Home Blog Page 3213

Colonel Kagan

0

You read that right.  A military title with the name of the nominee for the Supreme Court.  It is what Robert Merrill, currently a Marine Corps captain and legal adviser to a Marine infantry battalion in southern Afghanistan calls her, as he makes clear in A veteran’s Harvard ally: Elena Kagan, an op ed in today’s Washington Post.  Merrill is a 2008 graduate of Harvard Law School, attending as an active duty Marine officer as he transitioned from Infantry To JAG.  

He offers high praise of Kagan.

You should read his piece, which makes clear Kagan’s support of those who serve even as she clearly opposed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and abided by the University policy of not allowing the career services office to be used to recruit students at the law school.  Instead she used the facilities of the veterans group, took its members out to dinner on Veterans Day.  

If I have not already convinced you to read the column, please keep reading this diary.  I am sure I will

On the recruiting ban:  

The school’s policy against discrimination was akin to black-letter law. If anything, Kagan was an activist in ensuring that military recruiters had viable access to students and facilities despite the official ban. A Boston-area recruiter later told me that the biggest hurdle he faced recruiting at Harvard Law was trying to answer the students’ strangely intellectual questions.

On why he calls her by a military title:  

I later told her that her blunt style of leadership would have served her well in the Marines. I took to calling her “Colonel Kagan” whenever we crossed paths on campus.

On what she was like as a person towards him, an active duty Marine who had recently served in Iraq:  

During nine years of service in the Marine Corps, I have received a fair number of thanks from friends and strangers alike. I received perhaps the most thoughtful thanks of all just before graduating from Harvard Law School: The supposedly “anti-military” Elena Kagan sent me a handwritten note thanking me for my military service and wishing me luck in my new life as a judge advocate.

This column offers lots of ammo to defend Kagan against the charge of being anti-military. .  But she will clearly defend herself, as Merrill makes clear in his final paragraph:

If Elena Kagan is “anti-military,” she certainly didn’t show it. She treated the veterans at Harvard like VIPs, and she was a fervent advocate of our veterans association. She was decidedly against “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but that never affected her treatment of those who had served. I am confident she is looking forward to the upcoming confirmation hearings as an opportunity to engage in some intellectual sparring with members of Congress over her Supreme Court nomination. I would respectfully warn them to do their homework, as she has a reputation for annihilating the unprepared.

If you have read this far, you now know why I insisted on the importance of this column.

Pass it on.

Peace.

Rand Paul’s blunder: Further analysis

0

Rand Paul spent most of today trying to dig himself out of the giant hole he dug for himself on last night’s Rachel Maddow Show.  Paul’s performance on Maddow was a epic nineteen minute long self-destrucction extravaganza.  The person I feel sympathy for is Rand Paul’s campaign manager, who probably felt like someone was gouging his heart out with a rusty spoon throughout the performance.  You can watch the interview again here.

The long and the short of it is that Rand Paul feels like the free speech rights of racist small business owners have been violated by the federal government.  Rand Paul feels strongly enough about the free speech rights of racist small business owners that he was willing to argue the point with Rachel Maddow for nineteen minutes.  Rand Paul implied strongly that he would not have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the form in which it ultimately became law.  Why?  Because it put too many restrictions on the free speech of racist small business owners.

Rand Paul’s problem seems to be that he doesn’t understand the difference between speech (protected) and conduct (not really protected).  Rand Paul thinks that a small business owner–even a small business owner that operates a business open to the public–should be able to discriminate on the basis of race if the business is privately owned.  

Let’s say that a racist owns the only gas station in a small town.  Rand Paul believes that the racist owner should have the ability to refuse to sell gasoline to African-American motorists, even if that means that the African-American motorists end up stranded on the side of the road.  The U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment would probably allow the posting of a sign that said: “We would rather not serve Blacks here.”  That’s speech.  Under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it is not legal for the gas station owner to actually refuse to sell gas to African-Americans.  That’s the deal: if you sell to the general public then you sell to the entire general public.

