The Virginia Democrat

I've Left the Virginia Democratic Party...

2011-03-25T23:44:00.013-04:00

Cross-Posted at DailyKOS and the HokieGuru blog

And not because I don't have progressive views about the future... the Virginia Democratic Party has left me.

The Virginia Democratic Party has been "leaderless" for almost two years. We've had hit rock bottom. Let's talk about some of the things that need to be fixed for me to come back into the fold (e.g out of Independent status)... let's start at the top:

Barack Obama - I love you, Mr. President, but no one knows what you stand for. You've been AWOL in the federal budget fight, you accept whatever cuts the House Republicans want, and we are now in a third war (and we are borrowing from China to finance those operations). I don't see you standing up for the party members, either... I see you talking in generalities, but there is no positive message from you on how your policies (or lack there of) are going to make the nation better off.
Tim Kaine - Dude, please quit playing drama queen and get off your "fence" about running for Senate. You have ruined the chance that other candidates (much better candidates, I might add) will run for the federal political office that impacts every Virginian's life. After your tenure and the DNC (and the substantial electoral losses... pretty much wiping out our 2006 and 2008 House and Senate gains), why anyone would want you to run for Senate is beyond me. It's kind of like banging your head against the wall repeatedly and stopping because it feels so good (e.g. insanity). Please do us all a favor and take the ambassador position in Madrid.
Jim Webb - Jim, I understand why you are leaving (Senate Dems are going to be in the minority in 2012). However, this is a time when we need your leadership in the Senate. We can no longer endure draconian budget cuts and during your last few weeks, we need you to stop caving... we also need you to talk some sense into Tim Kaine.
Jim Moran - You have lost your only chance to be a House committee chairmen... won't ever happen for you... as a committee chair, you would have the authority to send resources to Alexandria and Arlington, part of the economic power engine in the State of Virginia. It's time for you to retire. We need new blood in your seat... someone that is in touch with the district and it's needs... someone that has a chance to lead. You've been a back bencher for years and it's time for you to end that charade.
Creigh Deeds - You did nothing to reach out to younger voters (that's why Barack Obama won... reaching out in Northern Virginia would have been a good idea). The downslide in the Virginia Democratic Party really began with you, man. Your 2009 Virginia Governor campaign was the worst I have ever seen in politics. It might have brought the Virginia Democratic Party to pre-1993 levels.
Brian Moran - Dude, seriously, where do I start? I have no idea how you are the Chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia. Hello, you run for Governor, you can't even win your own home precinct, and you get this important leadership role? WTF. Really? Dude, seriously... what are you doing to build the Democratic Party in Virginia? I see no strategic message or positive message for the future originating from your office... you need to lead the efforts in this area... as a party, we can't say, don't vote for the other party because they suck... we have to say this is why our polices are going to make your life better... a strong positive message about the future is what we need. Who is in charge of strategic communication, anyway? It is bad enough that you support a proprietary educational industry that eats at the tax payer trough.
Dick Saslaw - Dude, you are my Senator... I've voted for you a couple times, but I'm not donating just because you say Cooch sucks. You can only play the firewall role so long. Where is your positive vision for the future? How are you going to make life better for Virginia (and more specifically, Alexandria) residents? I see nothing coming out of the Virginia Senate "leadership."

You notice here that I've consistently talked (several times above) about a positive message for the future... this is what people respond to... how do you plan to make Virginian lives better? What can we do better than Republicans? This is a conservative state... not gonna get away with trashing the other party... must make a case as to why we are better. How will people benefit from our policies? None of those seven people above are doing that. I've never seen a party so lost in the wilderness.

And that's why I'm now an Independent voter and have left the Virginia Democratic Party. I may be back in the fold in November 2012... but you have to win me back... with a positive message about the future.

Governor Bob McDonnell - Don't Rob Higher Education

2010-02-09T09:36:00.005-05:00

Unfortunately, I can't blame Bob McDonnell for this entirely, however:

A little-known provision in former Gov. Tim Kaine's final budget bill currently working its way through the General Assembly proposes something unheard of in higher education: taking a portion of mandatory student fees paid to universities and depositing that money in the state's bank account.

Higher education officials and advocates say it's not only an unfair "backdoor tax" on students and families, but that it could set a dangerous precedent for education funding.

This is completely different from taking general fund money [away]. This is private student money never intended to go to the state that the state is taking," said Steven Jones, executive director of Virginia21, a Richmond-based youth advocacy group. "It's a matter of the public trust."

Nice... not... the proposal would also dip into university reserve funds, including the interest that accrues on those accounts. Colleges around Virginia use those funds for capital projects, including dorm renovations, new student housing, and other projects.

At a time when workforce reductions and tuition increases are happening at every college in the state, Virginia cannot afford to rob higher education anymore. Remember, this is only the beginning... if Bob McDonnell gets away with this, he'll try this same tactic with elemetary and secondary education.

Is Bob McDonnell considering a tax increase?

2010-01-21T18:26:00.002-05:00

In the State of the State address the other night, the governor had this – and only this -- to say about taxes:

The budget that was waiting for me at 12:01pm on Saturday requires $4 billion in cuts.  

Some say taxes must be raised – it’s unavoidable. Here’s what I say. I will work with you –Democrats, Republicans and Independents. We will meet and negotiate; there will be disagreements, and there will be compromises. 

 Virginians are struggling with the worst economy in generations. We will not turn our economy around by taxing Virginians more. To do so would ignore the indisputable truth that the fiscal fortune of any government is tied to the economic prosperity of its people.   Therefore, if you pass a bill in this recession that raises taxes on the hardworking families of Virginia – I WILL VETO IT.   And if you pass a budget embedded with those same tax increases – I WILL NOT APPROVE IT.  

I find it hard to believe that McDonnell would seriously consider raising taxes. Given the choice between responsible, constructive governing and blind adherence to an ideology that teaches that taxes and government are always bad, a Republican that dreams of a future in his/her party will choose ideology every time.

And yet, McDonnell’s specificity of language is intriguing. Would he approve a tax that was not imposed on “the hardworking families of Virginia” – say, a gas tax, or an increased sales tax, or additional taxes and fees on business. Of course, ultimately, those taxes hit hardworking families, but one could at least argue that they are taxes actually levied on others.

After all, if the Governor meant all taxes were off the table, there was a more direct and clear way to say so, like “Read my lips. No new taxes!”

But he chose not to do so.

Could he be telling the General Assembly he would support a tax incre…er….revenue enhancement of some sort, if could be argued that the burden does not, somehow, fall on families.

I’m sure I’m off base. My Republican friends in the Commonwealth might be misguided and dangerous ideologues, but they are not stupid enough to fall for this.

But there is a $4 billion budget gap that McDonnell needs to close, and I am eager to see how the Governor solves this puzzle over the next couple of months by expense cuts alone, consistent with the promises of his campaign.

EXTRA! EXTRA! McDonnell renegs on transportation promises

2010-01-15T16:46:00.002-05:00

Well, Gov-elect McDonnell has reneged on his promises to fix Virginia’s transportation mess.

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that this has happened!

Not that it matters much. McDonnell’s “plan” for transportation was always clearly intended as so much campaign fodder, and never intended as an actual and practical solution for the Commonwealth’s transportation issues.

Still, Bob McDonnell is responsible for his own actions, and reneging on a promise so central to his election before he is even sworn in is, frankly, inexcusable, even in these cynical times. But it won’t be the last promise on which McDonnell reneges, unfortunately, as most of his campaign was premised on presenting an image of himself completely at odds with the reality of who Bob McDonnell really is.

The trick for McDonnell, of course, will be to maintain his viability as a national candidate while delivering on his “Manchurian Candidate” role to remake Virginia in the image of Pat Robertson (it’s all laid out there in his thesis). To accomplish this, I suspect that much of the dirty work in the social arena will fall to Ken Cuccinelli, with McDonnell simply not interfering with Cooch and instead playing the role of “Moderate Bob” insofar as most citizens are concerned, with a healthy dose of winks, nods and coded language to the teabaggers he will need as he reaches for national office.

That’s what’s up, it appears, with McDonnell’s low key demeanor and overtures to Democrats heading into his inauguration.

Progressives are at an inherent disadvantage compared to Republicans when it comes to acting as an opposition party. Because we believe in the capacity of government to act as an agent of progress in society, we try to find areas of constructive compromise and cooperation with political opponents when they operate the levers of power, even at the expense of supporting policies we know to be wrong because they possess some good aspects, and even if short –term political objectives are impaired in the process.

While the reasons were certainly more complex, it was this general approach to governing that allowed Democrats to seek common ground with President Bush throughout most of his presidency, notwithstanding his record of lying and incompetence. It was only following Katrina that common sense took hold, although it was too late by then, and Democrats realized that they were doing long-term damage to the country by supporting Bush policies.

For Republicans, however, being obstructionist is not only entirely consistent with their philosophy that any government action is inherently bad, quite apart from the objectives and means of implementation of that action itself, but it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. This strategy, of course, has the added virtue of providing the opposition with short-term political gains, as people turn on the party in power because of its inability to deliver.

I’m curious to see how Virginia’s Democrats respond to the McDonnell/Cuccinelli Administration in Richmond and to their inevitable sacrifices of education, health care, and public safety at the altar of tax cuts, much as we see McDonnell toss transportation to the wolves. And I’m curious to see the response to Cuccinelli’s efforts to reverse what little progress Virginia has made in social areas, whether the right for a woman to control her own body, gay rights and other civil liberties as he pursues his narrow Evangelical vision of society.

I do not have high hopes.

2009-2010 Virginia Tech Men's Basketball Preview

2009-11-10T22:48:00.002-05:00

Thanks to aznew for letting me guest post the 2009-2010 Virginia Tech Men's Basketball Preview. The Hokie Guru is an editor for VT Fan Focus's Men's Basketball section, and was one of the founding members of Fire Bryan Stinespring. He's a season ticket holder, and definitely has his finger on the pulse of the program right now. Here it goes:

This is my 2nd year as a season ticket holder (and I’ve watched Hokie Men’s hoops since the mid 1980’s...I remember the big upset of Memphis in 1985). We’re looking to build on a 2008-2009 season that had our Hokies finish in a three-way tie for seventh in the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). Jason King from Yahoo Sports has it right when he says talent wise, we were an NCAA tournament team last year, but inconsistency kept us out of the Big Dance. Subsequently, we had to settle for a second round appearance (and quick exit) in the National Invitational Tournament. This year, the ACC media picked the Hokies to finish in 8th place considering that our big time scorer, A.D. Vassallo graduated. The Hokies will definitely miss Vassallo for his offense, but definitely not his defense.

Reports from Practice

Reports from 2009-2010 practices are limited, but tweets from Malcolm Delaney on Twitter (@foe23) show that Virginia Tech beat Charlotte and GEORGETOWN in official scrimmages. While it’s hard to take much from those results, this is a good sign. Further, there's quite a bit of buzz that our D is stronger this year. There has been an increased emphasis on overall team defense with Greenberg's squad, not unlike the mentality of our football team.

New Facilities

Arguably the biggest news of the offseason was the completion of a brand new $21 million basketball practice facility in Blacksburg. Seth Greenberg expects the facility to provide a “wow” factor that will help level the playing field in terms of recruiting against the traditional ACC powerhouses. The building is impressive, and certainly improves the perception of the program with respect to recruits as well as rivals. Hokie fans will also enjoy the fact that we pay homage to Greg “Teabag” Paulus in the form of a two-story poster in the entrance of the facility. From what I’ve heard, the players LOVE the facility and the current players have had more opportunity for practice shots this year than in the last three years combined.

A New Assistant Coach

Seth Greenberg made what many in the media say was a great off-season hire in assistant coach, Bill Courtney. Courtney is considered an excellent recruiter, especially on the East Coast, which is particularly important in the ACC. When he was an assistant at Virginia, he recruited Sylven Landesburg, the Cavaliers' best player. While at George Mason, he recruited every player on the Patriots' Final Four squad. You can see more about Courtney here. I'd say we’re lucky to have him. Welcome to Virginia Tech, Bill.

The Schedule

The knock on our Hokies in previous seasons is that we did not have enough quality wins (non-conference and ACC) to make the Tournament. This year, we have an opportunity to pick up some strong wins before the ACC season begins. The highlights include Temple in the Philly Hoop Group Classic, Iowa in the Big 10/ACC Challenge, Georgia at home, Penn State on the road (when I first heard that game announced, I thought it was for football and I was massively excited). Hokie fans should still be excited about the basketball matchup, and I will be travelling to Happy Valley to witness it in person. The Hokies will also take on Seton Hall south of the border in Mexico. In ACC play, we have a pair of home and road games with North Carolina, Boston College, North Carolina State, Miami, and Virginia. The Hokies have single home games against Clemson, Wake Forest, and Maryland. The Hokies go on the road for games against Florida State, Duke, and Georgia Tech. I wish we could play Maryland and Duke twice (so I could boo both teams off the court and yell “Teabag Paulus” and “General Greivis Vasquez” for the hell of it), but this is the way ACC scheduling works out this season. In short, we have some good opportunities for quality non-conference and conference wins. If we come out of the blocks hard, we should have a good chance to be undefeated by the time the ACC season begins.

The Roster

Backcourt

Malcolm Delaney (Junior, G, 6’3”, 190 lbs) – The best player we’ve had at Virginia Tech since Dell Curry (some would argue that Ace Custis should be rated higher than Malcolm… I disagree). He is the undisputed team leader and we need him to be more vocal this year. Delaney is preseason First Team All-ACC and is the leading scorer among all returning players in the conference. Malcolm is listed in Rivals.com Top 25 Point Guards as well. Delaney is a combo guard (e.g. he can play point and shooting guard) but his natural position is shooting guard. To improve his game, Delaney participated as a player and counselor at LeBron James’ Nike Summer Basketball camp in Cleveland. Delaney has the best jump shot (think rainbow) I’ve seen at Virginia Tech. Towards the end of the season last year, fatigue might have been a factor with Delaney...let’s hope that’s not the case this year. Look for him to have A GREAT YEAR that might bounce him into the NBA draft.

Dorenzo Hudson (Junior, G, 6’5”, 220 lbs) – A possible candidate for third scorer on this team. Towards the end of the season last year, Hudson starting scoring a bit more, averaging 6.8 points per game in the final two months of the season. We need him to step up and be a defensive stopper.

Terrell Bell (Junior, G/F, 6’6, 205 lbs) – A player who is “challenged” offensively...but on this team, he won’t have to score points. We'll need him to be our defensive shutdown guy this year, which could include a major role off the bench.

Erick Green (Junior, G/F, 6’4, 185 lbs) – One of the new recruits...a pure point guard and someone I have high hopes for. We need him to eat up 15-20 minutes per game by the middle of the season so that Delaney can move to the shooting guard (and get some rest on the bench). Erick can run the offense and can play solid defense (he’s also a taller point guard). He won't play Deron Washington defense (ha), but pretty good defense nonetheless. Green can score when he’s asked to, but he’s not a Delaney-type in that area of his game. I’ve heard reports from practice that he is very athletic, but needs to be more aggressive. Green’s development could be the key to our season. If he progrresses, he could take over a starting role by January. He is the first true "pass-first" point guard that the Hokies have recruited in the Seth Greenberg era.

Ben Boggs (Freshman, G, 6’4”, 200lbs) – A guy who will be asked to spell Delaney and Green...if he plays good defense, he will see some time on the court.
Paul Debnam (Senior, G, 6’3”, 195lbs) – A fan favorite who will never see the court, except in mop-up duty.

Frontcourt

Jeff Allen (Junior, F, 6’7”, 250lbs) – Perhaps the best front court player we’ve had a Virginia Tech since Ace Custis. The Hokies will count on Allen for major scoring and rebounding this year. Allen has worked hard in the offseason and we need him to be a force this year. Allen is listed as one of Rivals.com Top 25 Power Forwards. He was also a counselor at LeBron James’ Nike Basketball Camp with Delaney.

Lewis Witcher (Senior, F, 6’9”, 218lbs) – Lew is only senior on the team. He's a guy who we are going to need strong leadership from this season, along with scoring points and being aggressive on the boards. He's a borderline starter, but if he is not aggressive on the boards, he will be coming off the bench for his final season.

J.T. Thompson (Junior, F, 6’6”, 210lbs) – J.T. is always that player who can provide a spark off the bench...the problem is that he isn’t big enough to handle most strong forwards and isn’t quick enough to hang with most speedy forwards, but he's got the work ethic. He is a fan favorite because he plays hard to the whistle every time he is on the floor, and he is a leader. He may or may not start this year considering his size, but he’s beast on the boards. It would be nice if he could be third scorer, but he does many of the little things well (like working for loose balls) so I’ll take that for now.

Victor Davila (Sophomore, F, 6’8”, 245lbs) – A guy that was originally on Rivals' list of top 125 players that was also recruited by Wake Forest. When Davila gets the ball down low on the block, he’s pretty hard to stop from scoring (he could be a great one). He needs to be more aggressive in defensive transition and active on the boards, which are two things that might keep him out of the starting lineup. He’s a young, talented player that I hope we see some aggression from this year. He has a very good chance to be a starter, especially against teams in the ACC where we'll face off against bigger, more physical power forwards.

Cadarian Raines (Freshman, F, 6’9”, 238lbs) – A big guy who is going to take up some space down low, but it will take him a while to get back in the swing of things because he fractured his foot in the offseason. We’ll need his big body for the ACC season.

Manny Atkins (Freshman, G/F, 6’7”, 200lbs) – One of the new guys…reports are that he’s a lights-out shooter. We need one of those in Blacksburg.
Gene Swindle (Freshman, C, 6’11’, 260lbs) – A center project who will never see the court, except in mop-up duty.

Allan Chaney (Sophomore, F, 6’9”, 235lbs) – A transfer from the University of Florida who figures to fit well in Seth Greenberg’s scheme of one post man, two wings, and two guards. Chaney will be eligible in the 2010-2011 season and will likely play the “three spot.” Unfortunately, he is undergoing shoulder surgery and cannot practice with the team as a result.

Projected Starting Lineups

The Hokies will likely have two different starting lineups: one against small teams (that will require our quicker players on the floor) and one against bigger ACC teams (to provide a little more physicality). Here are my projected lineups:

Projected Starting Lineup – vs. Small Teams

Malcolm Delaney
Dorenzo Hudson
Lewis Witcher
Jeff Allen
J.T. Thompson

Projected Starting Lineup – vs. ACC Teams

Malcolm Delaney
Dorenzo Hudson
Lewis Witcher
Jeff Allen
Victor Davila

Closing Rebounds

Offensive and defensive rebounding must improve this year. We must get better on defense.
Virginia Tech needs a third scorer in every game, even if it’s by committee.

Our front court guys Witcher and Davila, really need to be more aggressive this season.
This might be the last year we see Malcolm Delaney (and maybe Jeff Allen) at Virginia Tech. I’m selfish though, and would love to see Allen and Delaney stick around for another year.

Hokies still have season tickets available, so grab them here.

Season Outlook

I believe that we’re going to do better than the ACC media predicted. That’s generally the way things work with Virginia Tech football and men’s basketball…when expectations are high, we have some issues, and when they are low, we do well. This is an experienced team who has fought in the ACC trenches and knows what to expect in key ACC road games. If the team plays with consistency on defense night-in and night-out, we should finish in the top half of the ACC and grab a bid to the NCAA Tournament.

GO HOKIES!!!!

Of course the polls are right - Just ask President Dewey...or Joe Abbey

2009-11-02T13:23:00.005-05:00

Just back from the campaign rally in C'ville. Lots of energy, and a steadfast belief that this election is still in the hands of the voters, not the pundits or pollsters.

According to Joe Abbey, the polls are severely undercounting potential Democratic, and if we "get to the polls, we can yet do a Dewey beats Truman in this race."

We'll see what happens tomorrow, but I continue to believe that Virginians do not want to go backwards, and do not want Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli, and the cultural, social and economic regression that they represent, running the Commonwealth. As a result, I continue to believe that there is potential for a last-minute voter surge that the polls are not seeing.

I spoke with a local political observer/blogger at the rally, and asked what he thought about the polls. He was fairly confident that Creigh would do better than the polls were predicting, and he made the point that given the registration surge in 2008, there are enough Democratic voters who may be under the radar to stage an upset.

Every vote will count.

How to prevent McDonnell, Cooch bait & switch on Virginia? Vote. Just vote.

2009-11-01T20:47:00.001-05:00

Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli are pulling a bait and switch on Virginia.

These two guys have been cultural warriors their entire public lives. How can anyone believe that once they find themselves in power that they are going to change their stripes?

Indeed, no sooner did they feel assured of victory than they began to show their true colors. As this article clearly demonstrates. Bob McDonnell contradicted a promise he made at a debate within 48 hours concerning both protecting a woman’s constitutional right to choose and non-discrimination against homosexuals. And in the last week, McDonnell has simply reaffirmed these positions.

Bob McDonnell is spitting in all of our faces. In the faces of all Virginians.

The only question is whether we will let them get away with it.

Democrats and moderates in the Commonwealth have the power to stop them.

All we need to do is vote.

That’s it. Just vote.

Vote.

Sleeping Giants

2009-10-31T18:51:00.001-04:00

As Democrats fret over polls showing Creigh getting clobbered, my eye caught something Joe Abbey recently told C’ville Weekly, Charlottesville’s weekly alternative periodical.

Here is what the paper wrote:

Deeds’ campaign is optimistic that polls are wrong because the pollsters don’t consider those who voted for the first time in 2008 as likely voters.

“We’ve been calling them our sleeping giants,” said Deeds campaign manager Joe Abbey. “They’re not showing up in the polls, but if they show up at the polls on Election Day, then it will be game over.”

Jus' sayin'.

McDonnell promises to defund planned parenthood

2009-10-29T18:05:00.004-04:00

So much for Bob McDonnell's promises that he will not impose his exreme, Conservative, Pat Robertson social values on the entire Commonwealth.

From Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia:

On Tuesday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell revealed plans to single out and de-fund Planned Parenthood upon entering office as Governor of Virginia.

Speaking to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, McDonnell was asked, "Can you promise that as Governor you'll use the veto pen to ensure that Virginians' tax dollars are not used to fund Planned Parenthood or abortion?" McDonnell responded by saying, "Yeah, I've said that I would do that...that'll be part of what we'll get done." (Watch here)

"McDonnell has tried to hide his ideological background throughout this campaign. However, with the polls favoring him to win the Governor's race, he reveals his true colors on conservative talk radio," said Jessica Honke, Director of Public Policy for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia (PPAV). "The fact is Bob McDonnell is out of step and out of touch with voters and the wrong choice for Virginia. As Governor, he will continue the anti-choice and anti-women's health policies he's pushed since his first day in public office."

McDonnell's plan to defund Planned Parenthood is an attack on basic, preventative health care. If Planned Parenthood were defunded, tens of thousands of women and families would lose access to prevention services, including pap smears, cancer screenings, gynecological exams, family planning counseling and services, HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment and a host of community education programs emphasizing healthy relationships and lifestyles. Furthermore, McDonnell's statement is factually inaccurate; no state funding goes to the provision of abortion-related services. In 2008 and 2009, an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood was defeated.

As a legislator, McDonnell sponsored over 35 pieces of legislation designed to chip away at a woman's right to choose. He is opposed to reproductive choice, even in cases of rape or incest, voted to allow pharmacist to refuse Emergency Contraception and supports Bush-era abstinence-only policies that are medically inaccurate and dangerous to teens.

Additionally, he voted against common-sense legislation that would help ensure women could access contraception at their local pharmacy, voted against a bill declaring that contraception was not a form of abortion, voted against allowing public universities to distribute Emergency Contraception, and voted against requiring discussion in schools of the importance of post-rape medical help.

"McDonnell has repeatedly jeopardized women's health through divisive attacks on Planned Parenthood," said Honke, "At a time when more and more families in Virginia are uninsured and under financial strain, we can't afford to elect a Governor who will create more barriers to affordable health care. Virginians are looking for solutions, not politics as usual."

McDonnell Position on Opt Out Now Poses Real Danger to Virginia

2009-10-27T20:08:00.003-04:00

Now that it looks as though the U.S. Congress is going to pass health care reform with a public option that will include an opt out provision for individual states, the stakes are higher in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, and it is worthwhile to examine the respective positions of each candidate on this critical issue.

While it is true that Creigh’s position on this – when asked about it hypothetically, he said he would look at what was passed and make a decision on whether to opt out based on whether it was good for Virginia – is less that I would like, Bob McDonnell’s position – a blanket promise that under his leadership Virginia would opt out of any public option – was irrational.

In the absract, I suppose, this was merely yet another case of ideology trumping facts and common sense when it comes to Bob McDonnell’s worldview. Take a look at McDonnell’s views on the environment, where he has politically declared off shore drilling environmentally safe despite much conflicting evidence, or on transportation, where he has put any new revenue source off limits despite abundant evidence that it will be necessary, or on climate change, where he has simply refused to recognize the irrefutable science.

Bob McDonnell might not be a member of the Flat Earth Society, but he is damn close.

Still, on each of these issues, the consequences to average citizens of McDonnell’s ideological positions seems speculative or remote. It’s tough for folks in, say, Charlottesville to appreciate how they will be hurt by off-shore drilling, and even the consequences of climate change seem like science fiction to most people. Furthermore, the negative effects of all of these will likely be gradual, so people will have the opportunity to adapt and time goes on.

Perhaps a few weeks ago, given the uncertainty of health care reform in Congress, the hypothetical opt out issue debate between Creigh and McDonnell was similar -- fodder for debate among policy wonks and political nerds, but no immediate practical consequence for Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public.

Given Sen. Reid’s comments yesterday, however, that is no longer the case. A public option with an opt out for states looks more probable today than two weeks ago, and so the candidates’ positions on this critical issue is more significant than it was.

And in light of that, Bob McDonnell’s position has gone from merely irrational to irresponsible, if not disqualifying him from the office he seeks.

Here’s why.

As far as Bob McDonnell is concerned, it doesn’t matter whether the public option would ultimately be good or bad for Virginians. He will just opt out.

But in this issue, lives are at stake, literally, and there is nothing abstract about that. At the very least, Virginia deserves a Governor who will honestly and intelligently evaluate the facts in front of him and come to a reasonable and considered decision, not simply be driven by an ideology, no matter how sincerely believed, that government is bad.

Evaluating the facts, the benefits versus the liabilities, is exactly what Creigh says he will do. It is exactly what Virginia needs.

It is, also, the exactly what Bob McDonnell says he will not do. He has made his decision, facts be damned.

Look, I don’t think McDonnell is callous or doesn’t care about people. I do think, however, he is a prisoner of an ideology from which he cannot break loose, and that it leads to ill-considered decisions that have serious consequences, intended or not.

I am amazed how, in light of this, any reasonably informed Virginian can cast a vote for Bob McDonnell.

Showing Up

2009-10-24T11:05:00.004-04:00

Judging by the backbiting and recriminations that have spilled over to the pages of the Washington Post, Democrats are stoically steeling themselves for a tough defeat on Nov. 3 by building the foundation to blame someone else.

Indeed, this argument has been going on in the blogs since June, when Creigh won the primary. Of course, memes move faster and more intensely in cyberspace.

In my view, there is still an election to be had, however, and as long as that is the case, anyone who cares about what will happen in the Commonwealth of Virginia for the next four years, at least, should focus on the question of what they can do to help Creigh win this election, because if recent elections have shown anything, they have shown that Republicans can no longer beat Democrats in Virginia; Democrats can only beat themselves.

The other day, conservative blog Bearing Drift carried a very interesting post about Bob McDonnell’s lead in the polls. Pregressives should listen. Here is what they had to say:

Polls are not strictly predictors. They do not foretell exactly what people are going to do. Rather, they are snapshots. They tell us what the results are likely to be should people show up on Election Day in the same numbers as the particular poll presumes they will.

In other words, the reliability of a poll is dependent upon the actual electorate closely resembling the pollsters’ sample. That is why it is important to look beyond the top-line results of these polls to understand what these polls are telling us about the potential electorate. That is also why the accuracy of a particular poll does not necessarily carry over from election to election. Quite simply, human beings are rather unpredictable.

[snip]

If Republicans are to win this election, however, it is going to take more than simply hoping the other side decides not to show up.

But, you know, the fact is that all Bob McDonnell does have for him in this election is hoping Democrats do not show up. Look at every poll – they go Bob’s way because the composition of likely voters is disproportionately heavy with Republicans and Conservatives compared to recent statewide Virginia elections.

Indeed, it seems sometimes that is how Republicans and Conservatives see the path to victory in every race: deter the other side from showing up to vote. Sometimes, they use sleazy tactics, like caging, and sometimes they use blatantly illegal ones, likie giving voters false information. GOP opposition to motor voter laws, or their insitance on picture IDs to register to vote, are all aimed at depressing turnout and voting rights.

So, leaving aside all the crap in the papers and the blogs about campaign strategy, and leaving aside all the parsing of policy, in the end we will be left with a choice between two people with very different worldviews and outlooks on the role of government in our lives.

if we show up, Creigh will win and Bob will lose – simple as that.

Hey, Virginia: WAKE UP!

