Ken Cuccinelli to Rally Tuesday with Right-Wing Hate Radio Host

As if the photo of Ken Cuccinelli and Rand "Aqua Buddha" Paul weren't enough, how about this flyer of a rally "the Cooch" is planning on holding with Mark Levin on Tuesday in Sterling? But wait, who is Mark Levin you ask? Here are a few quotes and citations to give you a flavor of this far-far-far-right-wing radio host's "thinking."*GOP is filled with "cockroaches" who aren't conservative enough: "The Republican Party, the RNC, needs to be fumigated. Need to get rid of all the cockroaches, clean it out, start new bottom-up top-down with conservatives. They all pretend to be conservatives, but I'm telling you folks, they hate our guts. The feeling is mutually, by the way, but they hate our guts." *Says Syria is all about distracting from Obamacare fight: "Just like the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case...now [the Syria situation]...I'm not a conspiratorial person...but I do see a pattern here, a pattern of distraction. Obama goes off to golf, nothing affects him...We have a fight going on on Capitol Hill to defund [Obamacare], it's getting zero attention...I don't believe that's a coincidence..." *Racial profiling rocks!: "Why Would We End Racial Profiling For Law Enforcement Purposes? Are We All Supposed To Be Helen Keller?" *Climate science denier: "Levin cited 'global cooling' study to dismiss efforts to 'control carbon dioxide' emissions, ignoring warning by study's co-author not to do so" *Raging misogynist: "It's not the National Organization of Liberal Women. It's the National Organization of Ugly Women." He also attacked Nancy Pelosi's appearance, saying "You could bounce a dime off her cheeks" and also "One more face lift and ... those eyes are going to pop right out." And he attacked two female Supreme Court justices: "Sotomayor is 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus about 50 pounds.'" Oh, he also told a female caller, "I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here." And he called Rachel Maddow "Rachel Mad-Cow." More? He called Hillary Clinton "Her Thighness." Sensing a pattern here? *Detests women in the military: "Allowing Women In Combat 'Is Radical Egalitarianism Gone Nuts'" and "Women In Combat Pose A Danger To 'A Real Man' Who Will React Differently If They're In Danger." *Raging homophobe: "Levin Attacks Christie For Meeting With Obama: 'Same-Sex Politicians' Getting Together To 'Check Out The Jersey Shore.'"

In The Liberty Amendments, Levin lays out a conservative dystopian nightmare. Among the most toxic of his ideas would be the redefinition of the Commerce Clause to wipe out nearly all the hard fought protections of the 20th century...The results would be disastrous with nearly every legislative achievement since the New Deal wiped out. The Fair Labor Standard Act that established a minimum wage and outlawed child labor would be a thing of the past.
...it would also endanger seminal civil rights laws and national law enforcement authority.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, prohibited private employment discrimination and service discrimination by hotels and restaurants under the Commerce Clause, a power explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court in rejecting the immediate right-wing challenges to the historic anti-discrimination law's constitutionality.
Federal law enforcement has also relied on the expansive breadth of the Commerce Clause to ensure the FBI can fight interstate crime, as this constitutional authority is at the root of criminal laws from the Federal Kidnapping Act to the Church Arson Prevention Act...
Another amendment Levin endorsed would result in a corporate welfare gold rush. The conservative radio host proposes that the government, including state and local authorities, should be constitutionally mandated to reimburse entities if a new regulation "results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000."...
...Under this proposal, if your town passed a referendum preventing a multinational corporation from polluting a local water supply, it would be on the hook for the "economic damage" to the company....
Levin's numerous other amendments, including a reorganized tax system, the elimination of the direct election of Senators, and anenshrinement of disenfranchising voter ID laws into the Constitution are equally unworkable...

Need a long, hot shower right about now? Yeah, THAT is the stark, raving lunatic (and bigot) who Ken Kookinelli's proudly appearing with this coming Tuesday - at a "Constitution Day Rally," no less. Can someone please tell me how Cuccinelli can be the nominee for Governor of the Virginia Republican Party?!?

Climate Science Denier Topper Shutt Calls False, Debunked "Global Cooling" Article "Interesting"

The following is a guest column by former Loudoun County Board of Supervisors member Andrea McGimsey. I encourage everyone to Tweet this article to Topper Shutt at @toppersweather or to email him at tshutt@wusa9.com   It is disheartening to turn on the news in one of the most educated media markets in the country and hear a local meteorologist on WUSA 9 talking about "global cooling." That's what happened last night.  Curious, I did some research and found that Topper Shutt has a history of being a climate denier as documented on Blue Virginia.  I also found that Mr. Shutt had tweeted this widely debunked article from the UK paper The Telegraph, saying it was "interesting." Perhaps Mr. Shutt should pay attention to the American Meteorological Association, his peers, when they say, "Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal..." Or perhaps he could pay attention to the National Academy of Science, the nation's preeminent association of scientists when they say, "The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable" It is one thing for a citizen to be misled by the disinformation of the climate denier industry, fueled by money from the oil-drenched Koch brothers.  It is another for a well-known meteorologist to do so, on air, in one of the biggest media markets in the country. Management of this media outlet needs to take responsibility for his misinformation and take some action. I encourage anyone concerned about this kind of blatant and anti-science climate denialism to contact them at 9news@wusa9.com. Finally, to address the bogus issue of "global cooling" framed in The Telegraph's article, Mr. Shutt should take a look at this graph from Skeptical Science.  It's called noise, Mr. Shutt, as the arctic sea ice continues its death spiral due to global warming.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Mudcat Saunders, Who Just Expressed Support for Cooch.

