Reduced Parking Subsidies Fail to Destroy Arlington

by The Green Miles

Sometimes when a positive change happens, afterwards it seems so self-evidently a good idea, we forget there were people rabidly opposed to the positive change. The most obvious recent local example of the journey from the revolutionary to the mundane: Virginia's smoking ban, which opponents predicted would devastate Virginia bars & restaurants. Instead, smokers stepped outside, everyone enjoyed the cleaner air, and we all quickly moved on with our lives.Arlington recently stopped subsidizing free parking at the former Department of Human Services garage at Wilson & Highland in Clarendon, where it's now $2 to park on nights & weekends. That rate is among the lowest in the neighborhood. The result? People continue to heavily utilize that garage, Clarendon continues to thrive, and the county is raising revenue while providing a nudge towards Metro/walking/biking. It's worth remembering that while it was being debated, Arlington Sun Gazette editor Scott McCaffrey basically called the $2 fee an affront to humanity:

TheGreenMiles :: Reduced Parking Subsidies Fail to Destroy Arlington

This proposal is a nickel-and-dime approach to governance that is beneath Arlington's leaders to propose, let alone enact. County Board members can make quick work of this wrongheaded proposal by simply refusing to advertise it for a hearing. Instead, the enacted plan has worked as intended, with side effects like increased parking in neighborhoods quickly addressed with zone changes.Now the County Board is making plans to address tight parking in busy areas on nights & weekends, approving a long-term parking management plan that could extend meter times, generating much-needed revenue from a scare commodity that's currently subsidized as free. I know, revolutionary, right? But McCaffrey has dialed up the rhetoric even further with this plan, predicting it will be nothing less than the end of Clarendon as we know it: [F]orcing those in Clarendon or other commercial areas to pay for meters well into the evening, or on Sundays, is counterproductive and will place those areas at a severe competitive disadvantage. In the long run, it will reduce the county government's revenue, not increase it. The argument here is essentially that to avoid paying a couple of bucks in parking fees, people will: Go to DC or Alexandria where they'll have to pay just as much if not more for parking Pay just as much if not more in gas to drive long distances to places where parking is free Tell their spouse, "Sorry honey, I was going to take you to Clarendon for dinner, but they're charging $2 for parking now, so instead I made you this Hot Pocket." Look, I know people hate paying for something that used to be free. It's annoying. But that's not a good reason to keep policies that worked for 1990s Clarendon with its large surface parking lots but are outdated in 2010s Clarendon with its tall buildings in which people live & work.All we're talking about is cutting the government subsidy for free & discounted parking and using the money to fund things like repairing roads and educating kids and fighting fires. Is that so controversial? Cross-posted from The Green Miles

George Allen Attacks ActBlue, Daily Kos, "liberal online activists"

Hahahahahahahahaha.Yeah, right. (Note: click on image to "embiggen") Seriously, though, what's particularly amusing about this fundraising email is how ridiculous it is to think that the folks over at Daily Kos are big Tim Kaine fans. I mean, has there ever, in the history of Daily Kos, been a positive front-page diary about Tim Kaine (ok, there have probably been one or two, but not many)? How about a positive diary about Tim Kaine by a Daily Kos user not from Raising Kaine (back in 2005, when we were focused on defeating Jerry Kilgore)? Good luck finding either of those. On the other hand, you certainly will be able to find Daily Kos diaries attacking Tim Kaine, such as this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one (25% approve of Kaine's job as DNC chair, 40% disapprove), etc, etc, etc. Yeah, George Allen nailed that one: Tim Kaine is WILDLY popular at Daily Kos and with the "liberal  online activists who are now taking up his cause." The only problem is, it's not true. Apparently, somebody forget to tell the "liberal online activists" that they were supposed to be super-enthused about Tim Kaine, cuz they certainly haven't gotten the message. As usual, though, the facts - those crazy, messy things! - don't matter to George Allen nearly as much as whatever he's being paid to spew out, whether it's climate science denial or attacks on clean energy or "pants on fire" claims, even by PolitiFact's lax (for Republicans) standards. As for ActBlue, does George Allen understand that this is simply a political committee, established in 2004, "that enables anyone to fundraise on the Internet for the Democratic Party candidates of their choice?" Also, does Allen understand that this fundraising tool is "open to all registered Democratic campaigns and candidates" -- whether they are liberal, moderate, conservative, whatever?  Apparently not. Finally, does George Allen understand how laughably absurd it is for him, of all people, to criticize how someone fundraises and from whom exactly? Allen, of course, being a guy who fundraises with organizations representing Citizens United and the Koch brothers. What a joke.

