Photos, Videos: Forward on Climate, Stop the Keystone Tar Sands Pipeline Rally

Here are some photos (click to "embiggen") from today's "Forward on Climate," anti-Keystone Pipeline rally near the Washington Monument. Despite the cold, there were upwards of 35,000 [UPDATE: I'm hearing there may have been as many as 50,000 there] people from all over the country, and speakers such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Van Jones (NRDC Trustee and President of Rebuild the Dream), Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, 350.org President Bill McKibben (see his Daily Kos diary here), Tom Steyer (Investor and founder of the Center for the Next Generation), Chief Jacqueline Thomas (Immediate past Chief of the Saik'uz First Nation in British Columbia and co-founder Yinka Dene Alliance), The Rev. Lennox Yearwood (Hip Hop Caucus President and CEO), Maria T. Cardona (Latinovations Founder, Dewey Square Group Principal), and more. Also see the Forward on Climate press release.

lowkell :: Photos, Videos: Forward on Climate, Stop the Keystone Tar Sands Pipeline Rally

Tags: Energy and Environment, (All Tags) :: Add/Edit Tags on this Post

Print Friendly View  Send As Email

Gerson, Wehner Utterly Lost on "How to Save the Republican Party"

Start off with flawed - or totally wrong - premises, and it's highly unlikely that you're going to end up with the correct conclusions. Sadly (for Republicans, anyway), that's exactly what Dubya's former chief speechwriter Michael Gerson and Republican politico Peter Wehner manage to do in their new Commentary piece, "How to Save the Republican Party". There's so much muddle-headed "thinking" here, it's hard to know where to start. Here are just a few big ones.1. Gerson and Wehner argue that Republicans aren't really beholden to "millionaires and billionaires," aren't really"out of touch with ordinary Americans," and aren't really "engaged in class warfare on behalf of the upper class." But of course, as we all know, they very much are all of those things. Thus, we have Republican elected officials voting time and again to protect the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. We have Republicans lavishing corporate welfare on powerful corporations, yet opposing a small increase in the (pathetically low) minimum wage. We have Republicans dividing America into a nation of "makers" and "takers," in which everyone who receives Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, individual welfare (note: corporate welfare is fine and dandy!), food stamps, etc. are "takers," while everyone else, a la Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged, are the put-upon "makers," who are more than ready to "shrug" off the burdensome 99% of the population. Bottom line: the Republican Party today is the the party of Corporate Welfare, Crony Capitalism, Big Business, and Reverse Robin Hood Class Warfare (steal from the 99% to give to the top 1%). They receive enormous campaign contributions from all those (wealthy/powerful) folks, are lobbied relentlessly by them, share their values and interests, and have zero desire to break from them. Which is why Gerson and Wehner's recommendations - e.g., to become "visible and persistent critics of corporate welfare," to promote social mobility, to be more like Teddy Roosevelt (a great Progressive) - are completely implausible and laughable. In reality, the Republican Party's goal is anything but "equality of opportunity." Instead, it's to do everything it can to keep their entrenched, wealthy and powerful cronies and campaign contributors fat and happy. Why would this change? Sure, losing elections should be a motivation, but I'll be shocked if that alone trumps the crony capitalists' economic self interest in maintaining their Reverse Robin Hood gravy train.

lowkell :: Gerson, Wehner Utterly Lost on "How to Save the Republican Party"