by Kathy in Blacksburg Borrowing from the title of Mudcat's own book, there is indeed a fox in the hen house. And it turns out it is Mudcat Saunders himself. Today Mudcat Saunders revealed himself as the most obnoxious, biggest turncoat in VA electoral politics. I refer to his barely-short-of-an-endorsement statement that he hopes Cuccinelli wins. Calling McAuliffe a corporate Democrat, Saunders said he hopes Ken Cuccinelli wins the governor's race in VA. I refer you to this article from the Washington Post. "I'm a friend of Ken Cuccinelli's and I hope he wins," Saunders said. "I'm a Democrat, and not a corporatist. I don't support corporatist candidates." Huh? This coming from the same Saunders who advised Mark Warner, the biggest corporate Dem in the nation and 6th richest corporate Dem in Congress.Mudcat had no problem with Warner's work for the phony "Fix the Debt" (as if) crowd. Warner went on the public speaking tour via a Peter Peterson Americans for Prosperity (really Americans for the Prosperous) spin-off. His "Gang of 6" proposal would have ultimately stripped Social Security from the middle class, rendering it a poverty program. The rest of seniors would be up the creek despite the fact that we PAID for our Social security. But Cuccinelli slams McAuliffe, who supports Social Security among many other programs which help real people, rather than corporations? Are you kidding me? (note: unlike those born in the early part of the twentieth century, on average, my cohorts and I paid in more than we will get out)

KathyinBlacksburg :: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Mudcat Saunders, Who Just Expressed Support for Cooch.

And then there's this gem from Mudcat: "Because I'm not blind, and I see a guy who's got rich because of his political contacts, and I think that's wrong," (My aside: Are you sh***ing me?) And Mark Warner didn't get rich milking contacts from years of rubbing shoulders with those in the seat of power? But as the WP notes, Mudcat helped Mark Warner develop his "NASCAR strategy" which many suggest was instrumental in Warner's election. Again, Mudcat, thy name is hypocrisy.I am not needlessly bashing Sen. Warner here. I do this by way of illustration and to make some important points. Just to let readers here know, I volunteered many hours to get Warner elected to the governorship of VA (and donated to his campaign as well). Now, I would never want Warner to be governor again, US Senator again, much less president of the United States. But were he running against an extremist such as Ken Cuccinelli for any position whatsoever, you better believe I would vote for Mark Warner. (And were he a president who stole my Social Security, I would work to impeach the hell out of him. I'm not kidding about that, no matter who tries to do it.) But now Saunders suggests what is completely untrue, that there are not hugely important differences between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli, and that they do not all break in favor of the Democratic candidate. Let's be honest. Corporate Dems are a real problem for both our party and the American people. That was true in Bill Clinton's day and it is true in Obama's presidency. Such Dems are not blameless in some of the important problems of the day. But there is much more than a dime's worth of difference between the Tea party GOP candidates, all of them, and Democrats whoever they are. And Cucinelli is the worst among them all. Cucinelli is a hater, a racist, and a homophobe. Name a subject of any consequence and Cooch is on the wrong side of the issue. It is not "just" social issues, though those are enough. If a man cannot be fair and just to all the citizens, he should never have been AG much less governor. He has run his office by abusing his power. The man didn't do his job as AG. He went on a vendetta against scientists. He failed to protect the citizens of Virginia against online and other fraud and scams. He issued spurious legal opinions. He has behaved unconstitutionally in defiance of the US Supreme Court. He has worked to subvert health care for Virginians. He is so ignorant you wonder how he ever got a law degree. The pages of Blue Virginia have been loaded with significant reasons why not to vote for Ken Cuccinelli. How hard can it be to get a clue?  Mudcat is worse than irrelevant. Worst of all, Ken Cuccinelli is a pawn of ALEC, which means Mudcat is blatantly wrong about his basic premise. When he says that Ken Cucinelli cares for people on the bottom, Mudcat is a terrible liar. He cares only about the Koch brothers and their 1% buddies (Foster Friess, CONSOL Energy, etc.). If I believed in book burning, I would also burn my signed copy of Mudcat's book, which I am embarrassed to admit I own. Perhaps Cooch would like it?

