My Media Wish List for 2014 (short version)

Here's a short wish list for the media in 2014. First, I think the image at the right sums up the #1 challenge (one I guarantee they won't meet, as reporting on idiocy is about the only thing that brings them "eyeballs," "clicks," etc.).Second, as a corollary to item #1, START reporting on important stuff. Top of the list: the climate crisis and environmental issues in general - on the merits, this should merit banner headlines every day. Let's get real here; the networks are never going to out-stupid cable TV, so why even bother? Instead, go back to doing what you're supposed to be doing - reporting real news, stuff that actually matters for the country and the world, and drop all the other crap. Third, either completely revamp the Sunday morning talk shows or eliminate them completely. Right now, it's basically a bunch of white, conservative men regurgitating conventional wisdom and right-wing talking points. Fourth, the Washington Post needs to make huge changes, including firing Richard Cohen for being a horrendous writer, a bigot, and an all-around jerk. Then, of course, fire editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, who oversees this monstrosity (and who has defended Richard Cohen). That would be a decent start to improving the paper. Fifth, cut the false equivalency crap. Of course, Democrats are far from perfect, but that doesn't change the fact that 99% of this country's problems - including the gridlock in DC - is caused by the Teapublicans and their odious, far-right-wingnut ideology. Now, media, it's your job to report this fact. Sixth, you guys aren't meteorologists. News flash for the media: in the summer, it gets hot and there are fires, hurricanes, etc.; in the winter, it gets cold and it snows/sleets; in the spring, we get tornadoes. No need to take over your entire newscast with this stuff, when everyone can go online and find the latest radar, forecasts, etc., in about 2 seconds. Also, if you ARE going constantly report "extreme" weather, then how about talking about WHY scientists increasingly believe said extreme weather is increasing. Hint - it's got two words, both starting with the letter "c" and ending in the letter "e." Hmmmmm. Seventh through 100 or so - there are many more items that merit being on this list; feel free to add your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks. P.S. Also, stop using racist names for football teams (e.g., the Washington NFL franchise). You don't print profanity or the "n word," so why would you print other racial slurs?

EIA Renewable Energy Forecast Isn't Just Wrong, It's Wildly, Laughably Too Low

I hate to criticize the federal agency I worked at for 17+ years, especially since the Energy Information Administration (EIA) does great work in many areas (e.g., data collection, energy market and oil supply disruption analysis). But when it comes to long-term energy forecasting (whether we're talking prices, production, consumption, imports, whatever), I'm sorry to say, EIA has been not just wrong, time and time again, but laughably, outrageously wrong. And, sadly, their latest Annual Energy Outlook (the AEO - with "forecasts," using the word VERY loosely, out to 2040) continues that abysmal tradition. More on the AEO shortly. But first, let's review EIA's track record on long-term forecasting, from a recent article by Old Dominion University Professor Steve Yetiv and me in the Journal of Energy Security.*Looking at EIA's 2005 AEO (note: this is somewhat random, but you'd find the same problems in pretty much ANY year's AEO), EIA forecast 2013 oil prices would be around $25-$30 per barrel, with gasoline prices of around $1.50/gallon. The actual prices? More like $100 per barrel for oil and $3.50/gallon for gasoline in the US market. That's off by a factor of 3-4 fold. Yikes! *Back in 2005, EIA forecast US crude oil production would reach about 5.7 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2013, with Lower-US-48 production declining steadily after 2009. Actual US production so far in 2013? How about 7.3 million barrels per day (bbl/d) and rising fast? That's wildly off, both directionally and in absolute terms (by 1.6 million bbl/d). *Likewise, the 2005 EIA forecast for US natural gas production in 2013 was wildly off -- about 20.6 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), compared to actual production of 24.2 Tcf. Not even close. *EIA was also wildly off on U.S. gross oil imports, forecasting that they would rise sharply, from 12.3 million bbl/d in 2003 to 20.2 million bbl/d in 2025. What's actually happened so far is that US gross oil imports have fallen sharply, from 12.3 million bpd in 2003 to just 9.7 million bpd in 2013. US net oil imports have fallen even more sharply, from 11.2 million bpd in 2003 to 6.7 million bpd in 2013. EIA predicted the exact opposite.   *EIA's 2005 long-term forecast also missed the future price of natural gas in the US by a huge margin: a forecast price for 2012 of $3.80/thousand cubic feet (mcf) compared to the actual price of $10.66/mcf. That's not even close; heck, it's not even close to being close! *In 2005, EIA forecast that U.S. solar power capacity would hit about 1.2 GW in 2013. Where are we right now? According to Greentech Media, the U.S. is closing in (if it already hasn't passed) the 10 GW mark in solar PV capacity right about now, and that's not even counting solar thermal power generating capacity (according to this article, you can add another 1 GW or so of U.S. solar thermal power capacity). In sum, EIA forecast 1.2 GW of U.S. solar power capacity in 2013; the actual figure is around 11 GW - nearly 10 times higher than EIA forecast! *In 2005, EIA forecast that U.S. wind power capacity would reach about 9 gigawatts (GW) in 2013. Where, in fact, are we right now? According to theAmerican Wind Energy Association (AWEA), installed U.S. wind power capacity at the end of 2012 was 60 GW. Quick math: EIA's forecast of 9 GW compared to an actual 60 GW? That's off by a factor of nearly 7! We could go on and on with this, but you get the picture: EIA has basically ZERO ability to forecast long-term energy trends even close to correctly. Let me emphasize: it's not that EIA is off by a just a bit; they're off by orders of magnitude. In that context, let's look at their latest long-term "forecasts" for renewable energy.

