I-66 Widening Debate Heats Up in 47th District

The I-66 widening debate is heating up in Arlington's 47th House of Delegates district between Democratic candidates Patrick Hope, Adam Parkhomenko and Miles Grant. Here's the sequence of recent statements on the issue:

1. At a forum the other day in South Arlington, Patrick Hope said he'd support widening I-66 for "bus only" but then said he opposed widening I-66. Confusing.

2. Tonight, at a forum in Arlington's Lyon Park, 47th HoD candidate Adam Parkhomenko said that, unlike Patrick Hope, he opposes widening I-66 for a bus lane because "it won't be long before the state says, 'the bus lane's not working, let's make it 3 lanes in every direction.'"

3. Patrick Hope then responded to Adam by repeating that he opposes widening I-66 but also, seemingly in contradiction, that "the only way that I would ever agree to this is if that one lane that's widened is devoted solely to bus lanes." So...no widening except if it's for a bus lane, in which case widening is ok. Or something.

4. Miles Grant concluded the debate with the following zinger: "I think when we talk about I-66, if we start compromising here in this room right now, what's going to happen by the time we get down to Richmond...you need to ask for what you really want and what you really believe in."

So, the bottom line question on the issue of I-66 widening is simple: as Miles Grant asks, what does Patrick Hope "really want" and what does he "really believe in?" If you can figure it out from the video above, please let us all know. Thanks.

Terry McAuliffe's Latest Mailer

Please click to "embiggen."

UPDATE: In response to some of the comments, I think it's important to highlight that this is 100% a straight-up comparative piece -- no editorializing, just the facts. In other words, it's EXACTLY what candidates SHOULD be doing during primaries, comparing and contrasting themselves on their records and not going "negative" (which facts by definition cannot be) or ad hominem. As we wind down to the last 1 1/2 weeks of this primary, Terry's campaign has done a great job of doing just that - running a positive campaign on the issues - and can hold its head high. Yet another reason I'm proud to support Terry.

WTF?!? Liberty Dem's Must Apologize, Be "Pro-Life"

If this is reported correctly, it is complete crap:

After meeting with Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. today (Wednesday), members of Liberty University’s Campus Democrats club said they are developing a proposal that would let the club regain officially recognized status while promoting a pro-life agenda.

The club also is drafting an apology to the school and a retraction of some statements it made to the news media last week after the university revoked the club’s official recognition.

I'm almost speechless here; this has got to be an Onion parody, right? Somebody please tell me it's a joke. Thank you.

Gingrich Calls Sotomayor a "‘Latina woman racist’"

That's right, the Republican former Speaker of the House really said this. See ThinkProgress for more. Amazing...these guys really DO want to be out of power for the next generation or two by alienating women AND the fastest growing ethnic group in America, Latinos. Duhhhhhhhhh.

UPDATE: It's even worse, MUCH worse. Believe it or not, Gingrich actually sent this "tweet" while visiting Auschwitz, where he also tweeted that he "went through a gas chamber & crematorium" and that "[e]veryone should see it and think of the evil which stalks the world today." Seriously disturbed. As Jeffrey Feldman writes:

Let me repeat that: Newt Gingrich, touring a memorial of the perils of actual racism, using his Blackberry or cell phone (not sure which) to tweet GOP talking points--from Auschwitz--about Sonia Sotomayor being a "racist."

There is a serious sickness in the GOP when this kind of thing shows up on Newt Gingrich's timeline

Mike Signer: "I'm a Jim Webb Democrat"

Richmond.com has a positive article on Mike Signer, entitled "I'm a Jim Webb Democrat." But what is a "Jim Webb Democrat" exactly? According to Signer, it's someone who believes in "the principles of social justice and economic fairness," as Jim Webb talked about extensively in his 2006 campaign for U.S. Senate. I definitely agree with that; if you aren't willing to fight for social justice and economic fairness, you simply are not a "Jim Webb Democrat." Period.

Being a "Jim Webb Democrat" also means being both pro-worker and pro-union. As the Virginia AFL-CIO website noted in October 2008, Jim Webb is "the first statewide official in Virginia to have a union card, two purple hearts and three tattoos." He was also "the first statewide official in VA to walk a picket line while running for office." For his part, Signer strongly supports organized labor, noting that his parents and grandparents were in unions, and that "unions helped build the middle class in this country; I don’t think there’s any question about that." Sounds like a "Jim Webb Democrat to me!" :)

Besides being pro-worker and pro-union, being a "Jim Webb Democrat" of course means being pro-veteran, and the Richmond.com article notes that "[v]eterans issues are of particular interest to Signer."

