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.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Politico: McDonnell Dodges Sotomayor Question
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:
Just another day at the office for good 'ole Both Ways Bob.
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Brad Rees Comes Clean, Finally Embraces Tea Partiers
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.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Bob McDonnell on Off Shore Drilling: More Distortion
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:
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Q & A With Creigh: "Failure is not an option."
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.
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
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:
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