Flashback: Mark Obenshain Muses on "Nullification," "Forceful Measures" Against Federal Government

Democratic Attorney General nominee Mark Herring and others have been pointing out for months that Virginia GOP Attorney General nominee Mark "Criminalize Miscarriages" Obenshain is just as extreme as Ken Cuccinelli and EW Jackson, but that he hides it better than they do (hence, the line, "Mark Obenshain votes like Ken Cuccinelli and EW Jackson talk"). And that's exactly what this slippery, professional, life-long (he brags on his website that he "has been politically active practically his entire life") politician has been doing - trying hard to "Etch-a-Sketch" his record, make people think that he's not the right-wing extremist that he is.For instance, just this morning in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Obenshain was quoted as claiming - laughably, for anyone who knows ANYTHING about this guy's record! - that "the principles and policy positions that I have laid out in the course of my campaign are mainstream Virginia principles and values". Well, sorry, but that's just not true. As Larry Sabato puts it in that same article, what Obenshain's been doing has been "breathtaking, if you look at Obenshain's voting record...His rhetoric has become kinder and gentler, but his Senate floor and committee votes have been very conservative, pretty close to Cuccinelli's stands, in fact." (note: in the same RTD interview, Obenshain tries to distance himself from Cuccinelli, who he has previously called a model he'd follow in the AG's office). Sabato's being diplomatic, because he doesn't want to use the word "liar." But we will. Mark Obenshain is an outright liar (aka, "Etch-a-Sketching" like Romney). And it's time to start systematically calling out on it. So today, we kick off a series of posts on Mark Obenshain, one that likely will involve a post every day on this chameleon, to show how he's no different, really, than EW Jackson and Ken Cuccinelli, either in terms of his positions on the issues or even in terms of his rhetoric. He just hides it a bit better, but it's all there, if you know where to look. Fortunately, we do. :) To kick off our series, let's focus on Mark Obenshain's musings on the idea of violently overthrowing the federal government. What? Seriously? I must be kidding, right? Well, no...sadly I'm not. Check this out, from January 2013. In the Q & A session nullification was brought up. It is still an option [Mark Obenshain] said but "Am I ready to declare the republic dead - absolutely not." However, he was not ready to let the federal government roll over the states either. "There has to be a middle ground." He stands with Cuccinelli in finding ways to challenge in court the constitutionality of illegal acts. The next option is to "throw the bums out." However, he concluded that it is possible that sometime far into the future if something didn't change more forceful measures might be an option. "Am I going to set up barriers on interstates 66 and 95 - no I'm not there yet," said Obenshain. "I think a Governor Cuccinelli and an Attorney General Obenshain can make some mischief and get some great things done ... one of the problems we have is top down leadership." So, let's get this straight. According to Mark Obenshain, who wants to be Virginia's chief lawyer, there's a ladder of measures he'd advocate to fight the federal government, up to and apparently including "nullification" and/or "more forceful measures." Does this type of rhetoric sound familiar coming from extreme right-wing Republicans? It might not, because very few Republicans would say such a thing out loud, even if they think it. One who did say so was the "ballot box"/"bullet box" candidate, Catherine Crabill, who was lambasted around the country for her treasonous lunacy. Another was this Republican Congressional candidate in Texas, who "stunned his party...saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership." And then of course there's crazy Michele Bachmann, who "compared Washington, D.C. to 'enemy lines' and urged her supporters to become 'armed and dangerous' and fight a 'revolution' against cap and trade legislation." That's about as extreme as you can get in this country, yet that's exactly what Mark Obenshain was happily musing about in Roanoke back in January. No wonder he's trying hard to make his past statements - and actions, as we'll detail in future posts - disappear from the view of voters (aka, to mislead/fool them). After all - to paraphrase Willard "Mitt" Romney, another pathologically lying "Etch a Sketch" Republican - he's got an election to try and win, for Pete's sake!

Blue Virginia Election Predictions (9/7/13)

Blue Virginia's election predictions (click on image to "embiggen" or click here) are based on all the public polling we've seen, plus the "internal" polling and other information we've heard about both on and off the record. Of course, things could change in the next 60 days or so, but right now, this is how we see the Virginia races for Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General.One important point we can't emphasize enough: in no way, shape, or form should a string of good poll results or a relatively optimistic forecast lull us into complacency. To the contrary, our goal right now should be to redouble our efforts for the final stretch, helping elect not just Terry McAuliffe, Ralph Northam and Mark Herring, but also as many Democratic House of Delegates candidates as possible. And, of course, it's up to YOU to turn out to vote Democratic on November 5, as well as to tell all your friends and neighbors and family to turn out to vote Democratic on November 5. The flip side of this is we need to absolutely CRUSH the medieval-style extremist team of Ken "I hate contraception, sodomy, gays, voting rights and science" Cuccinelli, EW "Planned Parenthood=KKK" Jackson and Mark "Criminalize Miscarriages" Obenshain. These people would be an absolute disaster for Virginia, especially given that the Teapublicans overwhelmingly control the Virginia House of Delegates, and are neck and neck in the Virginia Senate. If we give the most extreme of extremist Republicans the keys to the Governor's Mansion, the Lt. Governor's ability to break ties in the Senate, and the Attorney General's office...well, you can look just to the south of Virginia, to North Carolina, for a preview of the disasters that await us. In short, there's plenty of work for all of us, in whatever area we prefer (door knocking, phone banking, writing letters to the editor and/or social media posts, donating to our favorite candidates, etc.) through November 5. Thanks, and go Virginia Democrats!