2009-10-23T08:25:00.007-04:00

A while back, I wrote a post about how Bob McDonnell’s gubernatorial campaign resembled that of George W. Bush’s for president in 2000, in the sense that in each case the candidate’s success in the media and polls seemed to be based more on the perception that he was a good guy rather than a meaningful assessment of what kind of chief executive he would make, based on an analysis of their lifelong records and the substance of their political positions.

In retrospect, of course, it was all too clear by the Fall of 2000, or should have been all to clear to any reasonable person, that if elected that George W. Bush would fubar the country as badly as he did.

I’ll leave it to historians and the many millions of people smarter and more astute than I to analyze exactly what happened and why during the Bush presidency, but long before he became president, George W. Bush had a clear record of incompetence and failure in virtually everything he had attempted as an adult.

Why on Earth was anyone surprised when he turned out to be a failure as President also, leaving the rest of us to grapple with the insecurity, fear and difficulty of living through the worst economy since the Great Depression

So, what do we learn about Bob McDonnell from this?

More than anything else, Bob McDonnell’s past tells us that the most lasting historical legacy of his administration, should he be elected, will probably be the implementation of extremist social policies. Bob McDonnell has always been, and still is, first and foremost a culture warrior.

Need proof? A day after suggesting at a debate that he would not focus on pursuing his conservative social agenda were he elected governor, but would focus on jobs and the economy, Mr. McDonnell gave a speech at Liberty University where, perhaps feeling confident of victory on Nov. 3, he let his guard down and, to loud cheering, defiantly asserted that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that as governor he will tirelessly protect the unborn.

(BTW, lets none of us get into an argument over semantics and pretend that we don’t know what Mr. McDonnell means, i.e., that gay people will burn for all eternity in Hell on account of their deviant sexual practices and that official government discrimination against such people is not only acceptable, it is encouraged. Indeed, Bob McDonnell pursued this exact policy, to the extent he could, as Attorney General. As for abortion, I suspect we will see some of the strictest limitations in the U.S., especially if Ken Cuccinelli is Attorney General. Why would anyone think that two politicians who have spent their entire public lives espousing extreme pro-life positions would finally get into office and not act in a manner consistent with the tenets that have guided them their entire lives? Does that make sense to anyone?)

Mr. McDonnell has praised the economic record and policies of George W. Bush and suggested he would follow a similar policy, were he elected Governor – presumably, tax cuts for the wealthy, reducing government regulation of the financial sector and generally favoring big business at the expense of workers. In the conservative ideology, it does not matter if these policies produce poor results. Lower taxes and smaller government are the goals themselves, and as an ideological matter, low taxes and less involved government are always virtuous, without regard the actual effect such policies may have on the lives of actual people.

Lowell at Blue Virginia has a great post up about looking to California as a predictor of what Virginia might look like as a result of a McDonnell administration following such economic policies:

If Virginia elects [McDonnell], they can look to California as an example of what happens when conservative "starve the beast" economics meets a transitioning 21st century economy: start with gross, across the board underinvestment in public education, from pre-K to city colleges & public universities. Pile on deficits because the government needs to spend on is going to be debt-financed. Watch wages stagnate and unemployment climb even in up business cycles, and then shoot up when the business cycle goes flat, because all the tax cuts and resulting mountains of debt prevent counter-cyclical public sector spending. Don't forge the massive, always-growing inequality (and the resulting increases in political polarization) because the tax cuts are always somehow tilted towards either rich individuals or corporations, or both.

So, when I hear people say they are not excited about voting for Creigh, or that there is an enthusiasm gap, or that they just won’t vote, I just want to tell them to think about it this way:

When you vote, it is not for the sake of the politicians running for office, it is for your own sake.

Get out and vote for Creigh. Not for Creigh’s benefit, but for your own sake.

If Creigh is going to win this race, it will not be because of some magical canvassing or phone-banking operation that we haven’t yet seen;

If Creigh is going to win this race, it won’t be because he is suddenly going to become a smooth orator;

If Creigh is going to win this race, it won’t be because he will suddenly adopt the kinds of Progressive positions that many on the left would like to see;

And if Creigh is going to win this race, it won’t be because the mass of low-information voters out there who are getting their news from the MSM and who are tilting this race McDonnell’s way are suddenly going to get a new flood of information to change their minds.

Creigh will win this race because each of us on our own will have taken it upon ourselves to get out and vote, to get our friends and family out to vote.

It will be because each of is taking personal responsibility for the future of the Commonwealth.

The votes are out there.

Here’s a simple idea. Send an e-mails to five friends today who are not politically involved, and remind them how important it is to vote for Creigh.

Or the Virginia we have begun to take for granted, one that is moving in a inexorably positive and progressive direction, may be no more.

Creigh's Depressing Comment On The Public Option

2009-10-20T21:52:00.001-04:00

This exchange during tonight’s debate left me deflated:

Question: "Mr. Deeds, and would you go against some of your fellow Democrats and against the public plan?"

Creigh Deeds: "I'm not afraid of going against my fellow Democrats when I think they're wrong...Public option isn't required in my view, I think we have to do two things with health care, we have to reduce costs so more people can afford insurance and we have to increase coverage. I share those broad goals. I don't think the public option is necessary in any plan and I think Virginia...I would certainly consider opting out if that were available to Virginia. We have to find ways to increase competition in order to reduce costs..."

First, not only is Creigh clearly wrong on this – no health care reform can possibly succeed without some form of government-provided health insurance that provides meaningful competition to drive the cost of health care down – I don’t get the political calculation.

Democrats should be championing the public option, not running away from it, for two reasons. First, it is clearly the right policy that will lead to providing affordable health care to the people who are most hurting now – middle class families. If, as Democrats, we are not all about supporting the middle class, then we are in the wrong party.

Now, far right-wingers have demonized the public option as government-run health care. Creigh’s answer seems to buy into this bogus criticism. No Democrat should buy into this. We are the party of using government to make the lives of people better.

Finally, this was a chance for Creigh to really draw a distinction with Bob McDonnell on a critical issue. By unequivocally stating he would opt Virginia out of the public option were it passed by Congress, Bob McDonnell is saying that he would damage the health of every man, woman and child in Virginia for the sake of his extreme right wing ideology. Further, McDonnell’s critique of the public option was merely a recitation of talking points that are in some cases dishonest and in others simply wrong, but that have been in both cases fully debunked. The bottom line is that the “private sector, market-based solution” is what got us in the mess we’re in.

What an opportunity to lead and teach folks on a key issue that would not only be right and moral, but would also tap into to modern populist history of the Democratic Party beginning with Franklin Roosevelt.

Instead, Creigh tried to hedge on this critical issue, in the hopes of picking up votes from people who are not going to support him anyway.

This was just a blown opportunity to redefine this race around a winning issue.

Does Bob McDonnell Believe in Evolution?

2009-10-18T20:56:00.011-04:00

Well, now that we know Bob McDonnell is uncertain about whether human activity is causing climate change on our planet, I wonder what Mr. McDonnell's views are on Evolution and the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools?

I would be very curious to know, for example, whether Mr. McDonnell accepts the Theory of Evolution, in the sense that humans evolved into our present form, or whether is he a Biblical literalist like his mentor Pat Robertson, who completely rejects Evolution as an explanation for human existence and contends G-d created the universe in seven days as set forth in Genesis.

But even if Mr. McDonnell chooses not to share his personal belief on that score with the voters, he should specifically answer whether as Governor, would Bob McDonnell permit, or even advocate, the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes along with Evolution, or any place else in Virginia's public schools? Would he limit the teaching of Evolution in any way in our public schools?

These are legitimate questions to ask for several reasons.

First, it involves the education of our children, and so these questions are not really about Mr. McDonnell's personal beliefs, but the extent to which those personal beliefs would manifest themselves into public policy.

Second, given his aforementioned comments about climate change, Mr. McDonnell has demonstrated that he views science through a lends of ideology. That is his right, but voters have an even more powerful right to know what he believes.

Finally, and not to beat a dead horse, there is Mr. McDonnell's background at Regent University. His alma mater is steeped in advocating the teaching of Creationism in public schools.

1. At a 2007 "Faith, Facts and Evolution Conference" held at the school, for example, seminars included the following, all of which are designed to train participants to create the impression that Intelligent Design is science that is on equal footing with Evolution, and should be taught in schools::

- Tools for Resolution: A Scientific Model of Creation – Dr. Hugh Ross
- Origin of Life: Comparing Models – Dr. Fazale Rana
- Scientific Challenges to the Evolution Model – Dr. Fazale Rana
- Scientific Support for the Creation Model – Dr. Fazale Rana
- Cosmic Design: Fine Tuning the Universe – Dr. Hugh Ross
- Cosmic Design (cont’d) – Dr. Hugh Ross

2. As for the school's founder, Rev. Robertson's belief in Creationism has gone much further than mere personal belief on his part, and into the realm of advocacy of teaching Creationism in public schools. In 2005, the Rev. Robertson condemned the town of Dover, PA, for example, suggesting G-d might smite it down, for ousting a school board that had advocated the teaching of Creationism as science.

3. Finally, consider this 2005 LTE from Dr. William Cox, Professor and Director of the Christian School Program at Regent, to the Virginia Pilot, stating:

If intelligent design is banned as theory from discussion on the basis of a “faith” orientation, so should evolution be banned. If evolution is allowed in the classroom, then so must be intelligent design. To do otherwise is to hold a double standard in both science and religion.

Of course, not all of the beliefs prevalent at Regent should automatically be attributed to Mr. McDonnell, but given his official positions with the school, and the school's mission to train graduates to implement Regent's fundamentalist tenets as public policy, it is fair to ask which ideas he adheres to and which ones he does not.

I don't really care what Mr. McDonnell thinks about Evolution privately, or what he chooses to teach his children about it.

But I profoundly care what he proposes to teach mine.

Bob McDonnell: Invisible With No Secrets to Conceal

2009-10-18T13:03:00.002-04:00

The Washington Post’s endorsement of Creigh this morning (see Hokie Guru's post here) hits the nail right on the head when it comes to articulating why Creigh is the clearly superior choice to Bob McDonnell to be our next governor.

While I don’t typically subscribe to the notion that newspaper editorials make a huge difference in voters’ decisions – voters have a nasty habit for reaching their own decisions for their own reasons – I think this one will resonate for the remainder of the campaign and make a huge difference.

Not because the WaPo chose to endorse Creigh over McDonnell – that was expected – but because while the right-of-center Post editorial board tried to argue that its differences with Bob McDonnell “are on questions of policy,” they are barely able to hide the clear disdain they feel for the GOP candidate and the campaign he has run.

Consider the following characterizations of McDonnell from the editorial:

-- “Mr. McDonnell has staked out the intolerant terrain on his party's right wing[.]

-- “Mr. McDonnell lacks … political spine[.]”

-- “Mr. McDonnell … remains in denial.”

-- “Virginians should not confuse Mr. McDonnell's adept oratory for wisdom[.]”

And, of course, the worst cut of all:

-- “He is a dexterous politician.”

As this race has wound down to its final weeks, the question hanging heavy in the air for Democrats is whether Creigh can win it, in light of the numerous polls showing McDonnell beating him. The state’s Republicans are already filling Cabinet posts.

They should wait.

I’m not interested in arguing about the methodologies or results of these polls, and I don’t quibble that their internals are consistent with the overall results, although I would argue that this consistency is derived from the potential flaw all these polls share.

The question surrounding these polls is the extent to which their likely voter screens are accurately predicting who will show up on Election Day. In that regard, these polls do not so much show a persuadable electorate that is choosing McDonnell over Creigh as much as they suggest an electorate that has been stacked against Creigh from the start.

On the one hand, these polls may be accurate gauging an electorate ready to turn on Democrats as a result of various political and social forces largely beyond the control of either candidate in the race, and capturing the vicissitudes of the national discussion and political scene.

But given Virginia’s recent electoral history demonstrating a clear trend towards Democrats (even discounting 2008 as an once-in-a-lifetime election), and the circumstances of this specific race, the evidence suggests that that these polls are wrong because they are flying in the face of common sense.

It is not that I am unaware that many of my fellow Virginians simply see the issues and candidates from a different, more conservative perspective, than I do. There are loyal Republicans and Conservative ideologues that would vote for McDonnell even if it were proved he regularly engaged in bestiality.

I don’t even argue with Republicans comprising a larger share of likely voters than Democrats, even though this is not consistent with the trend either in Virginia or nationally, to the extent that this denotes some sort of enthusiasm gap.

Rather, it is the dominance McDonnell is showing in these polls among self-described Independents – even Conservative-leaning ones – that simply doesn’t track with the facts of the race, or the reality of each candidate so adeptly captured today by the Washington Post.

According to the Post, McDonnell has run “a disciplined, focused, policy-oriented campaign.” Perhaps. But as the Post makes clear, he has also run a dishonest and cowardly campaign.

I think it is hard for voters, confronted with this, to admit that it is really happening. Can any even slightly informed person actually believe Bob McDonnell is a moderate on the issue of choice or gay rights, as he pretends to be?

I have faith that when presented with the facts, independent-minded voters will make the right decisions. On issue after issue – transportation, education, the environment, the right to choose, anti-gay discrimination – analysis of the candidates’ positions and records demonstrate that Bob McDonnell will be a disaster for Virginia.

That is the fundamental issue in this race. And it is because the Post editorial so clearly explains this truth that it will resonate across the Commonwealth.

Washington Post Endorsed Creigh Deeds for Governor of Virginia

2009-10-17T22:45:00.005-04:00

Great news... the Washington Post endorsed Creigh Deeds for Governor of Virginia.

And here's what they say about batshit crazy Taliban Bob McDonnell (who hides behind his wife and children in television commercials):

Mr. McDonnell has staked out the intolerant terrain on his party's right wing, fighting a culture war that seized his imagination as a law student in the Reagan era.

Yet Mr. McDonnell, champion of a revenue-starved status quo, remains in denial. He professes to feel the pain of Virginians struggling with financial hard times. In fact his transportation policy, a blueprint for stagnation and continuing deterioration, would subvert the state's prospects for economic recovery and long-term growth. And it would only deepen the misery of Northern Virginia commuters who already pay a terrible price -- economic, personal and psychological -- because of the state's long neglect of its roads.

As for Mr. McDonnell, he deserves credit for having run a disciplined, focused, policy-oriented campaign. As a candidate, a statewide official and a lawmaker, he has maintained a civil, personable manner. His intellectual agility, even temper and facility with the grit of policy have inspired the respect of colleagues, staffers and rivals. He is a dexterous politician.

Our differences with him are on questions of policy. The clamor surrounding his graduate dissertation from 1989, in which he disparaged working women, homosexuals, "fornicators" and others of whom he disapproved, has tended to obscure rather than illuminate fair questions about the sort of governor he would make. Based on his 14-year record as a lawmaker -- a record dominated by his focus on incendiary wedge issues -- we worry that Mr. McDonnell's Virginia would be one where abortion rights would be curtailed; where homosexuals would be treated as second-class citizens; where information about birth control would be hidden; and where the line between church and state could get awfully porous. That is a prescription for yesterday's Virginia, not tomorrow's.

Mr. McDonnell has inspired a worthwhile debate over privatizing liquor sales in Virginia, one of 18 states that control the wholesale and retail trade in spirits. But by suggesting the state could use the proceeds of privatization as an ongoing funding source for road improvements, he has played fast and loose with the facts -- first by plucking projected revenue figures from thin air and second by glossing over the question of what state services he would cut if the $100 million currently gleaned from annual liquor sales could be diverted for transportation.

Mr. McDonnell has sought to corner Mr. Deeds by focusing on debates in Washington over energy policy, labor union membership and other contentious federal issues. But a governor of Virginia can do little to influence the ideologically charged debates raging on Capitol Hill. Mr. McDonnell also has claimed he would be more effective at creating jobs. Yet while Mr. McDonnell has been an activist public servant, he has no significant record, either as a lawmaker or as attorney general, of promoting policies to encourage job growth.
ON NOVEMBER 3, 2009, VOTE FOR CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA!!

Organizing for Virginia 2009 and President Barack Obama's Visit in Support of Creigh Deeds

2009-10-16T23:16:00.002-04:00

First, Democrats are making a big weekend push in Virginia to campaign for Creigh Deeds. President Barack Obama's campaign arm, Organizing for America, sent e-mails to thousands of members in DC and Maryland asking for 5000 volunteer hours. If you can get out, please do because this race is about more than Virginia. Deeds will appear at six events with DNC Chairman and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Jody Wagner, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, in Northern Virginia. Anita Kumar from the Washington Post's Virginia Politics Blog has more here.

Second, Rosalind Hilderman (from the Washington Post's Virginia Politics Blog), tells us that President Barack Obama is coming to Virginia on October 27, 2009 to campaign in support Creigh Deeds and the rest of the Virginia Democratic ticket. We'll bring you more details when we have them.

Ask not what your President can do for you

2009-10-12T08:22:00.002-04:00

Interesting item, from the Adam Nagourney article in today’s New York Times:

A White House that has shown no hesitation to delve into state race [sic] across the country … has been struggling to figure out how to deal with Virginia. Mr. Deeds’ aides have pleaded with the White House to send Mr. Obama into the state; they have yet to agree.

“The most precious commodity we have is the president’s time, and we have to appropriate it on a rational basis between now and Election Day,” said David Axelrod, a senior advisor to Mr. Obama.

Now, that comment is simply hilarious, especially in light of the convincing defenses offered by Mr. alelrod in defending Obama's trip to Copenhagen.

Mr. Axelrod, however, apparently believes he can say just about anything and by infusing that quality in Mr. Obama, it will be taken seriously. Here, try this on to see what I mean: “The most precious commodity we have is the president’s sense of fashion when it comes to mixing and matching colors and textures, and we have to appropriate it on a rational basis between now and Election Day,” said David Axelrod, a senior advisor to Mr. Obama.)

To anyone who has been paying to attention to Obama’s nine months in office, one thing has become clear to me. This presidency is not about the economy, or energy, or any particular policy. The Obama presidency is about Obama, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is a means to an end.

Thus, Obama does not ask himself how he can help Democrats win in Virginia. Rather, Axlerod’s comments make clear that Obama is concerned with how Virginia will help him.

The calculation at this point seems to be that Creigh will lose this race, and if Obama gets too involved, then the Virginia gubernatorial results can be spun as a referendum on Obama. But if the president does not get too involved, then Obama gets to spin the race as a local contest in which Obama was not front and center.

Right off the bat, I draw two conclusions from this:

Creigh was absolutely correct not to rely on Obama’s Virginia coalition in trying to win this race. He correctly read that Obama would be a follower, not a leader, in the election. Had Creigh relied on Obama, this election would be lost. As it is, Creigh is behind, but the election remains winnable.

For all the talk of change and a transformational presidency, Obama is just another typical politician, clinging onto power for power’s sake. I still support him and am in line with his overall goals and governing philosophy, but he is not a Democratic Party leader.

Hat Tip - Blue Virginia - Taliban Bob McDonnell Scares off Meg Whitman

2009-10-05T20:25:00.003-04:00

Meg Whitman apparently thinks that Taliban Bob is too right-wing for reality.

Lowell has more!!

Bob McDonnell's Macaca Moment - Sheila Johnson

2009-10-05T20:21:00.002-04:00

It made Hardball :)

George Allen, Bob McDonnell, and Sheila Johnson = Macaca

Hat Tip - Not Larry Sabato - Sheila Johnson Does the Dirty for Bob McDonnell

2009-10-05T20:02:00.009-04:00

It is absolute bullsh*t that Sheila Johnson would make fun of a political candidate with a slight speech impairment. That's what she did to Creigh Deeds, an honest, nice, hard-working, intelligent man. Not Larry Sabato has more. Now, to her credit, she did apologize later... but...

No apology from the Taliban Bob McDonnell campaign. Stay classy, Batshit Crazy Bob!!

VIRGINIA WOMEN BE VERY SCARED OF BOB MCDONNELL!!!

2009-09-23T19:33:00.006-04:00

Taliban Bob McDonnell is not taking anything back from his batshit crazy Christan Broadcasting Network (CBN) thesis, which depicts his Pat Robertson-esque right-wing views on the role of women on society.

VOTE CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA!!

Blue Virginia (Hat Tip): McDonnell "All Porn Makes You Gay" Thesis Story Makes Rachael Maddow

2009-09-23T19:26:00.007-04:00

Apparently, Taliban Bob McDonnell thinks that pornography makes young boys gay.

Lowell has more on Batshit Crazy, Bob McDonnell and the story of his thesis that made Rachel Maddow's television show on MSNBC.

VOTE CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.

Creigh Deeds Showing Leadership on Virginia Transportation Issues

2009-09-22T22:38:00.003-04:00

Well, it takes a lot of courage to come out and say that you'll take a politically difficult position of signing legislation that is the product of bipartisan compromise that provides a comprehensive transportation solution for the State of Virginia... even if it might raise taxes during a recession. And that's what Creigh Deeds did today.

Let me be clear regarding taxes. I will sign a bill that is the product of bipartisan compromise that provides a comprehensive transportation solution. As a legislator, I have voted for a number of mechanisms to fund transportation, including a gas tax. And I'll sign a bipartisan bill with a dedicated funding mechanism for transportation -- even if it includes new taxes.

To build a bipartisan consensus to find that new revenue, and to ensure the best chance of passage, all options for funding will be on the table. We will need every legislator committed to finding a solution. In my 18 years in the legislature, I've learned that the best way to reach compromise is to be open to all ideas and get everyone involved.

Bob McDonnell has pledged not to sign a transportation bill with new revenue. His approach is to pay for transportation with money from the general fund. As The Post's Frederick Kunkle has reported, "general funds are raised from a variety of sources, such as individual and corporate income taxes. These funds can be spent . . . at the discretion of the General Assembly and the governor. The majority of the money in the general fund goes to education (45.9 percent), with the rest to health and human resources (24.2 percent) and public safety (11.1 percent)."

I do not support taking funds from these critical priorities to pay for roads. More important, neither will the General Assembly. Republicans and Democrats are on record opposing McDonnell's funding proposals.

McDonnell's idea of using general funds for transportation is not new. In 2007, an editorial in the Daily Press of Hampton Roads said that McDonnell urged "the General Assembly to exploit the gap in state road funding as a rationale for reducing state spending on education, public safety, health care and conservation. That such an ideological purpose lies behind the Republican transportation proposal has been implied all along. McDonnell made it explicit."

We can't solve this problem without new revenue. My opponent is playing political shell games, being dishonest about his revenue projections. And his idea to take funds from education, health care and public safety to pay for transportation is dead on arrival.

My approach is honest, straightforward -- and the only one that can succeed. Working together, we'll get Virginia moving again.

Creigh Deeds just served Bob McDonnell some leadership.

VOTE CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA!!

Women Ain't Happy With Bob McDonnell

2009-09-21T17:02:00.006-04:00

Tsk Tsk... Taliban Bob!!

And yet Taliban Bob uses the family as a shield.

Sad state of affairs for the batshit crazy McDonnell campaign.

VOTE CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA!!

Bob McDonnell: Rewriting His Record - Sponsored 35 Bills Restricting Abortion Rights

2009-09-20T22:41:00.005-04:00

It's getting a bit closer to Election Day and people need to know that Taliban Bob McDonnell is to the right of Attila the Hun. This hasn't received enough play... so back by popular demand... here is Bob McDonnell's "record"... I think he hates women...

VOTE FOR CREIGH DEEDS... Creigh is the only candidate you can trust to protect female rights.

Just a Couple a More Photos

2009-09-17T20:24:00.005-04:00

Bob McDonnell introduces himself to David Gregory before the debate. McDonnell was pretty funny. "I'm looking forward to your questions," he said, then adding after a pause, "Well, I'm not sure yet. I'll let you know."

Creigh waiting to go on stage

Some Backstatge Photos From Debate

2009-09-17T17:12:00.006-04:00

Apologize for lousy quality:

David Gregory heading off to do last minute prep

Bob McDonnell pacing around waiting to be introduced, while his staff stresses out:

Two shots of Creigh as he blew past me toward the auditorium:

Righty Blog Roundup: Conservatives reduced to laughable attacks on the WaPo

2009-09-16T19:34:00.006-04:00

Over at Conservative blogs, bloggers have apparently abandoned any attempt to defend Bob McDonnell in connection with his thesis. Sure, the campaign and its defenders in the Righty Blogosphere have argued that the thesis is twenty years old, or that it is dirty pool to even discuss it, ot that it is irrelevant, but nowhere, as far as I can tell, have Conservatives even attempted to defend the views McDonnell expresses in the thesis, as opposed to trying to explain why they don't matter or have evolved into more Progressive attitudes.

Indeed, Righty blogs have ceased discussing McDonnell at all.

Consider, for example, the last six days of posts at Too Conservative, one of the better right-leaning blogs in the Commonwealth:

Sept 16:

* Rich Anderson Video

Sept. 15:

* 9/15 Reports: House of Delegates Round-Up
* 9/15 Statewide Fundraising Numbers

Sept. 14:

* NRA Endorses Bob (the sole post about McDonnell, the entire commentary of which reads, “Great news for the campaign.”
* You Report: Sign Wars

Sept. 10:

* HD-42: Dave Albo Up On Television
* HD-41: Bwana Goes After “Dug Out” Dave Marsden
* Lt. Governor Bolling’s First Ad
* HD-86: The Stevens Miller Mess He Hopes to Leave Behind

Other blogs with less class than Too Conservative have turned instead to simply attacking both Creigh and the Washington Post, the latter apparently for breaking the thesis story.

Of course, the argument that the Post broke the story in order to damage McDonnell's candidacy doesn't hold up because it was McDonnell himself who tipped WaPo reporter Amy Gardner off to the existence of the thesis in the first place.

Well, it had to happen, I guess. Somehow, some way, that inconvenient fact had to be dealt with.

A post this evening at Conservative blog Bearing Drift that tries to do that by attacking Gardner caught my attention for two reasons: first, for its sheer idiocy; and second, for showing the depths to which McDonnell's acolytes have to sink in order to plead on his behalf.

You can link to the post here:

Oppo-research on Bolling papers indicates McDonnell thesis was not an innocent find

Let me see if I can explain the logic of this post.

Bill Bolling, it seems, told a radio interviewer that shortly after the McDonnell thesis story broke, he learned that Democrats were doing some oppo research on his college writings.

Well, that seems to have made perfect sense to Bolling. Makes sense to me, too. Heck, based on the onging fallout in Thesis-acaca, there's obviously gold in them thar theses! I mean, of course they are being researched, by Democratic oppo-research teams, as well as Republican ones. Sheesh.

But here is what Bearing Drift then concludes from this set of facts:

Bolling said the call came shortly after the story broke, so it’s possible the Democrats were clued into doing this type of oppo-research on the rest of the field after reading the story. However, it’s awfully coincidental.

Got that? The obvious order of event, that Democrats were clued into the oppo-research of old college writings of other candidates by the thesis story, is not likely and logical, merely "possible ... [but] awfully coincidental."

And from that, Bearing Drift asserts about Gardner:

She [Gardner] went onto write “McDonnell brought up the paper in reference to a pair of Republican congressmen whom he interviewed as part of his research. McDonnell then offered: ‘I wrote my thesis on welfare policy.’”

Yet she was very quick to look into the thesis after the interview.

Was this passing comment in the interview that interesting to her? Was it vitally important to her investigative research to learn more about it?

Not likely…especially given this new piece of information:

Now, let me get this straight. Research undertaken by Democrats following the publication of Garner’s article on McDonnell’s thesis is evidence that Gardner was not telling the truth about learning of the thesis from McDonnell himself?

Pathetically, this is what Republicans have been reduced to in trying to defend Bob McDonnell and his indefensible thesis. This reasoning makes less sense than the logic I used to convince myself last Sunday that, yes, the Redskins could conceivable beat the Giants in the opener, and that is saying a lot.

In all seriousness, if Bob McDonnell would only come clean and admit that this thesis reflects his true feelings on these issues, then he can get on with his campaign. He can defend his views, and voters can decide for themselves whether his positions matter to them or not. He won't do that, of course, because as he knows, voters would overwhelmingly reject his extremist views.

But denying the obvious truth, and instead falsely and maliciously attacking the credibility and motivations of reporters who are doing a pretty good job, is unfair, unwarranted and uncalled for.

Not to mention amusing.

Choices Are Pretty Clear in Virginia's 7th Congressional District

2009-09-15T21:59:00.005-04:00

Who would you rather have as your represenatative?

Choice 1 - Charlie Diradour

Or

Choice 2 - Eric Cantor

Geez... I know what you're thinking... why is this even an issue? Cantor is a douchebag.

Keith Olbermann Picks up on Bob "F-Bomb" McDonnell

2009-09-15T21:51:00.005-04:00

PAR-TAY!!!!!!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

McDonnell Campaign Running Scared

2009-09-13T20:01:00.003-04:00

Internal e-mails from Bob McDonnell's campaign reveal that they are worried about the impact of his Chistian Broadcasting Network master's degree thesis (Hat Tip: NLS).

Aznew and the Hokie Guru have written extensively about Taliban Bob's extreme views on gays, lesbians, women, and several other topics from his thesis here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. and here.

