VA GOP Bill #1 for 2013? Ban Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Certain Contraceptive Methods

If you thought that all the blowback Virginia Republicans received last year over their "transvaginal ultrasound" bill, as well as the rest of their assault on women's health and reproductive freedom, would have made them change course for 2013, well think again. According to the Virginia Legislative Information Service, the #1 bill for 2013 is...you guessed it: "PERSONHOOD", as defined by Del. "Sideshow Bob" Marshall. Rights of unborn children.  Provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth, subject only to the laws and Constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the Commonwealth. How extreme is this bill? Put it this way: "Voters in Mississippi, one of the most socially conservative states in the nation, rejected a similar measure in October [2011] because it complicated the legality of stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, abortion in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment, and certain kinds of birth control." That, my friends, is Virginia House Bill #1 for 2013. Should be a fun year, huh?

Video: Romney, McDonnell Ally on Husband Moving to Saudi Arabia So He Can Beat "Rebellious" Wife

Just keep in mind, as you watch this video of Pat Robertson basically advocating that a man "move to Saudi Arabia" so he can beat his "rebellious child" of a wife, that he's a close ally of his "good friend," Virginia Governor "Bobby" McDonnell, and also a strong supporter of Willard "Mitt" Romney (in fact, Robertson just appeared on stage with him the other day in Virginia Beach). According to Robertson, "you can't divorce her, according to the Scripture, so I say, move to Saudi Arabia," where (Robertson says) you are allowed to physically beat your wife. I wonder if McDonnell and/or Romney will condemn Robertson for these outrageous, viciously misogynistic comments, not to mention all the other bigoted, hateful things he's said over the years? Hmmmm...what's that I hear, the sounds of crickets quietly chirping? P.S. By the way, is there any particular reason why the story of Robertson's ties to Romney is not at LEAST as big a story as Rev. Wright was in 2008? Oh yeah, must be that "liberal-biased media' again. Heh.

By Republican "Logic," Reagan Should Have Been Defeated in 1984, as We Were "Worse Off"

By now, you surely have heard the Republicans trying to channel Ronald Reagan with his inane, economically (wildly) oversimplified, yet politically memorable "are you better off now..." line (was it effective? who really knows, but let's assume that it was, for the purposes of this discussion) from the 1980 Reagan-Carter presidential debates. What Republicans would have you believe this time around, just as they wanted you to believe in 1980, are at least two highly questionable assumptions:False Assumption #1: That the President - not Congress, not what's happening around the world, not structural forces years in the making, not whatever the President inherited, not what he realistically could have accomplished given the alignment of political forces, etc, etc, -  is responsible for everything that happens to the economy on his "watch." If the economy booms, then he's a competent genius. If the economy busts, then he's an incompetent idiot. Yes, it's utterly brain dead, lacking in even the most rudimentary understanding of how the economy really works, but nonetheless, that's the first implicit assumption in this whole "Are you better off now..." line. (In fairness, it's just as idiotic when it's used the other way around: I presided over xx million new jobs and a booming economy, ergo I deserve all the credit and should be reelected.) False Assumption #2: That the proper period of measurement is exactly 4 years, apparently dating from...not sure, actually, but these days it seems like Republicans are referring to 4 years ago TODAY, which of course ignores the fact that George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, was President then. Details, details, I know. Of course, if you date the "4 years" line from late January 2009, when President Obama took office, then there's just one minor problem, which is that we're not AT 4 years yet. Again, details details. Finally, as even Romney himself has admitted, we need to give a new President 6 months to a year for his/her policies to kick in, before even beginning to judge his/her record. Which means, even if you want to use the "Are you better off...?" line of argument, then it shouldn't start until July 2009 or January/February 2010 -- at least according to Romney's logic, with which I generally agree in this case. The bottom line is that this "Are you better off...?" line may be memorable and catchy, but it's essentially meaningless, worthless from an economics perspective, thus of course the imbecile media laps it up and spews it right back out. Ugh.

lowkell :: By Republican "Logic," Reagan Should Have Been Defeated in 1984, as We Were "Worse Off"