Another sign that you're a "Jim Webb Democrat" is that you're not afraid to take on tough, politically difficult fights. For instance, reforming our criminal "justice" (using the term loosely) system, including "reintegrating ex-offenders" as Webb argues. For his part, Mike Signer has been forcefully "championing the cause to restore the voting rights of convicted felons, upon their release."

There's also the social libertarian aspect to being a "Jim Webb Democrat." For Webb, the philosophy is expressed as "the government shouldn't come in our front door unless there's an overriding reason to do so," and means being pro-Second Amendment as well as against "government-in-the-bedroom" stuff like Marshall-Newman. I spoke with Signer, and although he wouldn't call himself a "libertarian" (as a theoretician, Signer doesn't subscribe to "libertarianism" per se) or express his philosophy exactly as Webb does, he certainly believes that government shouldn't discriminate against anyone and that people have the right to bear arms (although he's supportive of closing the "gun show loophole").

Finally, both Mike Signer and Jim Webb are writer-intellectuals as well as politicians. In this day and age, that makes them unusual, although of course there's a certain guy in the White House who's written a couple of books... :) Seriously, though, Mike Signer and Jim Webb are different people, but I think it's totally reasonable for Signer to assert, "I am a Jim Webb Democrat." Go Mike!

Tancredo: Sotomayor is a "Racist"

All I can say is, I hope Republicans keep up this line of attack on a super-qualified, super-impressive Hispanic woman nominee for the Supreme Court. If they do, they can put the final nail in the coffin of their demise as a national political party for decades to come by alienating Hispanics and women in one fell swoop. So, please, as your former fearless leader might say, "bring it on!"

UPDATE: Funny tweet by Atrios, "i'm so old i can remember when republicans were going to capture the latino vote 4evah." Not anymore! :)

Bobby Scott Endorses Jody Wagner

I strongly support Mike Signer for Lieutenant Governor. Nonetheless, the following endorsement is a nice one for Jody Wagner:

Today Congressman Bobby Scott announced his endorsement of Jody Wagner for Lt. Governor. Scott, who has represented Virginia's Third district since 1992, becomes the third member of the Commonwealth's Congressional delegation to endorse Wagner, joining Congressmen Glenn Nye (VA-2) and Rick Boucher (VA-9). His support provides Wagner, the former Treasurer of the Commonwealth and Secretary of Finance, with a critical boost in the Hampton Roads and Richmond regions ahead of the June 9th primary.

Said Scott: "I'm proud to stand with Jody Wagner in her race for Lt. Governor. As a long-time legislator in the Virginia Assembly and Congress, I have great respect for Jody's deep experience as Treasurer and Secretary of Finance. I saw her work hand-in-hand with Mark Warner and Tim Kaine to straighten out the state's budget, maintain our critical AAA bond rating, create new jobs, and invest billions more in education."

It's fascinating to me that we're still seeing major endorsements just 13 days from the primary, but with the LG race too close to call, I can understand why the two candidates - Signer and Wagner - are jockeying for every possible advantage heading they can get.

A Liberal "D" Endorses a Conservative "D"

It's hard to explain when a politician from one part of the political spectrum endorses someone from another part. But that's exactly what's happening later today, as liberal Demcrat Leslie Byrne endorses conservative Democrat Creigh Deeds for governor. Byrne's endorsement of Deeds - who has voted (among other things) "to designate English as the official language of Virginia, to make illegal immigrants ineligible for state or local benefits, and against a bill to allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition rates," as well as "to void contracts between members of the same sex that would have provided rights associated with marriage, such as hospital visits, and...against adding sexual orientation to a list of hate crime categories" - is hard to explain. My guess is that Leslie Byrne not only disagrees with Creigh Deeds on all those issues, but that she disagrees strongly (not to mention on environmental issues, such as Creigh's strong support for "clean coal" and even for "mountaintop removal" coal mining!).

So what's up with this surprise endorsement? The only thing I can think of is that Leslie simply likes Creigh Deeds (he is a very likable guy) and feels loyal to him, having run on the same "TLC" (Tim, Leslie, Creigh) ticket in 2005. Other than that...I dunno, maybe Leslie's friendship with Chap Petersen, who supports Creigh Deeds, comes into play here? A slap at Brian Moran, who has run as the born-again "liberal" in this race, as well as some of the people who support Brian Moran? Again, it's hard for me to explain this one, especially with only 13 days left to go and with Deeds trailing Terry by 14 points in the polls. Any other ideas? Other than that, I'm stumped.

P.S. This endorsement comes after another one that made perfect sense - Leslie announcing her support for Mike Signer, who is clearly the more progressive candidate in the race for LG. Now that one I can understand!

Michael Gerson: Republicans Should Listen to Colin Powell

I don't usually recommend columns by George W. Bush's former speechwriter, but today's colunn by Michael Gerson, "Colin Powell's Truths," is a good one. The core argument is that Colin Powell's inclusive, tolerant, even "progressive" approach towards Republicanism is superior to Dick Cheney's narrow, intolerant, reactionary attitude. Gerson's key points are:

1. "[I]t is a myth that a single, conservative message can win everywhere in America."

