to win the nomination.
JFK took LBJ because he feared losing the South, in part due to the open hostility of certain Southern preachers to his Catholicism.
Goldwater took Bill Miller in 1964 because no one from the moderate/liberal wing of the party would run with him!
Nixon took Spiro Agnew, rookie Maryland Governor, because the former VEEP had cut a deal with Strom Thurmond to keep the South out of Ronald Reagan’s hands.
Carter took Mondale because he needed to unify the party after he got elected in large measure running against the Democratic liberal establishment. Senator Mondale was the protege of the leader of that establishment, Senator and former Vice President Hubert Humphrey.
Reagan won easily in 1980, which allowed him to actually propose running with former President Jerry Ford, who his conservative base despised. When that didn’t work out, he chose George HW Bush, who was pro-choice, pro-ERA, and against Reaganomics. But Reagan had won easily, so he could do what he wanted.
The same for George HW Bush when he won the nomination. He took Senator Dan Quayle, who most Republicans thought was a caddy at the country club.
In recent times, Bill Clinton and Bush 43 won fairly easy, so they got to take who then wanted.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton had a tough fight. It is clear that the Obama, had he won easily, might have picked Governor Tim Kaine as his running mate. But instead, he knew that Hillary had depicted the rookie Illinois Senator as lacking in foreign policy experience. Senator Biden had run for the nomination against both of them, losing badly for a second time. Historically, two straight bad losses, over a twenty year period, is not the resume of a Vice Presidential candidate. But Obama needed to cover his downside on foreign policy, so he choose Biden over Kaine, who had no such experience.
John McCain actually won his nomination fairly easily when you look at it: he took South Carolina, which meant the end of Huckabee, and then Florida, taking out Rudy Giuliani. So he had a free hand, and apparently wanted to pick Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, who would have been the first person to run and lose as the VEEP guy on both a Democrat and GOP ticket. When that didn’t work out, he took Sarah Palin, the choice of no one, not even McCain’s wife. Had McCain had to fight for the nomination, he would have been forced to pick at least a marginally qualified person.
Now comes 2012. Assume the GOP winner is Romney, which is no sure thing, despite what the commentators are starting to say. If Romney gets into a close fight with either Gingrich or Santorum, forcing them to duke it out past Super Tuesday into the winner-take-all states, then Romney will likely need to take someone favored by the Gingrich-Santorum-Perry side of the party. He will need to leave Tampa with a unified GOP. Mike Huckabee might fit that bill. This is why I wrote earlier this week about Rand Paul, starting a discussion of what can happen if even a guy like his dad builds a constituency in a losing run, but one Romney would need to win in the Fall.
As for Governor McDonnell, he is acceptable to all GOP factions, but not a favorite son of any. However, assume Romney takes out his rivals quickly, and the leaders of the GOP get on board early (since they are all so anti-Obama, what choice will they really have?). This would give Romney a free hand to take someone who is acceptable all the way around, but not on the top of anyone’s list. McDonnell avoids getting Romney involved with Washington, he is a Governor, with a military record, popular in a swing state. Again, McDonnell’s family is female dominated, while Romney’s is male dominated. And most important: McDonnell is not a Gingrich type; he can play second fiddle.
Naturally, all the things discussed in 2009 will be back. But in the final analysis, McDonnell, as long as he doesn’t have a scandal in his background, should pass the media test and disappear into small TV markets never to be heard from again, except during the one Vice Presidential debate.
Odds for McDonnell: assuming Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are to be believed about declining to run, and assuming Romney realizes he doesn’t want to take a Senator since that drags Washington into the equation, then McDonnell is in the top three, with the sleeper Mike Huckabee if Romney is worried about the Christian evangelical vote which he must have. Stay tuned…
Have you ever been on a college campus and wondered whether the person or persons standing next to you is carrying a concealed firearm? How’d it make you feel? If you’re like me, you feel more at ease when the person standing beside you is unlikely to have a legally concealed firearm on a college campus. According to a recent Quinnipiac Poll conducted in December, the vast majority of Virginians also oppose allowing concealed guns on Virginia college campuses. ODU’s Board of Visitors apparently feels the same way as well.