Photo: Mark Obenshain Cheerfully Campaigns with Corrupt, Raving Bigot Eugene Delgaudio

Republican Attorney General nominee Mark Obenshain, the right-wing extremist whoproposed legislation that would criminalize miscarriages (when he's asked about it now, he lies about it and claim that's not what he meant - to paraphrase Willard Romney, he's running for office now, he can't be seen as favoring criminalization of miscarriages, for Pete's sake!) and walked out of the State Senate rather than vote on an openly gay judge nomination, this morning is yet again showing his true colors. Check out the photo (click to "embiggen") from Obenshain's Facebook page, and note who he's campaigning with. That's right, on Obenshain's far right (appropriately enough) is none other than the infamous Eugene Delgaudio.Why do I say Delgaudio is infamous? How about this ("Citizens of Loudoun County Line Up To Lambaste Slimeball/Anti-LGBT Bigot Eugene Delgaudio")? Or this ("Loudoun County Democrats Support Move to Block Anti-Gay Bigot Eugene Delgaudio from Committees")? Or this ("Video: Raging Homophobe Eugene Delgaudio Sings Against Gays in Boy Scouts!")? Or this ("the nationally recognized Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Public Advocate of the United States, a right-wing advocacy group run by Loudoun Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, as a Hate Group for its staunch anti-gay advocacy and activities.")? It goes on and on...this Delgaudio guy is as heinous as they come. And Mark "Criminalize Miscarriages" Obenshain is happy to campaign with him - with a big Ken Cuccinelli sign right behind them, just for good measure. Now we only need an appearance by raving lunatic EW Jackson to complete the picture. Heh.

Dominion Wins Virginia Offshore Wind Lease: Now What Happens?

( - promoted by lowkell) And the winner is . . . Dominion Power!Okay, you knew that. Dominion had the deck so stacked in its favor for Wednesday's Virginia offshore wind lease auction that the question everyone was asking at the end wasn't "who won?" but "who bid against Dominion, and why did they bother?" The answer to the first question proved to be Charlottesville-based Apex Energy, a far more experienced player in the wind industry-but one without Dominion's lock on the Virginia power market. There was much to criticize about the auction format and the process that led inevitably to Dominion's win, but this historic step is still hugely exciting for offshore wind advocates. If Dominion follows through on the commitment it just made to develop offshore wind, Virginia will be a winner, too. That "if" has a lot of people worried, given that Dominion is both a participant in the offshore wind industry and one of its loudest detractors. Company executives talk about their desire to develop the lease area, and also their opinion that offshore wind energy is way too expensive to succeed. Often they make both points in the same conversation. Observers can't help wondering why a company would pour money into a venture if it doesn't believe it can sell its own product. Two possible reasons come to mind: one, because it is willing to gamble on political and market changes that will make its venture successful after all; or two, because by spending the money to win the lease, the company prevents any competitor from occupying the space. One is gutsy, the other is evil. It is possible for both to be true.

ivymain :: Dominion Wins Virginia Offshore Wind Lease: Now What Happens?

So what did Dominion win? The lease area, a 112,800-acre swath of ocean beginning more than 23 miles off Virginia Beach, is expected to support at least 2,000 megawatts of wind turbines-enough to power about 700,000 homes. It's the second Wind Energy Area to be auctioned off in the U.S.; the first lies off Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and was auctioned off in August.Under rules set by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the entire Virginia area was treated as one tract (a bad idea, in the view of advocates and industry members who aren't Dominion, because it further reduced competition). Dominion won with a high bid of $1.6 million. A formal announcement of the winning bid is expected in October, following federal antitrust review. As the winning bidder, Dominion will have five years to conduct the studies required for development of the area, with interim deadlines including submission of a Site Assessment Plan next summer. After the five years is up, Dominion could decide not to proceed, releasing the area for BOEM to offer in a new auction. That result would be an unqualified disaster for Virginia's ability to develop an offshore wind industry here. With states to the north proceeding, we would lose not just construction jobs, but the entire supply chain, and likely the marine services as well. Many thousands of jobs now ride on Dominion following through. If Dominion decides to proceed, it will have to submit a Construction and Operations Plan at least six months before the expiration of the five-year site assessment period-that is, by the summer of 2018. BOEM will then evaluate the plan in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, producing an Environmental Impact Statement in 18-24 months, before construction can begin. That timeline puts construction underway no later than 2020, with electricity from the first turbines flowing by 2022. The process doesn't have to take as long as this; Deepwater Wind, which won the two leases in the Rhode Island/Massachusetts area last month, says construction there "could begin as early as 2017, with commercial operations by 2018." But Dominion had previously indicated its preference for the slowest possible approach. The company's original idea was to build some wind turbines, think about it for a while, and five years later start all over again. Then five years later, round three. Another five years, round four. So 20 years on, if Dominion liked what it saw each time, Virginia would finally have its 2,000 megawatts. In accordance with this plan, Dominion's surrogate, the Virginia government, asked BOEM to make the lease term for Virginia's Wind Energy Area 45 years instead of 25. Other developers and the environmental community cried foul, pointing out that such an approach would mean a generation would be born, grow up and go off to college before we had all our wind turbines-hardly the way to build an industry or stave off climate change. BOEM conceded half a loaf and agreed to a 33-year term that allows time for a phased approach, but a faster one. The agency expects the construction plan will consist of four, two-year phases, ensuring completion of the build-out in 8 years-or by 2028, to be followed by 25 years of operation. We can only hope that BOEM's confidence is not misplaced. Dominion employees have said candidly that right now, under current market conditions, the company has no intention of actually building offshore wind turbines. What will it take to change its mind? The company talks about costs and the difficulty of getting approval from Virginia regulators. It seems likely that the company will follow through with construction only if some combination of events happens in the next few years: *Continuing advancements in technology bring the cost of offshore wind energy down. Already the latest cost estimates put offshore wind power well below the sky-high figures Dominion cites. *Congress or the EPA tackles climate change through incentives for renewable energy (or disincentives for fossil fuels); *The Virginia government passes legislation to create a market in Virginia for offshore wind power; *Virginia's State Corporation Commission (SCC), which regulates utilities, alters the way it views renewable energy. Of these contingencies, the last might be the hardest. The SCC seems to believe the public interest is served only by providing the cheapest possible electricity available today. It shows no interest in climate change, or the pollution costs of fossil fuels, or long-term price stability, or job creation, or asthma rates. Ignoring the actual language of the Virginia Code, it declared this summer that Virginia law doesn't require it to consider the environment in evaluating a new electric generation facility. But the offshore wind industry is now off and running in the U.S., and the only question is whether Virginia wants to be part of it. On that answer depend thousands of jobs for our residents, an abundant source of stably-priced energy, and Virginia's ability to move beyond fossil fuels in the face of climate change. Virginians overwhelmingly want to move forward on offshore wind; now our challenge will be to make it happen.