Potential 2014 GOP Senate Candidate Ed Gillespie Supported Key Elements of "Obamacare"

In recent days, the rumors have been flying around that former George W. Bush and Mitt Romney senior adviser (as well as being a primary drafter of the godawful "Contract with America") Ed Gillespie might run for U.S. Senate in 2014 against Mark Warner. Yes, it's laughable, I know. Still, Gillespie seems to be seriously considering it. The problem is, if he does run, people will start looking carefully at his record, such as his lobbying for key elements of what would later become known as "Obamcare." For instance, starting at 4:20 of this video (see transcript of key parts below), Ed Gillespie has some, er, interesting things to say about health care in America. For instance, that he supports private sector health care sold through health care exchanges. Sort of like...yeah, "Obamacare." Of course, this is the same guy who was lobbying for the individual mandate two years before anyone even heard of Obamacare ("In 2007, the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform hired Quinn Gillespie to lobby for its agenda, which included an employer mandate and an individual mandate...[Gillespie] seems stuck admitting he was for a federal-level mandate when insurers were paying him to be for it, and is against it now that Obama is defending it.”). Gillespie also has stated his belief that there's no reason why "people shouldn’t be eligible for Medicaid or some form of government subsidies." Another important aspect of "Obamacare," in other words. The bottom line: if Gillespie runs against Mark Warner next year and tries to attack him on elements of "Obamacare," all Warner will have to do is point people to the videos, audios, and news articles in which Gillespie strongly supported "Obamacare"'s key elements. Should be entertaining, if nothing else! ;)

Jon Stewart: “Wouldn’t it free up businesses more if we decouple healthcare from business?” Ed Gillespie: “Yeah. Absolutely. It would.” [audience laughter] Stewart: “So you’re for single payer?” Gillespie: “No. I’m for saying that the fact is healthcare as an employee benefit is an anachronistic system. It was devised to get around wage controls. It was implemented at a time when someone might go to work at General Motors and work there for 25 years. Now, people move...eight, nine jobs in the course of a career…” Stewart: “So how can we do it?” Gillespie: “Well, I think it should be based on the individual. You should be able to risk pool outside of your employer. One of the reasons that employers are so important…” Stewart: “So, an exchange?” Gillespie: “Yeah. I would make it a private sector exchange. You could have a state option, but there should be more freedom for people to choose.”