Those in the “gun’s rights” camp who make the claim that having a concealed weapon decreases the likelihood of another Columbine-type shooting-spree (or at least reduces the injuries and/or deaths) argue their case on speculation and not scientific evidence. Is it in anyway clear, or scientifically verifiable, that allowing concealed handguns on Virginia Tech’s campus would have magically inhibited that school’s tragic shooting incident, for instance, or at least reduced the number of wounded and dead?
Perhaps those who make this “vigilante defense” argument fancy themselves to be considerable marksmen (or women). But for anyone who has ever fired a handgun, you’ve probably realized that hitting a target, especially a moving target under enormous stress, is not as easy as these vigilante defense proponents imply. Thus, the probability of hitting a “noncombatant” in a Columbine-type situation, to my mind, is far too high to risk oversimplification of the difficulties involved.
I like firing my handgun at the shooting range and I enjoy shooting skeet in the country when the season arrives. But there is a time and a place for everything. And when the lives of individuals are on the line, I don’t want my study partner on campus to suddenly turn into John Rambo to potentially save the day. What might happen instead is that he/she adds insult to injury instead.
On January 3, Fairfax Democrats elected a new leadership team heading into a crucial two years for Virginia. First, of course, we have the presidential and U.S. Senate elections this November, with Virginia potentially deciding control of the White and U.S. Senate. Then, in 2013, the governor’s mansion will be contested, very possibly between Terry McAuliffe and crazy Ken Kookinelli. In all of that, Fairfax will play a huge role, as it has a population of 1.1 million, one-seventh of the entire Commonwealth, and often racks up big margins for Democrats. If Democrats are to win Virginia in 2012 and 2013, we’re certainly going to need Fairfax firing on all cylinders.
That’s why I was interested in talking to newly-elected Fairfax County Democratic Committee (FCDC) chair Cesar del Aguila, and finding out what he’s got on his agenda. Also, I heard from several Fairfax Democrats that this was a heated race, and I wanted to get a feel for how well FCDC was doing in terms of reuniting and revving up for this crucial year.
First, there’s background on Cesar is available on his website. Here’s a key passage that jumped out at me:
I grew up believing that Democrats are the party of the people – all people: including those who have a small voice, no voice or a voice that speaks in a language other than English. You don’t need a blood test to be a Democrat. One of the core values of the Democratic Party is our inclusiveness – we have a big tent and all that believe in our core values are welcome here. I have not simply espoused that belief all my life, I have lived it.
I couldn’t agree more. I also couldn’t agree more that “the primary objective of the FCDC is to identify, cultivate, include and empower local Democrats,” and that FCDC should “be a place where diversity means welcoming those who are new to our committee, to politics and to being a Democrat.” That’s exactly right, and should be obvious, although sadly it isn’t to every Democrat, including at least one high-ranking leader (not to name any Dick names Saslaw – heh).
With that, highlights of my interview with Cesar are on the “flip.” Of course, thanks to Cesar for taking the time out of his busy schedule to speak with us!
1. What motivated you to run for FCDC Chair?
I had gotten involved in Herndon, with a group attempting to change the town council’s anti-immigrant stance. (Note: For more on that, click here.) Although I lost my race for Town Council by a few votes, my side captured the majority and made needed changes to the policy. This experience convinced me that acting locally could be effective, and also demonstrated the extent to which local politics affected our lives. I then got involved with the Dulles Area Democrats, the Brigades, and the Dranesville Dems (serving as Vice Chair of Dranesville). About a year ago, I was asked to run for FCDC chair by various people within FCDC. I spent many months learning what I’d be getting into, traveling around the county to attend district meetings, getting to know people, etc.
2. This reportedly was a divisive race. How will you bring FCDC back together again now?
I don’t feel that it was contentious between Barbara Caputo (the other candidate for FCDC chair) and me, as we are good friends who share a love for “new oak barrel-fermented Chardonnay.” For a few people, it got personal, but Barbara and I did our best to tone that down. I compare this election to my large family (50 or so first cousins). This was like a family feud over Thanksgiving dinner, and certainly no worse than a primary election. Bottom line: we’re here to elect Democrats, that’s what I’m focusing on. I had my first steering committee meeting last week, thought it went great. I plan to follow Roberts Rules of Order, stay focused and professional in meetings.