Just to illustrate how brain dead this line of "argument" really is, let's apply it to the Republicans' ultimate icon, Ronald Reagan himself.  Check out these monthly unemployment rate numbers, and see what you notice from the period 1980-1984, when Carter was up for reelection through Reagan's first term until he himself was up for reelection, and people could have thrown Reagan's "Are you better off..." question right back at him.What jumps out here is fascinating, although not at all in line with the Republican "4 years" narrative. First off, note that the unemployment rate as Americans went to the polls in early November 1980 was 7.5%, down from 7.7% four years earlier. By Republican logic, I guess Jimmy Carter should have been reelected, since we were "better off" than 4 year earlier. Hmmmm. Second, note that after The Great Reagan took office in January 1981, unemployment rose sharply, hitting a staggering 10.8% (!!!) in November/December 1982, and remaining at 8% or higher (one of this year's favorite Republican attack lines) through January 1984 (that's three straight years over 8% unemployment for St. Ronnie)! In the election year of 1984 itself, unemployment continued slowly falling, reaching a still-not-great 7.4% in October, essentially identical (down 0.1 percentage points) from exactly 4 years earlier. Meanwhile, for the vast majority of Reagan's first term, things were bad - very, very bad, far worse than they've been the past 3 years or so - yet Reagan was reelected in a landslide. What's THAT all about, exactly? Uh oh, looks like the "Are you better off...?" theory fails again. Third, note that Ronald Reagan's policies had essentially NOTHING to do with the horrible recession of the early 1980s. In fact, that recession was caused by events almost completely outside the control of any U.S. President: the oil price spikes of the 1970s (during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations), culminating in the 1979 Iranian revolution and start of the Iran-Iraq war; and the Federal Reserve cranking up interest rates (as high as 21.5%!!!! in June 1982) to kill inflation (an astoundingly high 13.5%!!! in 1980), but also killing millions of jobs in the process. Remember, the Federal Reserve isindependent, which of course means that the President's control over it is minimal at best. So why does the President get credit, or blame, for economic conditions caused by the Fed, reacting to an exogenous shock (e.g., the Iranian Revolution)? For that, I point you to the idiot media, and to a public which puts far, far, far too much emphasis on the presidency, as opposed to all the other actors, branches of government, and all the other forces - domestic and international - out there. The bottom line here: by Republican "logic," their great hero Ronald Reagan himself should have been booted out of office in November 1984, because by almost any metric, we weren't "better off" than we were from "four years ago." Of course, that's not what happened; perhaps the public was smarter than Republicans give them credit for, realizing that most of the economic problems the country faced weren't really Reagan's fault, that he was doing the best he could to turn things around, etc. Sort of like...uh, yeah, that Barack Obama dude, 38 years later, and 4 years after the economy had entered into the "free fall" phase, with job losses running to the hundreds of thousands per month, Wall Street collapsing, massive deficits mounting ever higher, and fears of Great Depression Part II widespread - NONE of it caused in any way, shape or form by Barack Obama. Sound familiar?

Is offshore wind in Virginia's future?

by: ivymain Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 12:20:14 PM EDT

The past couple of years have been tough ones for the offshore wind industry, which is still struggling to launch. The recession has made states reluctant to invest, even when the payoff looks huge. Cheap natural gas is hurting the market for renewable energy just as wind and solar have started hitting their stride. Congressional dysfunction has prevented the renewal of critical tax credits that the wind industry still needs to compete.A few other states are making fitful progress towards building offshore wind farms, but they have conditions Virginia doesn't: higher energy prices that make offshore wind more competitive with fossil fuels, renewable energy standards that push utilities to become buyers for the electricity, and congested transmission grids that favor local generation. But of course, Virginia has its own advantages, including possibly the best wind resources in the mid-Atlantic, skilled workers, and extremely competitive port facilities. And the enthusiasm of our legislators and public for the idea of offshore wind matches that of any state. At the same time, though, our governor and our major utility give decidedly mixed signals, extolling our offshore wind potential at one moment, and in the next opining that no one would actually want to pay for it. And yet Dominion Power hopes to buy up all the Virginia-area offshore wind leases that are offered for bid this fall. So what gives with Dominion and offshore wind?

ivymain :: Is offshore wind in Virginia's future?