McDonnell campaign spokersperson, Taylor Thornley, actually gives 30 talking points to supporters to use when writing letters to the editor on behalf of McDonnell. Apparently, Taliban Bob is worried that the thesis he wrote (when he was 34 effin' years old) might have an impact on women, independent, and moderate voters. Duh?!?!?

BOB MCDONNELL DROPS THE F BOMB ON WTOP!!!! (Hat Tip - NLS)

2009-09-13T12:53:00.007-04:00

I was really disappointed that the major media outlets did not pick up this story (Hat-Tip NLS) about Bob's swearing up an storm on WTOP News. Makes me wonder if Bobby broke any Federal Communications Commission laws regarding profanity in public airwaves. Maybe the "F-Bomb" is okay?

Tsk tsk... once again, bloggers have to clean up after the mainstream media.

1:07 PM, September 13, 2009 Update - Congratulations to NLS!!! NBC Washington picked up his great story (you can see it here)!!!

Washington Post Roundup - What the Voter Needs to Know about Bob McDonnell

2009-09-13T09:36:00.009-04:00

College football season started recently so if you're like me, you're glued to the television or you are watching this great game in person (like me at Lane Stadium in Blacksburg, VA... GO HOKIES!!) on Saturdays (or Sundays if you are an NFL fan). That means you might not get the time to read the Washington Post newspaper or catch up on political news as often as you would like. So, the purpose of this post is just to give you, the reader, a quick summary of the news about Taliban Bob McDonnell, the Republican Party candidate for Governor in Virginia (and his ads on television do not say that he is a Republican... he's lying... if you omit this fact, you are a liar). Here we go:

On Monday, August 17, 2009, a Washington Post editorial suggested that it is completely legitimate to question Bob McDonnell's record on social issues. After all, "determining access and limits on abortion remains to a large extent within a state's, and a governor's, purview." And Bob McDonnell "sponsored 35 bill to restrict access to the procedure." Bob McDonnell is trying to remake is image as a centrist, but anyone who sponsors 35 bills to restrict access to abortion is basically part of the Taliban wing of the Republican Party.
On Sunday, August 30, 2009, Amy Gardner broke the story about Bob McDonnell's thesis that he wrote for his master's graduate degree from Christian Broadcasting Network University (the school was founded by Pat Robertson and is now named Regent University). In the thesis, Bob McDonnell stated that working women are detrimental to the family and feminisim is among the "real enimies of traditional family." In Bob McDonnell's world, IF A WOMAN IS RAPED, she should be denied the right to have an abortion. And if you are single or gay or a woman, good luck in Bob McDonnell's world.
On Tuesday, September 1, 2009, the Washington Post stressed in its editorial that Bob McDonnell pursued a socially conservative agenda (largely in line with his thesis) over his 14 years in the Commonwealth's General Assembly. Bob McDonnell is trying to remake himself into a centrist politician... but people deserve to know where the man's views are different today. We think he is a "Culture Warrier."
On Tuesday, September 1, 2009, popular Virginia governor, Tim Kaine, suggested that the thesis would serve is a blueprint for how Bob McDonnell would govern the Commonwealth. We couldn't agree.
On Wednesday, September 2, 2009, Washington Post Columnist, Ruth Marcus, really gives us the cold hard truth on Bob McDonnell's thesis that we've referred to several times in this post. Bob McDonnell wrote this anti-women, anti-gay, and anti-single people manifesto when he was 34 effin' years old. Bob McDonnell was not a "young college student" at the time. According to Marcus, "McDonnell, actually, was 34 in 1989. He had already earned a bachelor's and master's degree in business and served in the Army. He was getting a combined law and second master's degree -- while interning at the U.S. House Republican Policy Committee and preparing to run for the Virginia House of Delegates." So, Virginia Voters, this was Bob McDonnell's political philosophy... it was not just an academic requirement... it was how he planned to govern. And Bob doesn't want to talk about these issues in the general election, but it's okay for him to rev up his base with these Tailban social conservative stances? Yeah, right.
On Thursday, September 3, 2009, Robert McCartney from the Washington Post questions Bob McDonnell's theory that the Christian Broadcating Network thesis is "old news." McCartney questioned the mild response from the McDonnell campaign that the thesis was just a 20-year old term paper. "It was a thesis for a combined master's and law degree. When he wrote it, McDonnell was a 34-year-old business executive and former Army officer, married with two children (he now has five), intent on launching a political career to offer what his school, Regent University, proclaims in its motto as "Christian leadership to change the world." READ: THIS PAPER IS NOT A YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION. Virginia voters do not want someone who is intolerant of women, gays, and single people as their governor.
And you know what? in 2003, Bob McDonnell stated that certain homosexual conduct is a disqualification for judicial appointment in Virginia. You can find more about this in Amy Gardner's Washington Post (published on Sunday, September 13, 2009) column right here. And I agree with NLS; Amy Gardner is on track for a Pulitzer Prize.

As voters, you need to read these Washington Post news columns and stories in order to see the real Bob McDonnell. Bob McDonnell stances on social issues, gays, women, and single people should scare you to death. You need to be informed when you go to the voting booth.

All You Need To Know About Bob McDonnell

2009-09-12T08:55:00.002-04:00

Dan Snyder supports him.

And we all know what a great eye he has for personnel.

Bob McDonnell's Amazing Record of Lying

2009-09-11T19:48:00.005-04:00

Bob McDonnell’s disastrous interview this morning with Mark Plotkin demonstrated the extent to which his candidacy so far has been built on a foundation of lies.

Lowell at Blue Virginia does a nice job of detailing this morning’s bullshit here. If only that were extent of it.

The fact is that Bob McDonnell has been pulling this nonsense on Virginians since the beginning of this campaign. Bob McDonnell knows that if Virginians knew who he really was, he would lose this election in a landslide. That is why he has been refusing to talk about his thesis, and refusing to talk about his record. And when he does speak about them, you just can’t get a straight answer out of him.

But Bob McDonnell is proving to be the Lillian Hellman of this campaign, the play writer of whom a critic once said, “Every word she wrote is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”

It is really quite an amazing record.

I’ll say this as well. Bob McDonnell is not only a frequent liar when it comes to his record and presenting himself to voters, he is unusually good at it.

We have been documenting Bob McDonnell’s now voluminous record of dishonesty, dissembling and distortion for a while. Here are some posts dealing with the issue of McDonnell’s lack of honesty:

* The Sublime Deceptions of Bob McDonnell (September 6, 2009)

* Silent Bob Is Speaking Loud and Clear (September 4, 2009)

* McDonnell’s Stunning Lack of Honesty (August 31, 2009)

*Meet Bob “Dubya” McDonnell: Will We Get Fooled Again? (August 23, 2009)

*McDonnell Wants It Both Ways In Flag Flap (August 13, 2009)

* Bob McDonnell on Off-Shore Drilling: More Distortion (August 3, 2009)

* Will Bob McDonnell Be Able To Fool Enough of the People Enough of the Time To Get Elected? (July 29, 2009)

Question For Bob McDonnell: Would You Invoke States' Rights To Keep Health Care Reform Out Of Virginia?

2009-09-11T13:28:00.006-04:00

TO: Bob McDonnell:
FROM: The Virginia Democrat
SUBJECT: Your Ideolgy

Minnesota Public Radio reported yesterday that:

In a Thursday night conference call hosted by the Republican Governor's Association, a caller asked whether governors would invoke state's rights if the health care bill is passed. Tim Pawlenty said it's a possibility.

"Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment may be a viable option but we don't know the details. As one of the other callers said, we can't get the other callers, we said we can't get the President to outline what he does or doesn't support in any detail. So we'll have to see, I would have to say that it's a possibility."

Pawlenty also said he hoped Republican governors across the country will get "more assertive" about addressing state's rights and possibly start suing the federal government.

Well, Gov. Pawlenty was just here campaigning for you. You have spoken about states' rights being an important part of your ideology. You have cited states' rights in arguing against Virginia's citizens gaining the benefit of extended Federal unemployment benefits.

Did you discuss this with Gov. Pawlenty?

You oppose the President's reform efforts.

If you are elected governor, would you invoke states' rights to unilaterally keep Virginia from participating in National health care reform?

Obama and Deeds - The Ties That Bind

2009-09-11T07:00:00.005-04:00

As I have watched polls over the summer in the gubernatorial contest, I have been mildly concerned given how bad Creigh seemed to be doing. Unlike some others, I didn’t dismiss the polls or their methodology, although at the same time given how early they were, I didn’t think they were at all predictive of what would happen in the election.

The real question I had was what were these polls measuring? Their lopsided and counter intuitive results, IMHO, were attributable not to the specific candidates, but rather to three environmental aspects of the political landscape this past summer that were all lined up against Creigh.

Two of those factors, however, now appear to be moving in Creigh’s direction, and the third may as well. All else being equal, I wouldn’t be surprised to soon see polls showing McDonnell losing support and Creigh gaining it, leaving both candidates pulling in the mid- to high 40s, solidly within the MoE.

The first factor was that over the summer mainstream Conservatives, teabaggers, and your garden-variety birthers, deathers and racists, not to mention Republican Party regulars, were able to coalesce around opposition to health care reform, pulling in many people who are usually on the periphery or outside of political battles into the fray. The result was a temporary and intense spike in enthusiasm among these groups, who were united in their opposition to both the President and the Democratic Party, and their need for Prozac.

These groups, given their pack dog mentality, were further egged on by the President’s insistence on turning the other cheek in the name of bipartisanship, which they saw as a sign of his weakness and their strength. At the same time, the perception among Progressives began to grow that the President would sell out important principles in pursuit of a deal with Republicans, causing many to ask what was the point of elections if, once in office, the people we elect are subservient to the ones we defeated?

Finally, the loud, thuggish tactics of these groups at town halls over the summer drew plenty of media coverage, giving the impression of a tiny, but intense grassroots movement being much larger and more significant than it really was.

As a result of all this, from mid-July into August, Republicans were becoming hyper-energized while Democrats were becoming dispirited. This was clearly reflected in Virginia’s Gubernatorial polling numbers

Consider, in five polls following the primary from mid-June through the end of July, the margin in the gubernatorial race was: +6 Deeds; +4 Deeds; +1 McD; +6 McD; and +3 McD.

Beginning with a SUSA poll from July 27 and 28, however, the margin in the polls shot up to +15 McD, and has since pretty much stayed there, although a couple of polls showed more modest margins of +7 McD and +b McD, better but still outside the MoE.

According to Gallup, meanwhile, over the same time period President Obama’s weekly approval average took a dive. It stood at 62/31 in early June, a spread of 31 points. By the end of July, when Creigh’s numbers began to deteriorate, those figures were at 54/39, with a spread of 15.

Obama kicked ass Wednesday night, although the extent to which he has remade the debate remains to be seen. That will be determined by his actions over the next several weeks.

IF Obama follows through on his tough words –

IF Obama truly calls Republicans out by name for their lies –

IF Obama lays down the law for the Blue Dogs –

IF Obama is one the way to leading Democrats in Congress to genuine health care reform with or without Republicans –

If he does all these things, then Democrats will be fired up. We will believe that elections make a difference, and this will most certainly be reflected in greater and sustained support for Creigh.

If, on the other hand, Obama reverts to previous form, and simply pursues bipartisanship as a goal in and of itself, regardless of the boorish and dishonest behavior of Republicans, Democrats will again become dispirited. At least this one will.

Early indications are mixed. Joe Wilson gave the President, Democrats and proponents of health care reform a gift the other night, but the President tried to give it back. As a result, he again wound up playing Charlie Brown trying to kick the football as some no-name BSC congressman took on the role of Lucy pulling it away. Just has the President was graciously saying how he forgave Joe Wilson after the Congressman’s sincere apology last night, the boorish Wilson was telling reporters that his apology was not sincere at all, but that the leadership forced him to make it. And now he has put out a fundraising video in which he says, “I will not be muzzled.”

The second factor was Creigh’s month-long absence from the campaign trail in July and the manner in which it was handled. This was a tactical error that left Bob McDonnell alone to define himself as a moderate.

Indeed, Creigh’s drop in the polls, while coinciding with the dynamics of the larger health care debate going on nationally, also coincided with his absence from the public eye. Arguably, he could have mitigated his erosion in the polls had he been a more aggressive campaigner during that time.

The result of McDonnell’s efforts, however, can be seen in the most recent SUSA poll, where McDonnell is pulling 42% of the self-described moderate voter, 15% of the self-described liberals, and 31% of self-described pro-choice voters. At the same time, McDonnell is getting 89% of self-described Conservatives. Similarly, McDonnell is attracting 19% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans, not to mention 13% of Obama voters, at the same time he is garnering 90% of McCain voters.

In short, these numbers show McDonnell is attracting considerable support from people diametrically opposed to his positions, without sacrificing any of his base. (I realize that the small samples of these sub-groups call the accuracy of them into question, but the consistency among each group, even accounting for the overlap, suggests it is not simply a case of skewed numbers).

Several weeks ago, Creigh had already begun to address this, using the choice issue to expose McDonnell as the extreme social Conservative that he is when McDonnell’s thesis came along. So far, it has been a game of catch-up for him – between the Democratic primary and Creigh’s lost month, McDonnell has had Virginia’s Independent voters to himself for seven months.

That will change, however, as voters focus more on the race. While the thesis fallout has yet to show up in polls, McDonnell simply has too much of a public record to avoid the issue forever. McDonnell’s ability to conceal the huge gulf between what he really believes and how he has presented himself, will prove increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

The third factor that has been affecting the polls is the exhaustion of Virginia’s Democrats. Beginning in January 2008, the Obama-Clinton primary pitted Democrats against one-another. Following Obama’s nomination, we came together for a few months, but with Virginia being a swing state, the campaign was intense. No sooner did that intense election end that a hard fought, again intense, and a sometimes personally bitter primary campaign took its place. This lasted through June.

To an extent, the joint effect of renewed support for the President and the exposing of Bob McDonnell will counteract this, but it won’t fully address it.

Further, the fact is that Creigh was a compromise winner in the primary who benefited from the three-way dynamic of that race. While he got 50% of the vote, the intensity of his support was behind that of both Moran and McAuliffe; Creigh’s core support was only in the low 20s throughout the entire primary season. Consequently, even leaving aside his folksy, self-effacing campaign style, Creigh is unlikely to be able to rouse Virginia’s Democrats from their malaise alone.

The key here, I believe, is getting the Commonwealth’s party leaders in to stump for Creigh as much as possible. We need Mark Warner. We need Jim Webb. We need the President (and not just for fundraising). And I say let’s get the Big Dog in here, for goodness sakes.

Even with that, however, in the final analysis, it is Creigh and Creigh alone who has to close the sale.

But at least now he is competing on a more hospitable playing field.

Sean Hannity's "Self Righteous Humbuggery" on Bob McDonnell's Thesis

2009-09-08T22:58:00.008-04:00

Looks like Sean Hannity was named the Worst Person in the World on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. This was due (well overdue) to Hannity's criticism of the Washington Post's editorials and news columns on Bob McDonnell's Christian Broadcasting Newtwork thesis... what Sean Hannity doesn't tell you is that he thought Hillary Clinton's thesis (a thesis that was written 38 years ago) was fair game for criticism in 2007. Take a look at the video below:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Yep!! Looks like complete batshit crazy MF hyporcisy to me!!

We've Lost Governer Kaine

2009-09-08T18:27:00.008-04:00

If you haven't seen the news reports today on Governor Kaine's state spending cuts, you need to read this to believe it. Among the cuts, 593 state employees will lose their jobs and several will take forced furloughs. The last thing we need in this economy is more unemployment (especially, in the effin' public sector). However, my biggest beef here is that:

Governor Kaine cut higher education funding by 15% in the state of Virginia. This is unconscionable. It is downright BS. I am, quite frankly, really effin' furious that the governor that I voted for would take such Draconian measures on higher education spending. Higher education is an investment. Due to these crazy cuts, tuition rates will increase significantly (as will the student loan burden for Virginia college students). Further, universities will make make huge cuts to their liberal arts programs, etc. (and the impact will be that Bob McDonnell will get what he wants... most of our state's universities will become glorified tech schools). I guess I'm especially sensitive to this because my dad and uncle are both retired professors... my uncle, specifically, is a retired chair of the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Divsion at Virginia Tech. Kaine has significantly harmed higher education in this state (and believe me, if anyway thinks we have state-supported higher education institutions... we do not... we have state-assisted higher education institutions... and that is a substantial difference). Virginia's higher education institutions are world-class caliber and cannot sustain their high quality with these substantial cuts. Cutting higher education spending is not a progressive policy; it is regresive to the nth degree.

I'm very pissed at Kaine right now because he basically rode in on Mark Warner's coattails and really hasn't done anything in office of major importance for progressives. I won't be a complete a*hole... he's done some work reforming mental health institutions in the state (what governor wouldn't, though) and the non-smoking thing was a victory... but today, I'm not a happy camper. Governor Kaine should know that I did not like writing this, but it had to be said. I've been a supporter of the Governor and I do not like ripping my fellow Democrats, but this was the last straw with Kaine.

A Kid's Comments On Obama's Speech

2009-09-08T18:23:00.005-04:00

I hereby present, without comment, a Q&A with my son Jonah, age 9, 4th grader at Venable Elementary School in Charlottesville, about President Obama's speech today:

AZNEW: What did the President tell you?

JONAH: To stay in school, and though it gets really hard and rough throughout the years, to never give up in school.

What did you think of that?

I thought it was pretty cool. It would have been better if he made the speech at Venable.

Are you going to stay in school?

Yes.

Was it exciting to see the President?

Yes.

Are you now or have you ever been a Socialist?

What’s that mean?

Well, it’s a way of thinking that makes some grown-ups mad. And some grown-up thought President Obama would turn you into a Socialist. Do you think he might have?

Yeah.

Do you love America?

Yes.

Do you still love America after hearing President Obama?

Yes.

Do you like President Obama?

Yes

Why?

Because he’s a good president

And I have to ask you one more question.

What?

Creigh Deeds or Bob McDonnell?

Creigh Deeds!

The Sublime Deceptions Of Bob McDonnell

2009-09-06T07:42:00.010-04:00

Bob McDonnell’s strategy for responding to Thesis-caca, like his overall campaign, is steeped in deception and dishonesty. It has also been effective.

Quite honestly, I have to admit it is somewhat frustrating, but fascinating, to watch this all unfold. While I can see and describe what McDonnell is doing, and I can divine the mechanics that allow it to operate, I can’t for the life of me figure out how he is getting away with it with respect to voters, although if a recent poll is to be believed, getting away with it he is.

Well, I can figure it out, sort of. Bob McDonnell is unusually gifted and skillful at deception. And I mean that as a compliment.

McDonnell’s goal is to maintain the moderate image he has built for himself on social issues like choice, homosexuality, discrimination, etc., because otherwise he cannot win the election. The blog Coarse Cracked Corn deftly explains how McDonnell built this image:

Earlier this summer Bob McDonnell spent several hundred thousand dollars on TV ads designed to reshape his image, to rebrand himself, to mislead Virginia voters. In those slick commercials, McDonnell was portrayed as a moderate consensus builder, open to all ideas, and willing to work across party lines. Using shades of blue, Taliban Bob seemingly attempted to paint himself almost as a Democrat. In June, with the Democrats focused on their primary, McDonnell was able to use the power of TV to fabricate an image of him as a moderate that gave him a midsummer bump in some polls.

The disclosure of the thesis, and the specificity with which McDonnell described his extreme views on social issues and his belief in a theocratic government to foist his conservative views on everyone, has obviously complicated this strategy tremendously. At the same time that McDonnell must maintain his moderate image, generally, he must also signal his Conservative base that Bob McDonnell believes deeply in each and everyone of the draconian principles that he laid down in the thesis.

Standard dog whistle politics don’t cut it here – too many people are paying attention. To accomplish this requires sophistry of the first order supported by brazen dishonesty uncomplicated by shame, morality or ethics.

First, there is McDonnell’s position that the very discussion of these social issues is either illegitimate or irrelevant in the campaign because they spring from a twenty-year old thesis. Of course, these issues are both legitimate and relevant, and they spring not from the thesis, but from a desire to know who Bob McDonnell is today. In truth, McDonnell discusses social issues all the time -- when he wants to -- but defaulting to this argument and sticking to his guns permits McDonnell to refuse to take questions at will, or dance around answering an uncomfortable one.

That basic position, which the MSM has yet to crack, has afforded McDonnell control over the coverage, and left him free to rhetorically negotiate the seemingly inconsistent goals before him -- establishing at the same time that he is a both a moderate and a batshit crazy Conservative. (This, BTW, is not a knock on the MSM. Amy Gardner and the Washington Post deserve praise for their work.)

How does McDonnell use this freedom? Cleverly. He doesn't quite hit you over the head with dishonesty, but it is there nonetheless, and it isn't buried too deep. If it wasn't close to the surface, it would not have its desired effect.

Early on, for example, McDonnell absurdly and implausibly denied his own seriousness of purpose and hard work in producing the 93-page thesis by derisively calling it a “term paper” and an “academic exercise,” and something he hadn’t read in twenty years. Of course, this was false, but left unchallenged McDonnell managed at the same time to deny the document contains any serious content (maintaining moderate cred), without disavowing any of its substance (and risking backlash from his base).

Or consider how McDonnell has addressed the hot button issue of his denigration of women who choose to work outside the home. McDonnell argues his opinion has changed, but he doesn’t state how or what prompted the change. Rather, he “proves” his opinion has changed by a non sequitor -- pointing to the fact that his wife worked outside the home and the fact that he has three daughters, one of whom served in Iraq.

Again, the argument allows McDonnell to create a moderate impression (my wife works outside the home) without actually addressing the substance of the issue, namely, whether government ought to promote policies to make it more difficult for women to work outside the home. Those are not exclusive concepts -- Bob McDonnell would not be the first nor the last politician to think one policy is good for his constituents while another works better for him and his.

In fact, the available evidence shows that McDonnell has not changed his opinions on women in the workplace at all, such as his vote against requiring equal pay for women for equal work.

And while the media has challenged McDonnell on this one, he has defaulted to his refusal to discuss it (except when he wants to) because the issue of a twenty-year old thesis is illegitimate and irrelevant to a campaign today. Then he hilariously took offence at anyone even suggesting he might think it is inappropriate for women to work outside the home.

That's the kind of touch only a true maestro could pull off.

Now consider McDonnell’s appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show Thursday, where he was speaking exclusively to his base. In that appearance, he vigorously defended that very same thesis that only days before he dismissed as a mere term paper and academic exercise, and asserted he had not thought about in twenty years and, anyway, contained opinions from which he has evolved:

Well, the thesis was about something that I think was very important and that is that marriage and family are the bedrock of our society then and that’s been true in quotes from John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama to Governor Kaine to Bob McDonnell. People believe that--what I was doing in the late eighties was looking at sort of what happened after the Great Society vision of President Johnson and the AFDC program and some other things that had undermined the traditional family to say what are these government policies that are causing the impact on women and children and families and are there some things that we can do better?

While the words seem somewhat benign -- I mean, who is anti-family? Who doesn't want to do "better"? -- in McDonnell's thesis everything derives from his core belief about the "traditional" family as a sacred unit. In other words, Bob McDonnell still strongly believes in his thesis, namely that government should be able to tell you how to live your personal life – who to marry, who to love, how and when to bear children and, ultimately, how and what deity you worship -- as long as those dictates are based on Bob McDonnell’s particular Biblical interpretation.

Again, the deception is clearly there, just below the surface. Not express, but certainly much bolder that the usual winks, nudges and code words of traditional dog whistles.

So far, at least, McDonnell's deception is working, i.e., moderates do not seem to be seeing BSC Bob yet, at least according to some of the data in Friday’s SUSA poll, which has McDonnell ahead 54-42. The poll was taken after Thesis-caca broke.

McDonnell is pulling 42% of the self-described moderate voters in the poll, 15% of the self-described liberals, and 31% of self-described pro-choice voters. At the same time, McDonnell is getting 89% of self-described Conservatives. Similarly, McDonnell is attracting 19% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans, not to mention 13% of Obama voters at the same time he is garnering 90% of McCain voters.

In short, these numbers show McDonnell is attracting considerable support from people diametrically opposed to his positions, without sacrificing any of his base.

His accomplishment is even more impressive when one considers that he has been entirely upfront about the fact that his strategy is based on deception. McDonnell wrote on page 55 of his thesis (h/t Daily Kos):

It is also becoming clear in modern culture that the voting American mainstream is not willing to accept a true pro-family ideologue because as then-Representative Trent Lott (R-MS) observed, "Americans think of themselves as conservatives; they want government reduced. But in their hearts they are liberals, they want all the goodies coming in. Leadership, however, does not require giving voters what they want, for whimsical and capricious government would result. Republican legislators must exercise independent professional judgment as statesman, to make decisions that are objectively right, and proved effective."

As Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos explained:

Got that? "Leadership" means hiding your "true pro-family" ideology from the voters, who don't want it and aren't willing to accept it, but then governing in that fashion once elected. It is the height of cynicism -- openly violating the trust of the voter by pretending to be something you are not, masking your true intentions from an electorate that would never endorse that agenda with their vote.

Markos then asks:

Given McDonnell's open admission of dishonesty, how can any of his "moderate" policy pronouncements be taken seriously?

How, indeed?

Silent Bob Is Speaking Loud and Clear

2009-09-04T09:57:00.004-04:00

Bob McDonnell has gone silent when it comes to answering questions with respect to Thesispalooza. Usually, this strategy does not work too well, since the refusal to answer questions tends to feed speculation that there is something being covered up.

Despite that risk, given McDonnell’s tactical objectives in managing this mess, the Silent Bob routine would appear to be his best option at this point. On the surface, the rationale for this tact is that McDonnell wants to talk about “issues that really matter.”

Still, the strategy also reveals how weak of a hand McDonnell is actually holding. By defining McDonnell's tactical goals, and examining how the Silent Bob routine, plus other tactics, might help him achieve them, it becomes clear how circumstances have left McDonnell with little margin of error.

McDonnell’s Objective # 1

The Goal: Don't allow the thesis to turn into a media feeding frenzy. By simply refusing to feed the media beast, McDonnell hopes it will eventually stop asking for food and move on.

The Tactic: Refuse to answer questions about his thesis. Accuse the WaPo of liberal bias.

Why it Might Work: Reporters constantly need fresh copy, so unless they are finding fresh material elsewhere, they will be forced to move on.

Why It Probably Won’t: Two reasons. First, McDonnell is in an election against an opponent and a significant online opposition that will not allow this issue to simply fade away and who will try to keep aggressive coverage alive. Second, the media has a strong professional self-interest in preventing their subjects from setting the parameters of acceptable coverage. Ask Al Gore what happens when the press gets pissed at you, en masse.

McDonnell Objective #2

The Goal: Are there are more cultural shoes out there to drop, possibly even more writings, almost certainly individuals who will come forward to assert that McDonnell’s views have not really changed much over the years, as four GOP legislators did this past week? If so, McDonnell would want to avoid saying anything further, beyond the carefully word-smithed answers he has already provided, that would be directly contradicted by a subsequent disclosure.

The Tactic: Simply refuse to answer questions about the thesis so he doesn’t get caught off-message.

Why It Might Work: Someone who doesn’t speak is unlikely to say anything that is stupid. And while McDonnell has already created a general impression that he has evolved in his thinking generally since penning this thesis in a more moderate direction, he didn’t specifically address most of the more egregious statements in the thesis, giving him the benefit of plausible deniability should additional evidence arise.

Why It Probably Won’t: Voters and the MSM tend to focus on general impressions, so if further evidence surfaces that contradicts the impression McDonnell created, it seem like he was less than forthcoming, whether plausibly denied or not.

McDonnell Objective # 3

The Goal: Maintain the moderate image he has cultivated without ticking off his base.

The Tactic: Utilize the dog whistle for the base, but say as little as possible to the moderates, so as not to drown out the coded message. (VB Dems has a fascinating post up about an article stating that this was the precise reason McDonnell disclosed the existence of the thesis to the WaPo to begin with, i.e., to send a message to the faithful that he was still with them as a cultural warrior even as he presented himself as a moderate in order to attract votes. I’m not sure I buy it – as a plan it is too complicated – but a very interesting idea).

Why It Might Work: Well, the Family Foundation warned McDonnell on Tuesday not to disavow his thesis too much. That was a signal. McDonnell hasn’t said a word since then, a pressure from the right has disappeared.

Why It Probably Won’t: Two big reasons. First, all of these people are, frankly, scary and nuts when it comes to their belief that they have the divine right to tell everyone else how to live their lives, so who knows what the heck they will do. Second, additional disclosures or enough pressure from the media, will force his hand to choose one side or the other.

McDonnell can yet draw to an inside straight from all of this. The keys will be whether he is able to continue avoiding answering questions and whether any new evidence comes to light of his narrow and backwards views on social issues, and his belief that Government should impose Bob McDonnell’s particular brand of Christian morality on all of us.

Blue Virginia Blogger Roundup

2009-09-03T22:39:00.007-04:00

Good evening, Virginia.

It's a beautiful fall evening in Alexandria, VA, which means college football is right around the corner. It is less than 48 hours until Virignia Tech takes on Alabama (in the ATL) on Saturday night at 8 PM EST on ABC.