3. How do you plan to make FCDC look like Fairfax County in terms of diversity?
I believe there’s definitely a need to make FCDC look like Fairfax. That starts with messaging. The first thing to remind people, when they talk to potential volunteers, is to drop any reference to “committees.” Nobody wants to join a “committee,” but they do want to join the Fairfax Democrats. It’s Marketing 101. People have gotten accustomed to doing things the same way and expecting different results. Instead, we need to talk to people about issues that are relevant to different groups of people – for instance, affordable housing, Have to relate to people not just in terms of politics, but in terms of religion, culture, etc. It’s not enough to just say we’re Democrats, that’s a failing approach. We’re not going to talk like Democrats have in the past. We’re going to answer the question: WHY should you vote for us? We’re going to tailor the message to different groups of people. We’re going to enable the districts to take this new brand and deliver it. We need to be a little more business like in capturing precious volunteers, who ultimately will become our poll workers, precinct captains, because ultimately it’s a precinct-by-precinct battle. A good precinct captain can bump up performance by 2%.
4. What are your plans for fundraising? How much does FCDC need to raise this year, and how are you going to do it?
Strong messaging will drive membership increase, and also how we raise money. Money this past year came primarily from campaigns. It’s always been the same people, which is not sustainable long term. Instead, I want to get donations from all 50 states. We can sell it as “you can help President Obama carry swing state Virginia and win in 2012 by helping Fairfax Democrats.” FCDC definitely needs different sources of revenue. We’ve got ambitious fundraising goals, need to strive to increase our budget.
5. Candidate recruitment: How are you going to help us beat Hugo, Rust, Lemunyon, Albo & Comstock? What about building up the “farm team.”
I guarantee we will have someone running against Tom Rust in 2013. We need to have a commitment from the state level. Also, we need to find people in the community. Every time I go speak, I tell people they should identify folks in their community to potentially run. In Herndon, I’ve recruited 4 diverse new people to run for council in May 2012. We’re helping them with media training. We haven’t been actively recruiting at the right levels. We tend to talk to people like ourselves. In my run for FCDC chair, I called every single member. There was a theme that emerged when I talked to people – that they didn’t see any value belonging to a committee that they didn’t see as being effective and doing things important to them. Why do we spend time arguing about font size? I’m about recruiting newer, diverse, first-time members to our group. What we’re doing now is not sustainable. In the recent election, fortunately, we decreased the average age of FCDC leadership by 10 years. It’s now the youngest, most diverse leadership team in our history.
There’s a group of people who have quashed grassroots candidates. Friendship has trumped capability. “Well Cesar, I know you’d be great, but I’ve been friends with so and so for 20 years…” Instead, we need to be the party of inclusion, that loves and welcomes diversity. That’s who we are. We’re Democrats, we’re not the party of fear. I despise the mentality of “anointed candidate.” We’re Democrats – noone is entitled to anything. I had people tell me “it wasn’t my turn.” I strongly disagree with that attitude.
6. What’s your vision on precinct ops? My understanding is that FCDC doesn’t have precinct captains in half its precincts.
We’re hurting in terms of precinct captains, especially in the southern end of Fairfax County. We’ve been doing the same thing for a long time and scratching our heads. It’s got to be a combination of message and messenger. We have a better product with our candidates, but we have to market them. I’m certainly not trying to gut everything, we do things very well, but we need to tweak things. I call it FCDC 2.0. Again, it comes down to messaging. We need to answer the question for people, why should I give up 2-4 hours of my life to hang out with you guys?
7. How are you going to make sure the Obama vols stay involved? After 2006, the Webb the “ragtag army” largely went away, and after 2008, the Obama volunteers largely went away (hence, what happened in 2009).
It takes less effort to retain a volunteer than to capture a new one. While we have all this activity at the national level in 2012, I’m instructing people to go out wherever you see a campaign, help them but also help us by establishing relationships that will be here after the Obama campaign has packed up. We have to provide value for people to stay engaged in politics. We’ll be there at the campaigns’ beck and call. They’re our customers. If they’re Democrats, we help them.
