Home Blog Page 2820

Thanks to YouTube, This Could Be a Great Year for Democrats!

3

See below and on the “flip” for the latest and greatest by Willard “Mitt” Romney, courtesy of YouTube. By the way, the title of Willard’s op-ed on the U.S. auto industry was Let Detroit Go Bankrupt. Seriously, you can’t make this up. Same guy who believes “corporations are people,” who thinks it’s fun to fire people, who makes casual $10,000 bets, who believes only wealthy people should be running for office, who cruelly strapped his dog to the top of his car, who is a pathological liar, who is even more of a pathological liar, who has flip-flopped radically on almost every position he’s ever held, who has zero core convictions (and zero core in general), etc, etc. That this guy is likely to be the Republican’t nominee for president in 2012 really says everything there is to say about today’s GOP. And none of it is good. On the flip side, of course, it means that 2012 could be a great year for Democrats, as long as Republican’ts don’t do even more to sabotage the recovery from a recession that they’re largely responsible for creating in the first place. Oh, and if the media actually does its job and reports the truth about Willard.

Congratulations to Evan Macbeth and the New LCDC Leadership Team

2

Congratulations to Evan Macbeth, elected on Saturday as the new chair of the Loudoun County Democratic Committee (LCDC). That committee’s clearly had a lot of challenges (I’m being nice here) the past couple years, including a total wipeout of Democrats on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors this past November, as well as significant dissension in the ranks. Clearly, Evan Macbeth and his new leadership team will have their work cut out for themselves in turning things around. Fortunately, Macbeth is a dedicated Democrat, a hard worker, a strong progressive, and a smart guy. Let’s hope that combination does the trick! 🙂

In addition to Macbeth, others elected on Ssturday include: former Sterling candidate and OFA Sterling lead Dan Lloyd as Vice Chair; former Blue Ridge District Chair Joe Pabis as Vice Chair; Jenniffer DeNigris-Kalinowski as Secretary (returning; was secretary last term); and Sterling CPA Hari Scharma as Treasurer. Good luck to everyone!

Barbara Favola Endorses Libby Garvey for Arlington County Board

4

If any endorsement matters in the Democratic nomination contest for Arlington County Board, to fill the seat vacated by Senator-elect Barbara Favola, it’s probably this one (see press release below) — by Barbara Favola of Libby Garvey. Certainly, there’s a subset of Arlington Democrats who aren’t big Favola fans, but my guess is that they’re a fairly small minority, given that Favola won Arlington 64%-36% in the Democratic primary over Jaime Areizaga-Soto this past August. Also, in an extremely low-turnout caucus, in which mostly diehard Democrats will be voting, Garvey’s high name ID compared to the other candidates, Favola’s endorsement, and the fact that the other candidates may all end up splitting the non-Garvey/non-Favola vote (if there is such a thing), could really make the difference. Right now, I’d have to say that Libby Garvey is favored to win on January 21, but we’ll see…

UPDATE: It’s also worth noting that Melissa Bondi has been endorsed by Arlington County Board members Chris Zimmerman and Walter Tejada, plus several other well-known Arlingtonians. For his part, Terron Sims has been endorsed by Rep. Jim Moran and several others. To my knowledge, neither Peter Fallon nor Kim Klingler have announced any public endorsements.

SENATOR BARBARA FAVOLA ENDORSES LIBBY GARVEY

Arlington, VA – Senator-elect Barbara Favola today endorsed Libby Garvey for the County Board seat being vacated as a result of Favola’s election to the Virginia Senate.  Senator-elect Favola issued the following statement:

“Libby Garvey is a proven leader and has served the community for 15 years on the School Board.  Libby’s skills and experience will enable her to be an effective County Board member and advocate for the progressive values we all care about.  Libby will work to protect our core services including human services, affordable housing, and public schools as we continue to grow and change as a community.”

Senator-elect Favola was first elected to the County Board in 1997.  This past November Favola won her State Senate campaign and will take office this January after resigning from the Arlington County Board.  Libby Garvey offered this reaction to Senator Favola’s announcement.