Biggest 2013 Scandal: TV News Ethical Breakdown

by Paul Goldman

by Paul GoldmanNot long ago, the ethics of news journalism would have never, EVER have permitted a candidate for governor of any party to use clips from its news shows in a political TV ad in the manner done today. I am talking NEVER. The profession - if we dare call it a profession nowadays, given their apparent eagerness to be part of the story they are allegedly impartially covering - previously enforced this rule in any number of persuasive ways, including the threat of a law suit. All news casts are copyrighted. The only reason  for a campaign to cross the line was when they wanted to make a news story out of getting sued, thus getting a front-page newspaper story and lead TV news coverage of the campaign issue at the heart of the ad in question. But as a general rule, it is a lose-lose situation for any campaign to be seen as fighting the news media. All political ads are reviewed by the TV station before airing, meaning it is impossible to air such ads without the news clips in question being brought - or having the opportunity to be brought - to the attention of the producing TV station. Bottom line: The kind of "slice and dice" use of TV news clips in 2013 would have NEVER BEEN PERMITTED, as is now commonplace, in the past. The candidates are not doing anything wrong. Indeed, such footage is highly useful especially in attack ads. If you don't do it, the opposition will. So campaigns today fight fire with fire. That's their job. But let's not miss the self-evident. There was a time when journalists would have gone on strike to protect the image of their profession. They would have walked out if their TV stations not done everything - short of hiring a hit man - to get those attack ads with their reporting, their images, off the air. We are talking baseline, gut journalistic ethics in the eyes of the profession. No self-respecting journalist would have wanted their work product used in such a partisan way. So, what has changed in the new self-image of the journalistic profession? Why is a cardinal principle of TV journalism's greatest reporters and anchors no longer considered sacrosanct by the new generation of said TV stars? It is stunning how today's reporters just shrug their shoulders  at the practice. It violates the history of journalism, this use of clips and edited versions of a legitimate news report.

Goldmanusa :: Biggest 2013 Scandal: TV News Ethical Breakdown

As for newspapers, the rules were always different. Newspaper editorials are opinion, not hard news. They are written with the expectation of being reproduced by the endorsed campaign. Citing newspaper endorsements and a line or two from said endorsements has long been accepted practice. But again: editorials are not news, they are opinion. This is a big difference.It is true that newspaper news stories over the years have been cited in campaign TV ads - a line or word highlighted along with the headline. In that regard, this has a certain commonality with using TV news clips. As a general matter, newspaper news departments were not happy when this was done, or at least that had been the long-time ethical view. You would get blowback from them if they thought you had used their work unfairly. Every campaign took pains not to anger the beast, as they buy ink by the barrel according to the old adage. So let's ask again, why have the ethical standards of TV news journalists and their stations deteriorated to the point where they appear to shrug their shoulders at a practice strongly opposed not all that long ago? Indeed a practice they felt played havoc with the image of a neutral, trustworthy news media is now accepted. Think about it: If you know your news report is going to wind up in a political ad, this can, presumably does, change your thinking in doing, even airing, the "package" as it is known in the business. The reporter knows he or she is probably going to be a participant in the process in a way that would have "freaked out" the profession's greatest reporters. It is one thing for a campaign to rebroadcast the "package," the whole segment in its entirety in an internet ad. This is less objectionable in that there is no partisan slicing and dicing. But, of course, it still crosses the line, as the broadcast is being used for political purposes by a partisan campaign. Remember also that such rebroadcast by a campaign can be, and is, used to raise money over the internet, another previous taboo for legitimate news journalists and their organizations. TV ads are on all websites where pitches for money are made. So again: What has changed in the TV news business to explain this huge difference in self image in terms of how the profession wants to be viewed by the public? My answer: I don't have a good explanation, only a series of bad ones which are somewhat depressing to consider, since they all add up to a slippery slope not anywhere near bottom. In the end, TV news, as a productive part of society, rests largely on an image of trustworthiness and impartiality. However one tries to explain the situation, the use of such clips by political campaigns, by SuperPACs and the like can only DEMEAN AND DIMINISH the perceived qualities of TV news. More and more, the news business is being reduced to a mere commodity, packaged and sold like a used car or any other product. Progress?  The same ethic once held, for example, in the arts: no self-respecting artist would allow his song, for example, to be used by a fast food company, a car company, or any other commercial venture to sell their product. NEVER. Such action violated the basic tenet of being an artist! I am not smart enough to judge right or wrong here.  Rather, it is a matter of a self-imposed test of professionalism for said profession by those in profession.  It is true that TV stations now do stories analyzing TV ads, especially those using their clips, in large measure to tell the viewing audience they have no control over a campaign's use of their footage and that said use does not imply an endorsement by the station. But of course this misses the basic ethical point: how does it help the image of the news profession to be dragged so directly into a partisan fight by political use of allegedly non-partisan, neutral news clips? It doesn't. The fact therefore, that the TV news departments and their reporters are not FIGHTING TO PROTECT THEIR IMAGE speaks loudly in this silence. There was a time when news professionalism considered what campaigns due today as a violation of the basic integrity of the basic fabric of their profession. This is no longer true. How did things sink to this level? When did journalists suddenly enjoy this new role in political campaigns? It is a fair question that doesn't have a happy ending.