So, here's what the Virginia progressive blogging community is talking about:

Fake Virginia has an EXCELLENT TWEET-ATHON on that describes her thoughts on Bob McDonnell's Christian Broadcasting Network thesis. If you don't know, Bob McDonnell went to Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School in 1989 (Note to self: Pat Robertson is donating, ahem, a ton of $$$ to Bob McDonnell's campaign... Pat Robertson is not a moderate). Bob's full thesis is here.
Lowell has a great review of the Creigh Deeds' campaign new website which clearly depicts the batshit crazy right-wing record of Bob McDonnell. The web site, in short, basically shows the whack job social stances that McDonnell has taken on a woman's role in society (stay home and make babies and food), abortion rights (In Bob McDonnell's crazy ass world, if woman is RAPED, he believes she should not have the right to an abortion), contraception, and education. Bob McDonnell is not a moderate.
Aznew questions whether Bob McDonnell's goal is to advocacate a Christian theocracy in America. (Note to self: Bob McDonnell sounds kinda Talibanesque to me).
Anonymous is a Woman ponders the dishonest shell game that Bob McDonnell is playing with Virginia voters (Note: Bob's can't run from those crazy ass social stances).
Left of the Hill tells us that almost half of Virginia's likely voters are following the news headlines about Bob McDonnell's detrimental views on women (Bryan thinks there will be more momentum on this issue for Creigh Deeds as the fall campaign season moves along).
Finally, Not Larry Sabato wonders if Bob McDonnell voted for Pat Robertson in the 1988 Virginia GOP Presidential Primary (of course he did, Ben!!).

Oh, and Sarah Palin hearts MF crazy Bob McDonnell to the tune of $2500.

I wonder if Bob McDonnell thinks we live in Fake Virginia (that's what McCain and Palin's advisor basically said below):

Massively good times.

Leave Dan Snyder Alone, Just Leave Him Alone

2009-09-03T19:30:00.004-04:00

I cannot believe people are bitching about the Skins suing a couple of deadbeat season ticket holders.

I've been a Skins fan for nearly 30 years, and the last 10 of those years have been particularly sweet. During that time, the team has reached the pinnacle of achievement, so if the owner who brught us this wonderful decade of football wants to sick his lawyers on a bunch of good-for-nothing fans who are just hitching a ride on his bandwagon of NFL success, I say the man has earned the right!

And to that, i have two words to add: Jeff Fucking George

Does Bob's Thesis Advocate A Christian Theocracy in America?

2009-09-02T22:12:00.003-04:00

It was interesting that Bob McDonnell’s view on women, particularly women working outside of the home, seemed to draw the most visceral reaction from the news media. As offensive as those statements are, however, the part of McDonnell Thesis that should be of the most concern to Virginia’s voters is McDonnell’s view on government and the ultimate source of governmental power.

McDonnell seems to interpret the Declaration of Independence as ordaining the creation of a Christian theocracy. It is truly frightening that someone that thinks like this can get so close to a significant position of executive power in the United States.

McDonnell’s Thesis states: “The civil government was ordained to secure the inalienable rights of individuals created in the image and likeness of [G-d.]” This is drawn, one assumes, from Jefferson’s assertion in the Declaration that “all men … are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

One can see right off the bat that the Declaration does not specifically refer to G-d, i.e., the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from the Old Testament, for the document speaks solely of a “Creator.” McDonnell, however, clearly interprets it as a reference to the Bible’s deity by asserting that only individuals created in G-d’s image (See Genesis 1:26) are endowed with the magical unalienable rights.

McDonnell next asserts that the reason government protects these inalienable rights is to “facilitate a society in which other institutions are free to perform their convenantal duties to [G-d] and others.” In other words, government provides services to us in order to free us up to … well, live our lives according to the rules set forth in the Bible (presumably as interpreted by McDonnell).

With respect to the purpose of forming governments, the Declaration advises us to do it in a way that “shall seem must likely to protect [our] safety and happiness.’ Nothing in there, however, about “covenantal duties to [G-d].”

Finally, McDonnell concludes as follows: “The state alone, with the exception of parental discipline of children, bears the authority to punish wrongdoers, for the civil ruler is a minister of God to execute judgment and encourage good.”

The Declaration of Independence, however, directly contradicts this statement. Government, i.e., the “civil ruler,” does not derive power from G-d or any external force. Nor is its purpose to “execute judgment” or “encourage good.” TJ was quite clear on this point. The Declaration states: “That to secure these rights [i.e., the unalienable rights which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

(NOTE: McDonnell does allow that governmental “authority” is limited by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, laws, etc., but this somewhat meaningless jurisdictional statement does not change the core assertion that the legitimacy and powers of government derive from G-d, and should be executed to serve His purpose.)

What McDonnell appears to be envisioning here is nothing less than a Christian theocracy.

In case there is any doubt about McDonnell’s vision of American government, consider the following statement from his Thesis (pp. 13-14), drawn from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 13: 1-4:

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which [G-d] has established. The authorities that exist have been established by [G-d]. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what [G-d] has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

Similarly, on page 62, McDonnell asserts that Republicans must "correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state. Historically, the religious liberty guarantees of the First Amendment were intended to prevent government encroachment upon the free church, not eliminate the impact of religion on society."

As for specific policies a Governor McDonnell might impose, in his eyes, “Every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals, or fornicators. The cost of sin should fall on the sinner, not the taxpayer.”

Nor is this merely an academic exercise that has not had real-life consequences. After becoming Attorney General, McDonnell has a chance to pursue his vision, and he did so. Demonstrating how government could show preference to “married couples” over homosexuals, for instance, McDonnell did the following:

Immediately after becoming AG, Mr. McDonnell issued an opinion to countermand the executive order by both Governors Warner and Kaine to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, basically ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation was lawful in state hiring.

In early 2007, after The Christopher Newport University board banned discrimination in matters of admissions and employment based on sexual orientation, Bob McDonnell took the time to write the school to tell them, as the publication Inside Higher Ed put it, “it would not be legal for the university (or other public institutions in the state, which have done the same thing) to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Bob McDonnell intervened in a private lawsuit among members of the Episcopal Church in a dispute that had gay rights at its core. In a protest over gay priests, dissident members left the church, but filed suit seeking to retain church property. Mr. McDonnell, needless to say, sought to intervene in the case on the side of the anti-gay dissidents, ostensibly in defense of a state statute. But the dispute was a religious and social one, above all else, not a Constitutional one. A real estate attorney told the Washington Post that McDonnell’s intervention in the case “was a little out of the ordinary.”

So, while McDonnell’s ridiculous and offensive comments about women are interesting, and make for a good soundbyte, McDonnell’s views on the origins and legitimacy of government power, the purpose of government, the belief that government is an agent of the G-d of Abraham in implementing policy and the role such a government ought to play in the private lives of its citizens are much more dangerous, and are more critical questions for the voters of Virginia.

As we can see from McDonnell’s time as AG, these are not merely abstract questions; rather, McDonnell has clearly demonstrated that once in power, he is not afraid to implement his vision.

Hopefully, as this news story makes its way through the news cycle, the MSM media will find a way, consistent with the objectives of its news coverage, to place this critical consideration before the public.

Given the many questions still hanging about from the revelation of this Thesis, it is simply not acceptable for Bob McDonnell to travel around the state talking about his plan to appoint Bill Bolling Chief Jobs Creation Officer for the Commonwealth, while refusing to answer questions about his vision for what he wants Virginia to be in the future.

Note: My thanks to Cvillelaw at Blue Comonwealth for the research he did on the McDonnell thesis, which I drew on heavily for this.

Bill Maher on Bob McDonnell and Pat Robertson's Law School

2009-09-02T19:55:00.008-04:00

Ode to Bob McDonnell (LSU alma mater lyrics edited for my enjoyment):

Where stately oaks and broad magnolias
shade inspiring halls,
There stands our dear Old Alma Mater
who to us recalls
Fond memories that waken in our hearts
a tender glow,
And make us happy for the love
that we have learned to know.

All hail to thee our Alma Mater,
molder of mankind,
May greater glory, love unending
be forever thine.
Our worth in life will be thy worth
we pray to keep it true,
And may thy spirit live in us, forever Regent U

Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich University?

Massively good times.

Righty Blog Roundup: Surprise -- "L'Affair Thesis" is Liberal Media's Fault

2009-09-02T07:22:00.004-04:00

As Day 3 of L’Affair Thesis came to a close, Bob McDonnell’s supporters regressed to the default position Conservatives regress to when they get exposed as BCEs (Batshit Crazy Extremists).

It is all the media’s fault for letting people know about them.

But even as they trot out the tired and true staple, the several Conservative blogs I looked at seem to know this is not really the problem, and in their hearts do not really seem to believe in the arguments they are putting forth.

Over at Too Conservative, for example, VA Blogger in a post entitled “Too Unbelievable To Be True,” can only complain that the Washington Post did not equally criticize Gov. Kaine for being partisan when he took his job at the DNC. The cases are not equivalent, however -- the WaPo did not criticize McDonnell for being partisan; it criticized him for being divisive and out of touch -- and VA Blogger’s actual argument fails to live up to the hype of the headline.

Similarly, at Bearing Drift, JR Hoeft claims the WaPo is acting hypocritically, but he notably fails to cite a single instance of hypocrisy on the part of the paper. Reading Mr. Hoeft’s post, it is clear that the real source of his annoyance is that the WaPo is reporting the story, and not simply parroting McDonnell’s spin on it. Mr. Hoeft seems equally annoyed with the RTD’s Jeff Schapiro for the same thing. In the Conservative view of the world, of course, reporting facts instead of right-wing spin is evidence of bias.

In any event, I don’t think blaming the media will work here. For one thing, it is a tactic that rarely works over time – hence the aphorism about not picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. “Working the refs” like this does sometimes result in reporters and editors bending over backwards in the short-term to criticize the other guy to show they are being equally tough on all candidates, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see some “negative” reporting on Creigh from the WaPo in the next couple of weeks, to the extent that there is any fodder to work with.

More importantly, the argument of media bias in this case is pretty weak. Where, exactly, is the bias? Can McDonnell’s defenders seriously believe that his thesis is not newsworthy? Virtually every media outlet in the country disagrees. Can they seriously believe he put all questions to rest with a single conference call? Do they seriously think the voters of Virginia would rather hear about McDonnell’s plans to name Bill Bolling Chief Job Creation Officer than watch him twist himself into a pretzel trying to explain his 18th Century vision for 21st Century Virginia?

The critical issue for Virginia, and one that as far as I can see Mr. McDonnell has not addressed at all, is whether he still believes that government should be an instrument of imposing an extreme Christian Fundamentalist moral code on all the citizens of Virginia against their will. In that sense, I guess, I agree with my Conservative friends that the issue is not so much how Bob McDonnell felt about working women twenty years ago; rather, the issue is how would he, were he to be elected to lead the Commonwealth, treat decent, law-abiding Virginians today who choose a different lifestyle than what he thinks is morally appropriate.

The people of Virginia have a right to know whether their Governor thinks they ought to be punished by their own government -- not for breaking the law, but rather for not adhering to the same moral and religious code under which their Governor chooses to live, because in the final analysis that is what McDonnell’s thesis is all about.

As a 34-year old graduate student, McDonnell clearly believed the government ought to force Fundamentalist morality on all people, whether they want it or not. As a member of the General Assembly, he repeatedly sought to do so legislatively to the greatest degree possible, even to the point of limiting access to contraceptives. He admits that on the issue of reproductive choice, he would force his beliefs on all of us if he could, i.e., if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Finally, he has a long history of – and I apologize if any find this offensive, but there is no nice way to say it – hostility and discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians.

So far, McDonnell’s response to questions about his view of government’s role in imposing his religious morality on all citizens has been to change the subject to economic issues, claiming that is what people care about. The fact is, people care about both issues.

McDonnell’s supporters can rant against the Washington Post and Jeff Schapiro all they want, but this problem will not go away until McDonnell addresses the more important issue of what he will do as Governor with respect to social issues in an honest, specific and convincing manner – which he has not yet done -- and let the chips fall where they may.

His supporters would better serve their candidate by urging him to pursue this course, instead of propagating the same old victimization canard that the media is at fault for this mess.

2009 McDonnell same as 1989 McDonnell?

2009-09-01T20:43:00.004-04:00

Apparently, there are several Virginia Republicans that agree with that premise and they are bucking their party and supporting Creigh Deeds. According to the Shad Plank, Senators Marty Williams and Russ Potts and Delegate Jim Dillard all think McDonnell's 1989 master's thesis (from Pat Roberson's Regent University, formerly Christan Broadcasting Network University, yep, CBN University... 700 Club University... geez) depicts a very similar social agenda that he pursued in the Virginia House of Delegates...

Selected excerpts of the Shad Plank blog post are below:

A handful of Virginia Republicans, including former Sen. Marty Williams of Newport News, are taking on Republican Bob McDonnell's 1989 thesis and saying that it matches his ensuing legislative record.

Williams and Sen. Russ Potts and Del. Jim Dillard all served in the General Assembly for the GOP, but they have been willing to break with their party leadership especially during this campaign. After McDonnell released a transportation plan that relied on off shore drilling, future port growth and tolls on drivers coming in from North Carolina - the three men stepped away from the GOP to back Democrat Creigh Deeds.

Now Williams, Potts and Dillard are stepping out to take on McDonnell's Regent University thesis which was penned when McDonnell was a 34-year-old graduate student at the Pat Robertson-led university in Virginia Beach.

The 93-page paper including some unflattering references to women in the workplace, calling them "detrimental" to the family. The paper also takes on "cohabitators, fornicators and homosexuals." McDonnell has disavowed and repudiated the things he wrote about working women and said that the paper doesn't reflect his views, but rather was an "academic exercise" and part of a 20-year-old assignment that he has not considered or read in two decades.

.....

McDonnell said that voters should focus on his record in the General Assembly.

Williams, Potts, Dillard and Del. Katherine Waddell, an Independent, all said that the thesis and McDonnell's record are playing the same tune.

"My biggest surprise is that he's running away from it," Williams said of the thesis. "I really do think that's who he is."

....

"Anybody who thinks I jump off the shelf and support every Democrat is mistaken," Williams said. "This is the first Democrat I've supported and it might be the last."

Potts said that the best political leaders govern from the center.

"Bob has never been about governing from the middle," Potts said. "He wants to govern from the far right. He believes that passionately and I respect him for that."

Potts noted that McDonnell carried 35 bills that would have restricted abortion rights.

"He was out of the mainstream all those many years," Potts said. "The record is the record, I was there."

Dillard said that McDonnell was "always pushing social issues" in the General Assembly.

"The Bob McDonnell who is running for governor is not the Bob McDonnell who we knew and served with in the General Assembly," Dillard said. "It's a total re-invention of Bob McDonnell so he can be governor."

Waddell said that the thesis cannot be dismissed as the partisan musings of a young adult because McDonnell would enter the legislature only a few years after the paper was written.

"You can run from yourself, but you can't run far," Waddell said.

Well there you go... members of Bob McDonnell's own party think he's out of the mainstream (Note to self: Sponsoring 35 bills to restrict abortion rights access is not mainstream)... and they think he is performing "plastic surgery" on his own political career so that he can be governor.

Virginians, please don't let Pat Robertson's disciple, Bob McDonnell, become governor.

Righty Blog Roundup: Tepid Defense For McDonnell

2009-09-01T07:49:00.007-04:00

It took the Righty Blogosphere in Virginia 24 to 48 hours to formulate a defense for Bob McDonnell. Unfortunately, it is a fairly lame defense, and therefore not particularly interesting or challenging to answer.

I will note that I do sense a change in attitude over at the blogs run by my Conservative friends. This story has really taken the wind out of their sails, and their defense of Bob McDonnell seems half-hearted and obligatory, at best. That said, I’m not under any illusion that will last.

In any event, I think there are two reasons for this. First, Bob’s Manifesto is pretty indefensible, and his explanation that he has changed his opinion is not very credible, in light of his long legislative career trying to implement many of the ideas he sets forth in the document.

Second, I’d imagine that many Conservatives cannot be happy that McDonnell is running away from some core principles. Bob Marshall hit the nail on the head – by trying to pass himself off as a moderate, McDonnell is implicitly stating that there is something wrong with strong Conservative beliefs on social issues.

I would imagine many Conservatives would prefer to hear a strong defense of why mothers working outside the home is not a desirable state of affairs, or why an employer should be free to reject someone for a job because they are gay, and so on, rather than see the ostensible leader of their state party throw their principles overboard and meekly pander to what they see as the political correctness of a liberal media.

Frankly, that’s a debate I’d rather have as well, and one that I think would be much more meaningful and interesting to all voters, rather than the current election consisting of Mr. McDonnell to pretend he is someone he is not just to get votes, and Creigh having to spend an inordinate amount of time calling McDonnell out on his BS.

Anyway, over at Too Conservative, from VA Blogger we get a post entitled Deeds Not Words:

Funny that the Deeds campaign has turned their back on this maxim. As a student in the 1980s, Bob McDonnell wrote a thesis paper using words. As a legislator and Attorney General, you can evaluate his deeds.

That, of course, is the problem. When you look at McDonnell's actions as a Delegate and as AG, it is clear they are fully informed by the ideas contained and the strategy set forth in his Manifesto.

That’s pretty much all VA Blogger offers right now. He does provide a round-up of commentary from Conservative blogs (like this one, only different) that is definitely worth a look. In it he states, "I’m still putting together my thoughts on the decades-old thesis Bob McDonnell wrote, what (if anything) it means about the candidates, and how it will affect the campaign." So, presumably we'll see more on this from him.

At Bearing Drift, where the blogging tends to be, IMHO, less thoughtful and more reflexively partisan than at Too Conservative, The defense of McDonnell is a bit more spirited, with several posts addressing the thesis flap. The result, however, is more unintentional hilarity as opposed to a convincing argument, so you can head over there for some entertainment. “Bob McDonnell is a social conservative,” one post reads, “ He has never tried to hide that. He has been straightforward about his record throughout this campaign.” The author, apparently, holds the distinction of being the only person observing the race so far who failed to notice McDonnell trying to establish himself as a moderate, which, of course, is the issue at the heart of this Manifesto flap.

Also at Bearing Drift, Brian Kirwin makes an argument that seems to amount to complaining that Democrats are ... uh ... criticizing Republicans?

What? How dare we do that? What is this, an election or something?

Kirwin also brings out the old canard that Creigh and Democrats have no plan to address the challenges facing Virginia. This, of course, is ridiculous, and not worthy of response.

In fact, even Kirwin knows it is absurd, because later in the same post, he states, “On issue after issue, [Deeds’] polling has undoubtedly told him that his solutions are pretty unpopular with voters.”

Wait a sec, I thought Democrats did not have any answers. Now Kirwin says we do have solutions, only they’re not popular. I’m getting a contradiction headache.

In Bearing Drift’s world, I suppose, McDonnell has the solutions Virginians want. After all, who has failed to notice the public clamor to appoint Bill Bolling Chief Job Creation Officer?

Shaun Kenney, meanwhile, has chosen to ride the storm out by refusing to acknowledge it except in passing. So he doesn’t directly address the Manifesto flap; rather, he is on the trail of the Deeds employee who stupidly called McDonnell’s office posing as a reporter to get a copy of McDonnell’s daily schedule. An excellent use of time by Shaun!

Finally, at Virginia Virtucon, Riley did a great job of note-taking during yesterday’s McDonnell call. His notes give a much fuller picture of the call than any of the articles I have read.

If McDonnell thinks he put this issue to rest yesterday, he is sadly mistaken. Looking over Riley's notes, I am struck by the vapidity of McDonnell's defense. His position basically amounts to the following argument: “If there is anything I ever believed or did in my life that a potential voter doesn’t like, please be assured that I no longer believe that. And now since I said this, my record should be off limits.”

I don't expect this will pass muster with many in the Commonwealth's press corps.

In any event, my favorite part of Riley’s notes was McDonnell’s response when he was asked how he could reconcile his promise not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation with his actions in the Askew matter. Here are Riley’s notes on the answer:

WashPo summary of Askew case was incorrect. Documents will be sent to reporters to follow up. If complaints or issues were brought up in advance, those would be brought up in a hearing. After hearing, number of things brought to cmte. members that made them think Judge Askew should not be reappointed. Some things were not answered honestly in the questionnaire. Questions of temperment. Evidence of sexual harassment claim that Judge Askew had been accused of by an employee. Settled for $64K by City of Hampton. WashPo article said Judge was never found guilty in court — true, but only because it was settled out of court. McD never brought up sexual orientation. Vote demonstrated that Sen. Dick Saslaw voted against her. Top Cmte. Dem Sen. Janet Howell voted against Askew. Saslaw — what went on in there was as fair as can be. Quote attributed to McD was not correct. At the time, there was a law in VA before a S. Ct. decision, acts of sodomy were punishable as a felony. If someone who was a judge were convicted of a felony that would be a factor as to whether they would be reappointed. Quoted that homosexualtiy was not an issue, believe that there were already homosexuals on the bench. Only cares about whether they would follow the law. Original story was incorrect. WashPo did not do good reporting. Testimony and demeanor and settled sexual harassment claim were the issues. McD was on the same side as Saslaw and Janet Howell.

Bob McDonnell Going For The Trifecta (Snark)

2009-08-31T22:58:00.013-04:00

That's certainly what former Virginia State GOP Chairman, Patrick M. McSweeney, thinks:

"There are three ways to lose," said Patrick M. McSweeney, a former state GOP chairman and a standard-bearer of the party's right wing. "One is you can state a position that is controversial and offend a lot of people. Second,you can not take a position and offend people who want leaders. And third, you can back away from a previously held view. But the worst thing to do is to lose votes in all three of those areas." That, McSweeney said, is what McDonnell risks.

Check out the article in the Washington Post for more. (Hat Tip: Gardner, Helderman, and Kumar)

Massively good times.

McDonnell's Stunning Lack of Honesty

2009-08-31T19:53:00.005-04:00

For anyone who wants to fully appreciate how dishonest Bob McDonnell's campaign has been, just consider his response today to the Thesis Scandal, focusing on the issue of homosexuality.

According to the Washington Post, McDonnell said in the thesis, "Government policy should favor married couples over 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.'"

McDonnell, however, wants us to believe the opinions he expressed twenty years ago are not the opinions he holds today; that he has changed. According to a report from MSNBC, here is what Bob said today during a conference call with both Virginian and national reporters:

McDonnell said his beliefs against same-sex marriage had not changed, though "any other normal civil liberties should be fully protected" for gay couples.

Oh, okay, so since writing in 1989 at the age of 34 that government policy should discriminate in favor of married couples over homosexuals, we should be able to see McDonnell's development over the years to his current enlightened position that other civil liberties should be fully protects. Civil liberties such as being free of discrimination in hiring, or in being accepted to college, or in being able to serve as a judge or other public servant, or in being able to form a civil union recognized by law and all its attendant protections with a lifelong partner that you love -- civil liberties that most of us take for granted.

Unfortunately, Bob McDonnell's record over the years says -- no, it loudly screams -- something else entirely.

* in 2004, Mr. McDonnell sought to block the reappointment of a Newport News Circuit Judge named Verbina Askew because she was allegedly gay. McDonnell, of course, is not an idiot. He went to great pains to assert that the judge’s sexual orientation did not matter to him; rather, the fact that she may have violated Virginia anti-sodomy statute in force at the time, which prohibited oral and anal sex, was a factor to consider in her reappointment. Said McDonnell at the time, “It [possible sodomy] certainly raises some questions about the qualifications to serve as a judge." McDonnell also said, "There is certain homosexual conduct that is in violation of the law," McDonnell said. "I’m not telling you I would disqualify a judge per se if he said he was gay. I’m talking about their actions." (Incidentally, this was the context for the infamous incident in which Mr. McDonnell was asked whether he had ever violated the statute, and he hilariously responded, “Not that I can recall.”)

* In 2004-2005, McDonnell helped draft the Marshall Newman amendment to the Virginia Constitution, a particularly obnoxious and offensive amendment enshrining discrimination against gay people in Virginia, effectively preventing not only marriage but legal recognition of civil union. The amendment passed in 2006.

* As Attorney General, Mr. McDonnell lost no time issuing an opinion in early 2006, shortly after assuming office, to countermand the executive order by both Governors Warner and Kaine to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Whatever the legal effect of his opinion, McDonnell’s legal reasoning was shoddy enough that it led the Virginia ACLU to conclude, “It is distressing when clouded judgment and poor lawyering by a high government official leads him to conclusions that are clearly at odds with common sense, common decency and the law.”

* In mid 2006, McDonnell discussed with his patron and mentor, Pat Robertson, the pending Marshall-Newman Amendment. Here is what he said: "We think it is critically important to protect the institution of marriage from court attack to enshrine in the Constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman and that other forms of relationships are just not going to be recognized in Virginia."

* In early 2007, after The Christopher Newport University board banned discrimination in matters of admissions and employment based on sexual orientation, Attorney General Bob McDonnell took the time to write the school to tell them, as the publication Inside Higher Ed put it, “it would not be legal for the university (or other public institutions in the state, which have done the same thing) to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Wow! So, according to Bob McDonnell, even if an institution wants to make discrimination illegal, it cannot do so.

* As Attorney General, Bob McDonnell intervened in a private lawsuit among members of the Episcopal Church in a dispute that had gay rights at its core. In a protest over gay priests, dissident members left the church, but filed suit seeking to retain church property. Mr. McDonnell, needless to say, sought to intervene in the case on the side of the anti-gay dissidents, ostensibly in defense of a state statute. But the dispute was a religious and social one, above all else, not a Constitutional one. A real estate attorney told the Washington Post that McDonnell’s intervention in the case “was a little out of the ordinary.” Perhaps more interesting, was this, as the Post reported:

McDonnell's office has another connection to this issue -- his deputy, former state senator William C. Mims (R), who has been a member of another Episcopal church that broke away from the national church over the same issues of how to understand Scripture as it pertains to homosexuality. Mims prompted controversy and much debate in 2005 when he -- as a senator -- proposed a bill that would have explicitly allowed congregants who leave their denominations to keep their land. The measure failed, and opponents said it was an inappropriate insertion of government into church affairs.

That's quite a record.

Does Bob McDonnell and his campaign really believe that a bare assertion, "I won't discriminate," somehow trumps this extensive record suggesting just the opposite? It was one thing when McDonnell was trying to pass off this canard on voters, many of whom would not have a knowledge base to know better, but it is stunning to me that he would feed this same bullshit to a conference call of the Commonwealth's political reporters and expect them to just swallow it.

Just incredible.

Further McDonnell Response: Chicks Dig Me!

2009-08-31T14:11:00.003-04:00

Bob McDonnell just put out a response to the disclosure of his incredibly offensive comments about women working outside of the home, basically a news release featuring several of Bob's female supporters talking about what a fair and great guy he is.

Hmmm, that reminds me of something. What was it........

McDonnell Response to WaPo Article Just Doesn't Cut It

2009-08-31T06:32:00.007-04:00

Bob McDonnell's statement yesterday in response to the disclosure of his Regent thesis is simply not sufficient.

First, Bob responds he wrote this thesis 20 years ago when he was a student. Like much of his disingenuous campaign so far, this explanation is deceptive. Bob is making out like he was a kid when he engaged in, as he repeatedly calls it, an "academic exercise." That is just not true.

Bob was a 34-year old man preparing to enter public life at the time he wrote this. Is he seriously suggesting he bears no accountability for the ideas expressed in this work?

Second, Bob repeatedly states he was simply engaged in an "academic exercise" with this thesis. Again, this is demonstrably false. The thesis is not simply ruminations of the social upheavals of the day; rather, it is a plan for and a call to action. More damning, however, is the fact that at least through 2005, McDonnell was introducing legislation aimed at implementing the policies set forth in the thesis, according to the WaPo.

Furthermore, this scenario fits in exactly with the mission of Regent. The stated mission of the school is to train and graduate students who will reach positions of influence in society for the specific purpose of implementing public policies that reflect a particular strain of extremely Conservative, Christian Fundamentalism.

So clearly, this was not simply an "academic paper he wrote during the Reagan era and haven't thought about in years." This paper is Bob McDonnell's Manifesto.

Finally, Bob says, “Like everybody, my views on many issues have changed as I have gotten older." Fair enough. But these are pretty serious ideas he expresses in this thesis/Manifest -- a 93-page thesis itself is not something one puts together casually. So a cavalier dismissal of his ideas just doesn't wash.

For one thing, his explanation that he changed his mind is at odds with his record as a legislator, discussed above.

But even looking past that, if he did indeed change his positions as he got older, McDonnell needs to explain how and why. The passage of time alone does not change us -- the salient questions are: What experience did he have since 1989, what books did he read, what did he learn, who were his mentors, that effected such a profound change in his worldview.

Interestingly, McDonnell refused to talk to the AP last night, and only issued the written statement to avoid having to answer questions.

Before this election is over, Bob will have to give a full and fair accounting of who he truly is to Virginia's voters -- if he can. I suspect, however, it is too late for him, even at this early point in the election, to do so without destroying his credibility completely, given the amount of deception and distortion that has gone into trying to paint him as a moderate.