Rand Paul doesn’t seem to understand that distinction.  Rand Paul lives in a world where it is critically important that we empower racists to hassle and otherwise trouble members of whatever minorities they choose to target.  It’s a principle that Rand Paul felt strongly enough about to defend it throughout his entire interview with Rachel Maddow.

Earlier today–no doubt after a long night of conversation with his campaign manager–Paul tried to back away from what he’d said on Maddow the night before.  He went on Laura Ingraham today to claim that he’d never opposed the Civil RIghts Act of 1964 and that it was settled law.  But Rand Paul has been making the same kinds of statements in support of a limited form of “private” racism at least since 2002.

A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. –Rand Paul, in a letter to the Bowling Green Daily News entitled “Distinction blurred between private, public property,” May 30, 2002.

Rand Paul’s great mistake is that he doesn’t make a distinction between speech, the right to say that discrimination is okay if that’s what you believe, and conduct.  Rand Paul believes that you have a right to discriminate against people as long as you aren’t a “public” or government entity.

Rand Paul’s support for “private” racism probably won him a lot of support among the Tea Party and among the tiny sliver of voters who actually participated in Kentucky’s Republican primary on Tuesday.  It remains to be seen how his staunch defense of the private racism of small businessmen will play in the wider electorate of Kentucky’s general election this fall.

Crossposted from The Richmonder

[poll id=”

4

“]

Tim Kaine Rips Rand Paul: “Extremism Run Wild”

1


He [wrote] into the local paper to complain that a fair housing act that had passed 34 years before was unjust and a free society should tolerate hate-filled groups excluding people based on the color of their skin. This is very frightening stuff, it’s the kind of stuff that happens when you see this kind of extremism run wild. And I think the Republican Party needs to get on record…get their leaders out there saying, “we’re against this and we condemn this kind of thinking.” thinking

UPDATE: Charles Lane explains why Rand Paul’s “argument makes no sense.” It’s also beyond laughable, unless you’re an Ayn Rand afficionado, an extremist, or an imbecile. But I repeat myself… 🙂

America is Center Left

3

The Conventional Wisdom, repeated ad nauseum is that America is a center right nation, the corollary being that, if those lefty Democrats want to win elections they have to “move to the right,” and if Obama (“the most extreme radical leftist President ever”) is to have a prayer of passing any kind of legislation he’d better drop this socialist garbage and start acting like a Republican.  You know, that Republic Party representing the majority of Americans, ahem. This CW is displayed front and center day after day on the mass  media, repeated so often that most national Establishment Democrats believe it themselves, and it looks as though even President Obama swallowed the CW hook, line, and sinker, as he strove to re-create a bipartisanship in Congress which in reality had frayed apart long ago, and which most certainly became a total dead letter upon his election.

How, then, is it that Barack Obama, that “radical leftist” ever got elected in the first place? How, in heaven’s name, did he carry so many so-called Red States, including Virginia—- which promptly turned around two years later and elected a hard right conservative (masquerading as a moderate) as Governor, and an Attorney General openly so far over the cliff on the right he is almost certifiable? Why is it there is such a powerful, reactionary movement like the Tea Party dominating the public square and, it seems, the Republican Party?  Why do I have the gall imagine that America is not center right, but center left?

Obama’s campaign registered thousands and thousands of “new” voters, mostly young, but also plenty of older, and diverse ethnic groups.  These people had never voted before, and they had for years therefore been invisible in the political life of the nation. They were perfectly well qualified to vote, but had never done so, and therefore never really showed up on any screen, even that of a pollster because they never fell into the category of “likely voter.”  

The standard universe of voters proves indeed to be “right of center,” and this universe showed up reliably time after time to vote, even in Virginia’s endless series of special elections, off-year elections, and primaries. The Obama vote in 2008 represents a different universe of voters. Not, you understand, an invalid universe, just a different one not normally seen in American polling places.