8. Should FCDC stay away from policy and ideology, or should it be an active voice in that regard?
Some electeds are strongly for passing resolutions on policy issues, some are strongly against. I’m not there to embarrass our elected officials. I’m going to ask people to really put thought into what they’re doing. How does it bring voters to the polls? But I’m not going to do it if it’s going to embarrass any of our elected officials.
9. What’s your view on the grassroots/netroots?
We’re going to leverage all the different channels we can. We need to strengthen our connections to other groups. I’m going to reach out to all the activists, grassroots communities, help them understand the synergy – all these groups will be seeing me.
George Romney, father of Mitt (the present GOP front-runner), ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1968. Here is a paragraph from an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (the son, of course, of another candidate for president in that same intense, historic, tragic, watershed year).
It shows great change over the course of these decades. Some of the changes are about how Romney the son differs from Romney the father. But some of it, too, reflects change in the party, and the political environment generally, within which these candidates operate.
As the African proverb has it, “When the music changes, so does the dance.”
Prior to his withdrawal from the presidential contest on February 28, 1968, George Romney ran an extraordinarily honest, thoughtful and honorable campaign. The senior Romney, a former Chairman and CEO of American Motors Corporation, criticized the military industrial complex for lying to Americans about Vietnam and mocked the products of Detroit’s Big Three as “gas guzzling dinosaurs.” He was a vocal advocate of Civil Rights and anti-poverty legislation. He supported strong unions as the launching pad for America’s middle class and criticized conservative palaver about “rugged individualism,” unrestricted free markets, and wholesale corporate deregulation as “nothing but a political banner to cover up greed.” Romney, a Mormon bishop, refused to work on Sundays (with rare exception), fasted before big decisions, spurned dirty campaigning and other appeals to the dark forces of ignorance, greed, racism and division.”
Surely, this is proof –if proof were needed– that not all change is progress.
**********************
Andy Schmookler is running for Congress in the 6th Congressional District of Virginia, challenging the incumbent Congressman, Bob Goodlatte. An award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, Andy moved with his family to Shenandoah County in 1992. He is a graduate of Harvard University and holds a PhD from the University of California at Berkeley.
So, the New York Times’ public editor is asking – seriously, this is not an Onion parody – “whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge ‘facts’ that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.” Again, this is not meant as a joke; he’s really asking the question. Let me help you, Mr. Brisbane.
YES!!!!!!!OF!!!!!!!COURSE!!!!!!!DUH!!!!!!!
Was that a clear enough answer? No? OK, then, here are a few examples to illustrate.
1. A politician, almost certainly a Republican’t, claims that there’s no scientific consensus on global warming (oh yes there is, big time!), or that there’s some big conspiracy/scandal about a few random emails climate scientists sent (oh no there isn’t!), or whatever other crazy/idiotic/ignorant/fallacious comment the Republican’t politician made. In the article, you quote the Republican’t, then immediately say something like, “of course, as everyone knows, THAT IS NOT TRUE, in fact it is a OUTRIGHT LIE.” Got it?
2. Another politician, against almost certainly a Republican’t, claims that “Obamacare” (not its real name, which should also be pointed out as a lie) increases the deficit. In the article, you quote the lying Republican’t, then immediately say something like, “of course, as the non-partisan CBO says, THAT IS NOT TRUE, in fact it is an OUTRIGHT LIE.” Got it?
3. Yet another politician, amazingly yet again a Republican’t (sensing a pattern here?), claims that up is down, black is white, hot is cold, Obama’s a Kenyan anti-colonialist, Democrats are really socialists, there’s no such thing as evolution, the recession didn’t start under President Bush, blah blah blah. Again, in the article, you quote the crazy/lying liar Republican’t, then immediately say something like, “yes, these people are utterly nuts, factually challenged, pathological liars, etc.” Got it?