PolitiFact FAIL. Maybe Rename It PolitiFiction or PolitiBias?

It's sad, I had such high hopes for PolitiFact. Finally, a service that would do what the corporate media has failed so abjectly to do in recent years: report not just on what politicians say, but whether or not there's any truth to what they say. Instead, what we usually get from the corporate media is phony "objective reporting," wherein there are almost always two "sides" to everything, even if one "side" is a complete joke/lie/farce (e.g., global warming skeptics/deniers) while the other side is considered absolutely definitive by 99% of scientists or economists or whoever (e.g., global warming science).Anyway, that's what I was hoping PolitiFact would get at. But, sadly, they haven't. There have been several examples right here in Virginia in recent months. For instance, there was this hack job on Bob McDonnell's job. Then there was this pathetic attempt at "balance" that was anything but. There's also this hack job on Terry McAuliffe. And then there's this one, in which PolitiFact puts on the kid gloves for poor wittle Wobert Hurt. That's just a few examples of PolitiFact Virginia's struggles with fact vs. fiction in recent months. What about beyond the borders of our fair Commonwealth? With that, we bring you...the latest PolitiFact FAIL -- and for me the last straw with this organization --  this one on the question of whether, as Jon Stewart claimed the other day in his interview/debate with Chris Wallace, Fox News viewers are the "most consistently misinformed media viewers." According to PolitiFactFiction, Jon Stewart is wrong. But is he really, or should PolitiFact actually be renamed PolitiFiction or PolitiBias? Nope, didn't think so. A case in point is Politifact’s recent and deeply misguided attempt to correct Jon Stewart on the topic of…misinformation and Fox News. This is a subject on which we’ve developed some expertise here…my recent post on studies showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed, on an array of issues, is the most comprehensive such collection that I’m aware of, at least when it comes to public opinion surveys detecting statistical correlations between being misinformed about contested facts and Fox News viewership. I’ve repeatedly asked whether anyone knows of additional studies—including contradictory studies—but none have yet been cited. I suggest you read the entire debunking of PolitiFiction at DeSmog Blog. Bottom line: this is a major fail by PolitiBias. And, as DeSmog Blog concludes, "When the fact checkers fail-and in this case, they not only failed, they generated a falsehood of their own--they have a special responsibility to self-correct." So, we're waiting guys!

Right Place, Right Time: Bringing Offshore Wind to Virginia

by tolbejr

Cross posted from Article XI

It is cliché to use the phrase, "I was in the right place at the right time," but today more than 300 people gathered in Virginia Beach because it is the right place and right time for Virginia to move forward with the development of offshore wind.

Offshore wind represents clean, renewable energy for Virginia.  The winds blowing off our coast could power 750,000 homes in the Commonwealth within the next 15 years, but clean energy is not the only benefit of offshore wind.

Harnessing the energy of the wind has the potential to create thousands of good jobs for Virginians.  From the building and maintenance associated with turbines in the seabed to the supply chain that manufactures the parts, if Virginia acts now we stand to reap huge economic gains from this burgeoning industry.

It's for these reasons that the Virginia Sierra Club has partnered with some unlikely allies, including Dominion Virginia Power and McGuire Woods, to host this wind conference.  We realize the opportunity that offshore wind gives Virginia and we're committed to making it a reality.