Most of these individuals had never before bothered to register to vote and participate in the governing of their country for many “reasons.” Some of the reasons were, of course, laziness or indifference, but also there was the idea that nothing they did could ever make a difference in their lives, that “the system” was rigged against them (true, it often is), that their contribution was not desired and their boss would fire them if they “got political,” that there was no real difference between the political parties, plus there was plain ignorance and a lack of motivation.  Not to mention, in many areas of the country there is a pattern of very effective suppression of voting among “non-standard” groups, especially minorities.

As it happened, for generations the right of center white majority conservative universe of voters bebopped merrily along, convinced that their group, their universe of voters, was America…. after all, they thought (if they thought about it all) their bunch were the historical creators of America—– those original Boston tea partiers who dumped the tea in Boston harbor may have dressed up like local American Indians, but they were one and all white guys. White guys moved the frontier westward to the Pacific Ocean.  White guys (and increasingly some white women) innovated and created the magnificent American industrial machine that won World War II, went the narrative, and they were the ones who developed the atomic bomb and put men on the moon and then won the Cold War—– well, okay, there are  today a few clever Asians and Indian Indians, and maybe an African-American or two around who accepted the white guy system and fit in by blending in, who also contributed to America’s super power status, but white men were the architects.  Such was the mental landscape among this universe of voters, or among a majority of them.  It was consistent, made historical sense in their eyes, and they themselves symbolized, well, America.

Meanwhile, toiling beside this universe, mingling among them on a daily basis, were the members of the invisible universe, whose life experiences, whose needs and ideas were unrecognized because they were rarely expressed, and whose concerns never ever were considered by the Powers That Be because they never voted, never made a fuss politically.  This is the universe that was inspired to register and vote for Obama, thereby turning the American political world upside down.

When they showed up at the polls, and once the votes were counted, it was revealed that the American body politic was actually left of center. The old universe, the white guy universe, was still there, but it was overwhelmed by the new, left of center masses. The old universe did not accept its defeat gracefully, and has steadfastly refused to recognize not just the reality but the legality of this new universe, and it went immediately into fierce denial, questioning Obama’s validity (“born in Kenya,” “secret Muslim,”  “pals around with terrorists”) and the right to vote of all those “new” voters (“has to be fraud,” “ACORN committed voter registration fraud”).

Besides attempting to de-legitimize Obama as President, the Republican Party, its nose out of joint at being rejected so soundly, began a stubborn, destructive campaign of obstructionism in Congress, while the most conservative elements of its already conservative base,  helped by funding from equally conservative corporate interests, turned itself into a reactionary movement demanding “their” country back, and a return to the imaginary perfect Eden of America’s Founding Fathers (i.e., “let’s get rid of all these interlopers”). The Tea Party tapped into all the fears and frustrations of the white guy universe of voters, turning August into the month from hell across the land as violence and threats of violence became the rule of politics at Town Hall after Town Hall, principally revolving around the misunderstood Health Care bill.  

The media concluded that this movement represented the majority opinion of the country—– it was made up of people who always voted, the “right of center” crew, which the media had consistently seen politically involved, so of course their opinions were conflated with popular opinion. President Obama was gratuitously informed he had to be more bipartisan, more like Republicans, and Democrats were assured their goose was cooked, they could count on losing control of Congress come November 2010.

Not so fast.

That huge Obama universe of voters is still out there. After the election of 2008, grassroots Democrats cannily recognized that the Party would have to stay engaged with these new voters so as to turn them into voters who turned up regularly to vote Democratic, just as the Republican base was so consistent about voting every time for Republicans.  This did not happen: the Obama-centric campaigners did not mesh into the Democratic Party organization on any level, kept their voter records to themselves, and seemed only interested in directly supporting Obama and his (mostly future) policies. The Democratic Establishment seemed remarkably wary about those Obama people, and reluctant to change their own long-standing modus operandi, a mode that angry grassroots workers regarded as little more than “Republican Lite.”