One answer comes from Guy Chapman, Dominion's Director of Renewable Energy Research and Program Development, who spoke at a wind conference held at James Madison University this past June. He said that right now with natural gas so cheap, the company doesn't expect to build any wind at all, on land or at sea. But if conditions improve, the company wants to be in a position to change its mind, and that means buying up the offshore leases and doing site surveys, technical and environmental studies, and other planning that will add up to $40 or 50 million. Dominion would rather lose the money than be locked out of a potential new growth area.What this means for the rest of us is that when we read somewhere that Dominion has "plans" for offshore wind, or that it has two wind farms in Virginia's mountains "under development," we should realize it defines those terms to mean, "Don't hold your breath, honey." This presents something of a puzzle for decision-makers at the federal Department of Interior. If they let Dominion buy up the leases for the whole Virginia wind energy area, knowing the company isn't actually planning to build a wind farm, then they aren't advancing the cause of offshore wind any. By contrast, the other bidders include companies like Apex Wind and Fishermen's Energy that make their money by building wind farms, so they are highly motivated to follow through. Selling the lease to Dominion might mean no one builds a wind farm off Virginia. That would be okay with Dominion-for a monopoly, keeping out competition is an end in itself-but it wouldn't serve the public interest. On the other hand, if something happened to make Dominion actually want to build, the fact that it's a regulated utility means they could probably do it more cheaply than Apex or Fishermen's. That would benefit ratepayers and make the energy more competitive with other fuels, like natural gas. What might make Dominion want to build? Some combination of the following factors would likely play a part: The cost of offshore wind might come down relative to fossil fuels. With no offshore wind farms operating in the U.S. yet, cost projections are still speculative. The first projects here will be expensive, as all "firsts" are, but industry members are confident that prices will come down dramatically as the industry matures. Dominion and other companies and researchers, using federal grants, are currently studying opportunities to slash costs. Virginia might grow bolder. It's conceivable, though not really likely, that Virginia will take a decisive step towards offshore wind by enacting an effective renewable energy standard or offshore wind mandate, to replace the sham that is our current renewable energy law. This wouldn't happen under Bob McDonnell's leadership; in spite of his "all of the above" rhetoric, he is adamantly opposed to real change in state policies that favor coal. Chances would improve in 2014 under Terry McAuliffe or possibly Bill Bolling (but not Ken Cuccinnelli). Congress might finally take action to deal with climate change. Sure, and pigs might fly. But drought and heat waves are changing minds across the country about the reality of global warming. Even skeptics may decide to hedge their bets. And even if not, the economic and national security case for renewable energy has already swayed some conservatives, and may bring more on board as other countries outpace us. A carbon tax, a national renewable electricity standard, or some other incentive would do for offshore wind in Virginia what Virginia isn't likely to do itself.

Mayor Julián Castro Campaigns for President Obama at GMU

Courtesy of superb photographer Catherine S. Read, here are a couple photos of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention (excellent speech, by the way!), campaigning earlier today for President Obama at George Mason University in Fairfax. The first photo is with Castro and Delegate Eileen Filler-Corn, the other (on the "flip") is with Castro and Delegate Mark Keam. For the rest of Catherine Read's photos, click here.

Tags: 2012 races, (All Tags) :: Add/Edit Tags on this Post

Print Friendly View  Send As Email

Mayor Julián Castro Campaigns for President Obama at GMU | 2 comments | Post A Comment

Willard Says He Wants to "Partner" with Most Extreme, Sociopathic Member of Congress. Ever.