2. It's hilarious to hear these two establishment Republicans using language that, if a Democrat (especially the "Kenyan" "socialist" in the White House) said it, would be considered "communism" or whatever. Yet here we are with Gerson and Wehner waxing rhapsodic about the benefits of the "common good," "community or social solidarity," "the obligations and attachments we have to each other," and "the Catholic doctrines of subsidiarity and solidarity with the poor."Wait a minute, isn't all that exactly what Barack Obama and the Democratic Party already stand for? And isn't all that constantly demonized by the Republican Party, not to mention the Rand Pauls, Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Ted Cruzes, Tea Partiers, "we built that!" folks, etc? Finally, isn't it government of/by/for the people which is there to look out for the common good, and to provide a check and balance (along with organized labor) against the unbridled greed of the the private sector? Well, yeah, obviously. So what do Gerson and Wehner have to offer, exactly? "[W]ays to protect the charitable sector from federal aggression?" Huh? The federal government's at war with charities? Who knew? How about "a concerted effort to encourage civic and cultural assimilation of immigrants?" You mean, the same immigrants the the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 said should "self deport?" Gotcha. 3. Gerson and Wehner argue that "the GOP can engage vital social issues forthrightly but in a manner that is aspirational rather than alienating." What does that mean exactly? Are Republicans going to stop trying to shut down abortion clinics, stop forcing women to have invasive ultrasound procedures, stop waging war against contraception and Planned Parenthood, stop voting against laws to provide equal protection for LGBT citizens, stop opposing even such a no-brainer bill as the Violence Against Women Act? Who cares about the Republicans' "manner," when it's their substance that's all wrong on "vital social issues?" And the fact is, as long as the Grumpy Old Party is beholden to the Pat Robertson religious (far) right, none of this is going to change. Again, though, just as with the GOP being in bed with the rich and powerful, how do Gerson and Wehner propose the Republican Party tell Robertson et al. to take a long hike off a short pier? Got me. 4. Finally, while I agree with Gerson and Wehner that "Republicans need to harness their policy views to the findings of science," there are a few big - possibly insurmountable - obstacles to overcome before they do. On climate science, for instance, if Republicans were to really accept what 97% of climate scientists know, that human emissions of greenhouse gases (largely from the combustion of fossil fuels) are rapidly and dangerously changing the climate, then the implications would be to get off of carbon-based fuels ASAP. Yet the GOP is funded, as well as controlled, to a large degree by those very fossil fuel interests, and the last thing the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, etc. want to see is a rapid transition to a clean energy economy. If Republicans try to move in that direction, they'll be snapped back fast and HARD by their paymasters. How do Gerson and Wehner propose to get around this problem? They don't say, because obviously they have no clue. And, by the way, even Gerson and Wehner can't bring themselves to stop lying about what would be needed to stop climate change (e.g, put a price on carbon!). They also can't help themselves but to lie about the conservative basis of ideas like a carbon tax (thereby correcting a clear and enormous market failure), or the conservative Republican idea of "cap and trade." Instead, Gerson and Wehner kill all their credibility by demonizing these conservative, Republican ideas as "Al Gore's policy agenda," or as "top-down approach of unwieldy government bureaucracies offering huge subsidies to favored companies such as Solyndra" (that's quite a mouthful...of bile and bull****). The bottom line is this: even when leading Republican "thinkers" (using the word loosely) like Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner take a stab at thinking through a reboot of the Republican Party, they fail miserably, because they ultimately can't manage to look at things objectively, clearly, and with courage. In the end, what the Republican Party needs to do is clear: return to its roots as a serious, right-of-center (yet also broadly Progressive - not a synonym for "liberal" by the way - in the Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Bob LaFollette, Dwight Eisenhower, John Chaffee, Lowell Weicker, Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller, etc. tradition) party. It also needs to ditch the Pat Robertson right, become a secular party that "believes" in science again, get with modernity, and stop trying to take America "back" to a time when wealthy white men had all the rights, and everyone else was pretty much powerless. Then, we'll see what happens. Until then, the GOP - and its "thinkers" like Gerson and Wehner - will remain lost in the political wilderness, increasingly out of touch with a population that simply doesn't think like them anymore, and whose economic interests are in stark conflict with the Robber Baron Republicans. Until that day comes, if it ever does, the job of everyone else in the country is simply to beat these guys (and yes, they're mostly guys), until hopefully they wake up and finally get a clue. Personally, I'm not holding my breath. UPDATE: Whoops, forgot to mention, they are also completely off base when they write, "Barack Obama has put in place an agenda of unreconstructed progressivism that is at war, not only with Reaganism, but also with Clintonism." That's just laughable on every level. The signature accomplishment, "Obamacare," was modeled after "Romneycare" and the 1993 Republican alternative to "Hillarycare." Not single payer. Not Medicare for all. Not even a public option. Instead, Obamacare keeps in place and even reinforces the for-profit healthcare model. Soooo progressive! LOL Other than that, the "stimulus" was heavily (foolishly!) weighted towards tax cuts, and also far too small, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has pointed out repeatedly. On foreign policy, Obama's been pounding Al Qaeda with drones and special forces. He's had an "all of the above" energy strategy, which many environmentalists oppose. I could go on and on, but the point is: Gerson and Wehner are utterly delusional if they believe that Barack Obama has been pushing "an agenda of unreconstructed progressivism."