Worse, Obama the President was far more moderate than Obama the campaigner; he frequently chose either Republicans or Republican-Lite Democrats for top policy positions. On his signature issue, health care reform, Obama offered no political leadership whatsoever and, odd for such a good campaigner, never got his message across on health care and many other issues dear to progressives. Instead, he went on a vacation during that fateful August when he lost control of his entire program, and let the Republicans and their Tea Party front take over framing the issues their way, and begin implementing their plans to destroy his Presidency (“I hope Obama fails”).  Time after time during the economic collapse and Great Recession, it looked as though what Obama and the Democrats actually did was to help the corporate oligarchs, and not the vast sea of common voters who elected them—- Wall Street over Main Street.  So, what else was new?

This run of events dispirited much of the Democratic grassroots, and the new Obama voters decided the Democrats were no different from Republicans, just as they’d always suspected, that their voting had not really helped themselves after all. When the elections of 2009 came around the Obama voters, feeling betrayed and ignored, and the grassroots feeling betrayed and misused, by and large stayed home. Naturally, this was construed by Republicans and the mass media pundit class as proof: America is a right of center nation, the natural order of things is now restored, the cycle would turn, Republicans would come roaring back in 2010, and Obama was going to be a one-term President. Republicans began industriously working on voter suppression, framing Obama as a failure, promoting  as Big Issues fear of deficits, and promising a return to states’ rights with a federal government much reduced in power.

The occasions on which Obama has been triumphant have been those in which he honored the progressive grassroots’ policies on which he campaigned. Where he has run into snag after snag and outright defeat have been when he futilely tried to be “bipartisan,” gave away one progressive bargaining chip after another, and begged Republicans for even just one little vote. Meanwhile, when Republicans were returned to office, or continued in office in red states, voters began to see what happened and were dismayed: rejection of federal help to states struggling with budget shortfalls during the Recession, refusal to participate in health care reform, dismantling of desperately needed programs, disasters resulting from de-regulation, for example.

Therefore, it seems obvious that Democrats—- and especially Obama—-  if they want to win, must return to their populist and progressive roots, re-engage the Obama voters, and stop palling around with the increasingly extreme reactionary right masquerading as the modern day Republican Party.  The irony here is that the Republican Party since Reagan, has lurched so far to the right, dragging the political spectrum with them, that what was once considered the moderate center ground is now regarded as the (far) left, so that, when Democrats retake that “left”ground for their own (instead of cravenly being Republican Lite) they will really be the centrist party, the moderate middle ground. It clearly is what would be good for the country.

What Do BP Oil Spill & Offshore Drilling Jobs Have In Common?

1

60 Mile Long Trail of "Dispersed" OilNobody can provide an accurate estimate for either one.

On the same day BP finally admitted its figure of 5,000 barrels per day lowballs the actual size of the spill, the Newport News Daily Press reported Gov. Bob McDonnell may be playing games with offshore drilling job creation estimates:

Even before the Defense Department made known its objections to offshore drilling in Virginia, Bob McDonnell raised eyebrows with a letter he sent to the Interior Department in December.

The letter cites a 5-year-old study that predicts offshore natural gas production alone would generate 2,578 jobs in 10 years. That the then governor-elect would quote the study surprised its author, former Old Dominion University President James Koch, who called the document a “flyover from 30,000 feet.”

“I’ve told them they shouldn’t make too much of something done over the weekend,” Koch said. “I don’t even put that on my [curriculum] vitae.”

So how many jobs would offshore drilling create in Virginia?  

Let’s ask Big Oil:

A 2009 [American Petroleum Institute] study found that Virginia would gain 130 drilling jobs, plus another 291 related to drilling, by 2020. The figures jump to 216 and 415, respectively, by 2030.

Only 415 jobs 20 years from now? At the cost of risking this off Virginia’s coast?