“I’ve known Barbara for over 25 years, both as a friend and a fellow public servant.  I could not be more pleased and honored to have her support.”

The Challenge to Citizens United from the Montana Supreme Court

2

( – promoted by lowkell)

One of my campaign slogans is “Let’s show how people power can defeat the Money Power.” The issue of money in politics was the topic of the first piece I wrote that appeared in national media. This was back in the 1970s.



There is hardly a policy issue more central to defining what America will be.  

Will we be true to the democratic vision, in which every citizen is entitled to an equal say in determining our destiny as a nation? Or will the inequalities of wealth our economy produces be allowed to corrode that democratic sense of justice, and effectively put our government up for auction?

Will the government by FOR the people and BY the people? Or will it be government OF the people but BY and FOR only the rich and powerful?

If this was a core issue thirty-some years ago, when my op/ed piece appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, it is even more urgent today, when a) inequalities of income and wealth are bigger than they’ve been in living memory, b) corporate power is ever more concentrated, and especially c) the Supreme Court handed down that attrocious opinion in 2010, called Citizens United.

Citizens United was a decision based upon two major fallacies: 1) the idea that writing a check is a form of “speech” that must be protected by virtue of the first amendment, even with respect to our electoral process and 2) the idea that corporations are persons.

In recent days, the Supreme Court of Montana upheld its own state’s laws barring corporations from making contributions or expenditures to help a candidate or political party.

Time will tell how the Supreme Court will deal with this act of apparent insubordination from the Montana Court. In general, I favor the idea of “supremacy” of the national government, and oppose notions of “nullification.”

But in this particular case, I applaud the justices of the Montana Court for standing up for justice and common sense against that scandalous corporatist decision.

Here’s a passage from Dahlia Lithwick’s article about this subject from Slate.com.]

Prof. Richard L. Hasen, …back in October, point[ed] out that the fundamental flaw in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United lay in his assertion that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That sentence opened the door to super PACS and ignored the reality of everything we all know about the corrupting influence of unlimited money on a political campaign.

‘Which brings us to the Montana Supreme Court, which more or less announced last week that it would similarly just ignore Justice Kennedy’s pronouncements about money and corruption. The Montana court more or less announced it would uphold that state’s corporate spending ban because they know a lot more about political corruption than Anthony Kennedy does.

The Montana majority…knows exactly what Justice Kennedy seems to have missed: That corruption is corruption regardless of its packaging, and that it rarely comes with a detailed disclosure label.

… As Judge Nelson wrote in dissent [dissenting only because he felt obliged to bow before the opinion of the higher Court], “the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping.”

**********************

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.  

*****************************************************

To learn more about Andy, please go to his website. You may also follow Andy on Facebook and on Twitter.  

Dominion Virginia Power Proves the Sierra Club Right

4

Dominion Virginia Power CEO Paul Koonce has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post responding to a recent evisceration of Dominion by Virginia Sierra Club Vice Chair Ivy Main. She’d made three key charges:

  1. Dominion is using pre-existing hydro power or biomass projects of dubious environmental value for renewable energy credits
  2. Dominion is not building large-scale solar and wind projects in Virginia to deliver that energy to Virginia customers
  3. Dominion is insanely planning to slap a massive fee on customers who install their own solar power

Koonce’s response?

Our renewable generation includes one of the largest biomass plants in the East, taking advantage of one of Virginia’s richest renewable resources. Four more biomass projects are in various stages of construction or development. We operate several hydroelectric facilities and have announced plans for solar arrays on commercial and public buildings. Other Dominion companies operate large wind farms in Indiana and West Virginia.

That’s Koonce’s big rebuttal? That Dominion DOES rely heavily on existing hydro & questionable biomass, ISN’T currently building solar or wind in Virginia … oh, and the massive fees on renewable energy? The CEO of Dominion, which earned $1 billion in profit in the first 9 months of 2011 alone, calls them “simple matter of fairness.”

He might as well have written, “The 1% don’t have to explain themselves to people like you.”

Willard “Mitt” Romney: The “Bain” of Our Existence? GOP Super PAC Says Yes in New Video.