Video: Ken Cuccinelli Surrounded by Security at Book Signing in Tysons Corner

I just got back from Ken Cuccinelli's book signing at the Barnes & Noble in Tysons Corner (and no, I wouldn't buy one of his books if it was the last book on earth, I was stranded on a desert island, and I was absolutely desperate for something - anything! - to read). There was a long line of people waiting to get their book signed, including several members of the anti-Cuccinelli group Cooch Watch 2013. What I found perhaps most interesting was how anxious Cuccinelli obviously was to keep the public from asking him questions in a freewheeling fashion (e.g., as in a normal book reading/Q&A session). Also, I was surprised how much security there was (note that it was already pretty secure being deep inside a large shopping mall, with no direct access from the street, and with no ability for anyone to protest right outside the store), including people standing to Cuccinelli's left and right. I asked one of them if he was with the campaign, he said "no sir." I asked him if he was with the book store, he said "no sir." And that was that. Who the heck knows, but they made it VERY clear that they wanted nobody getting anywhere near Cuccinelli, unless they had bought a book and were willing to proceed, one at a time (under watchful eyes of security) to have the book signed. Hmmmm. P.S. Also, see the "flip" for a photo of the "Cooch Watch" folks at the event by Gail Gordon Donegan. As Gail colorfully describes the scene: "Waiting in line with tea partiers is strange. The men look sociopathic and the women look broken. They all have haunted eyes." I simply can't understand how anyone in their right (as in "sane," not politically "right") mind could support this extremist, theocratic, anti-LGBT, anti-women, science denying sockpuppet of the Koch brothers. Of course, this is the mindset we're dealing with. Ugh. P.P.S. Gail Gordon Donegan adds, "Cooch deflected my friend's questions about Medicare and Social Security, and he wouldn't even entertain my questions about abortion and the First Amendment. So, there you have it. He stayed about one hour."

Jeannemarie Davis Throws 70-Year-Old Staffer Under Bus; Bashes Ben Tribbett as "Obama apologist"

This interview would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. Actually, on second thought, it IS hilarious, on several levels. First, here's a transcript of Jeannemarie Davis' comments, starting a bit after 13:00. Also, you might want to skim the NLS article that triggered this ("JMDD VOTE BUYING SCHEME EXPOSED"). Now, take it away Jeannemarie Davis!

Once again, it was just, you know, like I said, Savannah...she's 70 years old, she doesn't write her email well, she absolutely garbled what she was intending to write. Once again, we did not ask her to send any emails out and to reach out to the College Republicans through an email, that was just something she just decided to do on her own volition and unfortunately did it very poorly. As I said, she feels very badly about this. And I also want to add that Ben Tribbett, the person who decided to go viral on this, he's a liberal left-wing Obama apologist, and he worked for my Democrat [sic] opponent who ran against me back in 2007. So, I know Tribbett well, I know what his agenda is. Curiously, he used to work for Pete Snyder. But I think this just speaks volumes to why we have conventions instead of primaries; the party chooses to have conventions to keep liberals out of our nominating process, and why we would allow Ben Tribbett, who is a well-known, left-wing Obama apologist, to have any influence over our convention, I have no idea...this is just a poor older woman who made a very bad mistake, and to throw her under the bus like this is just a terrible thing to do...she just sent out an email that she shouldn't have sent out, that she didn't even reread before she sent out to make sure her message didn't come across differently from what her intent was.