With this video, any slight pretense that Willard "Mitt" Romney is a moderate, or even sane, just went out the window with his enthusiastic endorsement of this madman. You want Congressman Steve King as your partner? We're talking about Iowa Congressman Steve King? The guy who is against laws against dogfighting, boasts that his laws allow more animal cruelty, blasts "multiculturalism" as "victims groups,"gives long sermons on how the demon government is oppressing his God-given right to slightly less efficient lightbulbs, says that some Americans just don't need health care, flirts with birtherism, hangs out with racists, pines for the time when only male property owners could vote, says that high American unemployment is caused by a"nation of slackers," and just recently was opining to a reporter that he just plainnever "heard of" anyone getting pregnant from incest or statutory rape? Steve King the sociopath? That Steve King? Yep, that Steve King. And yep, that's the guy Willard wants as his partner, along with his neocon/chickenhawk foreign policy advisers, and his Ayn Rand cultist running mate. Seriously, how can this guy even be at 40% in the polls? 30%? 20%? It's mind boggling.

Top 10 Democratic National Convention Speeches So Far

Of all the excellent speeches at the Democratic National Convention so far, it's hard to pick a Top 10 list. But hey, that's what they pay us progressive activists the big bucks (NOT!) for, so here are not just one but TWO lists, one by Virginia delegate Kip Malinosky (see his Tumbler here; photo courtesy of Kip, from the Virginia delegation's prime viewing location on the convention floor), with prime seats of the convention in Charlotte; and one by me, with a prime seat...in front of my TV screen in my living room. :)Kip Malinosky's Top 10 List 1. Michelle Obama - Why Barack Obama is a man to love even more than 4 years ago. 2. Bill Clinton - Why Barack Obama will lead us to prosperity and the GOP will lead us to ruin. 3. Elizabeth Warren - How the Middle Class has been robbed by Wall Street. 4. Julian Castro - On expanding the American Dream and opportunity. 5.  Deval Patrick - On what Democrats are for and how Romney messed up Massachusetts. 6. Ted Strickland on Romney's outsourcing and offshore accounts. 7. Cory Booker on what Democrats can accomplish and how Christie left NJ in the lurch. 8. Lilly Ledbetter on what fair pay means. 9. Sandra Fluke for demonstrating the difference [between Democrats and Republicans] for women personally. 10. Cristina Saralegui for demonstrating the difference [between Democrats and Republicans] for Latinos. My Top 10 List 1. Bill Clinton: Brilliantly, in a folksy style that anyone could relate to, demolishes every Republican argument this campaign cycle, while making the case for Barack Obama perhaps better than anyone else - including Obama himself - could possibly do. If every swing voter watched this speech, the election would be over right now. Amazing. 2. Michelle Obama: An amazing, tremendously appealing, warm, brilliant, talented woman. As Barack Obama always says, he "married up!" :)  More to the point, Michelle made the case for Barack - including "humanizing" him - extremely effectively. That is just what the (political) doctor ordered.

lowkell :: Top 10 Democratic National Convention Speeches So Far

3. Sister Simone "Nuns on the Bus" Campbell: This speech was absolutely superb, on every level. The fact is, Sister Campbell and her fellow "Nuns on the Bus" reflect - and live! - the true, progressive teachings of Jesus, unlike the right wingnuts like Pat Robertson, who are about as far from Jesus' teachings as is humanly possible to be. It's great to hear a wonderful Christian like Sister Campbell speak about our duty to help each other, to be each other's keepers, to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, to welcome the stranger into our land, etc. It's also great to hear an exemplar of the best in religion take on Paul Ryan's budget, which was condemned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops for failing a basic "moral test." More of this, please! 5. Lilly Ledbetter: I loved everything about her speech, which didn't just make the case that women should be paid the same salary for the same work, but also that the Supreme Court needs a big-time makeover. How could anyone not love Lily Ledbetter? Got me. Again, I just wish that everyone in America hears this speech! 6. Cristina Saralegui: I don't watch much TV, so I'm not the best judge of this, but my understanding is that Saralegui is the Latino equivalent of Oprah Winfrey, extremely well respected by Latinos. Given that Democrats need a big turnout among Latinos, and a big margin as well, this speech was just what we needed. 7. Elizabeth Warren: A real progressive populist, as opposed to the right-wing populist Tea Party. I just wish we had more Elizabeth Warrens, but I'm glad we had one speaking last night right before Bill Clinton, hopefully doing both Democrats and herself a lot of good for November! 8. Sandra Fluke - A courageous woman, standing up for women's health and right to choose, even when right-wing misogynists like Rush Limbaugh attack her personally, and eve when Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, etc. sit by and fail to defend her. As Fluke pointed out, Democrats invited her to speak at their convention, while Republicans...well, sure as hell didn't! To quote Fluke: "During this campaign, we've heard about the two profoundly different futures that could await women-and how one of those futures looks like an offensive, obsolete relic of our past. Warnings of that future are not distractions. They're not imagined. That future could be real." So true. 9. Ted Strickland: I can't say I've been the biggest Strickland fan, but he gave an excellent speech, including the hilarious line about Romney firing the reindeer and outsourcing the elves. That alone made his speech worth inclusion in my Top 10 list! :) 10 (TIE). Deval Patrick: He called it like it is - including urging Democrats to grow a spine and fight for what they believe in - and rocked the house! 10 (TIE). Julian Castro: Excellent speech that we'll all remember in the future, when Castro runs for governor, VP, President, whatever. The point is, he has a bright future ahead of him, and it's not an accident that that future will be in the Democratic Party!