1



As the Republican-Super PAC-sponsored website, “When Mitt Romney Came to Town”, explains:

Capitalism made America great – free markets, innovation, hard work – the building blocks of the American Dream. But in the wrong hands some of those dreams can turn into nightmares. This film is about one raider and his firm and how they destroyed that dream for thousands of Americans and their families – Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.

In short, Willard “Mitt” Romney got himself into the top 0.1% in terms of wealth, at the expense of the other 99.9% of Americans. Specifically, the full-length video (to be released shortly) argues, Romney got rich in large part “at the expense of tens of thousands of American employees at four companies…UniMac, K.B. Toys, DDI and AmPad.” Predictably, Romney tries to hide from his past by claiming that any investigation into it is a nefarious attempt to “try and put free enterprise on trial.” In reality, what Romney did has very little to do with “free enterprise,” and everything to do with the worst aspects of crony capitalism and out-of-control greed. What’s ironic here is that a fellow Republican is attacking him for being a charter member of the “I’ve got mine so F.U.” party. I mean, isn’t Ayn Randian/sociopathic “virtue of selfishness”/”greed is good” the core belief of the Republican’t Party these days?

P.S. Speaking of Willard, he’s also a pathological liar, once again demonstrated in this morning’s Meet the Press debate.

Leading Democracy: Following the Wishes of Southside Virginians on Uranium Mining

5

In betwixt and between the discussions over whether or not to lift the uranium mining ban in Virginia, the opinion of Southside Virginians on the issue has rarely been sought, at least not often enough, in public and private spheres alike. However, the recent bipartisan letter by Southside political representatives Sen. Frank N. Ruff Jr. and Dels. James E. Edmunds, Danny W. Marshall, Donald W. Merricks, and Thomas C. Wright Jr. cast a long shadow of a doubt about the appropriateness of lifting a uranium mining ban that would primarily affect Southside Virginians.

“We are being asked to push through a proposal to lift a 30-year-old ban on an industry with an abysmal environmental record that, under the most optimistic assumptions, experts conclude the most that can be expected is to reduce some of the quite serious risks to the health and welfare of the surrounding community.”

Would those of us in central and northern Virginia find it appropriate if Southside Virginians ultimately determined whether or not uranium mining would take place in our back yards, so to speak? I’m guessing not. So why should the inverse be true? Why should political representatives from central and northern Virginia vote directly against the wishes of Southside residents and their political representatives?

Notice in the above quotation, furthermore, that the writers are not totally rejecting the idea of lifting the ban on uranium mining in VA. Rather, they are calling for a more prudent, paced, and reflective approach to the recent flurry of scientific and socioeconomic analyses that have been released over the past year. Not so much to ask, is it? But the refusal of Virginia Uranium Inc. to take this rudimentary reasoned approach vividly demonstrates that VUI has only one motive: money, profits, and more money and profits. To hell with safety and precautions!

I have never, and probably will never, find anyone who doesn’t want Virginia to transform itself into an energy-independent model for the rest of the country. But uranium mining and its potentially catastrophic risks are quite real, real enough that Republicans and Democrats in Virginia have lined up together in a rare bipartisan effort to oppose an immediate lift on the ban. If anything demonstrates the seriousness of the uranium mining issue in these bitterly partisan times, it’s this bipartisan opposition.

Let’s leave a legacy of prudence behind, not mindlessness and rashness.  

Pity the Billionaire

0

or, if you prefer the complete title of the new book by Thomas Frank, Pity the Billionaire:  The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right.

If you have been a regular reader of Daily Kos over the past few years, you will have few earthshaking moments while reading this book – almost all of the points Frank makes have appeared here, in front-page stories and in posts by reader.  Nevertheless this book may qualify as essential reading for how much it brings together, and in the fashion it provides a coherent explanation of what has happened, from the strategy and tactics of those who have already destroyed trillions of the wealth of others in America and abroad, in the failure of Obama and Cogressional Democrats to have prevented it from happening and in allowing it – at least until recently – to continue pretty much unabated. Or, as Frank puts it near the end of his Introduction,  

This is the story of a swindle that will have terrible consequences down the road.  And although it sounds curious to say so, the newest Right has met its goals not by deception alone – although there has benn a great deal of this – but by offering and idealism so powerful that it clouds its partisans’ perceptions of reality.   (p. 12)

And if there is a key, brief takeaway that can be learned from how they operated, it is found on p. 33:

To play by the rules was a chump’s game.