The Virginia Democrat College Football Preview - Virginia Tech vs. Alabama - 9/5/2009

2009-08-29T22:36:00.026-04:00

Thanks to aznew for setting up as guest blogger here at The Virginia Democrat. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, it's great for all residents in the Commonwealth of Virginia to see one of our major college football teams (and the Hokie Guru is never talking about the Wahoos when he refers to football) get up on the national stage. Virginia Tech is one of only three teams (elite company) to win ten games in each of the last five seasons (clearly, the Hokies are becoming a national power). On Saturday, September 5, 2009 at 8 PM EST on ABC Television, your Virginia Tech Hokies take on the Alabama Crimson Tide in the Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Game. A very important game for both ranked teams; lose this game and you are out of the national championship.

Game day is only six days away :)

Let's get fired up a little:

And if you're not fired up yet, maybe this will do it.

The Hokie Guru makes no bones about it... he's a Hokie homer... plain and simple (so there will only be a sliver of objectivity). This year is the 10-year anniversary of the Hokies run to the first national title game. The Newport News Daily Press did a retrospective on the 1999 team (you can find that here).

Let's preview the matchups... here, the Hokie Guru will address which team has the advangage on offense, defense, special teams, and coaching.

Offense

Quarterback - Starting at quarterback for the Virginia Tech Hokies will be Tyrod Taylor. Coming out of Hampton, Taylor was a five-star Rivals quarterback. He was one of the most highly recruited quarterbacks in the nation. Taylor is 11-2 as a starter and is fourth all-time among Virginia Tech quarterbacks in rushing yards. This summer, Taylor went to the Manning Passing Academy to improve his game. In short, he is ready to lead this team. For Alabama, first year junior quarterback, Greg McElroy's long wait is over and he finally gets to start. McElroy has thrown 20 passes in three years at Alabama. The Hokie Guru likes those odds against a Bud Foster Virginia Tech defense. ADVANGAGE: VIRGINIA TECH

Running back - Virginia Tech was all ready to go this year at running back with one of the biggest studs in the Atlantic Coast Conference in Darren Evans... that is until he tore his ACL. Evans is out for the year. Virginia Tech will likely go with a running back by committe approach, although it appears that Ryan Williams will be the starter. Alabama will use the same running back by committee approach. ADVANTAGE: EVEN

Receivers/Tight End - Well, here's the big question... have the Virginia Tech receivers improved? Last season, a Hokies receiver did not catch a touchdown pass until November 29, 2008 (the last game of the season... against hated rival, Virginia.... Jarret Boykin was the receipient of two touchdowns). The Hokies' receivers sound like they are doing well in practice and the scrimmages, but everyone does well there. The Hokies know what they are getting in tight end, Greg Boone. He's first team all-Atlantic Coast Conference. For Alabama, there's no mystery... the Crimson Tide have a big stud in Julio Jones... one of the top receivers in the nation... a nightmare for any cornerback. ADVANTAGE: ALABAMA

Offensive Line - Virginia Tech returns four starters on the offensive line. This is arguably the most expereinced offensive line to play for the Hokies. Two Hokies, Sergio Render and Ed Wang, could find themselves on NFL rosters next year (Message to Dan Snyder... make sure you take Sergio Render in the draft). ADVANTAGE: VIRGINIA TECH

Offensive Coaching - For three years, The Hokie Guru and his team of admins and contributors have buried this topic to death right here (you should read the blog... it's a great blog... thanks for the opportuniy to plug, aznew lol). No team in the country has done more (e.g. win more) with less on offense than Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech has the worst offensive coordinator in the country. ADVANTAGE: ALABAMA.

For now, the overall offensive advantage goes to Alabama because the Hokie Guru isn't sold on Stiney's improvement and the Hokie Guru's been too fired up to fall flat. Just call it cautious optimism.

Defense

Secondary - Virginia Tech has third team All-American, Stephen Virgil, as the boundary cornerback. That's the guy that generally covers the opposing team's best receiver. Another Hokie to watch here is the general of the defense (a third-team All-American in some publications), Kam Chancellor. CFN rates the Hokies secondary one point higher than the Crimson Tide secondary. SLIGHT ADVANTAGE: VIRGINIA TECH.

Linebackers - Virginia Tech will have a bunch of new starters at the linebacker position this year. The Hokie Guru does have concerns about this. Alabama, on the other hand, is loaded. ADVANTAGE: ALABAMA.

Defensive Line: Clearly, Terrence "Mount Cody" Cody is the biggest mofo that the Hokies will face all year (CFN thinks he should already be in the NFL). Running on Alabama is going to be, ahem, a challenge. The same, however, can be said for Virginia Tech. Jason Worilds is going to be a big-time playa. Each team has a killer defensive line. ADVANTAGE: EVEN

Defensive Coaching - Bud Foster is one of the nation's best defensive coaches. Many of us Hokies DISAGREE with Jim Weaver's decision not to set up old Bud with a head coach in waiting agreement. For Alabama, defensive coordinator, Kirby Smart, well, isn't too shabby either. ADVANTAGE: EVEN TO LEAN SLIGHT ADVANTAGE ALABAMA

For now, we'll give the SLIGHT ADVANTAGE TO ALABAMA ON DEFENSE.

Special Teams

No team has excelled more at special teams in the last decade than Virginia Tech (there is so much importance placed on special teams at Virginia Tech, that they are coached by Frank Beamer). Frank Beamer says that this year's team could be his best special teams unit ever!! And here, we're talking about blocked kicks and what happens after the blocked. Here's an example of what can happen (ADVANTAGE: VIRGINIA TECH):

Head Coaching

Frank Beamer - The man... the guy who has transformed the Hokies into a national power... active head coach with the third most wins... would have been tempting to fire him after a couple of bad seasons... credit Virginia Tech for not pulling the trigger. He's the same steady guy he's been for several years.

Nick Saban - The new Frank Beamer? It appears Alabama wants to keep him in Tuscaloosa for many years to come. An incredible recruiter; the man's had Rivals' top recruiting classes in 2008 and 2009 and might have the best in 2010.

ADVANTAGE: EVEN

Intangibles

Eight in the Box (a 'Bama blog) tells how Virginia Tech can win, despite having a [expletive] offense.

Is the team chemistry the best ever in Blacksburg? We know what a few cancers can do to a team.

Is there a small problem with swine flu in Alabama? Terrence Cody, however, looks like he's back and ready to play.

ADVANTAGE: VIRGINIA TECH

Prediction

Offensive touchdowns are going to be hard to come by in this game. Everyone knows this. The defenses will reign supreme. This will be one of the most physical games that Virginia Tech plays all year. Coaching adjustments will be made at numerous times throughout this game by both teams. Scores will come on defensive touchdowns (or will be produced as a result of big defensive play and a short field for the offense). Virginia Tech wins 20-17 in overtime... Virginia Tech is due for a big win on the national stage. Will we have another "Miracle in Morgantown?" (hat tip - Fight for Old DC)

GO HOKIES!!!! :)

Bob McDonnell: Rewriting His Record (H/T DPVA and NLS)

2009-08-29T22:30:00.005-04:00

And Now For Something Completely Different...

2009-08-28T05:18:00.004-04:00

Hokieguru will be guest-blogging here next weekend about the Tech-Alabama game.

I know, this is a little out of character for this blog, and this new subject matter will no doubt disrupt to life rythyms of its tens of readers.

While I am a big Redskins fan, I could care less about the Hokies. But, damn, Hokieguru is passionate about this stuff, and passion is always good, so I say, have at it.

In the meantime, this weekend I will celebrating the ascendency of my middle son, Elijah, to manhood (at least in the eyes of the Jewish community). He has been studying hard to master his Torah, Haftorah and the portions of Shabbat services he will be leading, and I head into the weekend with a mixture of awe at what he done, and a lot of butterfleis that all goes well tomorrow.

Good luck, Hokieguru!

Pat, Bob and Regent University

2009-08-27T11:24:00.011-04:00

When Pat Robertson opened Regent Law School in 1978, its purpose was not simply to provide a Christian environment in which students could study law. Or even simply to provide a Christian perspective on the study of law.

Rather, as Christopher Hayes put it in his article in the American Prospect in 2005:

Robertson didn't want to just train journalists, lawyers, and business leaders who happened to be Christian; he wanted to produce a new class of Christian journalists, Christian lawyers, and Christian business leaders -- well-trained, inﬂuential, and guided in their professional lives by a sense of Christian mission (as Robertson, of course, deﬁnes it). Regent's central insight -- one that's come to dominate Christian higher education -- is that in order to create Christian lawyers or journalists or ﬁlm editors, the school would need to do more than simply augment its professional education with Bible study and group prayer. Students would be given a road map of what sort of life and career a Christian lawyer or journalist or ﬁlm editor might have. They would, in the fashionable argot of evangelical pedagogy, be given a “worldview.”

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with religious beliefs informing the worldview of political leaders. In fact, I think that is a good thing generally, with some obvious exceptions.

The school’s slogan on its Website is “Christian leadership to change the world,” and I think, in the abstract, this is fine, too, even though I don’t share Rev. Robertson’s beliefs. Freedom is all about the exchange of ideas.

The problem arises when a politician seeks public office with the specific intent of imposing his personal religious values on the society at large, as part of a larger design to create a more Christian-oriented nation, without fully revealing to the public what he is doing and why.

And therein lies the tale of Bob McDonnell and Pat Robertson.

_____________________________________________

I. FROM THE GARDEN OF EDEN...

Make no mistake; Bob McDonnell is an inflexible ideologue. Some of it stems from his religious beliefs – his positions on choice and gay marriage, for example – and some of it stems from his reading of the Constitution and his advocacy of a 19th century version of States’ Rights doctrine. And some of it, such as his mantra that tax cuts are the solution to every economic problem and his embrace of George W. Bush’s economic policies, stem from the Conservative/Republican dogma that has attached itself like a parasite to the socially conservative platforms of the Religious right.

Mr. McDonnell, of course, has played the role of the nice guy moderate to the hilt. Still, his record on choice and gay rights exposed at least one aspect of the dishonest divide between McDonnell’s rhetoric and his career-long record, and thus offered some insight into how he was likely to actually govern on these issues, irrespective of his poll-tested public platitudes.

Similarly, Mr. McDonnell has been seeking to downplay his education at Rev. Robertson’s law school, not to mention his relationship to Rev. Robertson himself. The reason is clear: The record of his experience at Regent Law, and Regent Law’s clearly delineated mission, reveal yet another aspect of the kid of Governor Mr. McDonnell will be, and what that future might mean for the Commonwealth.

There is simply no doubt that Bob McDonnell’s run for governor is exactly the sort of thing Pat Robertson had in mind when he created Regent. Here, for example, is part of the school’s mission statement:

“[P]repare students … to assume leadership positions in the fields of communication, education, divinity, law, government, business and counseling, enabling them to influence the thinking, action and policies of their professions and nations from biblical perspectives.”

Further, the school’s website states it seeks to “create and instill a deep tradition that will forever connect alumni and students to Regent Law School and its mission.”

Regent appears to have met these goals when it comes to Mr. McDonnell. McDonnell told Rev. Robertson in a 2006 interview that the reason he chose to attend Regent Law was that he saw Rev. Robertson speak about the school on the 700 Club. Asked by Robertson how he used what he learned at Regent as Attorney General, McDonnell said:

It gave me a great understanding of the limited role of government and the important [role] of the church … and other institution in society and what happens if government tries to take on those roles[.]”

Really? Then perhaps Mr. McDonnell can explain where the Marshall-Newman Amendment fits in. Asked about it by Rev. Robertson in that very same interview, Mr. McDonnell explains, “From the Garden of Eden to 2006, we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Sure sounds like a matter for the Church, not the government, to me. Why are these issues not separate in Mr. McDonnell’s worldview?

Clearly, when Mr. McDonnell talks about the conflict between government and the church, he sees it as a one-way street. Mr. McDonnell obviously favors imposing church doctrine upon, and limiting the power of, government. No matter how one feels about the issue of gay marriage and civil unions, it is beyond dispute that Bob McDonnell took what he admits is a Christian religious belief (“From the Garden of Eden…”) and transformed it into a public policy (an amendment to the Virginia Constitution) foisted upon all citizens, religious and atheistic alike.

If you still have doubts, consider the words of Jason Eige, a senior assistant to Mr. McDonnell and a 1999 graduate of Regent Law. According to Slate, he offered the following career advice in the school’s alumni newsletter, The Regent Remark: "Your Résumé Is God's Instrument."

_____________________________________________

II. RECLAIMING THE PUBLIC SQUARE

How else does the Regent Law mission manifest itself in practice?

Consider the politicization of the Justice Department by the Bush Administration and Regent Law’s role in that. Regent Law grad Monica Goodling, a senior assistant to Alberto Gonzales, was in the middle of the scandal, engineering the dismissal of several U.S. Attorneys that the Bush Administration deemed insufficiently supportive of GOP electoral goals.

Apart from any individual culpability on the part of Goodling, Daliah Lithwick at Slate reported it turned out that Goodling was one of 150 Regent graduates serving in the administration, “a huge number for a 29-year old school.” (See this article from Huffington Post, as well).

One area targeted by this recruitment scheme, according to Lithwick, was in DOJ’s vaunted civil rights division. As Lithwick explains:

Under Ashcroft, career lawyers were systematically fired or forced out and replaced by members of conservative or Christian groups or folks with no civil rights experience. In the five years after 2001, the civil rights division brought no voting cases on behalf of African-Americans. It brought one employment case on behalf of an African-American. Instead, the division took up the "civil rights" abuses of reverse discrimination—claims of voter fraud or discrimination against Christians. (For an extensive review of how the Bush Administration remade the Civil Rights division, see here)

There is nothing wrong with learning and practicing law from a Christian perspective. There is absolutely nothing unethical or wrong about what Regent is doing in terms of seeking to place its graduates in good jobs. And there is nothing wrong with one’s religious or, for that matter, lack of religious, beliefs informing their policy positions.

But as Lithwick puts it with respect to the Justice Department scandal of which Goodling was a part:

No, the real concern here is that Goodling and her ilk somehow began to conflate God's work with [Bush’s] ... The dream of Regent and its counterparts, like Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, is to redress perceived wrongs to Christians, to reclaim the public square, and reassert Christian political authority. And while that may have been a part of the Bush/Rove plan, it was, in the end, only a small part. Their real zeal was for earthly power.

_____________________________________________

III. MORE McDONNELL BAMBOOZLEMENT

When all Is said and done, however, Goodling was a functionary. There is an added concern when one of Robertson’s soldiers is running for public office.

That concern is levelling with the voters about your record and your intentions.

It is a concern with which Mr. McDonnell is familiar, since he is a serial offender, and this matter is no exception.

Just as Mr. McDonnell has been trying to recast himself as a moderate after a career of advancing Conservative causes, Mr. McDonnell has tried to erase Rev. Robertson from his biography. Should anyone raise an issue about the Rev. Robertson’s role in Mr. McDonnell’s career and what that might mean for Virginia’s future, they are accused of being anti-Christian.

I am neither anti-Christian nor anti-religion. In fact, I am quite religious. And the problem is not Robertson’s specific beliefs, although I obviously do not agree with them. Rather, the problem is that by not being upfront with Virginia voters about their shared vision of specifically injecting their conservative Christian beliefs deeply into the policies and processes of Virginia governance, Mr. McDonnell and Rev. Robertson are perpetrating a fraud on the citizens of the Commonwealth.

One clear manifestation of this is Rev. Robertson’s conspicuous absence from the political scene as a McDonnell supporter.

I don’t know whether Mr. McDonnell and Rev. Robertson have appeared together recently, but I could not find evidence of such an appearance on Google (for whatever that is worth). If they did appear together, and I missed it, it was not a highly publicized appearance.

More telling, perhaps, is the money trail, or. curiously enough, the lack of one.

Take a look at the 2006 interview Rev. Robertson did with Mr. McDonnell on the 700 Club. The Reverend is kvelling at his former student, now the Attorney General of the Commonwealth. And toward the end of the interview, Robertson tries, but cannot fully suppress his Cheshire Cat grin as he asks McDonnell about “other opportunities down the road,” presumably the Gubernatorial election and beyond.

So, you would think that Mr. McDonnell's candidacy would generate some financial support from the Reverend. Certainly, when Mr. McDonnell ran for Attorney General, Rev. Robertson gave him $66K, making him the single largest individual donor to the McDonnell campaign.

So, how much has Rev. Robertson donated to Mr. McDonnell for this race - to be governor? Would you believe only $10K? And that was last year. So far, in 2009, Rev. Robertson has not contributed one red cent to Mr. McDonnell.

In comparison, in the last three Gubernatorial elections, Rev. Robertson donated as follows:

-- $47.5K to Kilgore
-- $60K to Earley
-- $50K to Gilmore

But somehow, the candidate to which he is closest rates $10K? And nothing in the actual year of the election?

I can only speculate, but if I didn’t know better, I’d suspect the Rev. Robertson is intentionally laying low, fearful that his name showing up near the top of the VPAP donation would almost certainly generate news...

And that might generate questions…

About the extent to which Mr. McDonnell has been influenced and believes in Regent's mission...

And that might lead to some difficult answers...

And those answers might make many Virginians who believe in the separation of Church and State very uncomfortable with the thought of Governor McDonnell.

Meet Bob "Dubya" McDonnell: Will we get fooled again?

2009-08-23T21:33:00.006-04:00

Bob McDonnell’s love of George W. Bush’s economic policies is not the only thing Bob has in common with our 43rd president, perhaps the worst in our history.

In fact, if Bob McDonnell is elected governor, odds are he will do for Virginia what Dubya did for the United States. So, I guess, if you liked George W. Bush, you will probably love Bob McDonnell.

As for me and all other sentient Virginians, however, it scares the Bejesus out of us.

In 2000, when Bush ran for president, one of his problems was his past record. Oh, his years as a drunk could be excused easily enough by his religious conversion, but his ham-fisted, frat-boy worldview and his lifetime record of business failure at everything he attempted bespoke an uncurious and uncaring mind, a lack of judgment and poor leadership skills. These qualities would come back to haunt us.

Bush may have fancied himself a businessman and entrepreneur, and indeed, he was somewhat successful at creating this image of himself in the media, but the truth of the matter was that he was a serial failure in business. He was able to make millions anyway thanks to his family’s connections – after all, when your Dad is a former head of the CIA and a President of the United States, there are plenty of people vying for the opportunity to bail you out.

Similarly, Bush sought to portray himself as a successful governor of Texas with a reputation for reaching across the aisle and forging bipartisan solutions. The truth, however, was that the governor of Texas is a weak post, and Bush did nothing of consequence in his time in office beyond public relations.

As it turned out, George Bush’s past record was a harbinger for our future, from his failure to pay attention to a memo entitled “Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S.,” to the sheer incompetence of his response to Hurricane Katrina, to economic policies so steeped in a discredited ideology that they nearly plunged us into another Great Depression. All of this was easily foreseen from Bush’s record. And it is not as if this record was hidden; the mainstream media reported it all, even if they did not embrace it as a theme for their campaign coverage.

The reason is that Bush ran a brilliant campaign in 2000 that showed an uncanny knack for manipulating media coverage to his benefit.

Times were good. After eight years of good management under Bill Clinton, the country was doing well, and it was hard for people to envision how a President could screw it up so royally. Clinton, in his way, made it look relatively easy to be a competent president, even if you disagreed with his policies. So, the Bush campaign asked us, “Who would you rather drink a beer with, me or Gore,” as if that was a rationale criteria for choosing a president, and we never focused on the fact that being President is a really hard job that requires a lot skills – skills Dubya lacked.

There were two reasons for this state of affairs. First, The Bush campaign did an excellent job of keeping the focus during the 2000 campaign on the political process rather than substance. Was Al Gore telling another white lie? Was he changing the color of his clothes? Are the Clintons against him? Was his kiss with Tipper at the convention in poor taste? And on and on.

Second, for a variety of reasons the MSM far preferred writing stories about these process issues rather than do serious and more difficult reporting, reporting that admittedly may have been arguably less appealing to readers generally, but without question more useful to informing voters. (If you have time and want to take a fascinating look at the press’s performance in this election, go check out the incomparable archives, circa 1999-2000, of legendary web site The Daily Howler.)

In 2009 in Virginia, Bob seems to have the very same problem that Dubya had in 2000, nationally. He has a record as a legislator – anti-choice, anti-public education, obstructing efforts to create jobs, anti-worker, anti-Southside, and gay – that were it fully understood and evaluate would be troubling to Virginia’s growing purple population.

That is why Bob is working very hard to obfuscate his record in this election. So far, so good -- for him, at least. The press has not shown an inclination to really probe into Bob’s record and let voters know what that record may say about what kind of governor Bob McDonnell might make.

And like George W. Bush, McDonnell has (so far) successfully sought to keep the campaign's focus firmly on process, not the issues. For example, when Creigh raised the issue of Bob’s record on choice, the MSM covered is mainly as a process story, evaluating it as a campaign tactic, rather than getting to the substance of the charge that Bob's rhetoric was at odds with his record. The MSM didn't even flinch when Bob simply refused to discuss it, because as a matter of process, it was a brilliant strategy. And when McDonnell falsely charges that Creigh promised not to bring up social issues in the campaign, well, yee-ha, we got us another process story!

Faced with a record of hostility toward gay Virginians and a consistent record of supporting discrimination again gay people throughout society, Bob simply says, “I won’t discriminate.” Oh, all right then -- a good tactical move, even if it is totally inconsistent with his entire career.

Creigh made a major speech this past week defining the differences between himself and Bob. The McDonnell campaign falsely alleged it was just another is a series of restarts, when everyone knew that the real campaign has not even begun yet – that will happen on Labor Day. And, of course, the MSM was only too willing to cover the speech as a process story, reporting on, but eschewing any serious discussion of the issues Creigh’s speech raised. Rather, we got a process story about Creigh and NoVA, right out the McDonnell/Bush playbook.

The story is the same on virtually every substantive area. On transportation, Bob proposes a funding plan so absurd it is difficult to think someone as smart as him actually believes it. But, he sure expects us to buy into it. On education, Bob has been singularly uninterested in public education his entire public career, but somehow expects us to believe it will be a priority for him if elected governor. Anyone who has looked at Bob’s record, however, knows this is just so much hooey.

It goes on and on.

And to be fair, it is not just the MSM. Certainly, conservative bloggers, sadly reduced to vehicles for reprinting Bob and the RPV’s inane talking points rather than providing any kind of interesting, thoughtful discussion, have been completely focused on process. And even on the Progressive side of the blogosphere, several very popular bloggers have been focused on criticising Creigh’s campaign strategy, staff shake-ups and other process-related issues.

But here is the cold, hard truth.

Records matter. More than the rhetoric candidates utter in the crucible of an election, records are much better indicators of what a politician may do once they get into office than anything else, particularly campaign rhetoric.

Bob can try to run from his extreme Conservative record and from his clear focus on narrow, ideologically driven responses to critical issues in the Commonwealth. He may even succeed as a candidate.

But the fact is that Bob’s record is a much more accurate indicator of the kind of Governor he will be, and that is why it is important that he be forced to respond to questions raised on social issues; questions raised on his non-existent record on supporting public education; questions raised on his drill, baby, drill certitude on off-shore drilling even though the science is unclear; and questions raised by his clear ideologically-driven record on the economy, for example, his position rejecting federal funds to help the Commonwealth’s less fortunate families who, thanks to this Bush recession have found themselves unemployed and in dire economic straits.

In other words, nothing in Bob's record even remotely suggests that he will follow through on his much of his rhetoric this campaign, which includes exactly the kind of government intervention and aid against which McDonnell has preached his entire life.

One way or another, voters need to see and comprehend Bob’s record, or we could be seeing the Third Bush Term in Virginia for the next four years.

I can only quote, ironically enough, former President Bush’s own words of warning: “Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, and, uh, we won’t get fooled again.”

No retreat, baby, no surrender

2009-08-20T19:38:00.001-04:00

Creigh’s speech tomorrow at GMU will be an opportunity for him to lay out the themes for the 2009 Gubernatorial race. Creigh will be talking about, in a personal way, how his life has forged his values and worldview, and how that will inform the manner in which he governs. And from there, he will draw the stark distinctions between a Virginia led by him and one led by Bob McDonnell.

But in the end, really, for this speech to be effective, it can’t be about Creigh, or about Bob McDonnell. In the end, it has to be about us, and about what kind of Commonwealth we will be living for the next four years and beyond.

I, for one, think it is worth paying attention.

I’m weary of hearing that Virginian Democrats are tired and complacent. Maybe, after a tough primary, Creigh wasn’t your first choice for our candidate and you’re not enthused. But for good or bad, this election is upon us, and it is time, IMHO, for all of us to get our heads in the game.

Here is what Creigh will be talking about tomorrow, and what is at stake for all of us in November:

1. On jobs and the economy, do we want to move Virginia forward in an environment of economic justice and equal opportunity for all, or to we want to return to the failed economics of George Bush – the economic policies that time and again Bob McDonnell has extolled as his model. What did those policies bring us? Home foreclosures, bankruptcies, unemployment and fear. Sure, the rich folks did fine under George Bush, and the wealthy will do fine with Bob McDonnell as Governor. As for the rest of us…

2. On education, what are the records of each of these candidates? Creigh has been a defender of public education his entire career. His grandparents were teachers. What of Bob McDonnell? His record in the General Assembly has been one of taking resources away from public schools. Even now, Bob McDonnell wants to take money away from schools to fund his transportation plan. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

3. Bob McDonnell says social issues don’t matter. As for the real Bob McDonnell, the one who throughout his public career has been hostile to a woman’s right to choose, the one who has sought to defend discrimination against gay people, the one who has opposed stem cell research that could cure diseases like juvenile diabetes, well, as for that Bob McDonnell, like the projected image of the Great and Wonderful Oz, that Bob McDonnell urges us to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. That man is the real Bob McDonnell, and we need to pay close attention.

The speech will be webcast at www.deedsforvirginia.com.

McDonnell's Money Deserves Closer Look

2009-08-19T20:56:00.006-04:00

Is Bob McDonnell for sale?

Between 2007 and 2009, a Houston, Tex. couple, Bob and Doylene Perry, contributed $55,000 to Mr. McDonnell’s campaign.

Bob Perry, it turns out, was the largest contributor to the oxy-moronically named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth back in the day. This has been extensively reported in the Virginia blogosphere.

If all Mr. and Mrs. Perry were involved in were the spreading of vicious smears against decent, patriotic Americans on behalf of GOP candidates, I wouldn’t bat an eye. Such tactics have become de rigueur in the Republican playbook these days.

Of more concern to me was an alarm raised in March about the Perrys from the blog “Clearly New Mexico,” a project of the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Civic Action based in Albuquerque, about the Perrys donating money to politicians in the Land of Enchantment. Here is what the blog had to say:

New Mexico was one of only five states in the nation with no caps whatsoever. Texas is another. [aznew – as is Virginia].

Perhaps that’s why Bob Perry, the multi-millionaire Houston homebuilder, and his wife Doylene Perry have found New Mexico politics so hospitable. In 2008, Bob wrote campaign checks to the New Mexico Republican Party totaling $240,000. In the 2006 cycle, the Bob and Doylene dropped a total of $361,000 into the state.
In 2002, Perry gave NM Republican gubernatorial candidate John Sanchez a cool $250,000.

So what ever does Perry expect to get in return for all of this generosity? Good government?

Well, no, good government was not the right answer. In explaining, Clearly New Mexico cites this March 28 story from NPR:

Bob and Jane Cull bought the home of their dreams in Texas. It was built by one of the most powerful and politically connected homebuilders in the country (Perry) — and it was defective. Thus began a 13-year odyssey that would teach them some unhappy lessons about money, power and influence…

The Culls’ new home was undergoing “foundation heave.” The clay soil underneath was expanding and contracting like a sponge as it got wet and dried out. The edges of the foundation began lifting, and the wooden frame began to bow under the stress.

… Since 2006, Bob Perry has contributed more than $21 million to political candidates and judges — including the nine Republican justices who make up the Texas Supreme Court.

“They all took money,” [said the research director of Texans for Public Justice]. “Not a single member of that court should have sat and heard a case involving Bob Perry Homes.”

Six years after winning in arbitration, the Culls’ $800,000 award was thrown out. In a 5-4 decision, the Court disallowed arbitration and sent the case back to the courts.

Read the entire tale of how Perry’s political clout, bought and paid for, screwed the Culls here.

Also, read here about how the Perry’s money helped buy a favorable regulatory environment for homebuilders in Texas. According to Texans For Public Justice:

Out of 181 legislators, there are only six who don't take money from the Texas Association of Builders. So when the homebuilders come to Austin to lobby, the most powerful politicians in the state pay their respects.

After a welcome message from the governor, the rallying homebuilders fanned out to the offices of every legislator, bearing small gifts and a message: Save the Texas Residential Construction Commission.

[A]n even bigger problem with the [Texas Residential Construction Commission] is that the agency has no ability to discipline bad or even criminal builders. In Texas, there is no state licensing of builders, and builders of new homes are not required by law to disclose known defects, unlike sellers of existing homes.

Even if a builder is repeatedly negligent and deceptive, there's little the state can do about it. In five years of existence, the Texas Residential Construction Commission has revoked just one builder's registration. Archer says when it comes to protecting buyers of new homes, the Lone Star State is not exactly leading the pack.