Our number one priority at the Sierra Club is addressing climate change.  To mitigate the worst impacts of climate change the United States, and indeed the entire world, will need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in the near future.  To accomplish this requires that we bring renewable energy to scale.  This means that we want to see major investments in efficiency, solar, wind and biomass that will gradually displace older more polluting sources of energy.

Building a clean energy future will require new ways of doing business for all of us.  It means groups like the Sierra Club need to partner with and support the clean energy industry.  That's why the Club took the lead on Virginia's first offshore wind conference.  We are hopeful that today's conference will be an important step along the way to realizing a clean, renewable, profitable energy revolution in the Commonwealth.  

Would a $10,000, All-Expenses-Paid Trip to France Be Kosher in Other States?

Since this whole issue came up regarding whether it's cool for state legislators to accept an all-expense paid trip from to France from a uranium company, I've been curious to know how other states treat this type of situation. I started with the state I grew up in, Connecticut, because I have a good friend who's a state legislator there and also because I lived there for 15 years or so. The short answer from my friend is that, no, Connecticut legislators are not allowed to do this. I also checked the Connecticut "Guide to the Code of Ethics for Legislators"; here are the relevant provisions:*"As a legislator, there are rules in place regarding accepting gifts from both restricted and non-restricted donors. In general, you may not accept gifts from restricted donors." *Restricted donors include "Registered lobbyists," "Individuals or entities doing business with the legislative branch," "Individuals or entities seeking to do business with the legislative branch," and "Individuals or entities engaged in activities regulated by the legislative branch." This uranium company is certainly engaged in, or attempting to engage in, "activities regulated by the legislative branch." Hence, it's clearly a "restricted donor" under Connecticut ethics guidelines. *"A gift is defined as anything of value that you (or a member of your family or your staff) directly and personally receive unless you provide consideration of equal or greater value (e.g., pay for the item)." Like, perhaps, a $10,000 trip to France? *"You may receive payment or reimbursement for necessary expenses if you, in your official capacity, actively participate in an event; for example by giving a speech or presentation, or running a workshop." In this case, based on what I've read and heard, the legislators going to France are not giving speeches or presentations, running the event, or anything like that. They are simply guests of the uranium company, with a tour of a "closed mine in western France where uranium was mined for 50 years until the late 1990s" and "several days in Paris" (no uranium mine there!). Bottom line: this trip would clearly not be legal for a state legislator in Connecticut. Of course, the tradeoff there is that they've got public financing of campaigns, which almost everyone participates in. They've also got nearly 90% contested races for their state legislature, but that's another issue for another discussion... OK, so that's Connecticut, where it's definitely not legal to take a $10,000, all-expense-paid trip from a corporation. What about another state? How about Wisconsin? See the "flip" for more (short answer: no way this would be legal there).

lowkell :: Would a $10,000, All-Expenses-Paid Trip to France Be Kosher in Other States?

*"The lobbying law imposes numerous restrictions on lobbyists and principals.  In particular, it prohibits lobbyists and principals from furnishing any of the items listed below to legislators or to other elective state officials, agency officials, legislative employees, or candidates for elective state office:* Lodging. * Transportation. * Food, meals, beverages, or money. * Any other thing of pecuniary value" Clearly, in Wisconsin, this trip would not be legal. *An exception: "A principal may give and a legislator may accept anything of pecuniary value which is also made available to the general public." In other words, if the uranium company offered all 8 million Virginians a $10,000, all-expense-paid trip to France, then it would be ok for the legislators to go. Of course, the company would also be bankrupt many times over, but whatever... *Another exception: "A legislator may receive reimbursement or payment of actual and reasonable expenses from a lobbyist or principal for a published work or for the presentation of a  talk or participation in a meeting, under certain circumstances authorized under the Ethics Code." Doesn't seem to apply in the case of a $10,000 trip to France with several free days in Paris, etc. *Also, "A lobbyist or principal may provide educational or informational material to legislators." Let's just put it this way: if Wisconsin interprets "educational or informational material" as including a $10,000, all-expense-paid trip to France, then their ethics code is a complete joke. Bottom line: There's essentially no conceivable way that this trip would be legal in Wisconsin. Also of relevance, in California, "Public officials may not accept gifts of more than $390 from any single source per calendar year. (Reg. 18940.2.)" Also, "most payments by a third party for a public official's travel will count as a gift to the public official subject to the $390 gift limit." Finally, "If a for-profit corporation wishes to pay an official's airfare or other transportation to a foreign country, the rules are very strict. There is no exception for speeches. Generally, the payment is a gift subject to the applicable limit." End of story - this trip would be ILLEGAL in California.