First, the structure of the book.  It begins with the aforementioned Introduction, titled “Signs and Wonders, and continues with ten chapters:

1.  End Times

2.  1929:  The Sequel

3.  Hold the Note and Change the Key

4.  Nervous System

5.  Making a Business of It

6.  A Mask for Privilege

7.  Mimesis

8.  Say, Don’t You Remember

9.  He Whom A Dream Hath Possessed Knoweth No More of Doubting

10. The Silence of the Technocrats

Frank ends with a Conclusion: Trample the Weak.

The direction of the book can be seen in its opening words:  

This book is a chronicle of a confused time, a period when Americans roes up against imaginary threats and rallied to economic theories they understood only in the gauziest terms. It is about a country where the fears of a radical takeover became epidemic even though the radicals themselves had long since ceased to play any role in national life; a land where ideological nightmares conjured by TV entertainers came to seem even more vivid and compelling than the contents of the news pages.

The book is thorough, the material used well-sourced, and as one who has read any of Frank’s previous books might expect, often couched in language that is memorable and powerful.

After the election of 2008, many were hopeful that the abuses of -economic and governmental power that we had seen in the previous administration would be reversed, that like the election of 1932 the nation would move in a direction that would somehow undo the damage of a Republican administration in thrall to powerful and conservative economic forces and become more responsive to the needs of the ordinary people.  Yet 2 years later the people of the United States chose a very different path.  Frank explores how this happened not so much as an historian, but rather as a political analyst, a contemporary observer who nevertheless can provide the historical context from which our current events flow.  One can simply note, and Frank does, that part of the reason for the rapid comeback of conservatives is the tendency to blame whoever is in power when hard times come.  While the roots of the current economic travails begin in the administration of George W. Bush (with some seeds going back to Carter and the beginning of deregulation, continuing through Reagan and even Clinton), the impact was not fully grasped by many of the American people until after January 20, 2009.  Meanwhile, the Conservatives offered a coherent theory, one in which they declared that every where you looked

you saw a colossal struggle between average people and the “elites” who would strip away the people’s freedoms.(p. 7)

 And if you have listened to the rhetoric of the Republican presidential debates, you will recognize that despite the immense personal wealth of Mitt Romney or John Huntsmann, they like the other contenders rely heavily on such rhetoric.

I cannot recapitulate everything that Frank addresses.  In Chapter 3 he notes that

The conservative renaissance rewrites history according to the political demands of the moment, generates thick smokescreens of deliberate bewilderment, grabs for itself the nobility of the common toilet, and projects onto its revials the arrogance of the aristocrat.  Nor is this constant redirection of public ire a characteristic the movement developed as it went along; it was present and creation.  Indeed, redirection was the creation. (p. 44).

   A key moment in the conservative resurgence and the outbreak of the tea party movement was the famous rant on TV by Rick Santelli.  Frank sees this as illustrative of the observation I have just quoted, noting one page later of that outburst

the part of TARP that drew his disgust was, significantly, the element designed to help homeowners modify the terms of certain underwater mortgages, making payments more affordable and thus preventing foreclosures.  It was the only part of the TARP that was intended to directly benefit individual borrowers rather than institutional players, and thus it was supposed to help make the program popular.  Instead, it brought down the wrath of this man Santelli who found it inconceivable that such an initiative was even under consideration.  “This is America!” he yelled, working himself into a rage.