2. "A political party that appeals across a diverse, continental nation will be a diverse, ideological coalition."

3. "[T]he next successful Republican leader must include an element of nontraditional appeal"

4. And finally:

Obama's party has assembled its current majority among groups of growing demographic (and thus democratic) influence -- particularly nonwhites, the young and college-educated voters. It is difficult to imagine Republicans regaining momentum in these groups without an aggressive, unexpected message of social justice, inclusion, environmental stewardship and social mobility -- in addition to the economic and moral conservatism that will motivate much of the Republican coalition for the foreseeable future.

I completely agree with Michael Gerson in this case, but I seriously doubt whether anyone in today's Republican Party is listening.

To the contrary, what we have in today's Republican Party appears to be either: 1) hard-line and divisive figures (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, "Joe the Plumber," assorted right-wing talk-show hosts getting themselves "waterboarded" or otherwise acting like idiots) who will appeal to the ever-shrinking Republican "base" but to nobody else; 2) a few "moderates" like Colin Powell who are 100% correct but appear to be crying in the GOP wilderness; and 3) a hodgepodge of eclectic-but-not-particularly-effectual voices ranging from Eric Cantor (and his laughable "listening tour," which so far hasn't proceeded much beyond a pretty good family pizza restaurant in Arlington) to Newt Gingrich and his all-over-the-place musings. The question is whether anybody can effectively move the Republican Party beyond the intellectual, ideological and electoral cul-de-sac it currently finds itself in towards a plausible future in American politics?

If not, what will happen to the Republican Party? Will it become a marginalized party, in the minority for decades to come? Will it split into factions (religious fundamentalists, anti-tax zealots, libertarians, etc.)? Or, will it simply go the way of the Whigs and other failed parties of the past, to be replaced by...something. My hope is that the current Republican Party will die, to be replaced by a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive party along the lines of what Michael Gerson talks about: "an aggressive, unexpected message of social justice, inclusion, environmental stewardship and social mobility..."

We'll see, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, let the Democratic Party oversee a successful, progressive renaissance in America, and let the Republican Party snipe and bicker from the sidelines (while saying "no" to everything, apparently).

Intelligent Analysis of the North Korea Situation

Here are a few suggestions for intelligent analysis of the North Korea situation, which now includes missile tests, a nuclear test, and even a warning that "[North Korea] is no longer bound by the 1953 armistice that halted the Korean War." And you thought Virginia politics were rough? Ha. :)

The Washington Note by Steve Clemons has an article entitled, What Should Obama Do When Kim Jong Il is Not "Kim Jong Well"? Clemons says "there are simply few real options," advocating "patience" and diplomacy to "find a way to co-opt the North Koreans into a new dance." Clemons adds:

North Korea's provocations are reckless but while going higher up the ladder of naughtiness, they do not meet the standard for invasion or attack -- and a tougher "sanctions regime" may give the bad guys in North Korea's unstable political order exactly what they want.

The Telegraph's Diplomatic Editor, David Blair, also advocates patience writing that "North Korea's unique combination of might and fragility rules out the use of economic or military pressure." Blair concludes:

In the end, Mr Obama has only one viable option: waiting for North Korea's regime to destroy itself. In the meantime, America and her allies will have to contain Mr Kim's serial delinquency, perhaps by throwing him the occasional bone.

Foreign Policy magazine has "How Scared Should You Be: Six Takes on North Korea's Nuclear Test by six different analysts. Donald Gross advocates "careful calculation and skillful diplomacy," including "energizing the Six Party nuclear talks" and "vigorous bilateral diplomacy" are the ways to go. Daniel Drezner hopes that the North Korean provocations will help "goad China and Russia into doing something." Steven Walt warns against "going into full panic mode." To the contrary, Walt believes that "the best response is to remain calm, and stop talking as if this event is a test of Obama's resolve or a fundamental challenge to U.S. policy." Philip Zelikow proposes a two-track approach to what he calls the "spreading cancer of North Korea": 1) "to offer -- in good faith -- a genuine opportunity for the North to make a constructive strategic choice for the future"; and 2) "to strengthen U.S. and allied ability (political as well as military) to defend themselves if the North made a different choice." Siegfried Hecker writes, "North Korea's tests are not the scary part. It's the country's collaboration with Iran." Hecker concludes that "[p]reventing escalation of nuclear and missile cooperation is critical to avoid destabilizing Northeast Asia and the Middle East."

Anyway, those are just a few examples of intelligent analysis regarding the North Korea situation. Who do you listen to on this part of the world?