Only 15% of Virginia House of Delegates Seats Being Contested? WTF?!?

I usually don't link to or quote right-wing blogs, but this one by Mason Conservative raises an extremely important issue: But even I was taken aback when I saw THIS list from VPAP outlining the contested elections in the House of Delegates for 2011.  I was stunned.  Of the 100 seats in the House of Delegates, ONLY FIFTEEN WILL BE CONTESTED BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN AND A DEMOCRAT.  That is an astounding 15% COMPETITION RATE.  Wow.  For the record, here are the districts:  9, 10, 13, 19, 20, 31, 34, 36, 37, 42, 52, 59, 64, 75, and 87. As a comparison, there will be 17 competative state senate seats out of 40, at a clip of 42% competition rate. It made me wonder why this is?  Part of it is certainly is redistricting, but I think any Democrat in Virginia should be ashamed of their leadership and candidate recruitment.  On the list of delegates not being challenged are people like Jim LeMunyon, Tim Hugo, Rich Anderson, Tag Greason, Ron Villenueva, Chris Stolle, and Tom Rust; candidates who in the past have had to win close elections and many of whom are freshman.  Democrats failure to, thus far, find candidates to run in these districts is almost laughable and makes one wonder if DPVA Chairman Brian Moran should spend more time running his party rather than running scam schools. I was going to write my own thoughts on this, but a long-time Democratic activist friend of mine nailed it in an email, which he/she kindly said I could use. Enjoy (actually, you wont't and you shouldn't! -- bolding added by me for emphasis).UPDATE: I just double-checked VPAP, and Mason Conservative is correct, there are currently 15 "R" vs. "D" House of Delegates races listed by VPAP. Of course, VPAP's list may not be comprehensive, but even if you add 15 more, it's still only 30% contested. Heck, even if you add 30 more it's still only 45% contested. It should be 100% in a real democracy! UPDATE #2: I just talked to a good friend of mine who's a Connecticut state representative (equivalent to "delegate" here). He was very surprised, not in a good way, at how low the percentage of contested races was in Virginia. In Connecticut, in contrast, approximately 134 of 151  House seats (89%!) were contested in 2010. For the Connecticut State Senate, 31 of 36 seats (86%!) were contested. And remember, Connecticut is even more lopsided than Virginia in terms of partisan makeup, except it's the flip in Connecticut (99-52 D's vs. R's in the House; 22-14 D's vs. R's in the Senate). In other words, it's far more hopeless for Republicans in "blue" Connecticut than for Democrats in "purple" Virginia, yet the percent of seats contested in Connecticut is orders of magnitude higher than here in Virginia. Why? A few possibilities: 1) they have public financing in Connecticut, we don't in Virginia; 2) they hold elections in even-numbered years, we don't in Virginia; 3) their redistricting is by bipartisan commission, despite the huge Democratic advantage in the state, as spelled out in the Connecticut state constitution. Those three structural factors appear to account for a major chunk of why Virginia and Connecticut are so different with regard to contested races. We didn't get into state party effectiveness, but I presume that would be part of it as well. Any other theories?

lowkell :: Only 15% of Virginia House of Delegates Seats Being Contested? WTF?!?