Frank makes clear that what happened has bipartisan fingerprints all over it.  For example, on p. 27 he reminds us that

visionary, tech-friendly Democrats had joined with stern, patriarchal Republicans to circumvent the country’s banking rules and to mute its supervisory agencies

 Later, in the chapter titled “The Silence of the Technocrats”  (with its inevitable echo of the movie “The Silence of the Lambs”), Frank is far more blunt.  He is critical of Obama turning economic policy over to “well-known friends of Wall Street” Tim Geithner and Larry Summer and on his continuation of the Bush bailout policy even after AIG.  He is scathing about the Democrats “blowing it during the debate over health-care reform” (p. 168).    He is shocked that during the contentious town halls of 2009 Democrats failed to engage in a dispute about freedom and the nature of government:  

It was as though the old-school liberal catechesis had become forbidden language, placed on some index of prohibited thoughts. . . .  In full retreat before the right-wing onslaught, the Democrats threw themselves into the arms of their corporate allies.  They jettisoned the simpler, more popular, but more government-centric idea under consideration and settled on the “individual mandate.” . . .  (p.170)

 One page later Frank is blunt about the failure of the Democrats:  

And so the Democrats tried to assuage public anger over the bailouts while hardly mentioning Wall Street’s power over Washington – that subject they left to the resurgent Right.  They gave us a stimulus package, but not a robust defense of deficit spending.  They beefed up certain regulatory agencies, bu they didn’t dare tell the world how money had managed managed to wreck those agencies in the first place.  And when a clearly unsafe BP oil well poured millions of gallons of poison into the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama told a reporter that before he could figure out “whose ass to kick” he had to convene a panel of experts.  {pp. 171-172)

Allow me to quote one more paragraph from this section, first noting that Frank reminds us again and again that the Conservative resurgence has been fueled in part by coopting language, by accusing its opponents of its own damaging actions (something political junkies know as the normal method of operation of one Karl Rove).  Frank is critical of Obama’s compromising with “the wrong party” as he puts it.  There had been previous bailouts that had been popular, but what the Obama administration was doing was used to bludgeon them.  

The difference, in a phrase, is Wall Street.  What makes bailouts toxic is cronyism, the coming together of government and private wealth, the spectacle of Washington doing special favors for its pals in the investment banks.  What makes bailouts healthful is government acting as an alternative to Wall Street; government helping others recover from Wall Street’s mismanagement of the economy. (p. 173)

One might wonder if Obama’s recent recess appointment of Richard Cordray  might be an indication that the current administration is finally recognizing how badly they are perceived in their handling of the economic crises that have beset this nation throughout their tenure.   Perhaps actions like this might cause Frank to rethink his equating Washington Democrats with “the tragically incompetent British general staff of World War I”  and as having “the same blindness, that same fixed thinking” (p. 178).

I hope that by now you are convinced that Pity the Billionaires is a book worth reading, having as a reference.   One must hope that key people in the administration will read it, take from it the lessons of how badly they have handled the mess they received upon taking office.  They did not create the disaster that has wreaked havoc upon so many.  Perhaps they might take note of the title of the conclusion:  “Trample the Weak.”  That has clearly been the policy of the current generation of Republican leaders, whether it is Paul Ryan’s plan to ‘save” medicare or it is Mitt Romney accusing Obama of the kind of crony capitalism without which the Republican party could not function.    Frank warns us of what might be coming should Republicans get control of all the mechanisms of the federal government.  He also notes the loss of what could have been in 2009, had the Democrats been more aggressive, so that now

Moneyed interests understand that with no second FDR, no incorruptible new cop on the financial beat, no return to the rules that once made banking boring but safe, they have nothing to fear from us, and may do as they please.  This is the real tragedy of the Great Recession. (p. 185)

 He warns us of the language we can expect should they get full control, describing anything that is public as wasteful, ending that examination by noting

the time is not far off when the freeloading by poor kids will be the factor that galls our leaders most.” (p. 187)

which will be the final factor in abandoning any notion of “public” education, the thing that more than a capitalist economic system made this country great.

Frank warns us of heading in a direction of a new American dream, driven by the idealogues of the Right, that will lead us “on into the seething Arcadia of all against all” (p. 187).   Those are the final words of this powerful volume.