Hahahaha. OK, a few thoughts. 1. Ben Tribbett may be "well-known" and "left-wing," but anyone who has ever read his blog knows that he's anything but an "Obama apologist." To the (stark!) contrary, Ben was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter during the rough-and-tumble 2007-2008 Democratic primaries. To this day, Ben remains a huge Hillary fan, but an "Obama apologist?" That's just utterly laughable. 2. You've gotta love the way that liberal Republican ("RINO") Jeannemarie Davis has mastered the lingo of the Tea Party and the far right in general, with all their juvenile verbal tics like using "Democrat" (as opposed to proper English: "Democratic") as an adjective, like pretending that Barack Obama is left wing (more like worst Socialist EVER! LOL), etc. It's just particularly amusing coming out of the mouth of someone who used to pride herself on being a liberal-moderate Republican. Whatever. Obviously, she'll say whatever she has to say, pretend to be whatever she has to be, in order to try and win the GOP nomination. Which she won't, of course - pretty much zero chance of that happening at a convention dominated by right-wing activists. 3. I've gotta say, I did enjoy Jeannemarie Davis' clever attempt to tie her rival, Frank "Big Lie" Luntz protege Pete Snyder, to this supposed "left-wing Obama apologist" Ben Tribbett. True, Ben used to work at Snyder's New Media Strategies, but if we really want to start examining where everyone has ever worked, this could get real interesting real fast. On the other hand, I hope whatever Davis is trying to do to Snyder succeeds, as he'd make a horrendous Lieutenant Governor and should certainly not be elected to anything, ever (plus, from a Republican point of view, he was a total #FAIL heading up "Virginia Victory 2012"). 4. I find it highly ironic that Jeannemarie Davis criticizes Ben Tribbett for throwing this "poor older woman" under the bus, when Davis herself repeatedly and viciously...throws her (now former) staffer under the bus! For starters, Davis informs us that this "poor older woman" has now "tendered her resignation [from the Davis campaign] and she's no longer working with the campaign." Speaking of throwing someone under the bus - nice going Jeannemarie Davis! In addition, if you read the transcript and/or listen to the interview, you may notice Jeannemarie Davis repeatedly bashing this "poor older woman" for being sloppy, a bad writer, irresponsible, etc, etc. And, of course, for this entire incident being the "poor older woman"'s fault, not Jeannemarie Davis'. Nice, huh? 5. If Jeannemarie Davis really believes that Virginia Republicans switched their nominating process from a primary to a convention to keep liberals from somehow influencing who their nominee will be, she's either an ignoramus or a paranoid wackjob (or both). In reality, of course, liberals don't generally waste their time voting in Republican primaries, certainly not in numbers that would make any difference. More to the point, everyone knows that the reason the 2013 Virginia GOP nominating process was changed was because of a coup by Ken Cuccinelli and his supporters, who wanted to force out Bill Bolling. It worked, by the way, but it had nothing to do with whatever Jeannemarie Davis is blathering about. 6. Finally, I find it hilarious that Jeannemarie suddenly hates Ben Tribbett, given that she and her husband were quite friendly with Ben prior to 2007 (when Ben played a big role in helping Chap Petersen tossing Jeannemarie Davis out of the State Senate - thank goodness!). I mean, I understand how after an experience like that, Tom and Jeannemarie Davis would be bitter, angry, and terrified of Ben Tribbett, but it's just hilarious how over the top she goes in this interview to bash her old friend. Ah, politics...gotta love it huh?

Video: Virginia Del. Todd Gilbert (R): Anti-LGBT Discrimination "really doesn't exist"

If you hadn't heard, SB701 - a bill that would have protected lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender state employees in Virginia - was tabled in the House subcommittee last night. Here's some video demonstrating the type of mentality that leads to a no-brainer bill like this being voted down, as opposed to being passed unanimously as it should be. Sadly, it's the unbelievable ignorance of people like Virginia Del. Todd Gilbert (R-15th) - as exhibited in this video; see transcript of Gilbert's remarks below - that result in the kind of travesty we saw last year, with Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland being rejected simply because of his sexual orientation (note that Del. Gilbert refused to vote for Thorne-Begland's nomination last year). And no, although judicial nominees would not have been affected by this bill, Thorne-Begland's example demonstrates in a glaring way that discrimination is alive and well in Virginia, and in public employment.

I’ve heard this bill several years in a row. Among all the people who spoke, there was not a single example of one that was discriminated against in public employment. I challenge those in the room to bring forth an example. I was told the following year that there would be a line out the door of people with examples of having been discriminated against in public employment. There was not a single example anyone that felt that except that abstract fear that we’ve heard testified here today. I heard the gentlewoman today say that Virginia Commonwealth - VCU is this oppressive and intolerant environment. I dare say that’s probably not true. The examples we’ve heard from today have actually reaffirmed that people are interested in coming to Virginia and engaging in careers here and are thriving in the process of engaging in those careers. I think the many people that testify in their roles in higher education demonstrate that there is no problem this bill solves and once again, we’ve heard from many people about this specter of oppression that really doesn’t exist because we don’t have a single example of anyone who has been discriminated against for this reason.

Videos: Virginia Democrats Read Passages from Ken Kookinelli's Crazy New Book

The following video is from a press conference held a few minutes ago in the Virginia Capitol, with Democratic legislators reading some of the craziest passages from Ken Kookinelli's new book, "The Last Line of Defense." I've only read the portions that are available on Amazon.com, etc., plus what's been reported in the newspapers, but let's just put it this way: it confirms everything we ever thought about this extremist nutjob. Anyway, enjoy the videos (several more on the "flip")!