Tom Perriello Weighs In On the Syria Situation

At The Atlantic, former Rep. Tom Perriello - one of the people I respect the most in the world of politics, and no that is NOT a backhanded compliment! - weighs in on what he thinks should be done regarding Syria. Definitely read the entire interview, but here are a few key quotes (bolding added by me for emphasis).*"While I have advocated for a more aggressive posture that would potentially include regime transition, there is absolutely an argument for inflicting some cost to the regime for the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population." *"There is an interest, not just by us but by the community of nations, in creating a significant disincentive to the use of chemical and biological weapons, which even repressive regimes, on the whole, have treated as off-limits." *"[Assad] has given every indication that he is reading the international community's willingness to care fairly well. The use of chemical weapons appears to have been a miscalculation, though maybe not, since a lot of people in the U.S. still don't want to act." *"One of the reasons I came to the conclusion a year and a half ago that we needed to intervene is that both sides appear just strong enough not to lose. That's what leads to civil war that lasts for years and years, with hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, and a cancer that spreads through the region." *"There's a lot of talk about, oh, is this Iraq or is it Rwanda? I tend to agree with the notion that this is closer to Kosovo..." *"To me, there are a number of elements that go into whether you intervene in a given situation...The difference between force and violence is legitimacy. As progressives in foreign policy, we tend to believe legitimacy matters." Well reasoned, and well articulated, as is always the case with Tom Perriello. P.S. In related news, Hillary Clinton says she "supports the President's effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime's horrific use of chemical weapons."

Debunking Ken Cuccinelli's Top 5 Lies, Distortions at Last Week's Fossil-Fuel-Funded Energy Forum