For those who do not recognize them, they are a reference to famous words by Thomas Hobbes, in Chapter XIII of Leviathan   in which Hobbes warns that without commonwealth, without a government to control what otherwise happens among men with no rules in place, one gets a war of every man against every other man, resulting in no commerce, no building, no agriculture, in short, chaos.  Hobbes ends that section by noting that in such a situation the life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.   Frank is warning us that the direction of policy driven by the billionaires and their fellow travelers is leading this nation, this society, in a direction that for the vast majority of us will not be an American dream but rather an Hobbesian nightmare.

Read the book.

TK Visits Blacksburg: Some Thoughts

4

About 150 Montgomery County Democrats happily gave up their Friday evening to welcome former governor and US Senate candidate Tim Kaine to Blacksburg yesterday. The event featured a lengthy opportunity for local Dems to personally greet the former governor, share their thoughts, and hear his vision for the 2012 campaign.  It was also a great opportunity for collecting signatures for the petitions to get Kaine on the ballot.  (What is the matter with GOP  presidential wannabes that they cannot meet the Virginia standard?  What a bunch of whiners!)  You won’t hear Tim whining about petitions!

Kaine’s visits are different from most other pols. There is a presence, confidence balanced by humility, knowledge, enthusiasm, optimism and earnestness unparalleled by other state-wide candidates. Each and every person is treated with unparallelled respect. He not only answers questions but shows his vast expertise in both Virginia and national issues. I mentioned some time ago,during the RaisingKaine days, that his willingness and ability to listen, really hear and discuss issues had no equal, much less superior. These skills will serve him well throughout his race to November, 2012.

As just one example… (please follow after the fold):  

A gentleman asked the former governor about the fact that Virginia Indian tribes are not recognized by the Federal government. Tim not only had reflections to share, reflections illustrating he had given the subject much prior thought, but replied extensively, his knowledge and compassion about the many related issues clearly demonstrated.

Most of all, I was struck by something I think best is described Dec 6th at Forbes, but actually written about Bill Clinton. You can read the article at Forbes. Tim’s ability is right up there with Clinton.

Despite the troubling times we live in, Kaine is optimistic about our ability to address the issues we must. He offers up Virginia (most notably under his leadership) for demonstrating how to carefully cut when necessary, but to do so prioritizing those things which are most critical to the needs of Virginians. He knows how to balance a budget with compassion.  He’s experienced both with a General Assembly split and one working against him.

Four years in a row Tim led the Commonwealth to the top ranking as a place for business. His work as  the cheerleader-in-chief also brought a number of national companies to the state. Virginia has vast talent pool, which is both home-grown and imported from other states because Virginia has historically been a good state in which to run a business and to work.

Regarding the economy, Kaine pointed out that history has shown you cannot just tax-cut the Commonwealth or the nation out of their  problems. A balanced approach which expects the wealthy to pay their fair share is essential too.

I was concerned about the endorsement of the Gang of Six, which appeared to ignore the fact that Social Security has not contributed to the deficit.  Yet, the Gang’s proposal slices and dices Social Security in several ways (people would work longer, lose under the revised COLA plan, receive less, while the Gang would fundamentally turn Social Security into a Welfare program.  This is despite the fact that it is NOT welfare.  We all put money into the system from the beginning of our working days. Wall Street has shown we cannot depend on it to keep our future safe. Yet the Gang’s proposal unfairly makes budget and tax reform on the backs of seniors. Most Americans currently need or will need their Social Security benefits.

That, however, was my only disagreement with Tim Kaine’s remarks last evening. Today I spoke with former MCDC chair and community  leader Lindsay West. Her statement pretty much summed it up regarding Kaine, “We Virginians are lucky, she said. We are lucky in several respects.  Lindsay has been a phenomenal Democrat and a wonderful person.  Our town is lucky to have her.  We likewise have a wonderful current MCDC chair.  I don’t feel lucky with Morgan Griffith, Ken Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell  supposedly “representing” me (we all know they do not). But Kaine will we a formidable candidate for the US Senate. In that we are lucky indeed.

Note: This diary has been modified from the original by the addition of a couple of sentences.