Video: Scarborough Says Cuccinelli is "certifiable when it comes to mainstream political thought"

So sayeth former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL):

Cuccinelli, right, so here's a guy - Tea Party favorite in Virginia - the guy is certifiable when it comes to mainstream political thought. This is a guy who attacks Medicare, he attacks Medicaid, he attacks Social Security, this is a guy who said he was thinking about not having his children get Social Security numbers because, quote, "that's how they track you." This is a guy that has said more things that will offend the voters that swing elections than is humanly possible.

Thank you, Republican Joe Scarborough, for echoing what Democrats, progressives, liberals, environmentalists, etc. have been saying for years: Ken Kookinelli is straightjacket/men-in-white-coats-level loony tunes. The scary thing is, Scarborough's list was a short one for Cuckoo: add to it climate science denial, which in and of itself puts you into the tinfoil hat camp of flat earthers and "the moonshot was faked" folks; dabbling in "birtherism;" vicious anti-LGBT attitudes; support for a "personhood" amendment, which would make abortion providers murderers and also make several popular forms of contraception (as well as embryonic stem cell research) akin to murder as well. There's a lot more than that, too, but we'll just leave it there for now. The fact that the Republican Party could nominate a total nutjob like this, and that it's not an isolated incident - see Todd Akin, Christine O'Donnell, Richard Mourdoch, and many others the past few years - really says it all about that party. Why would anyone in their right mind vote Republican at this point is truly beyond me.

Exclusive: Interview with Virginia Democratic LG Candidate Ralph Northam

Recently, I interviewed Aneesh Chopra, one of two candidates for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General of Virginia. Yesterday, prior to the Brigades meeting at Neighbors Restaurant in Vienna, I had a chance to sit down with State Senator Ralph Northam, the other Democrat running for LG this year. I shot some video of Sen. Northam speaking to the 100 or so Brigades members in attendance. For this post, though, I wanted to concentrate mainly on the ground we covered in our interview. Here are my questions and Sen. Northam's answers, summarized for brevity. Thanks again to Sen. Northam for his time, and for an interesting, informative interview.Question #1 I asked Sen. Northam about a concern I've heard mentioned, that if he won the LG race, his Senate seat would open up and could be lost to the Democrats. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) Northam expressed confidence that Democrats would hold the seat, specifically mentioned "two good candidates" - Lynwood Lewis and Paula Miller. Northam added that redistricting in 2011 swung the 6th Senate district "a few points in the Democratic [direction]," although of course no district is ever totally safe. Bottom line: Northam doesn't think this will, or should be, an issue in the LG campaign. Question #2 I asked Sen. Northam what he thought about the controversy over Republican efforts to re-redistrict the State Senate, just 2 years after it was redistricted following the 2010 census.

lowkell :: Exclusive: Interview with Virginia Democratic LG Candidate Ralph Northam

Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) Northam noted that the Republican re-redistricting plan would mean that 46% of Virginians will have a different Senator. That, according to Northam,, "obviously is not good democracy, but it's also unconstitutional" (the Virginia constitution says redistricting should occur in the year ending in "1" every 10 years). Northam's hope is that Speaker Howell will rule this legislation "non-germane." If that doesn't happen, "we hope that the governor will have the spine to veto the bill, and if he doesn't, then we're going to end up in court; we're going to fight it to the end..." Question #3 I asked why Sen. Northam decided to run for LG this year, also why he changed his mind from his inclination earlier this year that he wouldn't run. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) Northam spoke about the importance of getting "our majority back in the Senate...the only body right now that can stop the [Republican] social agenda, the voter suppression laws...last year "believe it or not, we were one vote away from the 'personhood' bill, you talk about taking the Commonwealth of Virginia back to the 19th century, that would have done it." In addition, Northam believes that as LG, he'll be able to "travel around the state and recruit good [Democratic] candidates" in both the Senate and House "and to change some of these seats." This is important, he feels, because "looking at their [social] agenda, their assault on women, their assault on democracy with voter suppression, there's no reasoning with these people...they don't have logic, so the only way to change that trend is to replace their seats" with "good Democrats." Finally, Northam noted that one of his medical practice partners had passed away in February 2012, and that "left a tremendous void." Since that time, however, Northam and his remaining medical practice partners were able to "make some adjustments in our practice." In addition, Northam's partners and his wife urged him to run, given the importance of health care issues. Question #4 I asked Sen. Northam what his view of the Virginia LG position was, other than breaking ties in the Senate. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) Northam said breaking the ties and presiding over the Senate is the #1 function of the office, along with "maintaining the traditions of the Senate." As he already mentioned, recruiting Democratic candidates is important as well. And of course health care is a top priority, given all the uncertainties with the Affordable Care Act, to "put Virginia in the best possible posture to provide quality health care to all Virginians." Northam specifically mentioned the expansion of Medicaid, noting that it's VERY short sighted for Virginia not to be expanding Medicaid, the health care exchange, and the general evolution of health care from a quantity-based system to a quality- or outcome-based system ("that's the only way we're ever going to address costs...and that's what's driving the Commonwealth and the nation to its knees"). Northam argued that he could have more influence as LG than as 1 of 40 Senators, in a "couple ways," as an adviser to Governor McAuliffe, as well as working with the Secretary of Health and the Commissioner of Health. Finally, Northam said that as a doctor, he is "naturally a mediator," and he hopes to bring some moderation and bipartisan cooperation back to the Senate. Question #5 I asked Sen. Northam what other issues, aside from health care, that he'd be focusing on his campaign and as LG, if he's elected. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) The #1 priority, in Northam's view, is "our economy and jobs," and the "way to support that is through transportation...that has got to be the top priority for the Commonwealth." Northam hopes Gov. McAuliffe will "form a commission" to deciding out what our transportation needs are, how to find a sustainable source of revenue, etc. Northam said that he's "a big proponent of transit, we can't just keep widening roads and pouring more concrete...we have to look at ways of getting vehicles off the roads...we have to have a plan that involves the entire system." A couple other areas Northam stressed were education and energy. On education, he noted that he's a medical school professor, and he tells people that "other countries are not playing for second." Northam's a "tremendous advocate" for pre-K education. As far as K-12, "we still need to put more emphasis on vocational and technical training, as obviously not everyone's destined to go to college" and we need to have people prepared for the workforce. Finally, we're "blessed with good colleges and universities, but we can't get behind the curve on that...[also] taxpayers in the Commonwealth should have 'first dibs' on our colleges and universities." On energy, Northam stressed having a strong Renewable Portfolio Standard for renewable energy. He is strongly supportive of "decoupling" power production from the power companies' profits, arguing that incentivizing conservation and energy efficiency could probably reduce our energy consumption by 20%. Northam likened energy to health care, arguing that we need to move from a "quantity-based system" to a "quality-based system," and focus on the tremendous potential of things like Virginia offshore wind power. Bottom line: "we need some vision and we need a comprehensive energy plan...what are our needs and what are the best ways to move forward?" Question #6 I asked Sen. Northam specifically about climate change and the impacts on the Hampton Roads area. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) Northam said he's spent a lot of time on this, was on Gov. Kaine's climate change commission, knows how important it is for us to prepare for sea level rise and other impacts of climate change. Northam noted that the science-denying attitudes of the attitudes of the Ken Cuccinellis of the world are an "embarrassment for Virginia in 2013." Question #7 We continued discussing Ken Cuccinelli and his attitudes beyond climate science... Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) According to Northam, everything Cuccinelli's done - his attack on women's reproductive rights, in vitro fertilization, contraception, etc. - has been "to take us backwards rather than in a positive direction." In 2013, Northam argued, we need leaders who understand how to interpret science and believe in science, because that's what's going to take us in a positive direction." Northam agreed with Sen. Herring that Cuccinelli's persecution of Michael Mann was "unAmerican." Northam quipped that he has a degree in psychiatry and neurology and he "can't figure Ken Cuccinelli out...his positions just defy logic." Question #8 I asked Sen. Northam what his case was for Democratic voters to support him over Aneesh Chopra in the primary. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) Northam argued that he's been "in the trenches" for years, "fighting for the people of Virginia;" that he has numerous relationships and legislative accomplishments in a variety of areas; that he's run two winning campaigns in Virginia, demonstrating his "electability;" and finally the need for "diversity on the ticket" (he was raised in a "rural area," it's important for Hampton Roads to have representation in the state). Question #9 I asked Sen. Northam about rumors that he'd been approached by Senate Republicans in 2009 to switch parties, and that he supposedly had considered it. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) Northam said there was a lot of misinformation (e.g., RPV chair Jeff Fredericks "didn't know what he was talking about"), that all it was a "Republican pipe dream," that he's a strong and longstanding Democrat who's fought for Democratic principles, and that he would "never even think about" changing parties. Northam added that "the Lieutenant Governor has to be extremely loyal to his party," and that he's been a loyal Democrat for years on issue after issue. Northam also noted that if Republicans put a good idea on the table that could help Virginia, he's willing to move forward with it as a "statesman." Question #10 Just as I did with Aneesh Chopra, I asked Sen. Northam about the same pieces of legislation being debated in this year's General Assembly, and asked him whether he supported or opposed it. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) 1. Bob McDonnell's transportation legislation. Northam says any plan that takes money from the general fund is a "non-starter." It also makes not "a bit of sense," in his view, to penalize hybrid vehicles. There also won't be any plan that gets out of the Senate that eliminates the gas tax. 2. Deeds bill: "Requires a background check for any firearm purchase." "Great bill" - YES. 3. Janet Howell bill: "Elections; absentee voting. Provides that qualified voters may vote absentee in person without providing an excuse or reason." "Great idea" - YES. 4. Mark Herring (SB 1084): "Health insurance; authorizes SCC to establish state plan management partnership exchange." "Excellent idea" - YES. 5. Mark Herring: "Classification as hospitals of certain facilities in which abortions are performed. Eliminates language classifying facilities in which five or more first trimester abortions per month are performed as hospitals for the purpose of compliance with regulations of the Board of Health..." "I was helping him with that" - YES. 6. Donald McEachin: "Constitutional amendment (first resolution); restoration of voting rights. Provides for the automatic restoration of voting rights to persons convicted of nonviolent felonies..." "Very supportive of that" - YES. 7. Chap Petersen: "Renewable energy facilities; eligibility for incentives. Establishes a requirement that electricity generated from renewable sources be generated from a facility located in the Commonwealth..." "A very good idea" - YES. 8. Donald McEachin: "Nondiscrimination in state employment. Prohibits discrimination in state employment based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or status as a special disabled veteran..." YES. 9. Ralph Northam: "Study; mandatory renewable energy portfolio standard program..."  (It's his bill, so obviously YES) 10. Ralph Northam: " Ultrasound prior to abortion. Removes the requirement that a woman undergo a transabdominal ultrasound prior to an abortion." (Again, it's his bill, so obviously YES) 11. Mamie Locke: "Payday lending. Repeals provisions authorizing payday lending in the Commonwealth." "Very supportive" - YES. 12. John Miller: "Virginia Redistricting Commission created. Establishes a five-member commission to prepare redistricting plans for the House of Delegates, state Senate, and congressional districts. Appointments to the Commission shall be made one each by the four majority and minority party leaders of the House and Senate." "That's a great idea" - YES. 13. Thomas Garrett: "Nonpublic school students; participation in interscholastic programs. Prohibits public schools from joining an organization governing interscholastic programs that does not deem eligible for participation a student who (i) is receiving home instruction or is attending a private school that does not offer the interscholastic program in which the student wishes to participate" (Tebow bill) NO. 14. Charles Carrico: " Constitutional amendment (first resolution); freedom of speech. Expands the freedom of speech provisions of the Constitution of Virginia to permit prayer and the recognition of religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including public school property." "Very much opposed" - NO. 15. Charles Carrico: "Substance abuse screening and assessment of public assistance applicants and recipients. Requires local departments of social services to screen each Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare (VIEW) program participant to determine whether probable cause exists to believe the participant is engaged in the use of illegal substances." NO. (Northam joked that perhaps we should do this for legislators instead of welfare recipients) 16. Chap Petersen: "Constitutional amendment (first resolution); tax credits. Provides that no tax credit shall remain in effect longer than five years unless it is reenacted by the General Assembly." "That's a great idea...probably needs to be on an individual, case-by-case basis," as businesses need to plan long term. But yes, we need to "look at all these credits." 17. Barbara Comstock: "Right to vote by secret ballot on labor organization representation. Declares that, in any procedure providing for the designation, selection, or authorization of a labor organization to represent employees, the right of an individual employee to vote by secret ballot is a fundamental right that shall be guaranteed from infringement." NO. 18. Mark Cole: "Elections; polling place procedures; voter identification requirements. Removes several items from the list of acceptable identification documents that a voter must present when voting at the polls on election day: a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck that shows the name and address of the voter." "A terrible law...we should be making it easier, not more difficult, for people to vote." NO. ("They obviously got beat badly in 2012, so they're doing what they can to change the rules...") Question #11 I asked a number of quick questions on energy issues, including on offshore oil drilling, fracking and mountaintop removal coal mining. Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) Northam has "significant concerns" about offshore oil drilling and the potential for an oil spill: military training, NASA Wallops, aquaculture (oil spill would "totally wipe them out"), the risk to tourism of oil on the beaches, offshore oil drilling royalties wouldn't even come to Virginia, etc. More importantly, we have huge offshore wind resources, why don't we focus on that instead of "Drill Baby Drill?" Fracking: We have to be "real careful," we need to "wean ourselves away from fossil fuels." Mountaintop removal coal mining: Northam said there are a lot more, better jobs that would come from expanding wind energy compared to capital-intensive mountaintop removal coal mining. Question #12 Finally, I asked Sen. Northam how we can bridge the differences - economic, political, cultural, etc. - between different parts of Virginia? Sen. Northam's answer (condensed) In Northam's view, we live in a "diverse state...different areas, different interests, different agendas." The key to bridging those differences is "communication."