Former Virginia governor & current Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine says the spill should prompt a fresh look at our energy priorities:

“You have to weigh environmental safety.  You have to weigh the significant naval operations and NASA operations  off Virginia’s coast,” he added. “I think a third thing you’d have to  weigh in Virginia’s case is opportunity cost — would it be better to do  offshore wind?

“The same place where you might want to do oil rigs off the coast of  Virginia, there’s actually pretty favorable wind conditions,” Kaine  said.

“So you would look at all the options and you would put them all on  the table, including the environmental conditions. And certainly the  need to be diligent about that has certainly been escalated dramatically  by what we’ve seen in the gulf.”

Tell Senators Mark Warner & Jim Webb it’s time to stop letting Big Oil write our energy policies.

Bob McDonnell Announces New Voting Rights Restoration Procedure

4

At first glance, this looks highly promising.

Governor Bob McDonnell today announced his Administration’s streamlined restoration of rights procedures. Highlighted by a 60-day turnaround period on all completed applications, compared to the previous standard of six months to one year or more, the process will be the fastest and fairest in recent Virginia history. The Governor also announced that he is shortening the time individuals convicted of non-violent felonies must wait before applying for their restoration of their rights; That period will be reduced from the current three years to two years. The Governor’s procedures follow his pledge during the 2009 gubernatorial campaign to improve and quicken the restorations process. McDonnell also announced his Administration has already acted upon nearly 200 applications, with decisions now made on all applications submitted with all the required information between the January 16th Inauguration and April 1st.  The Administration has also acted upon many of the 650 applications left over from the Kaine administration, which will all be completed by July 15th.

I’ll be very interested to hear what groups and individuals concerned about this issue have to say. For now, Virginia State Conference NAACP Executive Director King Salim Khalfani says:

Process is important, but results are even more important.  The Virginia State Conference NAACP is encouraged that Governor McDonnell has already made a decision on the majority of completed applications submitted during the first few months of his Administration. We look forward to working with the Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth and those who desire to have their rights restored in Virginia.  The Governor, his staff and stakeholders have put alot of thought and time into producing a new process on the restoration of civil rights.  We look forward to working with the Governor on this and other issues to make the Commonwealth of Virginia a better place for all.

Agreed.

UPDATE: The Arlington County Democratic Committee (ACDC) says, “as you may recall, last month, ACDC passed a resolution urging swifter restoration of voting rights for convicted felons after service of their sentence.  I am happy to report that today, Governor McDonnell announced new rules to move Virginia toward that goal.”

UPDATE #2: The reaction so far from advocacy groups is mixed. For instance, the Advancement Project says, “These changes hardly equal reform” and that “Restoration of voting rights should not be handled on a case by case basis.” The ACLU of Virginia says, “Even with these changes, Virginia will still rank last or next to last in the nation in restoration of voting rights, and there will still be more than 300,000 disenfranchised felons here.” I certainly agree that there’s no excuse for this policy at all and that it needs to be changed ASAP.  When a non-violent felon has done their time and paid their debt to society, they should be allowed to vote. Period.

UPDATE #3: See after the “flip” for Del. David Englin’s statement on this.

While there has been much to criticize lately about the McDonnell Administration, it’s important to give credit where credit is due. By establishing a timely and more clearly defined process for non-violent ex-offenders seeking to have their rights restored, the Governor’s new policy has the potential make an important step in the right direction. In retrospect, it’s disappointing that our two previous governors did not implement such a policy, and I congratulate Governor McDonnell on this move. However, the proof of the McDonnell Administration’s commitment to this issue will be reflected in the numbers of citizens whose rights are restored. Despite other political differences, I hope we can work together on this issue, and I urge Governor McDonnell to challenge himself and his staff to restore voting rights to more Virginians than his two predecessors combined.