"I would say we're dead last," he says. "I don't believe there's any state in the country where the homeowner is up against more obstacles and more impossible tasks in terms of getting relief than they face here in Texas."

So, what is this Texas builder up to in Virginia with his fifty large? Is he just an ideologue willing to spend a lot of money to elect Republicans in states far away from his home, or is this a down payment so that, once the recession lifts and he sees an opportunity in Virginia’s home-building industry, he will have friends in Richmond, much as he did in Austin? In all honesty, who knows? But his history and reputation are troubling.

Do we need or want to run this risk in the Virginia? Why would Bob McDonnell let a Texans millionaire with a history of buying favorable treatment from state regulators and judges come into our beautiful Commonwealth? So that he can rip us off with his political connections and shoddy workmanship?

Look, to tell the truth, I don’t for a minute believe that Bob McDonnell wants that. As deceptive as I think his campaign has been, and despite my profound differences with him on social and other issues, I do not think that he is a dishonest person at heart or quite that evil.

Still, this is an issue that, first, it goes to Mr. McDonnell's judgment, and second, shows that while Mr. McDonnell works hard to pass himself off as a moderate to Virginia’s independent electorate, the far right wing of the Republican Party aren’t paying attention to the smoke Mr. McDonnell is blowing in our direction. They now just how Conservative he really is.

The fact is that McDonnell took Perry’s money, and it is fair to ask why he did so. It is also fair to ask whether, in light of Perry’s history, what favors he believes he can expect down the road from a McDonnell administration.

It remains to be seen whether there is a questionable pattern in Mr. McDonnell’s contributions. I would only note for now that about half of Mr. McDonnell’s total contributions come from outside of Virginia, and over the past two years, 44 different individuals or small businesses have donated more that $20,000 to Mr. McDonnell’s gubernatorial campaign. Most of these donations seem fine, but some come from places like Tarrytown, NY, New York City, and Boca Raton, FL, and I wonder what they want?

McDonnell's Online Defenders Show Their Contempt For Voters

2009-08-18T16:47:00.005-04:00

The reaction of Bob McDonnell and his supporters to questions about Bob McDonnell’s position and record on the right to choose is quite telling. They have tried everything – avoidance, indifference, dissembling, attacking Creigh, -- everything that is except Mr. McDonnell coming clean on the issue. The reason why – that the very conservative Mr. McDonnell is trying to present himself to the electorate as a moderate – is self-evident.

That politics, of course, and it is par for the course.

But a post earlier today at Bearing Drift by JR Hoeft was a particularly odious effort to turn the issue back on Creigh.

Citing an answer Creigh gave to a question during an interview in Hampton recently, Mr. Hoeft wrote:

Creigh Deeds was recently speaking at a church radio talk show in Hampton Roads and had the opportunity to discuss abortion.

His statement on abortion is appalling…claiming that he’s “never been so poor or so desperate” to think about abortion as an option.

Does this mean the only people who should contemplate abortion are the poor and desperate? If that’s the case, should there be a litmus test on income before abortions are performed? What’s the desperation test?

The only thing that is appalling is Mr. Hoeft’s distortion of Creigh’s remarks.

Here is the text of what Creigh said:

Abortion is not an easy thing to talk about. My wife and I have been party to four wonderful pregnancies. We have four children that we love very much and that love us. And it [abortion] is a very difficult thing to think about, but frankly, from my perspective I’ve never been so poor or so desperate, that I would think about abortion.

First, blogger Vivian Paige, who enjoys an impeccable reputation among Progressives and Conservatives alike, was present for the remarks, and she states that Mr. Hoeft took Creigh’s remarks “out of context.”

So far, I’ve been unable to locate the full discussion or a transcript.

But you don’t need that to see what Mr. Hoeft has done. Creigh was clearly discussing his own experience in a serious and honest manner, and in trying to imagine how he and his wife might have personally faced the decision, he considers circumstances under which he would have been so poor or so desperate to consider abortion as an alternative.

Look how he starts: “Abortion is not an easy thing to talk about.” No, it is not. Later, he reiterates that abortion is “a very difficult thing to think about.”

What is particularly sickening about Mr. Hoeft’s actions is that Creigh attempted to discuss a difficult legal, moral and ethical issue like an adult, with sensitivity, introspection and reflection, and rather than treat his comments accordingly, Mr. Hoeft chooses to twist them into a monstrous distortion to launch an unwarranted political attack.

Not only is this offensive, I wonder whether it gives away the McDonnell game plan. Mr. Hoeft is a well-known blogger in conservative circles. His response to a serious discussion of abortion was basically to tell the voters of Virginia “Fuck you. Before we will seriously discuss the legal, moral, ethical and spiritual issues around the right to choose, we will say anything, distort any words and lie to try to turn the tables on Creigh.”

This is exactly the problem. The right to choose is an important and serious civil liberties issue. It is certainly a serious matter on an emotional level for many women who choose to have an abortion rather than see a fetus to term. It deserves serious discussion.

Mr. Hoeft is apparently incapable of this, and so meaningful debate with him on the issue is not possible. If you doubt this, consider the title Mr. Hoeft gave his post on facebook: “Deeds supports abortion as eugenics?” Disgusting.

The really sad part is that this not only shows contempt for the voters of Virginia, pro-choice and pro-life in varying degrees, it also shows contempt for many good people who, on the pro-life side like Bob McDonnell, hold strong and heartfelt opinions on this difficult issue. I don’t agree with Mr. McDonnell on this issue, but like him I am a religious person, and I respect his views and the spiritual basis for them. Unfortunately, Mr. McDonnell’s supporters, apparently, do not.

Are You Ready For The Country?

2009-08-16T13:09:00.004-04:00

Two weeks ago, a vigorous debate erupted in the Progressive blogosphere in Virginia over Creigh Deeds’ rural strategy. The debate was never resolved, but petered out as the campaign and bloggers involved in it moved on to other issues.

The debate began Aug. 2, when Miles Grant, in a post entitled “Deeds Doubles Down on Rural Roots,” slammed the “Deeds Country” tour, appearing to argue that Creigh needed to spend all his time nailing down his Democratic base in Virginia’s urban, suburban and exurban areas, and not mess around for 10 days in Southside and Southwest Virginia. In Miles’ view, Creigh needed to spend all his time trying to get a dispirited base more excited.

There was polling to support this view. More specifically, PPP polls and SUSA polls, showing Bob McDonnell with a double-digit lead over Creigh, described an enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats that was evident in each polls composition of likely votes, both skewed heavily toward the GOP. (Even as I write this, a new Washington Post poll ominously suggests Creigh has a great deal of work to do to nail down his base). Further, as the news of the disruption of town halls across the nation rode the crest of the cable news wave, Conservatives took heart that if they couldn’t win elections, at least they could temporarily shout down the opposition. Woohoo!

Meanwhile, Creigh’s campaign seemed off the rails. It wasn’t clear who was in charge, the candidate was mostly invisible, bloggers were being shunted aside and there was no clear message. And now that the post-primary unity love-fest had a chance to wane, some Progressive bloggers began to give voice to the fact that Creigh was significantly more moderate than many of them; they were anti-McDonnell, for sure, and would obviously vote for Creigh, but enthusiasm among this particular group of activists for Creigh was not high.

It was into this environment that the Deeds Country video and tour rode. Not only did the tactic fail to address any of the problems described, above, in the context of all these issues it seemed like a political non sequitur. The homespun video added to the concern. Was Deeds Country a sincere and effective entreaty to rural voters, or simply laughable campaign kitsch, poorly-timed and off the mark that confirmed the Deeds camp was in disarray?

To be sure, this was an instance where the mocking commentary of NotLarrySabato captured the zeitgeist perfectly, at least among NoVA bloggers, with the classic tweet, "Can someone please tell @CreighDeeds he is running for Governor of an urban/suburban state- not Sheriff of Mayberry."

Other bloggers, especially those from the rural parts of the state, took issue with the criticism, arguing that the tour was necessary and a success. Their message was clear: not everything revolves around Northern Virginia.

As for me, I really wasn’t sure what to think.

At that point, Lowell at Blue Virginia weighed in with an analysis that looked at the strategy of going after the rural vote, as opposed to the specific tactic of Deeds Country, as Miles had done. Lowell noted that both Kaine and Webb won their races by focusing on the “Urban Crescent,” that swath of the state beginning in the exurbs of Loudoun County and curving down the 95 corridor to Richmond, as opposed to Southside and Southwest Virginia.

Lowell also noted that Mark Warner used a rural-centric strategy effectively in 2001, so it was a viable path to a Democratic victory.

In the end, however, Lowell concluded:

Perhaps Mark Warner is sui generis in Virginia politics, and perhaps it had to do with money (Warner outspent Earley more than 2:1 in the general election), but it's nonetheless impressive for a guy from Alexandria City.

This year, we've got a candidate from western/rural Virginia, which means he should have a natural competitive advantage in that part of Virginia. If not, he's probably toast anyway. If so, then what Deeds has got to do is focus his efforts heavily on the "urban crescent" strategy that worked for Jim Webb, Tim Kaine, and to an extent Mark Warner (we haven't even discussed Barack Obama, who won huge in the "urban crescent"). In short, that means a Deeds campaign focus on: a) African Americans; b) NOVA; and c) Hampton Roads (not necessarily in that order). If Deeds can hold his own in rural Virginia and rack up large margins in the "urban crescent," he wins big.

Well, with the two most widely read websites in the Virginia blogosphere leveling such pointed critiques at the Deeds’ campaign, it wasn’t long before the story found its way into the mainstream media. On Aug. 6, the Washington Post wrote about it. The debate over tactics and strategy even drew the following comment from Creigh himself: "There are some bloggers who think that because I'm from rural Virginia, I can take for granted some bloc of Virginians. Does that mean that Northern Virginia is any less important? Absolutely not. That's where the election will be won or lost."

In the meantime, I interviewed Creigh as he kicked off Deeds Country (the timing was sort of coincidental). I asked him whether he thought it would be a base election or a fight for independents, and if the latter, where those voters would come from. He answered:

I don’t know if I think about it that way. You’ve got to drive your base out, but it’s going to be decided by independents. If we drive out the Democratic base, we’re still going to need a few votes.

[snip]

A lot of them are in rural Virginia. A lot of them are the voters we want to reach out too [with the Deeds Country tour]. But there are independent voters all over the place.

Data suggests that, as Creigh said, a lot of those independent voters are, in fact, located in the rural areas -- areas that are generally GOP strong holds. Based on a review of historical voting numbers, I would describe these voters as not beholden to any particular political ideology – they tend to be “live-and-let-live” types of folks – but voters who are looking for a rural, traditional, religiously focused cultural sensibility with which they are comfortable. See Steve Jarding and Mudcat Saunders “Foxes in the Henhouse”.

These historical voting patterns suggest that the Democratic candidate that can speak to these voters has the reasonable potential to win roughly three times as many extra votes in the Commonwealth’s rural Republican stronghold districts (compared to the average performance of Democrats in those areas) as he does in the Democratic strongholds.

In other words, Creigh has more to gain from minimizing traditional Democratic weakness in rural areas than he does from maximizing traditional Democratic strength in urban and suburban ones.

To show why, I looked at the past five, competitive, non-federal elections for statewide office in 2001 and 2005 (I excluded the 2001 AG election as a total outlier). Democrats, of course, won three of those elections (2001 Gov., 2001 LG, 2005 Gov.) and lost two (2005 LG, 2005 AG), with one loss (2005 AG) effectively being a tie.

To evaluate the potential effect of Democratic strength in the Democratic stronghold districts roughly comprising the “Urban Crescent” -- the 3rd, 8th and 11th – I looked at the margin of victory in each race, and then calculated that number as a percentage of total votes cast in each race(TVC).

- 2001 Gov. – Warner: + 118,000 (26 % of TVC)
- 2001 Lt. Gov. – Kaine: + 112,000 (25 % of TVC)
- 2005 Gov. – Kaine: +162,000 (33 % of TVC)
- 2005 Lt. Gov – Byrne: + 136,000 (27 % of TVC)
- 2005 AG – Deeds: +123,000 (25 % of TVC)

The average of all five races was 27.2%, with a standard deviation of 3.4, suggesting that Creigh’s margin of victory in the 3rd, 8th and 11th will arguably range from 23.9% to 30.5%.

I followed the same procedure to evaluate the potential of Democratic strength in the top Republican strongholds, looking at Democratic margins of losses in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th
For the same elections:

- 2001 Gov. – Warner: -11,000 (1.5% of TVC)
- 2001 Lt. Gov. – Kaine: -31,000 (4.5% of TVC)
- 2005 Gov. – Kaine: -49,000 (6.5 % of TVC)
- 2005 Lt. Gov – Byrne: -105,000 (14% of TVC)
- 2005 AG – Deeds: -67,000 (8.9 % of TVC)

The average loss was 7.08% of TVC, with a standard deviation of 4.7%, suggesting a range of Democratic losses here as ranging from 2.4% to 11.8% of TVC.

It is clear from these numbers that Democrats obviously have much greater potential to pick up or, obviously, lose more votes in the GOP Districts, where there is relatively wide fluctuation in Democratic candidate performance, than in the Democratic districts, where the data suggests Democrats consistently perform near the apogee of what is reasonably possible.

To quantify this, take a look at how Creigh might fare in 2009, using 2005 turnout numbers, if he followed a Rural-centric or “Urban Crescent-centric” strategy, and applying the potential ranges of margins of victory and of loss, respectively, in both Democratic and Republican strong holds:

The Urban Crescent Strategy

Margin of Victory in Dem Districts (assuming best performance w/in Std Dev): 155,000
Margin of loss in GOP Districts (assuming average performance): 55,000
Differential: Creigh + 100,000
Benefit to Creigh vs. Average: 24,000

The Rural strategy

Margin of victory in Dem Districts (assuming average performance): 138,000
Margin of loss in GOP Districts (assuming best performance w/in Std Dev): 18,200
Differential: Creigh + 119,800
Benefit to Creigh vs. Average: 43,800

Thus, roughly the potential to pick up 20,000 more votes.

This analysis, however, addresses only the quantitative issue, i.e., whether this strategy makes sense given the potential reward. It does not address the issue of whether, under the particular circumstances of this campaign, it is a good strategy to follow. That requires consideration of at least four, undoubtedly more, significant qualitative factors, i.e., considerations that evaluate the possibility of Creigh reaching the greatest beneficial potential.

First is the issue of the effect of Creigh’s base in rural areas. Lowell assumes that because Creigh is from a rural area, by virtue of geography alone Creigh will already get sufficient votes in rural Virginia, more than is typical for a Democrat. “This year, we've got a candidate from western/rural Virginia, which means he should have a natural competitive advantage in that part of Virginia,” Lowell wrote. “If not, he's probably toast anyway.”

This argument, however, clearly suggests Creigh should make an aggressive pitch for rural votes, not sit back. Creigh may have competitive advantages in rural areas, as Lowell states, but those advantages will come only into play if he actually competes for the votes. To me, that is one of the major lessons of the Warner campaign. If you want the votes, ask for them.

Which brings me to the second qualitative factor, namely, whether Creigh is a Democrat who can connect with these rural voters, or whether Mark Warner is, as Lowell put it, sui generis?

Again, Warner is the exception that proves the rule. Warner might very well be sui generis in terms of an urban politician, but here is where Creigh’s rural roots come into play. Warner, of course, required Mudcat Saunders to help him connect with rural voters; Creigh is the real deal. If he can do it, then no Democrat can. But like Warner, because he is a Democrat he will have to work for it. He can’t take it for granted just because he from a rural area.

Third, does Creigh risk anything by not focusing solely on the Urban Crescent? The answer is no. The numbers show a relatively tight range of potential returns in that area, as the data suggests that even a poor performance by Creigh in the Dem strong holds would leave him with a margin of 24%, or 9,000 votes fewer that he could expect on average. Thus, a strong performance in rural areas still leaves him ahead of the game.

Fourth is the great unknown of turnout, specifically turnout by the Obama voter. Hundreds of thousands of voters registered last year; were they strictly Obama voters, or have they become engaged in Virginia's political process to the extent that the state races have captured their attention? That is unknown right now.

One last matter: asserting that going after the rural vote is a worthwhile strategy is not a judgment on whether Deeds Country was an effective tactic in pursuit of this strategy. This piece is already too long for me to consider that.

But I will say, for any rural strategy to be effective, it needs to connect on some visceral level with all Democrats around the state,, rural, urban and suburban at the same time. You can’t say one thing in Danville and another in Falls Church; you can be an “aw shucks yokel” in bath, and a smart, sophisticated lawyer in Fairfax. But this can be achieved by intelligently discussing the issues that are common to all Democrats – economic and social justice, a clean environment, education available to all, and fairness in the allocation of burdens among all people for raising resources to improve our Commonwealth, from the perspective of how Creigh’s rural and traditional roots informs his thinking on these issues.

McDonnell wants it both ways in flag flap

2009-08-13T21:08:00.004-04:00

The flap over the Confederate flag displayed in, but not a part of, a Bob McDonnell campaign booth at a gun show captures the disingenuous, two-faced campaign that Mr. McDonnell has been successfully running up to now.

First, a recap of the action:

On Aug. 10, NLS published a picture that appeared to show the flag being displayed at a McDonnell booth at a gun show in Richmond. Turns out, however, that NLS had it wrong; the flag belonged to the booth next to McDonnell’s, which sold, among other things, Confederate-themed t-shirts.

Popular Conservative blog Bearing Drift, took Ben Tribbet to task for publishing the story, under the headline, “What We’ve Come To Expect From Virginia’s Biggest Democratic Bloggers.” Bearing Drift’s argument, from someone named Jason Kenney, in essence was that the NLS story was completely false, and NLS's publishing of the story is evidence of Ben's moral unfitness to blog.

I say, before jumping to conclusions, look at the photograph, for goodness sakes.

It is beyond reasonable dispute that the flag is clearly positioned on the border between the two booths.

Was that just kismet?

Well, Mr. Kenney can believe what he wishes about stage photographs, but that seemed like too innocent an explanation for a cynic like me. Indeed, an anonymous comment posted on NLS from someone alleging to be a Conservative and an eyewitness addresses this issue in what seems to me to be a convincing manner (but it is anonymous, so assign whatever credibility you wish to it):

The flag is not owned by the Sportsman for McDonnell group, it is owned by the confederate group to their left. However, I also had the same reaction when I saw the flag right next to the Sportsman for McDonnell table and approached those working it to inquire. They were not concerned, and told me they had requested the confederate guys place the flag there so it would be a part of both booths. That's probably why Tucker Martin is in the Washington Post saying he spoke to their volunteers instead of letting them speak directly to the reporters. One of the McDonnell volunteers even had a flag t-shirt on with the "Heritage Not Hate" slogan on it.

So not the McDonnell flag, but also not the non-story my conservative blog friends are trying to make it out to be, probably in an attempt to keep reporters from talking to these McDonnell rednecks who were working the booth.

Here is what strikes me about this whole sordid story, if this post is true. It is yet another example of Mr. McDonnell trying to have it both ways in this campaign. On the one hand, at the gun show, his campaign perhaps wanted to associate itself with the Confederate flag, a powerful symbol. Then, busted by a photograph in which the symbolism of the flag might be misunderstood in a negative light, the McDonnell simply denies ... reality. (For the record, I don’t care about the flag being in or near the McDonnell booth. Bob McDonnell is a lot of things, but he is no racist, and symbols like the Confederate flag need to be viewed in context).

Hmmm? Where have I seen this double-dealing behavior before? Oh right, from Bob McDonnell. This is a candidate, after all, who favors criminalizing abortion in virtually all circumstances, and who has introduced literally dozens of bills in the General Assembly seeking to limit a woman’s right to choose, but who claims to be a moderate searching for common ground on the abortion question. This is a candidate with a long history of discrimination and hostility against gay people who tells us, if we elect him governor, he won’t discriminate. This is a candidate with a long record of blocking economic development proposals put forth by our last two governors who now says he is all about jobs.

If Mr. Kenney wants to castigate NLS, Lowell Feld, Creigh Deeds and every other Democrat in the state for sins real or imagined in connection with this flag, he ought to at least have the intellectual decency to observe that Mr. McDonnell has not come totally clean on this matter either.

I'm not holding my breath. Unfortunately for Mr. McDonnell, this sort of lack of candor has been par for the course in this campaign, and his supporters accept it without question.

It's what he's done the last 17 years

2009-08-13T14:13:00.002-04:00

This gets it exactly right.

It's not what Bob McDonnell has said the last 17 days, it's what he has done the last 17 years.

Go Creigh!

Why the Abortion Issue is Freaking Out McDonnell and His Minions

2009-08-10T17:34:00.012-04:00

Why are Bob McDonnell and Virginia conservatives afraid to discuss social issues like choice and discrimination against gay people?

If you doubt that they are afraid, look no further than the ferocity of the response on the righty blogs to Creigh Deeds' raising of the issue. Their response was not to defend Mr. McDonnell’s positions, but rather to seek to squelch the debate before it could even begin by arguing, among other things, and quite ridiculously in my opinion, that Creigh agreed not to raise these issues in the campaign. Here is VA Blogger at Too Conservative:

In just two short weeks, Creigh Deeds finds himself pitted against himself from two weeks ago: During the Virginia Bar Association debate, both candidates agreed that social issues took a back seat this election[.]

Uh, that was more an observation by the candidates of how the campaign might unfold. It certainly was no a promise not to raise an issue that “pits” Creigh against himself. Well, nevermind.

Several conservative blogs have also offered their opinion that raising social issues is a poor strategy that will not work, to which I can only thank them for their genuine concern. VA Blogger, again:

The rub here is that abortion is a divisive issue, which staunch advocates on both sides. But while Deeds can certainly play up a contrast with McDonnell on this issue—something he hasn’t been able to do on more substantive issues by saying “me too!”—that doesn’t mean people will care about it when voting for Governor.

But VA Blogger makes it clear that it is not a good issue for McDonnell to discuss, adding:

McDonnell would do himself well to avoid this desperate wedge issue and keep leading on jobs and the economy, on transportation, on energy, on quality of life issues, and on the issues that matter to and affect everyone.

I could only shake my head at that one. Apparently, the right to control one’s own health care is not a quality of life issue for VA Blogger. And what does the phrase “issues that matter to and affect everyone” mean? Is there such an issue?

At Bearing Drift, Shaun Kenney, in additiion to explaining once again why the tactic would not work, even more hilariously resorted to the unusual tactic of complimenting Lowell Feld in an effort, perhaps, to distract Progressives away from this argument:

Convincing women that McDonnell is somehow out of the mainstream on abortion is like one horse bucking a national freight train. Gallup polls are showing Americans to be majority pro-life for the first time in the history of modern polling.
Deeds will perceptibly fail at this effort as well. … Deeds can do one of three things at this point … 3. Get the Democratic blogosphere re-engaged. Let’s face it — where is Lowell Feld in this campaign? Blue Virginia (and he has to know this on some level) is a terrible platform for Lowell.

Signifcantly, Shaun's assertion about the recent Gallup poll might be factually correct, but it is nonetheless misleading, and neatly demonstrates why this issue concerns McDonnell and his minions so. The portion of the poll Shaun cites relates to a question asking people what they considered themselves to be, and by one point, 47-46, people said they were “pro-life.”

More revealing in that very same poll, however, is that only 18% of respondents held the same position as Mr. McDonnell on the issue of choice, namely, that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

In contrast, 77% of the respondents in the poll held the pro-choice positions, i.e., that abortion should be legal in all circumstances (21%), or legal under only certain circumstances (57%). This is Creigh’s position.

But there is another, more fundamental fear that Mr. McDonnell has of social issues, and that is that these issues might reveal the real Bob McDonnell to the voters. That real Bob McDonnell is an extremist who would seek to impose, with the force of law, his social and religious moral beliefs on all of us.

When Bob McDonnell says all abortions should be criminalized, there is no space for tolerance of other views. When Bob McDonnell would deny someone a judgeship because he believes she is gay, or writes legal opinions justifying discrimination against gay people, he was using his power – power granted to him by the citizens of Virginia – to discriminate.

Mr. McDonnell knows that Virginians will not support this kind of nonsense, so he worked hard in this campaign –successfully, so far, I might add -- to falsely paint himself as a moderate.

There are several factors that have allowed him to get away with this:

1. Mr. McDonnell is a likable candidate with a good sense of humor. He is not a snarling, angry wingnut like Catherine Crabill, a smarmy political operative like Eric Cantor, a party apparatchik like Jeff Frederick or Pat Mullins, or a black helicopter spotter like Ken Cuccinelli. So, if Mr. McDonnell comes across as a reasonable man, it pays to look at the people connected to the RPV that are defining Conservatism in the Commonwealth. The bar is not merely set low; it’s buried a few feet into the ground.

2. Mr. McDonnell has espoused a platform in almost every area that relies on meaningless bromides and proposals with which it is hard to disagree, but they are strictly small bore solutions, and they are clearly designed more to avoid criticism than to address problems. In short, his platform doesn’t leave much to seriously critique, because it is almost utterly void of meaningful content or interesting ideas that would really make much of a difference. My personal favorite is the plan to appoint Bill Bolling "Chief Job Creation Offcier," but his platform is chock-full of expanding this, appointing that, ensuring the other thing, blah, blah blah. It's like the guy who explains how to become rich by advising you to "make a lot of money." Awful hard to argue with that advice, meaningless as it is.

3. Other parts of Mr. McDonnell’s platform are built on falsehoods that are difficult to disprove. Mr. McDonnell, for example, claims offshore drilling has been established as environmentally safe, citing a think tank in support of his ideas. Of course, it is a think tank funded by oil interests. Mr. McDonnell argues that revenues from offshore drilling would be sufficient to fund the Commonwealth’s transportation needs. But the fact is that, according to non-partisan studies, the environmental impact of offshore drilling, at best, requires more study. As for the revenues, those are simply uncertain until further testing can be completed, but unlikely to provide the riches Mr. McDonnell promises.

4. The mainstream media tend to focus on the strategic and tactical aspects of campaigns, not their substance, especially when those strategies and tactics are working. Thus, coverage of Mr. McDonnell’s efforts to keep who he really is under wraps actually draws favorable coverage, because he is effective at it, rather than provide the exposure his strategy, based as it is on misrepresentations and distortions, deserves. This isn't a criticism. I think the MSM views such critiques (with the exception of the occasional “fact check” feature) as partisan in nature and therefore a violation of their responsibility to remain "objective."

Some problems Mr. McDonnell faces from this line of attack are fairly clear. Most significantly, McDonnell's lead in the polls rests almost completely of Democrats being dispirited so far in this campaign. Pressing a hot button social issue could wake up the Democratic base, which could spell trouble for McDonnell.

The problem Mr. McDonnell faces from all this is not so much that Choice will become an outcome determinative issue in this election, however. I think the economy will continue to hold that title. But, at the end of the day, objectively evaluating the various economic solutions offered by each candidate are difficult, if not impossible, tasks for most, if not all, voters. There is too much speculation involved. Much depends on one's ideology.

But for many voters, the decision often comes down to the gut determination of, “Who do you trust?”

The social issues dispute creates at least two problems in this regard for Mr. McDonnell. First, "Moderate Bob," who is funny and wants to find areas of agreement with Democrats, who promises not to discriminate despite a record of supporting discrimination, is a much more likeable political persona than "Real Bob." Sure, there is a cadre of true believers who genuinely like "Real Bob" and his extremist views, but for most voters, the image of a self-righteous fundamentalist without tolerance for others' beliefs, a puppet whose strings are being pulled by his mentor, Pat Robertson, is not an appealing picture. If more voters come to see Mr. McDonnell in this way, his message on economic, environmental and transportation issues will surely suffer.

Second, given that Mr. McDonnell’s campaign is based on creating an entirely false image of the GOP candidate. I would suspect there is a very real fear in the McDonnell camp that if one element of his façade crumbles in public, there is a risk of the domino effect taking hold and voters ceasing to trust Mr. McDonnell on other issues, as well.

As discussed above, proving Bob McDonnell is painting a fake picture of himself when it comes to the economy, and the related issues of jobs, transportation, the environment and education, is a relatively complex undertaking. His prior record is sparse, and inconclusive. Economic bromides, by their nature, tend to involve speculations that are simply not provable one way or another. And, his ideas, because they lack substance, are tough to critique.

But proving Mr. McDonnell is pulling the wool over the eyes of the Commonwealth’s voters when it comes to social issues is more easily demonctrated, because there Mr. McDonnell has a record.

And if voters come to see how Bob McDonnell is fooling them about how extreme he is on social issues, well, folks might just ask, “What else is he trying to fool us about?”

That, friends, is not a question Bob McDonnell wants to hear.

RPV's Mullins is either a liar or a complete idiot (or possibly both)

2009-08-07T16:32:00.006-04:00

I got a strange e-mail today from Pat Mullens at the RPV. Entitled, "RPV Video: Creigh Deeds Refuses Questions At Own Campaign Event"

According to the e-mail:

Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Pat Mullins today released a new Internet video from Creigh Deeds' campaign stop at a restaurant in Tazewell County at which the Democratic candidate for governor refused to take standard questions from an audience of hand-picked supporters holding Deeds yard signs and wearing campaign stickers. This further highlights reasons Deeds has refused to agree to a full debate slate with Republican Bob McDonnell.