Video: Mark Warner Specifically Refuses to Quell Rumors He's Running for Governor in 2013

This is fascinating; Mark Warner is asked whether he can quell rumors about the possibility that he might run for Virginia governor in 2013, and he specifically refuses to do so. He also talks about how frustrated he is as a U.S. Senator. Sounds to me  like Warner's more than leaving the door open to running for his old position next year. I mean, how hard would it have been for him to say, "I can definitely say I am NOT running for governor in 2013?"P.S. This fits neatly with the article I posted the other day asking whether Tom Perriello is being groomed for statewide office...like potentially Mark Warner's Senate seat?

OMG: Faux "News" and Paul Ryan Descend Even Further Into Onion-Like Self Parody

Even by the low, low standards of Faux "News," let alone of "Lyin' Ryan," this is truly pathetic. For one thing, as ThinkProgress explains, there's a lengthy passage in the Democratic platform on faith, which notes that "Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history." Feel the hostility, huh? No? Right, didn't think so.Second, having watched many of the speeches last night, I can attest to the fact that the word "God" was mentioned numerous times. For instance, Mayor Julián Castro mentionedthat his grandmother "prayed to God," and also remembered his mother, "every morning as Joaquin and I walked out the door to school, making the sign of the cross behind us, saying, 'Que dios los bendiga.' 'May God bless you.'" Gov. O'Malley said  "Our parents taught us to love God, love our family and love our country." Just about every speaker at the minimum ended their speech with "God bless you, and God bless America." NARAL's Nancy Keenan argued that "a woman should make health care decisions with her family, her doctor, and her God." On and on it goes, clearly Lyin' Ryan was onto something with his "Democrats hate God" riff. Not. Then there's the craziness of Paul Ryan of all people - the guy who actually worships religion-despising Ayn Rand, even requires that his staff reads her books about how "greed is good," etc. - talking about how the word "God" needs to appear as many times as possible in the Democratic Party platform. Of course, this is the same guy who said he ran a marathon in under 3 hours, which would have been incredible, but actually it was a bit over 4 hours. Whatever, details details. Oh, and Lyin' Ryan's the same guy who keeps repeating his lies, on a large and growing number of topics, even after they've been debunked by pretty much everyone who's looked at them. Hey, isn't there something in the Bible about God commanding that we don't bear false witness, aka "lie?" I guess Lyin' Ryan must have been too busy reading Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead to check out the Bible once in a blue moon. Finally, of course, is the irony, not to mention utter absurdity, of a party which has criticized Democrats for supposedly harping on "social issues," when this campaign's supposed to be 24/7 about the economy (which Republicans screwed up, and Democrats are saving, although that's not Lyin' Ryan's narrative clearly), harping on how many times one's theology - or lack thereof (like Ryan's God-hating hero Ayn Rand) - is in the Democratic Party's platform. Clearly, these people either have wayyyy too much time on their hands. Alternately, they simply have nothing to say, are getting completely desperate, and/or simply can't help themselves to eruptions of John Birch Society-style wackiness every five minutes. What next, the Democratic platform didn't condemn the evil Soviet Union or fluoridated water or something? Hey, give Faux "News" and Lyin' Ryan time, they'll get to it I'm sure... P.S. Also, this is a nice distraction from the fact that Ryan's horrendous budget, rightly condemned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for failing to meet certain "'moral criteria' by disproportionately cutting programs that 'serve poor and vulnerable people.'" I guess in Lyin' Ryan's world, the number of times you SAY the word "God" is FAR more important than whether you actually follow Jesus' teachings (which were basically the polar opposite of everything today's Republican Party stands for).