That said, this new policy in no way negates the need for a constitutional amendment that will automatically restore the voting rights of individuals who have already been punished for their crimes. It’s shameful that Virginia remains one of only two states where a felony conviction results in loss of voting rights for life, even after ex-offenders have served their time and reentered the community. This law was enacted during the Jim Crow era to suppress African American voting rights, and today it affects about 300,000 Virginians, more than half of whom are African American. I remain committed to repealing this Jim Crow law and ensuring the right to vote for all Virginians.

Cranwell, McEachin, Armstrong Call On Cooch To Return Tainted $50,000

4

I just got off a conference call with Virginia Democratic leaders regarding Ken Cuccinelli’s refusal to donate tainted contributions from the “questionable and potentially corrupt” U.S. Navy Veterans Association. To date, Governor McDonnell and Senator Ticer have returned donations from this “organization,” while the Veterans Administration – at the request of Senator Webb – has pulled the group’s page from its website.  The VA also says it “will conduct a review of the group as well as a review of procedures used to screen organizations before they are listed on the VA website.”  Last but not least, the U.S. Navy Veterans Association is already being investigated in New Mexico, Missouri and Florida, “following an investigation by the St. Petersburg Times revealing that 84 of 85 national and state directors listed in the charity’s tax filings and other records appear not to exist.”

Apparently, none of that is sufficient evidence for Ken Cuccinelli – who launches investigations at the drop of a hat about climate change scientists and other things he doesn’t like – to return a huge, $50,000 contribution he received from the U.S. Navy Veterans Association.  On the conference call a few minutes ago, DPVA Executive Director Dickie Cranwell said it is “difficult to understand” why Cuccinelli won’t do the same thing as McDonnell and Ticer and donate the money to a reputable veterans organization. According to Cranwell, “it’s time, period.”

Sen. Donald McEachin added that there are “incredibly serious allegations” against this group, and that the AG should have a higher standard than waiting until a group has been committed of a crime. That may or may not happen, but in the meantime, this group is being investigated by three other states. At the minimum, McEachin believes, the AG should return the $50,000 and encourage the Office of Consumer Affairs to investigate.

House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong noted that Cuccinelli is “not constrained by petty consistency,” being quite willing to launch an investigation of a former UVA climate scientist with whom he “disagrees” on the science.  Meanwhile, this supposed veterans organization is being investigated for fraud!  Where is Cuccinelli on that?!? Apparently, according to Ward Armstrong, Cuccinelli can spend money going after professors, but can’t go after this group. Perhaps, Armstrong mused, there’s a connection between the $50,000 contribution and the fact that Cuccinelli isn’t investigatin?  There’s certainly not the same “haste and zeal” in this case as in the climate scientist situation, that’s for sure, even though there’s – at the minimum – an “appearance of impropriety” here.

Finally, former Hampton Roads Veterans & Military Families for Obama leader Stephanie Marushia pointed out that the longer this goes on, the more it could hurt fundraising at legitimate veterans’ organizations.  That’s why Cuccinelli needs to “donate that money now” to a legitimate veterans’ organization, and also have the AG’s office investigate.  Right now, this is setting a bad example and demonstrating bad judgment.  

Tuesday’s Primaries and VA-10

0

Tonight, for the first time ever, two incumbent Democratic Senators failed to win primaries in a single day.  That has never happened before, and is greater than the number of incumbent Democratic Senators who lost primaries over the past decade combined.  Further, both challengers had little to no establishment support (especially Sestak), and one was in a red state (Halter).  Most importantly, both challengers took on the incumbents from the left. – Chris Bowers, OpenLeft

2010 has been billed as a bad year to be a Democrat, but yesterday’s results proved otherwise. In the only race actually deciding a Congressional seat yesterday the Democrat won (just as Democrats have won every special election this year). In the vast majority of races with Democrats in them, the more Democratic candidate either won or pushed the less Democratic candidate to a runoff.

You’d think the narrative would be “progressives triumphant” but for some reason the media is obsessed with a man named Rand.

That’s fine, it’s okay for them to be wrong for a while. It gives us a chance to build our fight for VA-10. Jeff Barnett is poised to ride a wave of anti-establishment opinion into the hallowed halls of Congress.