Then, the media might actually start to regain a bit of the credibility it’s utterly lost in recent years, by its constant perpetuation of an absurd and false “balance” between “both sides” of any “argument” (e.g., one side says the earth is flat, the other says it’s round). But will they do that? I mean, reporting the facts and letting readers know when someone’s telling a lie is just so hard, it would require reporters and editors to get off their fat behinds and actually do what they are getting paid good money to do. What a concept, huh?
Just when you think Ken Cuccinelli can’t get any more heinous, he does.
Cuccinelli: Well, I saw the same rat story about D.C. that y’all have been talking about. What you may not know is that last year, in its finite wisdom, the D.C. City Council passed a new law, or a triumph of animal rights over human health, where those pest control people you suggested they bring in aren’t allowed to kill the rats. They have to relocate the rats and not only that — that’s actually not the worst part — they cannot break up the families of the rats. Now, as actual experts in pest control will tell you, if you don’t move an animal at least 25 miles, it’ll come back. And so what’s the solution to that? Well, cross a river.
Host: Send ’em over to Virginia, that’s right.
Cuccinelli: Guess why I care about that sort of thing?
Other host: I bet.
Cuccinelli: Anyway, it is worse than our immigration policy — you can’t break up rat families. Or raccoons or all the rest and you can’t even kill them. It’s unbelievable.As dcist points out, Kookinelli is wrong on every level here – on the animal law (in fact, it “explicitly exempts rats and mice from its provisions” – nice try, though, Cuckoo Boy), on the supposed smuggling of rats into Virginia (apparently, Kooky has a vivid fantasy life), and on the comparison of immigrants to rats. As dcist puts it, “we’re not really sure if that little snipe about immigration policy means that you think that immigrants should be killed. Just for that, we’re sending a few hundred extra rats over tonight.”
Remind me again, who the heck voted for this bigoted ignoramus exactly? Wow.
Great news – if you’re a Democrat or named “Tim Kaine,” that is. 🙂
Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, will run for the U.S. Senate, he said today.
Caught before a daily caucus meeting at the state Capitol, Marshall confirmed that he will enter the race, challenging former Gov. George Allen and three others for the Republican nomination.
“Yes,” he said simply when asked if he would officially announce in coming days.
Why is this great news for Democrats? Let us count the ways:
First, “Sideshow Bob” could actually beat Allen, resulting in an ideal, Christine “not a witch” O’Donnell scenario this coming November for Tim Kaine, Barack Obama, and other Democrats on the Virginia ballot.
Second, even if “Sideshow Bob” doesn’t win, he will force Allen to expend resources and cover his far-far-far-right flank, both of which are VERY helpful to Virginia Democrats, first and foremost Tim Kaine.
Third, “Sideshow Bob” will remind Virginians, day in and day out, how extreme Virginia Republicans can be. For instance, remember how when Marshall barely lost the 2008 Republican nomination battle to Jim Gilmore, and his supporters responded by shouting “baby killer!” at Gilmore and his supporters? Or, remember how Marshall wanted to bar gays from serving in the Virginia National Guard? How about his sponsorship of the anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment (“Marshall-Newman”)? Then there’s Marshall’s crusades against the evil “cap and trade” (originally a conservative, market-based idea coming out of the Reagan and first Bush administrations) and individual mandate (also a conservative, Republican idea originally, part of “Romneycare” of course)? His opposition to “the IUD and pills” because supposedly “They don’t prevent ovulation and conception, they prevent implantation, which is abortion?” His belief that sometimes incest is voluntary, and that, with regard to rape, “the woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman.” His comparison of the economic recovery package to slavery (“It is as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state. It’s just invisible. But it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape.”)? His claim that Barack Obama’s “theme song” should be “live and let die” because of his supposedly “Suicidal deficits, enemies lists, abortion, euthanize seniors, health care that kills capitalism.” Yeah, totally cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs, I know.
Which is exactly why I say, run Sideshow Bob run! And please, Virginia Republican’ts, please nominate this guy. Really, he’d be a GREAT nominee for your party, I’m totally serious. 🙂
Check out the following press release from the Kaine campaign. Also, keep in mind that George Allen is strongly against a woman’s right to choose, even against certain forms of contraception (he favors an extreme “personhood” amendment which would, effectively, make IUDs and the “morning-after pill” illegal). Plus, of course, Allen’s horrible on economic – and education, health, etc. – issues that affect families. In sum, for Virginia women in this election, there’s really no question who they should support, and his name isn’t “George Allen” that’s for sure!