Mark Warner Demonstrates How Not to Make the Case for DEMOCRATIC Candidates.

You need to watch this video to see what a "strong" statement of support US Senator Mark Warner (Yes, D-VA) gives for president Obama (not!).  In the video, Warner addresses Democrats rallying in Buena Vista, VA. First, he toots his own horn, "For 20 years I've been coming almost every year to Buena Vista to kick off the fall campaign..."He then admits it's "One of the most important" campaigns. It determines, "What kind of campaigns we're going to have going forward." But "it doesn't help Democracy when we've got millions of negative campaign ads from folks we don't know tearing each other down." Here we go on the false equivalence again. At the end of these sixty four days, our country's  going to have to come together. True.  But Warner is actually acting sanctimonious here and trying to elevate himself as better than anyone else. "I personally hope that President Obama is going to be re-elected," said Warner. "But whether you vote for President Obama or Governor Romney...." My God, he is at a Democratic rally.  He hopes, but doesn't explain why its so important to re-elect President Obama. Can he not make a better case than that.  I could and I am not even a politician. I have not been in the US Senate, sent there by the hard work of the DEMOCRATIC Party and people like us. Warner became governor on our backs. His campaign was one of the hardest I ever worked on. We poured it on. We fought for every single vote.  And you'd better believe he wasn't talking the false equivalence then.

KathyinBlacksburg :: Mark Warner Demonstrates How Not to Make the Case for DEMOCRATIC Candidates.

He said something like (audio isn't clear) "Let's let the candidates yell back and forth..."  "I'm not running for anything this year."  So, is he saying he isn't going to make the case for President Obama?He launches into more Republican talking points in his "over the cliff" and debt talk, ignoring that the GOP pledge to not let the president succeed.  The GOP also played brinksmanship these past eighteen months concerning the debt. Yes, the nation's debt is important. But Warner"s got things really backwards. You have to put people BACK to work in real Middle Class jobs before you engage in massive debt reduction.  Even then, draconian austerity isn't appropriate when ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich will solve much of the problem. Ending the war in Afghanistan and not pumping up another war will help.  And President Obama's reform of health care will also bring down the deficit. Then Warner says (after the election) we're going to "Check our Republican and Democrat hats..." and refers to not wanting "Democrat" solutions or Republican solutions. Well, no, Mark, you better  not (check your Democratic hat at the door). You are still supposed to caucus with Democrats vote most of the time with Democrats. Or, do you have other ideas? Notice he has embraced the GOP rename of the Democratic Party as the "Democrat" Party.It isn't the first time. We all know we have to work together after the election (duh). However, every time the President offered what Republicans asked for, the GOP moved the goal post. The truth is if he were to be in the presidency, Warner would have given up a lot more ground than the already too-much ground President Obama offered. Compromise is good, but it should not come only from one side. Say that! Give President Obama credit for trying to work with Republicans. Tell the truth about what really happened. You cannot deal with extremists in the same way you can work with Republicans such as the ones You, Senator Warner, dealt with when there were still a few moderates in the Virginia Senate. They are not there in Richmond anymore.  And they are not in Congress either. One more time, Senator Warner. You can do better than this. I have heard you do it, though not recently. You are supposed to have the President's back. This is the week of our convention and there you are wearing your No Labels hat while using Republican frames. Make the case for the President. He deserves it and so do we of the DEMOCRATIC Party who put you where you are.  You are not a self-made pol.  We built that.  And We are from the DEMOCRATIC party.