By any fair standard, this is a disgraceful performance by the Virginia Democratic leadership.Mason Conservative underplays the negative contribution of partisan redistricting in general, and the particular role of Saslaw, Whipple, Howell, and Barker in this process. It was their squalid deal with the HOD Republican leadership that has consigned VA Dems to a generation of super-minority status in the HOD, and that terrible decision has made it harder for Brian Moran, Ken Plum & company to recruit Dem HOD candidates. But, there is no public record of which I am aware documenting that Moran or Plum ever spoke up and protested what Saslaw & company were doing to the House Dems. Even if you take the very negative impacts of partisan redistricting as part of the way "business is done" (which I reject), the Democratic candidate recruitment efforts for the HOD were abysmal--and time has expired. It is against this sorry background, that the Virginia Democratic leadership now wants everyone to work hard and knock doors for our Democratic candidates. That is a great idea where we have good Democratic candidates. Sadly, due to the failures of the leadership, tens of thousands of doors will go un-knocked because there is no Democratic candidate on whose behalf a knock can be made. This sucks on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. As a progressive, it sucks. As a Democrat, it sucks. As a citizen who believes that our Democracy depends on competitive elections, it sucks. That about does it for now, but feel free to add your own ways this sucks in the comments section.

Breaking: Harris Miller Forced Out as Scam Colleges President; Brian Moran Takes Over!

I saw this story from Ben Tribbett, and couldn't believe my eyes. But no, apparently this is not a joke: Harris N. Miller, the president and chief executive of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities since 2007, resigned today, the group's Board of Directors announced this afternoon. In a news release issued by the for-profit college group, formerly the Career College Association, Mr. Miller was quoted as saying that he planned to pursue "other career interests." In the same release, Arthur Keiser, the board's chairman, said that Mr. Miller's leadership had been "nothing short of commendable." Brian Moran, the group's executive vice president for government affairs and its general counsel, was named interim president. The Chronicle will have more on this story later. The question now is very simple: how on earth can Brian Moran possibly be both president of this scumbag organization and chair of the Virginia Democratic party?  I see now way this is possible, ethically or practically or any other way. Congratulations (well, not really) to Brian Moran on his new job, but now it's time for a new DPVA chair.P.S. Was it this video, which this blog publicized, that did in Harris Miller? Clearly, the language in this press release (pursue "other career interests") indicates that Miller was let go. Something obviously went wrong recently. And I'm not sure I see how it could have been anything substantive, because by all indications, it appears that Miller's been highly successful in watering down/weakening new regulations on the slimeball industry he represented.

Our Bizarro Attorney General on the Un-Separation of Church of State

Fans of Superman -- or Seinfeld -- will know about the Bizarro world, where everything is the opposite of here.  As Jerry Seinfeld described the Bizarro Superman's world: Up is down; down is up. He says 'hello' when he leaves, 'goodbye' when he arrives. Here in Virginia, we have the Bizarro attorney general -- Ken Cuccinelli.  Just think about it: - A real AG upholds the law. Our Bizarro AG sues the EPA to prevent it from meeting the Clean Air Act and a Supreme Court ruling requiring the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. - A real AG defends the powerless. Our Bizarro AG tells state colleges and universities that they are prohibited from anti-discrimination policies against gays -- that, in other words, they are obligated to discriminate. -  A real AG defends his clients, including the state's universities - and upholds the state and federal Constitutions.  Our Bizarro AG launches a perverse war against the University of Virginia to force a climate scientist to stop doing legitimate research. -  A real AG challenges powerful interests to ensure that they don't harm the state or its inhabitants.  Our Bizarro AG pockets donations from large industries like Massey Energy and makes no effort to determine if they are committing the same kinds of coal mine safety violations in Virginia of which they have been found guilty in West Virginia. And now there is the issue of separation of church and state.  Per the WaPo yesterday, our Bizarro Attorney General counseled a group of ministers on how to evade the bans on using their pulpits for political endorsements:

kindler :: Our Bizarro Attorney General on the Un-Separation of Church of State

Continue to be good shepherds to your congregations - and don't be afraid when your shepherding includes giving guidance on issues that fall in the political world, because those are the same issues your congregants face each day in their world. Let your voice be heard. Speak out and guide your flock toward what is right and what is true. How is this problematic?  Let me count the ways: -  As Cuccinelli's own spokesman admitted, "He cannot give legal advice to anyone other than his government clients." So, of course, they decided to go with the Bizarro definitions of "cannot", "give" and "legal advice," which makes it okay. - The Attorney General should advise people on how to follow the law and bedrock principles of the Constitution, not on how to find loopholes in them. - The concept of separation of church and state deserves special reverence in Virginia, the first place in the world where it was codified into law, thanks to Jefferson's Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom (drafted 1777, passed 1786), and George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, which still forms the basis for the Virginia Constitution. While right wingers love to stick phony quotes in Jefferson's mouth, let's try a real one here: I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802, well-sourced with other Founders' quotes on the issue here.) Here in the land of Mason, Madison and Jefferson, we have our own attorney general taking a hatchet to this "wall of separation."  It makes no sense - in the real world. But in Cuccinelli's Virginia, up is down, and down is up.  Hello!

Become a Virginia Legislator! Win a $10,000, All-Expense Paid Trip to France!

Ahhhh, France in summer: lazy evenings sipping wine and eating great food at Parisian cafes, perhaps "a lovely picnic at one of the Castles of the Loire or biting into a juicy slice of Cavaillon melon?" Or, there's always the "[m]edieval stoned villages, rolling hills covered in vineyards, fresh pate and a gorgeous river valley" of Dordogne; a spectacular fireworks display at "the world's most famous and iconic Medieval walled city, Carcassonne;" hanging out on the Paris Plage, where you can "enjoy cocktails at the open-air bars or work on their tan on the chaise longues." Just a few ideas for what to do when you're in France this summer on your all-expense-paid, $10,000 trip!So how, you ask, do you get one of these amazing, albeit extremely expensive, trips to France en été? Very simple: run for, and win, a seat in the Virginia General Assembly! I'm not kidding -- check this out: More than a dozen Virginia legislators are flying to France this month on all-expenses paid trips as part of an aggressive lobbying effort by a company pushing lawmakers to lift a ban on uranium mining in the state.Virginia Uranium invited nearly all 140 state lawmakers to France as it looks to mine what is thought to be the largest deposit of uranium in the United States, in south central Virginia, despite concerns about unearthed radioactive material that could contaminate the area's land, air and drinking water. Five legislators arrived in Paris on Wednesday to see a closed mine in Bessines, in western France, where uranium was excavated for 50 years until the late 1990s. Nine others leave Tuesday on a five-day trip - expected to cost $10,000 a person - that includes about three free days in Paris That's right, this company is willing to spend $10,000 each for 140 Virginia legislators -- $1.4 million total -- in order to...uh, assist them in making the "right" (ahem) decision on uranium mining in Virginia.

lowkell :: Become a Virginia Legislator! Win a $10,000, All-Expense Paid Trip to France!