The other day in Arlington, at an fossil-fuel-funded energy forum in Arlington, Ken Cuccinelli didn't even bother trying to say anything truthful, and the idiot/lazy/cowardly media didn't bother looking into it. Fortunately, the "media" these days isn't just the dead-tree version. There are also many blogs and other social media outlets, obviously of varying quality (just as the legacy media is of varying quality - mostly crap, infotainment, etc., but a few that are generally excellent, like PBS, NPR, and the New York Times for the most part). In the case of Blue Virginia, our focus is overwhelmingly on Virginia politics, but we also write about whatever other issues we're interested in and/or have some expertise. In my case, I worked at the U.S. Energy Information Administration for 17 years, and have consulted at clean energy PR firm Tigercomm the past three years. So I feel that I have a bit of knowledge when it comes to energy. Enough knowledge, anyway, to easily debunk Ken Cuccinelli's multiple lies and distortions that he made the other day in Arlington. Check out the videos here and on the "flip." I'm going to pick out 5 of Cuccinelli's biggest lies and show why they are demonstrably false. I'm not expecting that the legacy media will give a crap, or even spend two minutes reading this, because they are lazy and don't care about substance. Still, I feel it's worthwhile setting the record straight, if for no other reason then to prove how pitiful the "mainstream media" is, and how bloggers can easily kick their butts. Cuccinelli Energy Big Lie #1 (5:42) "I'll encourage the free-market development of alternative sources of energy, including more nuclear power, solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable sources. I'll prevent our government from picking winners and losers in the energy markets..." I'm not sure if Cuccinelli realizes how wildly he contradicts himself here, but a few seconds before he talks about a "free market" in energy, he pledges to massively interfere in supposedly "free" energy markets: protecting the coal industry (how is it "free market" exactly for the government to artificially prop up/subsidize an industry?), preventing energy prices from rising (how it is "free market" for the government to control prices?!?). Note that later in his presentation, Cuccinelli flatly asserts, "government should do all it can to reduce energy costs." That's about as opposite of a "free market" as is humanly possible; much closer to socialist-style central planning, actually, which I thought Cuccinelli abhorred? Guess not? So that's just ridiculous. But the biggest howler is Cuccinelli's claim that he'll prevent our government from picking winners and losers in the energy markets." There are two options here. One is that Ken Cuccinelli is completely ignorant of the entire history of energy markets in America. Two is that he knows the history, but is just lying through his teeth. The fact is, the U.S. government for the past 100 years has very much picked "winners" in energy markets: namely, the U.S. government has picked fossil fuels, via massive subsidies ($594 billion in fossil-fuel subsidies over the last 60 years), billions of dollars in government R&D on things like "fracking," indirect subsidies of all kinds (e.g, building an interstate highway system with our tax money in order to facilitate gasoline-and-diesel-powered transportation, as opposed to investing that money in, let's say, a high-speed rail network crisscrossing America), and of course allowing fossil fuels to spew their pollution into the air and water without paying for it. That last item is what's known as an "externality," or alternatively "market failure," and it's enormous in the case of fossil fuels. How enormous? Well, for coal alone, a Harvard study found that "the full 'lifecycle cost' of coal to the U.S. public is actually upwards of $500 billion a year" in terms of health and environmental costs. Again, that's just coal. The "externalities" for oil in terms of national security costs, environmental costs, health costs, you name it, are enormous as well. Anyway, the point is that there is absolutely no "free market" in energy in the United States, nor has there ever been. To claim that there is an energy "free market," or that the government hasn't for over a century picked oil, gas, and coal as the big "winners" in U.S. energy markets, is a Big Lie. Nothing whatsoever is true about it. Does Ken Cuccinelli know that, but lie anyway? Or is he an ignoramus who won't listen to anyone who points out his ignorance? Or both? You decide. I can't read this guy's severely addled/confused mind. By the way, it's unintentionally hilarious that Cuccinelli says government doesn't have a "great track record" of picking "winners and losers," since he's basically admitting that government made a huge mistake in picking oil, gas and coal as "winners" the past century plus. But of course that's not what he means; he's just lying and/or severely confused. 2. Cuccinelli Energy Big Lie #2 (6:02) "I'll fight burdensome federal regulations that seek to put coal, oil, and natural gas out of business..." Yeah, whatever (rolls eyes sarcastically). That's why oil and natural gas production are booming, because they're being put "out of business." Uh huh. Also, as for the supposed "burdensome federal regulations" supposedly seeking to put coal out of business, there are a couple of facts Ken Cuccinelli doesn't want to acknowledge: a) the federal government has actually been extremely WEAK, pitifully so really, when it comes to the abomination of mountaintop removal coal mining, also when it comes to taking strong action against b) global warming, of which Ken Cuccinelli is a Koch-brothers-funded denier. 3. Cuccinelli Energy Big Lie #3: 13:00 "In Virginia, the war on coal is a war on our poor; that's who suffers in Virginia from the war on coal...drive with me down through Southwest Virginia and you'll see what I mean." Bzzzzz. Nope, false on ALL counts. First, there is no "war on coal." In fact, as these three graphs demonstrate, it's the opposite if anything: in fact, coal mining employment in Virginia is actually UP a bit from the George W. Bush years, while most of the decline in coal mining employment in Central Appalachia occurred under Presidents Reagan and George HW Bush (the trend continued under Bill Clinton, then reversed a bit under George W. Bush and Barack Obama). So much for THAT theory. As for how much coal mining employment contributes to Virginia's economy, see here: we're talking about 0.46% of Virginia jobs and 0.56% of Virginia's economy. Third, it's important to emphasize that the major competitor to coal in recent years has been cheap, "fracked" natural gas, which has undercut coal as a fuel for power plants. In other words, if there's a "war on coal" (which there isn't), it's Cuccinelli's friends in the natural gas industry (at CONSOL, for instance) who are waging it. Finally, as for coal being a source of riches for Appalachia...I mean, seriously, do we have to debunk that one? After decades and decades of coal mining, Appalachia remains one of the poorest regions in America. I mean, if coal mining is so great, why isn't Appalachia rich? Perhaps because, as >Professor Michael Hendryx of West Virginia University has found in his research, "Appalachian counties with the heaviest concentration of coal mining have the worst unemployment and the worst economic conditions in the region." Hmmmmm. Cuccinelli Energy Big Lie #4: 16:50 "In 2009, Kansas made their voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standard mandatory, and the Kansas Policy Institute estimates that that law will eliminate 12,000 jobs during this decade and increase electricity prices by approximately 45%...Studies of Washington and Oregon's Renewable Portfolio laws have shown similar results...lost jobs and higher electricity prices." Wildly false on all counts. First, though, what on earth is the "Kansas Policy Institute?" Check this out.

The Kansas Policy Institute (KPI) has been the central coordinating think tank within Kansas as outside interests have backed ALEC's attack clean energy laws. KPI co-published the debunked Beacon Hill Institute report that ALEC has used for its clean energy standard repeal in Kansas (see sources in Beacon Hill section above for debunking). Kansas Policy Institute Vice President & Policy Director James Franko testified in the Kansas legislature alongside representatives of Heartland Institute, Americans for Prosperity and Beacon Hill Institute on Feb. 14 to weaken Kansas's renewable portfolio standard...KPI has served as the glue for other State Policy Network affiliates entering Kansas to amplify the opposition to clean energy.