There are few Representatives in Congress who are more “establishment” than Frank Wolf. He came in with the Reagan revolution and has been a muddler in Congress ever since. While Chair of the Transportation committee he accomplished nothing as Loudoun county began to experience the growth that required action on roads, trains and buses long before today. He is the “dean” of the Virginia delegation, having served longer than any other member from our Commonwealth, and yet he is quite possibly the least-known Congressmember from Virginia.

Jeff Barnett and Democrats like him will have an opportunity in the Fall to run on Democratic accomplishments. Frank Wolf’s record in Congress is thin while he was in power, and retrograde while he is in opposition. As my colleague Daverunner has cataloged, Mr. Wolf has voted against the very legislation which is putting our country back on the right track. Just a few bills Mr. Wolf voted against, bills that will directly benefit his constituents, include:

  • The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act – In a supreme act of hypocrisy, Frank Wolf voted against the bill, and then criticized the Governor for not spending its money fast enough.
  • Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 – Energy conservation in our appliances is just good sense, of which Mr. Wolf apparently has little.
  • The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – Which Frank Wolf opposed because apparently my wife and daughter shouldn’t be paid the same money for the same work as a man. Because that is staying in touch with the needs of his constituents in VA-10.
  • Health Insurance Reform – Nevermind the number of families with children over 18 who need to stay on their parents’ insurance. Nevermind the number of people in our district who have run up against “lifetime caps” on benefits, or been dropped from coverage after getting sick, Frank Wolf voted against this bill, and his fellow Virginians.

Tuesday showed America, and Virginia, one thing. It showed that when given a choice, voters choose the candidate who is fighting the hardest for them.

Jeff Barnett is that fighter, and November is coming.

(P.S. Go read KathyInBlacksburg today. This post could have been titled, “What Kathy Said.” Oh, and Crossposted from Loudoun Progress.)

Mark Warner: Financial Reform Bill is “Just Right for the American People”

13



Mark Warner: “It was a little like the Goldilocks example yesterday; some guys saying this bill’s too soft on the banks, we had other folks saying this bill’s too hard on the banks, so maybe it’s just right for the American people because it kind of makes both ends a little bit upset.”

UPDATE 2:55 pm: The Senate just voted, 60-40, for cloture on the financial reform bill.  Three Republicans – Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins – voted yes, while two Democrats – Maria Cantwell and Russ Feingold – voted no.

UPDATE 9:02 pm: Financial reform passes, 69-39, in another major victory for President Obama. This guy’s quickly becoming LBJ in terms of legislation passed and signed!

Delgaudio Rants About “The Homosexual Classrooms Act”

1

Somehow I missed this latest gem by Loudoun County Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (far-far-far right wing “R”).  According to Delgaudio, the proposed Student Non-Discrimination Act is not about “non-discrimination” (and curbing school bullying) at all, it’s really about…are you sitting down?…“Men hand-in-hand skipping down to adoption centers to ‘pick out’ a little boy for themselves.” Delgaudio also calls it the “The Homosexual Classrooms Act.” He claims this Act will “[r]equire schools to teach sodomy and other appalling homosexual acts so homosexual students don’t feel “singled out” during already explicit sex-ed classes.”  It also will, according to Delgaudio, “use schools as weapons to eradicate traditional values in the next generation of American students.” Socialism! Communism! Lions, tigers, bears, oh my!

Sadly, this is not a joke or a parody, apparently, just Eugene Delgaudio being himself.

P.S. It’s worth pointing out that recently-elected Loudoun County Republican Committee chair Mark Sell is a member of Delgaudio’s “Loudoun-based hate group,” Public Advocate. According to Too Conservative, electing Sell – which is exactly what Loudoun Republicans ended up doing – would mark “a return to the Dark Ages.” What more does anyone need to know about Loudoun County Republicans?

P.P.S. Delgaudio would fit in very well in Malawi.