First Lady Anne Holton Launches “Women for Kaine”
Richmond, VA -Today, First Lady Anne Holton announced the formation of “Women for Kaine” with over 100 representatives from across the Commonwealth who support Tim Kaine’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate. This dynamic group of business and community leaders is just the beginning of a growing coalition that will help elect Kaine in November.
“We believe that women have a lot at stake in this election and want to send to Washington a Senator who will protect the interests of women,” said First Lady Holton. “Throughout his career in public service, my husband Tim has fought hard for equal rights and opportunities, economic growth, health care access and laws that prevent violence against women. Tim and I are tremendously proud of his record on the issues that matter to women and we look forward to sharing his record with all Virginians. As Tim continues his race for the U.S. Senate, ‘Women for Kaine’ will stand with him to keep advancing progress for women in this Commonwealth and in this country.”
In conjunction with the launch of Women for Kaine, Governor Kaine will hold a roundtable discussion tomorrow in Richmond with women business leaders to hear their ideas on ways to promote job creation and encourage economic growth.
Throughout his career, Governor Kaine has worked to advance rights and opportunities for women. As Lt. Governor, he introduced legislation to establish the General Assembly’s first sexual harassment policy. As Governor, Kaine made Virginia’s workforce more welcoming, representative, and fair by banning discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, race, national origin, religion, age, or political affiliation in his first Executive Order. His gubernatorial appointments included four women cabinet secretaries, the first African American woman on the Virginia Court of Appeals, and numerous women as agency heads. He tripled the percentage of state discretionary spending on products and services purchased from small, women-owned, and minority-owned businesses, and was a proud supporter of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act that finally passed Congress in 2009, ensuring equal pay for equal work. In the U.S. Senate he will be a strong advocate for economic policies that create opportunities and produce results for all Americans.
In addition, Governor Kaine has worked to improve the availability and quality of health care for women and their families. He was also a vocal supporter of the Affordable Care Act, which mandates free preventive health services (like mammograms) and prevents insurance companies from dropping women who get sick or pregnant. Even in a challenging economy, Governor Kaine proposed significant additional funding for state programs that help low-income and uninsured women receive prenatal and preventative care, including screenings for breast and cervical cancer. He enrolled record numbers of Virginia children in the Medicaid and FAMIS programs, fought for the 2007 federal expansion of SCHIP that offered health care to 4 million uninsured children, and increased enrollment in the state’s system of high-quality pre-k education by nearly 40%. Governor Kaine strongly supports the right of women to make their own health and reproductive decisions and opposes efforts to weaken or subvert the basic holding of Roe v. Wade. He seeks a reduction of unwanted pregnancies and abortions but understands that criminalizing women’s reproductive decisions is not the way to accomplish that goal.
As Governor, Tim Kaine was also a strong advocate for victims of domestic and sexual violence. In 2006, he convened the Governor’s Commission on Sexual Violence and implemented many of their recommendations throughout his term. Reforms included ending polygraph tests for victims of sexual assault, ending the practice of forcing women to pay for their own physical evidence recovery kits (PERK kits) when a sexual assault has occurred, and ensuring prompt transfer of protective orders to law enforcement.
Visit http://www.kaineforva.com/women to view a letter from Anne Holton, the Women for Kaine mission statement, and a list of leaders who’ve already joined the growing coalition.
by Paul Goldman
George Romney, father of Mitt (the present GOP front-runner), ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1968. Here is a paragraph from an 
Check out the following press release from the Kaine campaign. Also, keep in mind that George Allen is strongly against a woman’s right to choose, even against certain forms of contraception (he favors an extreme “personhood” amendment which would, effectively, make IUDs and the “morning-after pill” illegal). Plus, of course, Allen’s horrible on economic – and education, health, etc. – issues that affect families. In sum, for Virginia women in this election, there’s really no question who they should support, and his name isn’t “George Allen” that’s for sure!