What is the "State Policy Network?" According to Sourcewatch:

The State Policy Network (SPN) has franchised, funded, and fostered a growing number of “mini Heritage Foundations” at the state level since the early 1990s.^[1] It describes itself as a network and service organization for the "state-based free market think tank movement," and its stated mission is "to provide strategic assistance to independent research organizations devoted to discovering and developing market-oriented solutions to state and local public policy issues."^[2] It was founded in November 1991^[3] and incorporated in March of 1992.^[4] The founding chairman of the board and a major funder was Thomas A. Roe (1927-2000),^[5] and the founding executive director was Byron S. Lamm.^[3] In the mid-1980s, Roe allegedly told fellow wealthy conservative donor and Heritage Foundation trustee Robert Krieble, "You capture the Soviet Union -- I'm going to capture the states."^[6] SPN was formerly known as the Madison Group (see SPN's history below).^[1] Fueled by robust funding from right-wing funders including the Koch brothers, the Bradley Foundation, the anonymous wealthy donors to the donor-advised funds of DonorsTrust, and others, SPN has grown rapidly in recent years. There were 12 original think tanks when SPN was founded. In 2012, there were 59 SPN member think tanks in all 50 states. Please see SPN Members for more, including links to articles about each of them.

So much for the "Kansas Policy Institute" and its "study" of Renewable Portfolio Standards. As for the Oregon "study," Cuccinelli's apparently referring to the Cascade Policy Institute, another member of the right-wing, fossil-fuel-funded "State Policy Network." Meanwhile, just in the past couple days, the Wichita Business Journal reported, "Kansas ranks sixth in nation for creation of green-energy jobs." And earlier this year, the conservative, Republican-controlled Kansas legislature beat back a fossil-fuel-funded effort to repeal the state's 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard target. Why? Because:

... Representative Moxley, a Republican and rancher by trade, said it best when he noted that there is an entire industry built up on the RPS, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars, and that changing this would be devastating to Kansas's economy. The RPS truly is a bipartisan issue that is bringing jobs and prosperity to the state. The number of wind farms that came online from 2011 to 2012, after the passage of the RPS, nearly doubled Kansas’s installed wind capacity. And the 19 wind farms operating in Kansas have created more than 12,300 jobs, $13.7 million in payments to landowners annually, and $10.4 million in contributions to communities each year. These are real benefits, experienced by real Kansans.

The fact is, State Renewable Portfolio Standards Create Jobs and Promote Clean Energy, with success stories ranging from Kansas to Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina, etc, etc. What on earth is Ken Cuccinelli talking about? Simple: he's spouting his fossil-fuel masters' lies. That's it. The question is, why would anyone listen to him? Also, why is the media not reporting on Cuccinelli's lies? Are they oblivious? Are they in the tank for the fossil fuel companies too? Are they just too cowardly, afraid of being criticized by the fossil fuel companies and their right-wing pals? My guess is it's all of the above. Anyway, we've just shown that it's not hard at all to debunk Cuccinelli's Big Lie on Renewable Portfolio Standards. It took us maybe 10 minutes. Why can't a "real reporter," one PAID to do this job, spend 10 minutes Googling and finding the same information anyone else (like me) can find? Think about that. Cuccinelli Energy Big Lie #5: Second video, 0:49 ...at least some people in the Sierra Club supported getting rid of those [RPS standards] because they artificially incentivized our utilities without any environmental benefit that any of us could discern...we were just funneling money to what amounted to special interests..." It's hard to know exactly what Cuccinelli's babbling about here. Obviously, environmental groups are STRONG supporters of mandatory, ambitious Renewable Portfolio Standards. Perhaps Cuccinelli is referring to frustration by some Virginia environmentalists that "lobbyists for the state's largest utility companies riddled the RPS with so many loopholes that it is not serving this intended purpose [to "make Virginia’s air and water cleaner, and reduce the commonwealth’s emissions of greenhouse gases"]. The question is, if Virginia's weak, pathetic, voluntary RPS has been even further "gamed" by Dominion Power and others so that they end up "getting credits for power they generated at old, out-of-state facilities, almost all of which were already in operation when the RPS was passed," the there's a serious question whether Virginia's weak, pathetic, voluntary RPS is even worth having at all. Of course, a MUCH better option would be to make Virginia's RPS mandatory and strengthen it in every other way. But that's not what Ken Cuccinelli and his fossil-fuel masters want, of course. They want NO RPS AT ALL, just fossil fuels forever, global warming be damned, and also the enormous economic potential represented by clean energy be damned. It's short sighted. It's stupid. And it's greedy (see "Dirty Money, Dirty Power: How Virginia’s Energy Policy Serves the Interests of Top Campaign Contributors" by CCAN, Sierra Club, and Appalachian Voices), if you're a fossil fuel company or one of the politicians they've bought and paid for. But it's not anything the rest of us should support on November 5, or any other day, that's for damn sure. ************************** So, those are just five of Ken Cuccinelli's Big Lies on energy, from just one conference on one day, debunked. I could go on and on with this all day, as almost literally not a SINGLE WORD Cuccinelli said on Thursday in Arlington was true. Go through the videos yourself. Examine every statement Cuccinelli made, even the seemingly most innocuous. What you will find is that they are either totally or partially false, deceptive, misleading, and or bizarre. But what else would we expect from someone who is being lambasted in today's newspapers for being wildly corrupt in his unethical/should-be-illegal dealings with...you guessed it, a fossil fuel company (CONSOL Energy)?