Virginia AG Candidate Blasts Ken Cuccinelli for his Assault on Climate Science

From the Brigades meeting this past weekend; just wanted to highlight this portion of Sen. Herring's speech with some "front-page" love.

The answer is, the Attorney General can do a lot in that area [of climate change]. First of all, we need to have an Attorney General who believes in science [APPLAUSE]. When Ken Cuccinelli went after Mike Mann, the researcher at UVA, that was one of those that really told me this is going to become a pattern with him. Sometimes there are grey areas in the law, but he has so manipulated the law; no reasonable attorney in my view could have reached the conclusion that the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act could be used to basically persecute a researcher, and the Attorney General did it because he disagreed with his ideas and conclusions, which is downright unAmerican, it is! So, number one, we need to have an Attorney General who believes that a lot of what we're doing here on Earth...is affecting the climate and to take some responsible action and believes in science. We also need to send a message that's the complete opposite of what he did; the message that that sent to people outside of Virginia was that we were a backward state, that we were anti-science, and here we are from an economic development standpoint trying to attract top researchers to Virginia's universities...attract technology companies. Well, if you're a researcher thinking about bringing a research team to Virginia, why would you do that if the Attorney General's going to come after you and subpoena your data; you're not...the Attorney General is the guardian of the public interest...and the public has an interest in making sure that regulations are applied equally and fairly, making sure that our environmental laws are being enforced, those are the kinds of things an Attorney General can do.

Personally, I can't wait for the election of Mark Herring as Virginia Attorney General. The enormous, positive difference from Ken Kookinell's reign of terror will be such a relief, and also such great news for Virginia, it's hard to overstate it. To help Mark, please click here. Thanks.

No Banking on Shad Planking

by Dan Sullivan

Shad Planking tickets are on sale. Last year the event was snubbed by Senator Kaine, leaving George Allen the featured speaker. Bill Bolling's campaign poured a lot of beer. Four years ago, T-Mac made a splash, but like Allen and Bolling, it mattered not. The event is a sideshow.Granted, it is not as disappointing as most carnival attractions. If nothing else, you get a bony lunch. And there is something else. If you have any interest at all in the anthropology of Virginia political thought, this is an enlightening event. It bears all the authenticity of a historical re-enactment. The only way George Allen could have been more at home would have been if he'd come dolled up in the confederate uniform he wore in his movie cameo role.  You find vestiges of antiquated culture here you might never observe out of the closet in more accessible public venues. That is the evolutionary branch of this event: a program to appease a demographic yearning for the comfort of a time that they dream could exist. Their future is some choreographed replay of an imaginary past. Here, the attendees who represent diversity are most often caricatures that appease that yearning. You know...they know their place, they toe the line. Radtke and Bishop offered many who would never vote for them the opportunity to feel better about themselves. All is right with the world where diversity is only skin deep. When Democrats crash the party, you can almost sense time folding. They really can't step through that barrier between the two perceptions of past, present, and future. So while it is an engrossing play, that is all it is. And this play is not the thing. It is long past the time when this was an event where relevant political trends could be measured or influenced. There is every reason to attend as an observer, but no reason to take the role of respectful and acquiescing participant; particularly this year, when the program will be a Cuccinelliphant love-fest. Last year candidate Kaine couldn't attend due to scheduling. This year, Democratic candidates should schedule not to attend.