"The guy is clearly unnerved by being asked about the issues of the day," said Chairman Mullins. "If you can't take questions from a hand-picked audience at your own campaign event, how in the world are you going to be the leader of the Commonwealth?"

A link to the video was attached.

Well, this seemed strange. First, it didn't sound like Creigh. Perhaps, I thought, some rude teabagger had found their was to a Creigh event and the childish behavior we have been seeing at Congressional Townhalls had somehow leaked into the Virginia gubernatorial campaign.

Well, here's what it was. McDonnell's tracker was videotaping Creigh's speech, and Creigh is clearly being senstitive to the privacy rights of the folks who came out to hear him speak. Creigh offers to take questions, but gesturing to the tracker, acknoledges that the presence of a GOP camera might have a chilling effect on his audiences' willingness to do so.

Now, I have no problem with the tracker. That's politics, these days. But for Pat Mullins to somehow turn this into Creigh refusing questions is either a lie, or he s a complete idiot. (The layover of a cutsie bluegrass-sounding sounding song about being a tracker does not rescue this moronic effort as simply tongue-in-cheek harmlessness, though in that sataric spirit I rewrote the lyrics for your enjoyment -- see below).

I can't believe my Republican friends in Virginia cannot do better than this when it comes to party leadership.

The video is below. Judge for yourself. (Note - the song is kind of obnoxious. I've found that it is more tolerable if you replace the lyrics with these that I wrote):

Oh, Pat Mullins is a liar,
Yes, he has to be a liar
Mullins must be a liar
Or an idiot, oh.

He'll write you, e-mail, ask you for your vote,
But look out boys, he's a dishonest dolt.

Oh, Pat Mullins is a liar,
Yes, he has to be a liar
Mullins must be a liar
Or an idiot, oh.

Politico: McDonnell Dodges Sotomayor Question

2009-08-05T15:24:00.004-04:00

You would think after all the noise the RPV has made about whether Creigh supports initiatives like Cap and Trade and EFCA, that their own candidate would feel some obligation to answer similar questions.

Apparently not.

Politco's Ben Smith reports:

I asked the Republican 's campaign where McDonnnell stands on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin responded: "Bob McDonnell is committed to the fundamental principle that judges must follow the rule of law and not make policy. They must apply the facts of the law to a case in an objective and dispassionate manner. A judge must not substitute his or her judgment for the will of the legislature. Bob has been a strong leader for judicial appointment and reappointment reform in Virginia, in order to ensure that the best judges are appointed and retained on the bench in the Commonwealth. Obviously, he has not had time to follow all the details of the Sotomayor hearings. The United States Senate must carry out its constitutional role of determining whether to consent to the appointment of the president’s judicial nominations, based on all of the information before it.”

Which is to say he's not going to weigh in.

Just another day at the office for good 'ole Both Ways Bob.

How George W. Bush is Bob McDonnell's Role Model

2009-08-05T06:34:00.004-04:00

The Deeds campaign issued a presser yesterday in which they refer to Bob McDonnell as “Both Ways Bob.” It is the perfect appellation that captures Mr. McDonnell’s efforts to paint himself as a moderate.

Of greater import for the Commonwealth, however, is how Mr. McDonnell gets away with it. And he is getting away with it.

Yesterday’s presser concerned education, but I have documented other issues in which Mr. McDonnell has successfully cloaked himself in moderate clothing, to wit:

* Mr. McDonnell introduced more than 35 bills while in the General Assembly seeking to restrict, in one way or another, a woman’s right to choose. Now that he is running for governor, he claims all he wants is to seek common ground on the issue of choice. He doesn’t. He is ideologically, philosophically and religiously committed to ending a woman’s right to choose completely.

* As a legislator, Mr. McDonnell tried to block the reappointment of a Virginia Beach judge because she was allegedly gay. As Attorney General, he issued several opinions of questionable legal reasoning all aimed at eliminating or minimizing policies enacted to end discrimination against gay people. Now, he promises he won’t discriminate. Well, okay, we can take him at his word, but first he ought to explain why he apparently condoned discrimination in the past.

* As a legislator, Mr. McDonnell voted to cut funding for the Governor’s Opportunity Fund. Now that he is running for Governor, he says he wants to increase that funding.

* As a gubernatorial candidate, Mr. McDonnell led the fight to urge the General Assembly to refuse $125 million in federal aid to help unemployed workers, mainly to poke a thumb in the eye of President Obama. Now, Mr. McDonnell asserts in his economic plan that he will establish an Economic Stimulus Foundation to identify and secure Federal stimulus funds.

To be fair, I don't think Mr. McDonnell is a liar at heart. Actually, he seems like a decent enough fellow, even if I think some of his ideas are wrongheaded, and that sometimes his dogmatism, especially in areas of social issues, gets the better of his common sense. But on the whole, I am certain that if Mr. McDonnell could win this election by telling the truth about where he stands on issues and squaring it with he record, he not only would, he would prefer to do so.

But Mr. McDonnell knows if he did that, he would lose this election to a true moderate like Creigh.

Politicians at the extreme ends of the political spectrum, on both the left and right, have always had to play what my friend Lowell Feld calls “dog whistle politics.” The bases on which these extremists rely are essential to them, and might occasionally even be enough to win an election at a local level. But on a statewide, or obviously national, level, the trick is to moderate your positions enough to sound palatable to moderates, while still offering sufficient assurances, to your base that you have not really changed your spots typically in the form of code words or symbols that mean one thing to your base, but sound benign enough in everyday usage so as not to frighten moderates.

Mr. McDonnell plays a variation of that. While there is a dog whistle element to Mr. McDonnell’s campaign, he is doing more of a two-step that simply refuses to acknowledge his record.

Pulling this off does not require skill or guile. Indeed, truly skilled politicians, like President Bill Clinton, generally don’t need or practice dog whistle or two-step politics all that much. Rather, they are genuine coalition-builders who rely on their uncanny ability to understand the needs of people from different walks of life, and articulate to them why they will genuinely benefit from a particular policy. That’s not to say they never do it; only that it is not their usual M.O.

Paradoxically, the very skill and effectiveness of leaders like Mr. Clinton in honestly, forthrightly and thoughtfully communicating with citizens leads both his political opponents, and many in the mainstream media, to depict them as slick and untrustworthy. Their inability to detect the BS (because there is none) becomes proof that it is merely being more effectively hidden.

Successfully pulling off dog whistle and two-step politics like Mr. McDonnell has done, however, mainly requires a powerful sense of shamelessness. It requires an ability to stand up day after day and spew forth statements you know are bull, to proudly insist that, no matter what, black is white, up is down and right is left. Trying this would reduce most people to tears, or at least drive them to the solace and safety of their bedrooms to hide under the blankets. I imagine it has been especially tricky this cycle for Conservatives who have had to deal with the increasing influence of Teabaggers and Birthers within the GOP base.

A simple, yet brazen refusal to simply acknowledge obvious truths leaves most reporters scratching their heads. Reporters, of course (or, well, most of them), see and fully understand what the politician is doing, but they are powerless to stop it. First, if reporters tried to debunk all the BS coming from the practitioners of this brand of politics, they would have no time left for doing their assigned jobs of covering events. Batting back even obvious lies is a time-consuming process, sometimes requiring expertise, frequently requiring copious research, explanation and exposition.

What’s worse, even if a reporter does all that, editors often aren’t interested in the stories. The dirty truth is that most reporters and editors have disdain for their readers. They believe that their readership have short attention spans and are not interested, for the most part, in long-form journalism that focuses on issues. That is why our political coverage tends to focus on the simple and trivial. Expose the fact that Bob McDonnell’s economic plan has no substance? No way. Gus Deeds drank a beer at a frat party? Ding, Ding, Ding!

There is a reason one of the most aphoristic of all newsroom aphorisms is, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

McDonnell is good at this kind of politics, but the best I have ever seen at it was George W. Bush. He was completely unperturbed and unaffected by facts and reality (an aide once famously said in the wake of 9/11, “We create our own reality”), and for five years the media could not lay a glove on him (and yes, some fell down on the job, but many didn’t).

As a businessman, for example, Mr. Bush failed at virtually everything he tried. That he came out of these failures a financial success was due to rescues by his father. When you’re President, however, there is no safety net, and that the George W. Bush Administration would be marked by incompetence and end in economic disaster should have surprised no one who understood his record.

The event fulcrum for Mr. Bush was Katrina. When the pictures from New Orleans were juxtaposed real time with Mr. Bush’s claims that all was under control, the nation seemed to finally snap out of its daze. By then, however, it was too late to stem the tide; we were in two wars, our international reputation was in tatters, and the irreversible conditions that would inexorably drive our economy literally to the brink of ruin were already in place.

Amazingly, the same scenario seems to be playing out in Virginia. While Mr. McDonnell may present himself as a moderate, he is still an extreme Conservative. Like George W. Bush did to our country, if Mr. McDonnell is elected governor, he will leave the Commonwealth a much different, and in my view significantly less appealing, place than it is today. He is just not telling us that.

Generally, after eight years of Democratic leadership focused on providing better government service to Virginians (sometimes successfully, sometimes not), if Mr. McDonnell becomes governor, cuts in all areas of government service are in the offing. Look for the middle class to be left, for all intents and purposes, to fend for themselves on health care. Look for less funding for public education at all levels. More tax cuts favoring the wealthy? Probably. And expect further limitations on a woman’s right to choose, perhaps the most severe in the nation. Finally, as other states improve the quality of the lives for all their citizens by removing discrimination against rights of homosexuals to marry, adopt, etc., from their books, Virginia will undoubtedly remain in the dark ages on this particular civil rights issue.

Taken together, the thermadorian reaction envisioned for the Commonwealth by Mr. McDonnell is not the kind of place that will attract the highly skilled and educated work force necessary for 21st Century economic development. I think people will be surprised, but just like with George W. Bush, it is there to clearly see in Mr. McDonnell’s record.

In closing, I ask, is there any fair-minded person who doesn’t wish we had taken a harder look at George Bush’s record before elevating him to the Presidency of the United States. Perhaps he would have won anyway, but at least we would have had our eyes open.

Brad Rees Comes Clean, Finally Embraces Tea Partiers

2009-08-04T07:23:00.007-04:00

Bradley Rees has finally come clean. His campaign manager has finally admitted Rees is just another typical politician playing identity, coalition politics.

A while back, I wrote a few posts about Rees and some of the Tea Partiers more extreme rhetoric, such as calling Tom Perriello a “traitor” and “coward,” and Catherine Crabill’s call for armed revolution. I didn’t immediately ask that Rees condemn the group; rather, I merely pointed out that his (and other Republican candidates’) close association with this group carried baggage.

Here is what his campaign manager, Michael Ernette, posted on The Virginia Democrat in response:

Wow, Alan! Trying to tie campaign rhetoric to an extremist that believes that the use of arms is necessary to get what we want. Interesting chess play, but easily defendable. … I have stated before and will reiterate, Bradley Rees and his campaign do not consider Rep. perriello to be a traitor to his country. We respect and applaud those in the TEA party movement and agree with most of what they are trying to accomplish.

Well, since Michael was kind enough to state his position on my blog and offer this high-minded, ostensibly principled defense, I felt justified in asking him and Rees to specifically condemn the rhetoric. Neither would do so. In fact, Michael would not even specifically call Crabill to task, although he did condemn, as a general matter, the overthrow of the U.S. Government.

Whew!

So, in response to that, I wrote:

The fact is, I understand why Mr. Rees doesn’t want to answer these questions plainly. He is running for office as a Conservative, and the Tea Partiers are a core part of the GOP base. Rees wants their votes, and perhaps more importantly, their enthusiasm and energy.

* * *

Bradley Rees is trying to have it both ways – pandering to the extremist Tea Partiers who are an important core constituency of the RPV while trying at the same time to appear “reasonable” to the vast majority of mainstream Virginians who reject the group’s excessive, dishonest and confrontational anti-government rhetoric.

Dialogue between me and Michael broke down at that point, in part because we had both made our points and had nothing left to debate, and in part over an imagined insult by Michael to a comment to my post on Blue Virginia made by a third party, a commenter named Steve. Still, Michael got upset at Lowell and I over it (unjustifiably, IMHO) and went all Dean Wormer on us, stating:

“Write whatever you want, we will no longer be responding to either of you, but we will be watching for further evidence. I will be consulting with our attorney to determine further action. You have had your opportunity. Good day to you both.”

Well, in any event, Ernette finally came clean with respect to Rees’ strategy in an article yesterday at GoDanRiver, and in doing so, explains Rees' inability to level the condemnation at this groups' rhetoric that it so richly deserves. As it turns out, I hit the nail right on the head:

Winning the GOP nomination to challenge Perriello will almost certainly be an uphill battle for Rees’ campaign, Republican officials say. Rees lacks name recognition and, unlike some of the other possible candidates, he has not proven that he can win an election.

Yet Ernette thinks Rees might be able to tap into the coalition of conservatives who are attending Taxed Enough Already — or TEA — Parties in the 5th District. Rees has spoken at TEA Parties in Charlottesville and Danville.

“That’s where the coalition is going to come from,” Ernette said.

My work here is done.

Bob McDonnell on Off Shore Drilling: More Distortion

2009-08-03T22:00:00.005-04:00

My bone of contention with Bob McDonnell’s candidacy is not really the issue positions he holds. The fact is that most of his policy positions are commonplace for the know-nothing chorus of the right wing these days. Pretty pedestrian stuff.

No, my real bone of contention with Mr. McDonnell is the disingenuousness, bordering on outright dishonesty, with which he is making his case to the people of Virginia. This makes honest debate difficult, if not impossible.

As I have noted previously, for example, Mr. McDonnell is very, very Conservative on social issues like a woman’s right to choose and equal rights for gay people. That is okay; millions of Americans agree with him on these matters. But Mr. McDonnell tries at every turn to soft pedal his positions on these matters and present himself as a moderate on these issues, and that is not okay.

Yes, I would much rather talk about the issue of why I believe, in a pluralistic society, choice is the only workable option on the legalized abortion question until it can be scientifically and objectively proved one way or another when life begins.

I’d much rather debate the issue of discrimination against gay Americans, and the extent to which gay people should be treated, as a matter of law, as a protected class and why.

But all too often in this campaign I have found such debate impossible, and instead have had to spend inordinate amounts of time exposing Mr. McDonnell’s distortions of his own record and the beliefs that he is known to hold.

As I roam more through Mr. McDonnell’s web site, however, I am finding it is not just social issues, however. Take his position on off-shore drilling.

Mr. McDonnell is, needless to say, a “Drill Baby Driller” on the issue.

My own view on this issue is actually closer to Creigh’s than to that of my Progressive friends. On the one hand, I don’t think we should take anything off the table if we can produce it safely and in an economically productive fashion. On the other hand, my sense is that taken together, the environmental, economic, social and political factors probably argue against off-shore drilling for the time being, but warrant continued study and debate.

But I'm not looking to get too deep into the woods on this issue. My point is that there seems to be some conflicting information out there, and for someone like me who is not immersed in the subject matter, it is not always clear where the ideology begins and objectivity ends.

So, I can agree with the very first line on Mr. McDonnell’s web page about off-shore drilling, a quote from Mr. McDonnell himself: “Let’s put ideology aside and be comprehensive when it comes to our energy future.”

Unfortunately, Mr. McDonnell then goes ahead to put forth what can only be described as an ideological argument for off-shore drilling, offering a case that is void of any fair reading of all the facts, or of an honest and rigorous analysis, and is simply based in an article of conviction that off shore drilling just, well, feels right.

But is is an argument that, once again, Mr. Mcdonnell dresses in the costume of moderation and the pretense of science.

Mr. McDonnell states on his site:

In a 2005 study by a professor at Old Dominion University, it was estimated that offshore natural gas production alone could over a 10-year period, create 2,578 new jobs, induce capital investment of $7.84 billion, yield $644 million in direct and indirect payroll, and result in $271 million in state and local taxes. According to a recent report by the American Energy Alliance, offshore activities stand to contribute $3.2 billion to the economy of Virginia and more than 15,000 well- paying jobs. While Virginia would still need to negotiate the share with the federal government, if the 37.5% royalty revenue share was extended to Virginia, like it is to states near the Gulf of Mexico, the Commonwealth could bring in nearly $5 billion in non-tax revenue over the next 30 years, as reported by the Southeast Energy Alliance.

Hey, it seems reasonable. The experts say it is safe and will be economically beneficial, so lets do it!

What Bob McDonnell doesn’t tell you, of course, is that the American Energy Alliance is a front organization funded by the oil industry, and run by Thomas Pyle, a former aide to disgraced former Congressman Tom Delay. It is not providing objective information – not even close.

As for the report by a professor at ODU, McDonnell is presumably referring to a report by former ODU president Dr. James Koch for the Institute for Policy Studies at ODU. The report is elusive, and difficult to obtain, so it has not been critiqued in the media at all.

But here is the interesting thing. Not even Dr. Koch draws the conclusions from his work that Mr. McDonnell does. Here is what the Virginian-Pilot had to say about the study back in 2006:

Koch cautioned that the figures are rough, based in part on the experience of states such as Louisiana, where drilling already is permitted.

"I did not reach any conclusion on whether this was a good idea or not," Koch said.

In fact, the non-partisan Thomas Jefferson Institute found that while the environmental impact of off-shore drilling might be negligible, royalty estimates of $200 million “do not seem likely at this time.” The TJI puts the figure at only $69 million, and that is only if the project procudes 100% of Virginia’s oil and gas needs. Furthermore, “until there is additional test drilling, the expected oil and gas reserves off Virginia’s shores is simply unknown.”

Well, I guess it’s not unknown to Bob McDonnell, who recently told Human Events, "It is an economic bonanza in potential for us if we are able to be the first. I’m making that a goal. I’m doing everything I can to make it happen.”

And last, but not least,, if Mr. McDonnell got his way and we started drilling i9n January 2010, production would not even begin until 2015.

And here is yet a further problem. Mr. McDonnell is also proposing that we use this unlikely revenue, which will probably be around $70 million, from oil and natural gas reserves that may or may not exist, and even if it does exist will not be flowing for at least five years, to finance our hundreds of million of dollars of transportation needs now.

The point is that, at best, the jury is out on the issue of off-shore drilling. But Mr. McDonnell is telling Virginians another story.

Mr. McDonnell is a personable man. I have enjoyed listening to him the several times I have heard him speak. He seems like a nice fellow, and on based on a televsion commercial he ran featuring his kids, he seems like he has a wonderful family.

I just wish he was running a more honest campaign. But, of course, if he was, he probably would not get elected, and I suspect he knows that, based on his actions so far.

Q & A With Creigh: "Failure is not an option."

2009-08-02T20:18:00.000-04:00

I got a chance to chat for 10 minutes with Creigh Deeds this afternoon as he was driven from one event to another here in Charlottesville, where he kicked off the “Deeds Country” tour in front of a pumped-up crowd on the Downtown Mall.

It actually was a great event here in C’ville. Congressman Tom Perriello was there, as was C’ville’s excellent mayor, Dave Norris. Charlottesville’s Delegate Dave Toscano gave a great speech introducing Creigh.

No lack of Democratic enthusiasm here.

Anyway, here is the edited Q&A:

Some say this race is going to depend upon attracting independents, others see it as a base race. How do you see it?

I don’t know if I think about it that way. You’ve got to drive your base out, but it’s going to be decided by independents. If we drive out the Democratic base, we’re still going to need a few votes.

Here’s the encouraging part for Democrats. Over the last few years, and with the Obama race, we’ve registered probably a half a million new Democrats. If we could turn out those voters, and history suggests we’re not going to be able to turn them all out, if we could turn out those voters, it could be a base race. But I think we’re going to have to find some independents too.

Where are you going to find them? Is that a geographical issue?

A lot of them are in rural Virginia. A lot of them are the voters we want to reach out too [with the Deeds Country tour]. But there are independent voters all over the place.

I’m a Democrat. I’ve been a Democrat all my life, but I’ve never been a partisan about issues. I’ve got an independent voting record, I think.

Hopefully, we’re going to be able to drive the Democratic vote out. If we do that, plus a few independents, we’re going to be all right.

There’s been some polling recently [and] one thing it has showed is that there is a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democrats so far. Do you sense that in your campaign, and if so, why do you think that might be? [Note: of course, 10 minutes after asking this question, we arrived at a very enthusiastic reception at the Downtown Mall]

Let’s face it; we changed politics forever in Virginia last year with the election of Barack Obama. We overcame a 44-year curse. We’ve got another curse to overcome this year. It’s been since 1965 that we elected a Democratic governor when a Democrat was in the White House. Particularly after we elected Barack Obama last year, there are a lot of people that are complacent.

But it’s not just about this race. Look at the results in Northern Virginia in the special elections that occurred this past Winter and Spring. It’s a problem we’re going to have to work hard to overcome. There are many people who think we’ve [unintelligible] before we’ve needed to, and they’re asleep to state races. We’re going to have to try to find a way to energize those voters. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine were, frankly, elected because in their own ways they were able to convince enough Federal Election Year voters to turn out to vote in ’01 and ’05. We’re going to try to get those people out to vote.

Also, we’ve got these Obama bubble voters. After a presidential year, there’s always some complacency in the election and voter turnout. We won last year. We elected a U.S. Senator. We took the majority of Congressman. We carried Virginia for a Democratic candidate for the first time in 44 years. There does seem to be a tremendous amount of complacency. We’re going to have to work as hard as we can to overcome that, to get people energized, to make them understand that this election does matter, that this election, frankly, is important to them. After all the work we’ve done, the accomplishments we’ve made through Mark Warner and Tim Kaine as Governor, all that can come to a screeching halt if we’re not successful this year. Failure is not an option.

We’re almost there, so let me ask you a quick question. The conventional wisdom is that this election is going to turn on jobs and the economy. Tell me three other issues that you think might figure in this election and give me some sharp differences between you and Bob McDonnell on them.

I think basically it all comes down to the economy. It all comes down to jobs, transportation and education, because it’s all related to the ability to build the smartest workforce and the best transportation system in the country.

Other issues: Stem cell research. I’m for it, Bob McDonnell is against it. Choice. I trust Virginia’s women, Bob McDonnell doesn’t. There is any number of issues.

Do you think Bob McDonnell is going to be able to keep up his masquerade as a moderate throughout this election?

He is always going to revert to what’s comfortable. And what’s comfortable [for him] is right wing.

What do you make of these birthers?

Birthers? Tell me about that.

They question whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States.

I read recently that something like 40% of Republican voters, or self-described Republican voters, say that they question whether the President was born in the United States. People just don’t have much to worry about if that’s what they’re thinking about.

McDonnell's Sorry Record of Hostility Toward Gay People Belies His Non-discrimination Assurance

2009-08-02T09:19:00.004-04:00

At last month’s debate at the Homestead Resort, Bob McDonnell was permitted to assert, without any criticism, that as Attorney General his office did not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, and that he would not do so as Governor.

I was not there, and so I am forced to take Mr. McDonnell at his word. But his record shows something else, entirely.

The fact is that as Attorney General, Mr. McDonnell repeatedly used his official position and powers to discriminate against gay men and women in Virginia. The volume and circumstances of his involvement as Attorney General in cases involving gay rights issues suggests that Mr. McDonnell harbors hostility against a substantial number of Virginians that calls into question whether he is fit to be Governor. Mr. McDonnell should not be permitted to paper over this record with meaningless, insincere promises.

This is not about gay rights or one’s attitudes toward gay people – like anyone, Mr. McDonnell is entitled to his personal opinion -- but rather the question is: Do we want leaders who would use our own government as a tool to discriminate, in law or in fact, against a significant portion of the population it represents, whether because they are gay, persons or color, Jewish, or whatever.

For me, the answer is, “No.”

Here is Mr. McDonnell’s sorry record:

* On his web site, under the Orwellian rubric of “protecting families,” Mr. McDonnell touts the fact that while in the GA he was a chief sponsor of the Marshall-Newman Amendment to the Virginia Constitution, which purported to defend the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, but in fact was clearly designed to legitimize discrimination again people on the basis of sexual orientation. Of no small consequence, nationwide the tide seems to be turning on this issue, and Virginia now runs a risk of being left behind other states in creating a welcoming, tolerant environment for all people that is conducive to economic development and advancement.

* As Attorney General, Mr. McDonnell lost no time issuing an opinion to countermand the executive order by both Governors Warner and Kaine to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Whatever the legal effect of the ruling, McDonnell’s legal reasoning was shoddy enough that it led the Virginia ACLU to conclude, “It is distressing when clouded judgment and poor lawyering by a high government official leads him to conclusions that are clearly at odds with common sense, common decency and the law.”

* In early 2007, after The Christopher Newport University board banned discrimination in matters of admissions and employment based on sexual orientation, Attorney General Bob McDonnell took the time to write the school to tell them, as the publication Inside Higher Ed put it, “it would not be legal for the university (or other public institutions in the state, which have done the same thing) to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Wow! So, according to Bob McDonnell, even if an institution wants to make discrimination illegal, it cannot do so.

* As Attorney General, Bob McDonnell intervened in a private lawsuit among members of the Episcopal Church in a dispute that had gay rights at its core. In a protest over gay priests, dissident members left the church, but filed suit seeking to retain church property. Mr. McDonnell, needless to say, sought to intervene in the case on the side of the anti-gay dissidents, ostensibly in defense of a state statute. But the dispute was a religious and social one, above all else, not a Constitutional one. A real estate attorney told the Washington Post that McDonnell’s intervention in the case “was a little out of the ordinary.” Perhaps more interesting, was this, as the Post reported:

McDonnell's office has another connection to this issue -- his deputy, former state senator William C. Mims (R), who has been a member of another Episcopal church that broke away from the national church over the same issues of how to understand Scripture as it pertains to homosexuality. Mims prompted controversy and much debate in 2005 when he -- as a senator -- proposed a bill that would have explicitly allowed congregants who leave their denominations to keep their land. The measure failed, and opponents said it was an inappropriate insertion of government into church affairs.

Look, I understand that in each case, McDonnell had some ulterior motive to defend his actions, whether a bogus defense of the definition of marriage, or an imagined threat to the constitutionality of a state law, or perhaps simply poor legal reasoning, but taken as a whole, McDonnell’s record raises serious questions as to whether in his performance in office he used his powers to pursue his own social agenda.

So, when Mr. McDonnell vows not to discriminate as Governor, it rings hollow to me. Oh, if Bob McDonnell is elected governor, he probably won’t explicitly discriminate against the gay Virginians he seems to dislike so much – Mr. McDonnell is a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of them.

But then again, he won’t need to. Like the insidious bigotry directed at groups throughout this country’s history, whether black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, or even Mr. McDonnell’s own Irish ancestral background, Mr. McDonnell has already hung up a sign outside his Richmond office: “Gay people need not apply.”

Will Bob McDonnell Be Able To Fool Enough of the People Enough of the Time To Get Elected?

2009-07-29T19:40:00.003-04:00

The sole question in this campaign seems to be whether Bob McDonnell will be able to pull the wool over Virginians’ eyes long enough to convince enough people to vote for him.

Based on his recent debate with Creigh, he might be able to pull it off. Take McDonnell’s extremist stances on two significant social issues, abortion and gay rights. In the debate, McDonnell was successfully able to paint himself as a moderate on these issues.

Bob McDonnell is no moderate on these issues.

The fact is that McDonnell’s election potentially endangers the life and health of every woman in Virginia. McDonnell’s record shows that as a legislator, he tried at every turn to limit a woman’s right to choose, effectively seeking to prevent women in Virginia from deciding upon their own health care in consultation with their doctors.

Similarly, Bob McDonnell has a record as a repeat offender of bigotry toward homosexuals. As I have previously written, he tried to prevent the reappointment of a judge in Virginia Beach based solely on the fact that she was allegedly gay. And according to Virginia Beach blogger Michael in Norfolk, McDonnell is on record saying that Govs. Warner and Kaine’s non-discrimination orders with respect to sexual orientation are invalid. “Moreover,” according to Michael-in-Norfolk, “in a recent case involving a gay man fired by the Virginia Museum of Natural History, McDonnell's AG office successfully sought to have the Executive Orders ruled a nullity - that case is now on appeal.”

So, when McDonnell says he never discriminated in hiring in the AG’s office, and would not do so as Governor, well, I don’t believe him.

I can’t help but wonder where Bob McDonnell, a graduate of Pat Robertson’s law school, stands on the issue of evolution. Does Bob McDonnell believe that evolution is a valid scientific theory, or is he, like his mentor, Rev. Robertson, a Biblical literalist? If he is, I think that is fine – I am a religious person, myself -- but to the extent that one’s embrace of faith forces the exclusion of scientific fact from his worldview, voters have the right to know.

Does Bob McDonnell favor the teaching of crackpot theories like Intelligent Design in public school?