Put aside the specifics of this issue, whether or not you agree with uranium mining in Virginia, because that's not really the point. What is the point is very simple: as much as legislators claim they can't be bought, can't even be influenced, etc., this is a classic case of how corporations are attempting to purchase our Democracy, both here in Virginia and across the country. Recently, I attended a forum on the egregious "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision, which rubber-stamped and accelerated the takeover of America by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations. Here in Virginia, sadly, it's been that way for a long time, as there are essentially no limits, other than disclosure, on corporate giving to our lawmakers, lobbyists wining and dining them, you name it. Does that make you comfortable?  If so, why?  Personally, it makes me extremely uncomfortable - and angry! Is this really what the Founding Fathers intended? Is this what Abraham Lincoln intended? Is this what our ancestors fought for - and in some cases died for - in World War II and throughout the Cold War?Fortunately, there remains one check-and-balance on this egregious situation -- public outrage and disgust. Thus, as the Washington Post article points out, "Most legislators declined the pricey jaunt - the second invite from the company in two years - months before the fall election."  Wise move, especially at a time when hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Virginians are out of work, underemployed, "underwater" in their mortgages, or otherwise struggling to get by in this tough economy. In that environment, Virginia lawmakers - most of them, anyway - are smart enough to realize that jetting off on a $10,000 all-expenses-paid junket to France isn't exactly the message you want to be sending. Especially when that junket is financed by a wealthy, powerful corporation with business before you! Can we say, "massive conflict of interest?"  Can we say, as the otherwise deplorable Del. Dave "Abuser Fees" Albo (R-Owned by Corporate Money) correctly calls it, "the appearance of impropriety?" Or, as Del. Mark Sickles (who made the correct decision in turning down the money) puts it, "It could appear to be extravagant." Like a couple bottles of Pernod-Ricard Perrier-Jouet champagne (about $10,000, the price of the uranium-funded boondoggle to France, for 2 bottles), perhaps? The question is, what on earth are the legislators who accepted these trips thinking exactly? I mean, I can understand Republicans like John Cosgrove and William Janis -- that's what these guys do, after all. And I can understand ethically challenged (to put it mildly) Democrats like Del. Lionel Spruill, who last we saw in 2009 taking huge wads of money from Brian Moran's and Jon Bowerbank's 2009 campaigns for Governor and LG to do...god knows what for them (actually, last we saw Spruill, he was ranting and raving incoherently about not losing his soul by voting for an atheist, Democratic Congressional nominee Wynne Legrow, and abandoning his buddy, Republican Congressman Randy Forbes). But what about the others listed in the Post article, including several progressives? I can't wait to hear their protestations about how they are personally immune to $10,000, all-expense-paid trips to France, what with their pure moral code and all. That must be why this company feels it's worth it to spend $10,000 a legislator, because they know it has absolutely no chance of succeeding and it's a total waste of their money. Because we all know that corporations are in business to give away money, for no purpose whatsoever, and...oh forget it.

Rep. Connolly Blasts Republicans for "Soviet"-Style "Censorship at its Worst"

As you can see from this video, Gerry Connolly is hopping mad, and I don't blame him one bit. Basically, the issue here is that, since the NY-26 special election - in which a Democrat won in an overwhelmingly Republican district, in large part on the issue of Republicans' plans to demolish Medicare - the GOP has been making political changes to Democratic "franked" mailers attacking the Ryan Plan, aka the "Destroy Medicare Act of 2011." Believe it or not, the House Republican majority - Can'tor, BONer et al - is now prohibiting the use of language like "to eliminate Medicare as we know it" and are replacing it with neutral/non-descriptive/Orwellian language like "to change Medicare." They are prohibiting the use of "a privatized system that would provide future seniors with a voucher to pay part of their cost to purchase private insurance" and recommend replacing it with "a revised government program with support from private insurance companies." They want to remove the word "voucher" and force Democrats to use their rhetorical "premium support system" language. These changes, and the many other changes the Republican majority is insisting upon, are outrageous and un-American. A few choice quotes from Rep. Connolly follow. I couldn't agree with him more on this one. “It’s Orwellian in nature. This is like Soviet censorship. It’s intolerable. The Majority on the Franking Commission is way overstepping their boundaries. Their job is to make sure that members of Congress are not sending out mail pieces that are overtly political. They are trampling on free speech. It is an outrage of unprecedented proportions.” “Unbelievable. I stunned that the majority would engage in an exercise of this breathtaking censorship, and all because the Republicans are feeling some heat on their plan to kill Medicare.” “The Majority’s edits of my newsletter speak for themselves. Many of these phrases were approved in newsletters that went out the door prior to the NY 26 special election. They are censoring factual content that in some case were their own words. They are changing their tune due to political fallout and bad poll results.” “I can’t even describe the Ryan Plan as ‘the Ryan Plan.’ I can’t describe the Republican plan as a voucher system, even though the Republicans called it that until the NY 26 special election.” “Facts and reality are inconvenient truths, but that doesn’t mean the Republican Majority gets to suppress them. They are trying to alter reality. They are trampling on Minority rights.” “Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and the Speaker will intervene.”