So, three takeaways:

1. When Bob McDonnell soft-pedals his positions on choice and gay rights, shouldn't he explain why his record is inconsistent with his rhetoric?
2. Bob McDonnell holds principled positions on the issues of choice and gay rights that he claims are informed by his religious beliefs. As a religious person, I disagree with him. But the question is why does he feel the need to run away from his principles?
3. Given that religion figures so heavily in McDonnell’s stances on other social issues, where does he stand on the issue of evolution and teaching Intelligent Design in our public schools?

Bradley Rees True Colors: He's Just Another Typical Politician

2009-07-24T16:49:00.005-04:00

In a comment on this blog submitted earlier this week, Bradley Rees’ campaign manager, Michael Ernette, tried to put to rest the growing issue of the hateful extremist language used by Tea Partiers in the Fifth District and, more generally, in the Commonwealth, at least with respect to his candidate.

Indeed, what we are seeing in the Fifth District seems to reflect the growing nationwide trend of anger directed at President Obama and Democrats from some of the darker corners of the Republican Party, whether it is the absurd arguments of the so-called “Birthers” who contend the President was born outside the U.S., or the characterization today of the president as an “angry black man” by one of the GOP’s ideological leaders, Rush Limbaugh.

Meanwhile, more and more, elected Republican officials and candidates are finding it tougher and tougher to walk the fine line between being a responsible, if vigorous, opposition party, and embracing the positions of some core elements of the Party that can only be considered extreme.

So, on a more local level, walking this fine line was Ernette’s task, as well. He failed, however, to do so, refusing on either his own or on Mr. Rees’ behalf to condemn the incendiary language of Tea Partiers recently directed at Congressman Tom Perriello, even as Ernette said neither he nor Mr. Rees agreed with the Tea Partiers on this particular score.

Mr. Ernette’s rhetorical futility aside, this is not the position of a new and truly independent-thinking candidate that Mr. Rees holds himself out as. Rather, Bradley Rees is trying to have it both ways – pandering to the extremist Tea Partiers who are an important core constituency of the RPV while trying at the same time to appear “reasonable” to the vast majority of mainstream Virginians who reject the group’s excessive, dishonest and confrontational anti-government rhetoric.

In doing so, Mr. Rees exposes himself as just another politician.

In an earlier post on the recent Tea Party protests held outside Tom’s office on July 2, I commented on some of the signs containing over-the-top rhetoric, specifically the many references to Tom as a “traitor” and “coward.” While there was certainly plenty of room for debate over Cap and Trade -- the issue directly precipitating the protest, incidentally -- I wrote that the level of vitriol at the protest was excessive and was not warranted in the context of a discussion concerning disagreement over one, largely technical, proposed piece of legislation to address global warming.

My post also wondered why Mr. Rees and other members of the RPV had not rejected the language of the protesters and condemned the speakers who had called our congressman a “traitor.”

Ernette wrote a comment to my post, saying he disagreed that Tom was a traitor (although Ernette sought to ridiculously argue that Tom was a coward because he refused to meet with the Tea Partiers). In any event, it wasn’t clear if he was speaking for himself or the Rees campaign, so I put the question directly to him in a response comment.

In the meantime, Catherine Crabill, Republican candidate for the House of Delegates in the 99th District, made her infamous “Bullet Box” speech warning of armed rebellion against the United States unless the government pursued policies favored by the Tea Partiers. I also wondered whether Rees, Gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell and other Virginia Republicans would condemn her remarks.

On Tuesday, Ernette wrote in a second comment on The Virginia Democrat, “I have stated before and will reiterate, Bradley Rees and his campaign do not consider Rep. Perriello to be traitor to his country.”

Whew! Glad we got that out of the way.

But neither Ernette nor, apparently, Rees, could quite bring themselves to take the next step and condemn the use of rhetoric that they themselves are now on record as saying was inappropriate. “In the Rees camp,” Ernette wrote, “we respect the dissent and we respect why they [the Tea Partiers] are angry, even if we do not completely agree with every sign or sentiment that is expressed. … I would hope that most progressives do not concur with the attitudes expressed with signs that likened Bush and Cheney to Adolph Hitler and I am sure that they don’t.”

Ernette also asked why I “want the Rees campaign to throw peaceful protesters under the bus for [my] amusement.” He also asks, “Can I expect you to disavow every freak show protester that claims to speak for the left, as a sign of good faith?”

Ernette’s equivalence argument, however, is entirely misplaced. First, here at the Virginia Democrat, I also respect the dissent and anger of the Tea Partiers and of all people, for that matter. What I object to is the level of vitriol and the incendiary name-calling these folks are utilizing in pursuing their political objectives.

Second, there is no valid comparison to the use of Hitler imagery in protests of Bush and Cheney to the Tea Partiers. Yes, some “liberal” protesters did make those Nazi comparisons, but they were a clear minority in every crowd. The signs in question about Tom, in contrast, dominated and defined this protest, there were not merely a few of them on the fringes.

Third, Ernette asks whether I should disavow “every freak show protester that claims to speak for the left,” but this argument fails because, first, Mr. Rees specifically cited this protest in an approving manner. So, I am not suggesting that Mr. Rees account for “every freak show protester that claims to speak” for Conservatives, only the freak show protesters about whose actions Mr. Rees has spoken in an approving manner.

Similarly, Mr. Rees holds himself out as a Tea Party leader, and he has spoken at Tea Party gatherings at least four times of which I am aware.

In other words, Mr. Rees is not merely an innocent Conservative bystander being unjustifiably called to account for the words of third parties solely because of his ideology.

Finally, with respect to Catherine Crabill’s, and lets not split hairs, crazy comments, she is, as Mr. Rees is, a member of the RPV. Asking him whether he agrees with a fellow member of his party on this issue and why, is a perfectly reasonable question.

The fact is, I understand why Mr. Rees doesn’t want to answer these questions plainly. He is running for office as a Conservative, and the Tea Partiers are a core part of the GOP base. Rees wants their votes, and perhaps more importantly, their enthusiasm and energy.

The problem is, he also wants the votes of the many more numerous mainstream Conservative and moderate Republicans who rightly view the statements and positions of the Tea Partiers and Crabill as extremist.

So, Mr. Rees winds up talking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to sound reasonable to the moderates, but delivering a verbal wink and nudge to the Tea Partiers. When pressed on some of the more extreme comments from Tea Partiers, such as calling a sitting U.S. Congressman a “traitor,” he disagrees with the appellation, but refuses to condemn it. And for goodness sakes, Mr. Rees cannot even bring himself to simply and plainly condemn Crabill’s remarks advocating armed resistance to the democratically-elected government of the United States.

As noted above, Mr. Rees predicament mirrors that of Republicans on local, state and national levels throughout the U.S. The core of the party to which they are beholden has become more vocal and their rhetoric more extremist as electoral losses have piled up and as moderates have abandoned the party. This vicious circle has reinforced itself over time.

But in the meantime, does all of this make Bradley Rees a bad person? No, it doesn’t.

But it does expose him as a typical politician, the very kind of politician that he professes to despise; the very kind of politician to which Mr. Rees continually asserts his own moral and ethical superiority.

Brad Rees. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

x-posted to Blue Virginia.

GOP Legislators Endorse Creigh

2009-07-22T15:15:00.004-04:00

Seven Republican and one Independent legislators from across the Commonwealth endorsed Creigh today.

Endorsements during a campaign are a dime a dozen, and as a general matter, I don't get too worked about them, whether good or bad. When Sheila Johnson came out in favor of Bob McDonnell the other day, it was a big yawn to me.

That said, seven Republicans from the General Assembly crossing party lines to endorse Creigh strikes me as significant for a few reasons.

First, in the hyper-partisan atmosphere of Richmond, cross-party endorsements are not common. More importantly, in this atmosphere these endorsers risk the disfavor of their own party for their actions (as opposed to, say, Johnson, whose "cross-party" endorsement, to the extent she had public status as a Democrat, cost her and her economic interests nothing). In short, this is clearly not a decision these legislators too lightly, or one they took for trivial reasons.

Second, these are people who have worked closely with both Creigh and Mr. McDonnell in Richmond, and had the chance of observing both men in how they conduct themselves in the context of governing. So their endorsement is a knowledgeable one from people with a unique perspective on seeing and evaluating the relative qualifications of Creigh and Mr. McDonnell to serve as Governor.

Finally, these legislators represent a cross section of the Commonwealth geographically, so it is not simply a case of local politicos supporting a favorite son. As you can see from the list below, these legislators represent urban, exurban and rural areas, as well as Southwest Virginia, NoVA and Newport News.

The legislators javascript:void(0)endorsing Creigh are:

Sen. Brandon Bell (R-Roanoke Co.)
Sen. John Chichester (R-Stafford)
Sen. Russ Potts (R-Winchester)
Sen. Marty Williams (R-Newport News)
Sen. Warren E. Berry (R-Fairfax)
Del. Anne G. "Panny" Rhodes (R-Richmond)
Del. Katherine Waddell (I-Richmond)
Del. Jim Dillard (R-Fairfax)

Bob McDonnell has some questions to answer (but first the media has to ask) - UPDATED

2009-07-18T14:35:00.005-04:00

Bob McDonnell does not want to talk about his views on social issues, specifically abortion and gay marriage, because those views reveal him as an extremist who would use the power of the government to deny basic civil rights to American citizens.

The election in November ought to tell us whether this is what Virginians want from their Governor, but that will happen only if McDonnell is forced to discuss his views in detail.

The mainstream media, which still for the most part controls communication between candidates and political office, ought to aggressively force him to do so. Indeed, the media has an obligation to so.

So far, the media in the Commonwealth has given him a free ride on these matters.

Mr. McDonnell, of course, publicly expresses positions on these issues, but he is quite vague. Whether his statements are vague because of a sophisticated “dog-whistle” strategy, as Lowell puts it, or merely to avoid uncomfortable questions, I can say for sure, although I suspect the former.

According to Mr. McDonnell’s website, “Bob McDonnell is pro-life,” and discusses his solid pro-life voting record as a member of the GA. As every knows, however, that appellation means different things to different people. The site does not explain that Mr. McDonnell opposes a woman’s right to choose even in cases of rape and incest, even in cases involving the health of the mother – the most extreme position. Why? Well, perhaps the fact that public support nationwide for that position hovers around 15-17%, according to recent polling.

I don’t agree with, Mr. McDonnell’s extremist opinion, but can understand how if one believes life begins at conception, that it is a logical position to take.

What I don’t understand, however, is if Mr. McDonnell sincerely believes this, why he is unwilling to, first, state his position clearly and, second, let the voters of Virginia understand how his beliefs will inform his actions as Governor.

As governor, and in furtherance of his beliefs, will Mr. McDonnell take steps to reduce the right of Virginia women to have access to medical care pursuant to a choice guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States? Will women face greater restrictions and more hurdles before they are able to exercise their rights? If so, specifically what can the women of Virginia expect from a McDonnell administration in this regard.

As for gay rights, Mr. McDonnell’s website sates, “Bob McDonnell believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman.” Fair enough.

But several years ago, Mr. McDonnell sought to block the reappointment of a Newport News Circuit Judge named Verbina Askew because she was allegedly gay. McDonnell, of course, is not an idiot. He went to great pains to assert that the judge’s sexual orientation did not matter to him; rather, the fact that she may have violated Virginia anti-sodomy statute in force at the time, which prohibited oral and anal sex, was a factor to consider in her reappointment.

Said McDonnell at the time, “It [possible sodomy] certainly raises some questions about the qualifications to serve as a judge."

McDonnell also said, "There is certain homosexual conduct that is in violation of the law," McDonnell said. "I’m not telling you I would disqualify a judge per se if he said he was gay. I’m talking about their actions."

(Incidentally, this was the context for the infamous incident in which Mr. McDonnell was asked whether he had ever violated the statute, and he hilariously responded, “Not that I can recall.”)

Look, the issue here is not hypocrisy.

Rather, the issue is that Bob McDonnell, and there is no nice way to say this, is a bigot.

Is any reasonable person taken in by Mr. McDonnell asserting the issue is not whether someone is gay, but rather whether someone engaged in sexual acts that are common in the gay community (and among heterosexuals, for that matter) that just happen to be against the law?

More to the point, where does Mr. McDonnell stand today on these issues? Would he still deny a homosexual a seat on the Bench because of his or her sexual orientation, regardless of the crazy excuse he uses to justify his action, like alleged violation of an anti-sodomy statute.

Would Mr. McDonnell deny a gay Virginian a job in his administration, or a job for the Commonwealth, for which they were otherwise qualified?

And as legally weak as it is, will Mr. McDonnell leave Governors Warner and Kaine’s executive order including sexual orientation in non-discriminatory hiring?

These are important issues that will directly affect the lives of hundreds of thousand of our fellow citizens, and indirectly affect the lives of millions of others. And the fact is that even if we are not personally affected, we all have an interest in ensuring that our Commonwealth is discrimination free and affords all people maximum individual freedom to follow their personal beliefs on issues of controlling their religious practices, and controlling their own bodies.

I have sent emails to Tucker Martin, Mr. McDonnell’s Communications Director, seeking an interview with Mr. McDonnell on these issues, and alternatively, posing these questions to McDonnell. I’m sure Mr. Martin got a chuckle out of it – that’s okay.

Bob McDonnell can duck me and other lefty blogs all day long without consequence, but he can’t duck the Washington Post, the Richmond Times Dispatch, the Roanoke Times, Channel 12 in Richmond and other major media outlets.

Eventually, Tucker, they'll be coming round to ask.

UPDATE: Michael-in-Norfolk comments below: In terms of the Executive orders of Governors Warner and Kaine, McDonnell is on record saying they are invalid. Moreover in a recent case involving a gay man fired by the Virginia Museum of Natural Histroy, McDonnell's AG office successfully sought to have the Executive Orders ruled a nullity - that case is now on appeal.

x-posted to Blue Virginia

Crabill and the Tea Party: It Takes A Villiage Idiot

2009-07-16T21:50:00.004-04:00

Several days ago, I wrote about the Tea Party protest on July 2 outside Tom Perriello’s office, and how it appeared, well, extreme and unhinged.

Perhaps it was, but perhaps...

The Tea Party movement is a tiny, impotent and extremist movement that is embarrassing itself and America. It bother me because it is misappropriating the symbols of American patriotism and greatness for its narrow and thermidorian political cause. The very idea that the movement sees itself as occupying some higher level of American patriotism whose political views somehow trump the votes of the 69.3 million Americans who voted for President Obama and Vice-President Biden is both laughable and irrational. Television stations come out to cover them because they are a freak show, not because they are being taken seriously in any political context.

That all said, I also think it is perfectly reasonable for the Tea Partiers to try to convince Americans to see it their way. That is what America and democracy are all about.

But then along comes Catherine Crabill, a GOP House of Delegates candidate (See this report at Blue Virginia for the incredible video – In the interest of saving a bandwidth tree, I won’t be reposting it). To sum up what she said, if the Tea Party platform cannot prevail at the ballot box, then armed revolution (the “bullet box” in her word) in a viable alternative. That, after all, is what the Second Amendment is for, Crabill explains, to facilitate armed revolution.

Look, Crabill obviously has emotional problems, so I don't want to judge her too harshly. But the fact of the matter is that Crabill, at the behest of whatever demons inhabit her brain and soul, simply committed a Kinsley Gaffe -- she inadvertently spoke the truth about this extremist movement. She got to the heart of what these Tea Partiers really believe, namely, that it is somehow a expression of patriotism to overthrow their own democratically elected government because of policy differences over taxation.

And they wonder why others mock them. they blame it on a liberal press that just doesn’t “get” conservatives, and that has stacked the deck against them.

Quite honestly, I wonder why people don’t mock them more.

To date, the Republican Party has tried to have it both ways with the Tea Partiers, trying to exploit the movement’s appeal to portions of the GOP base while at the same time separating themselves, sub rosa, from the movement’s extremist rhetoric and positions so as not to alienate the more moderate independent voters they will need to get elected.

Bradley Rees, 5th District Republican Congressional hopeful, for example, has embraced this movement and spoken at three of its rallies that I know of, but to date he has steadfastly refused to publicly condemn any of their actions, even as he suggests his private feeling are quite different. In fact, on this very blog his campaign manager, Michael Emette, recently wrote about the Perriello protest, “I don't personally consider Perriello a traitor, nor does the campaign,” but he fell well short of condemning the people who did express that extreme and ugly opinion by characterizing the protest as “a couple hundred people voicing their displeasure.”

Well, will Rees condemn Crabill? Will Bob McDonnell condemn her comments? Will anyone from the RPV condemn Crabill? Will any Conservative blogger?

Or is this the Republican Party in Virginia in 2009?

Insulting the Memory of Our Founding Fathers

2009-07-10T21:59:00.000-04:00

I have had some writer’s block lately as I have pondered the recent Tea Party activities in my own back yard, specifically, last week’s protest outside Congressman Tom Perriello’s office over Cap and Trade.

I‘m not so much troubled by the event as unable to place these events in any context that is consistent with concepts of logic, common sense and just plain decency.

I understand disagreeing with Rep. Perriello on the Cap and Trade Bill. While I believe that the fact of global warming and the fact that human activities contribute to it is beyond any kind of reasonable scientific and political dispute at this point – there will always be flat-Earthers making noise at the extremes -- there is plenty of room among reasonable people of a wide degree of political worldviews to disagree with respect to how we ought to deal with it.

Cap and Trade is but one way, and whether one happens to agree it is the best way, or even if it will be effective at all, it is simply not so far out on the fringe of science or acceptable political and social belief to engender the hatred it did at Congressman Perriello for voting for it.

Or so I thought.

But there, outside Tom’s office, were my neighbors calling their Congressman “traitor” and “coward,” and as far as I could tell, not a word of condemnation from any local leaders of the Republican party. Not a word from declared congressional candidate Bradley Rees. Not a word from rumored candidate Cordell Faulk. Not a word from local Glenn Beck wannabe Rob Schilling. Not a word from Delegate Rob Bell.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have no problem with a person passionately expressing their political beliefs, but these are the supposed mainstream GOP leaders in this district. If they do not find this sort of rhetoric objectionable, then I submit we have nothing to debate with the Republican Party. Let them pitch their fits, but don’t give them the attention they so desperately seem to require.

While I don’t think this sort of behavior is consistent with healthy or productive political debate, engagement is pointless. Whether this movement ascends to power or simply becomes a marginalized small group remains to be seen, but I suspect the latter because the political circumstances are not even close to supporting the level of anger these people seem to have, notwithstanding the fact that in their fevered imaginations these people seem to imagine themselves as some kind of modern-day iteration of the Patriots of the American Revolution.

They are nothing of the kind. In fact, in their protests, in their use of the symbols of Revolution and defiance against the very leaders elected under the system that Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Washington risked their lives for, these Tea Partiers do not, despite their loudly professed intentions, honor the memory of our Founding Fathers. They besmirch it.

Sounds Like Someone Needs A Diaper Change

2009-07-02T21:30:00.002-04:00

Another day, another pointless e-mail from the RPV about Creigh Deeds, once again alleging that Creigh is refusing to take a position on several national issues. The e-mail also makes some juvenile allegations about Creigh and Gov. Kaine that are laughably idiotic and internally inconsistent, for example, both accusing Deeds of “keeping mum” about Kaine’s travels for the DNC and “throwing his mentor under a bus.” He couldn’t have done both now, could he?

More to the point, is this really what the RPV wants to discuss with the voters? If so, why?

I don’t know what they talk about at the McDonnell residence over dinner, but in my house and in my family, we worry about trivialities like, well, keeping my job. We worry about whether our public schools will have enough funding next year to provide a full-time nurse to take care of our diabetic son at school. We worry about the cost of health insurance and, even with insurance, the cost of health care. We worry about paying for college for our three children.

Honestly, in our house we don’t care about where Gov. Kaine goes on behalf of the DNC. We do wonder, however, where the Hell Bob McDonnell, Ken Cuccinelli and the rest of the RPV will be when it comes to serious issues like stem cell research that might help our son? Will they support finding a cure for his diabetes, or will they pander to extremists for whom it is more important to make an ideological debating point than help secure a healthy and long future for a nine-year-old child.

Instead, all we get from the RPV is schoolyard name-calling and taunting. Do they really think this is acceptable?

Actually, I think McDonnell is a pretty smart fellow, so I presume he knows this tactic is pretty lame. In fact, that is what makes the rationale behind this nonsense clear enough.

The truth is that Republicans are out of ideas and have been for some time. The public is no longer buying their snake oil that tax cuts are the panacea for every problem, and unlike the Republican Party’s spiritual and ideological leaders like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michele Bachman, most people, Conservative, Moderate and Liberal, do not see their own government as their enemy, but as their ally in tough times.

Virginians, for the most part, seem to me to be seeking thoughtful, realistic and pragmatic policies to lead us into the future, not childish partisan sniping, but Pat Mullins, Bob McDonnell and the Republicans have nothing to offer but the same old negativity and divisiveness. So Republicans peddle paranoia about the census, they fantasize about a terrorist attack that in their sick imaginations will jumpstart support for their campaign of violence and hatred against immigrants, and here in Virginia, they level irrelevant and pointless charges against their political opponents in order to distract voters.

The RPV’s tactics amount to nothing more than Pat Mullins and Bob McDonnell acting like spoiled brats that no one will listen to, so they are now stomping their feet, crying and holding their breath till they turn blue. And as with watching a toddler throw a temper tantrum, it isn’t fun and it isn’t interesting. As a matter of fact, as anyone who has witnessed such a fit being pitched, more than anything it is an uncomfortable and humiliating experience not only for the child involved, but also for the unfortunate adults unlucky enough to witness the spectacle.

For goodness sakes, will someone please change these guy’s diapers and burp them, if only so they will shut up and let the adults talk to one another.

GOP Strategy Against Deeds is an Admission They Hold Weak Cards

2009-07-01T22:38:00.009-04:00

Yesterday, Bob Holsworth at Virginia Tomorrow detailed the GOP playbook against Creigh Deeds for 2009, namely, tie him to Tim Kaine:

Republicans assume that Kaine has little flexibility on issues- his role essentially requires him to defend whatever policies emerge from the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the next four months.

Health care reform. Overdue.

Cap and trade. Farsighted energy policy.

Card check. Leveling the playing field for workers.

Climate Change. Let’s act quickly and decisively.

And whatever Nancy Pelosi comes up with…

Regardless of how warmly these proposals are likely to be received in Virginia.

And the GOP intends to ask Deeds (over and over again) what he thinks about the policies that Kaine has no choice but to defend.

That strategy is somewhat counter-intuitive, as Deeds himself is seeking to tie himself to Gov. Kaine. Still, I get the logic behind what Holsworth says the Republicans are doing, and think it is pretty smart. If the RPV is able to nationalize the election, it could even work-- indeed, it might be their only path to victory.

In any case, Lowell has a post up at Blue Virginia that effectively and convincingly knocks the wind out of a strategy based on tying Deeds to one of the more popular Virginia politicians, on the basis that he is not the most popular. Analyzing a copious amount of poll data amid other convincing arguments, Lowell concludes, “[I]f that’s the best the Republicans got, I’m not too worried.”

More interestingly, the GOP strategy appears to fly in the face of the dynamics and issues that look likely to drive this election, and the adoption of this risky strategy of misdirection at this early stage, whether ultimately successful or not, represents a clear acknowledgement that Republicans in Virginia are holding a weak hand.

It is important at the outset to draw a distinction between the issues that will drive this election within the Commonwealth, and how the rest of the country, and most significantly, our lazy, unoriginal, national media with a tendency toward group think, will report this election.

The 2009 Virginia Gubernatorial race will not be a referendum on Obama or national issues within the Commonwealth, despite the desire of our national chattering class for it to fulfill that role. While the popularity of the President is certainly one factor that may arguably affect the overall attitude of the electorate, if recent history and chatter on the blogs is any guide (and there is reason to believe, despite the refusal of the usual suspects to acknowledge the fact, that the jockeying on the blogs now will successfully divine and, in some measure, define the substantive agenda for the election to some extent) the Deeds-McDonnell contest will, IMHO, be focusing on two broad substantive themes more parochial in nature.

The first, obviously, is the economy and jobs, which will be debated in the specific contexts of transportation, education and energy policy insofar as those issues intersect with economic growth and development. In some ways, this issue benefits Deeds, because addressing the considerable problems Virginia faces and building a foundation for the future will require proactive government action, not exactly the long suit of the party of “no.” On the other hand, the simplistic GOP prescriptions for what ails us, the “drill baby drill” cheer, and the usual cries of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, have appeal in difficult times where the complexity of our economic situation can seem overwhelming, despite the fact that they hold little virtue as actual policies. Still, such mindless ideological drivel is unlikely to gain much traction as long as the memory of George W. Bush is in voters' minds. Folks have had enough of simple sounding bromides that sound good, but leave disaster in their wake.

The second issue theme, less obvious and still to emerge, will be social issues, specifically whether Bob McDonnell's extreme Social Conservatism is out of step with current Virginian attitudes on such issues as choice, civil unions, stem cell research, teaching creationism in schools, etc. If the GOP thinks Deeds will have to answer for Tim Kaine's embrace of the Obama agenda, Bob McDonnell will ultimately have to answer, similarly, for Pat Robertson's social agenda. Indeed, this ties into the economic development issue, as well. Will the industries of the 21st century want to locate in a state dominated by social laws of the 19th century? Would a business dependent on creativity and technology be able to attract the educated, creative employees that will drive entrepreneurship and economic development for the next half century?

I suspect that the RPV is quite nervous about the emergence of this issue. And to think it was just an election cycle or two ago that these were wedge issues that favored Republicans. Ah, America the capitalistic beautiful.

The problem for the GOP is how to prevent political nature from taking its course?

The answer is misdirection to other issues. Those issues, of course, need to be real ones.

Outside Virginia, of course, a different narrative is developing. This narrative suggests that the Gubernatorial election will be a referendum on Barack Obama and Congressional Democratic rule. This meme is appealing to the national press because, after all, there is not a national audience for a discussion of the issues of interest to the Commonwealth’s citizens. As far as Virginia Republicans are concerned, Gov. Kaine, limping as he is to the end of his term, is the perfect vehicle to hitch its wagon to as it careens down the road. Furthermore, there is the possibility that this national meme will, through sheer force of national media saturation, overwhelm the local statewide issues, especially in NoVA where Federal issues tend to have greater traction for obvious reasons.

It is a risky course, however, and one unlikely to work. Virginians tend to be parochial in their concerns. Also, it is not quite clear exactly how closely Deeds has tied himself to Gov. Kaine, without which the GOP's efforts to do so won't work.

It is important to understand what Deeds means when he speaks of “continuing in the Warner-Kaine tradition.” It seems to me that what Sen. Deeds is really talking about here is not adherence to specific policies of his predecessors, although I am sure the three share similar attitudes on most issues, but rather a pragmatic, results-oriented approach to governing.

Again, this plays into the two main local themes that I think will drive the election, and allows Deeds to contrast his reality-based practicality with McDonnell’s inflexible ideologically driven approach.

Just as significantly, it renders any attempt to tie Deeds to policies supported by the national Democrats – Obama, Warner, Webb and Kaine – certain to fall flat. For a variety of tactical reasons unrelated to the substance of the argument, I don’t think Deeds should take the bait and respond to RPV demands that he opine on such Federal issues as card-check or ACES, just because Gov. Kaine holds positions on these issues as head of the DNC. For one thing, Deeds answers to the voters, not to the Republican Party. For another, the GOP has not yet established the relevancy of these issues to the election at hand.

But at some point, Deeds will need to declare his independence from the substance of Kaine, although not from the temperament and governing philosophy of Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. Doing so will be easier than the GOP thinks it will, and once Deeds does that, the GOP may find its quiver is empty, save for the same old arguments that have lost them the last three election cycles.

Glenn Beck is a certified lunatic

2009-07-01T10:18:00.004-04:00

Watch this video of Glenn Beck nodding in agreement with a guest that the only thing that can save the country now from illegal immigration is if Osama bin Laden detonates a weapon here, because it will wake up a grassroots effort.

I don't usually comment on issues like this, preferring to stick closer to home, and I usually don't care too much about the rants of Beck, Savage, et al., which seem to me for the most part directed toward such an extreme corner of America's political spectrum that it serves more as a source of amusement than as having a serious effect upon any meaningful political debate in the country.

But once in a while they do something that reminds me how truly f*cked up they are, and this is such a case. After this, I really do not know how Fox News can continue to provide this lunatic with a platform. It is not a question of free speech -- Beck is free to say what he wants -- it is a question of judgment whether a private business ought to provide him with a megaphone to, for all intents and purposes, advocate an attack upon the United States of America.

If this is not over the line, I am not sure what is.

h/t - Blue Virgina

House of Delegates '09 - Scott Surovell Launches Bid (44th District)

2009-06-30T07:04:00.002-04:00

As expected, Scott Surovell announces his candidacy for the seat being vacated by Kris Amundson

An excerpt:

To truly solve the state's problems, we still need to bring change to the Virginia House of Delegates. Todays House turns down and obstructs virtually every reasonable measure to move Virginia forward. Each year, it sends scores bills focused on divisive social issues or scoring political points instead of problem-solving measures to improve people's lives. I am committed to keeping the 44th district in Democratic hands and moving the House of Delegates to Democratic control. Our leaders cannot truly solve our problems until this happens.

That just about sums it up.

Please go read.