"Striped Virginia": We've Got a LOT of Work to Do Before We're Truly "Blue"

Like most Virginia Democrats, I woke up this morning feeling great, following the news yesterday that Republican Mark Obenshain had conceded the Attorney General's race to Democrat Mark Herring. That, of course, means Virginia Democrats will soon control all statewide, elected offices - the two U.S. Senate seats, Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General - in the Commonwealth. In addition, Barack Obama won Virginia in 2008 and 2012. In short, other than the 2009 "Tea Party" moment of insanity (and subsequent wipeout of Democrats all across America), Virginia would seem to be looking a nice shade of "blue" politically. But before we get too excited, let's consider a few facts.1. Republicans continue to control the U.S. House of Representatives delegation from Virginia by an 8-3 margin. This is the result in part of "incumbent protection" gerrymandering (following the 2010 census and 2010 Tea Party wipeout), of course, but it's also because Democrats still tend to turn out in lower numbers, proportionately speaking, than Republican in non-presidential election years. And as long as that continues, it's going to be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to cut into that 8-3 disadvantage. Possible targets for 2014: VA-10, which went 50%-49% for Mitt Romney in 2012; and VA-02, which went 50%-48% for Barack Obama in 2012. Another possibility SHOULD be VA-04, which went 50%-49% for Romney in 2012, but we'll need a strong candidate and Democratic unity (e.g,. no Democrats supporting Randy Forbes) to do it. In both VA-04 and VA-10, Dems will need to exceed their performance in the presidential year of 2012, which would be difficult if not impossible. So we'll see, but for now, Virginia's not "blue" in our Congressional delegation. 2. The Virginia House of Delegates has a massive, 67-33, Republican majority, and that doesn't appear likely to change significantly anytime soon. It's extremely frustrating, as there were 18 HoD districts in 2013 that were won by Tim Kaine, yet held by Republican delegates. In the end, Democrats picked up a net of just 1 (one!) HoD seat this year, and I'm hearing that could go back down to a net gain of ZERO if we lose Del. Lynwood Lewis' seat, an outcome which Dems appear highly concerned about. And remember, a gubernatorial year, especially one in which our gubernatorial candidate spent approximately a gazillion dollars, and especially when we had plenty of good candidates, should have seen us pick up at least 4 seats, maybe even 6-10 (believe it or not, I was told that even more than that were considered "in play" just a week or two before the election). If we HAD picked up 10 seats, we'd now be facing a 58-42 disadvantage in the House of Delegates - still godawful, but getting within shouting distance at least. For now, though, we're buried, with not much prospect for major improvement in 2015, when turnout will be at its lowest of the four-year cycle. 3. It's not like statewide Democrats are winning by landslides. As we know, Mark Herring won by just a few hundred votes (of course, I'll take it; as they say in baseball, whether you win by 1 run or 10 runs, it's still a "W"). For governor, Terry McAuliffe won by about 2.5 percentage points, running against about as extreme a candidate as one can imagine in America, one who also got massively outpsent and who ran a much poorer campaign than anyone had anticipated, a priori. And Ralph Northam...well, he won big, but not nearly as big as one might expect against such an extremist/freakazoid as E.W. Jackson. So, bottom line: let's not get carried away here into prematurely celebrating "Blue Virginia" (love the name, by the way, maybe I'll use it for something? lol). To do that, we're going to need to keep the pedal to the metal, really beef up the Democratic Party in this state - on all levels. We're going to need to continue bringing new voters into our ranks. We're going to need to find/recruit/develop strong candidates up and down the ballot, and we're going to need to ensure that they are well funded. And, bottom line, we're going to need to get our voters out to the polls on election day, at least at the same rates that Republicans do, before we can seriously call this state "blue." For now, it's more like "striped Virginia" - "blue" statewide, "red" in gerrymandered local/House districts; "blue" in presidential and possibly gubernatorial years; "red" in odd-year/non-gubernatorial years. In 2015, 2017 and beyond, let's see if we can turn those "red" stripes" "blue." UPDATE: As "FreeDem" noted in the comments, the State Senate - currently tied (20-20) - is in serious jeopardy unless Democrats start picking up seats to offset expected losses (e.g., Phil Puckett, whenever he retires).

Yes, Virginia, There is an Environment

by Kindler Think about it: 2013 started with the Democratic leader of the Virginia Senate, Dick Saslaw, [proclaiming his support http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/09/1418831/virginia-democrat-wants-to-roll-back-key-environmental-rules-im-not-going-to-be-here-to-suffer-consequences/?mobile=wt] for uranium mining here with the argument that, centuries into the future, when radioactive waste will remain a hazard, "I’m not going to be here...I can’t ban something because of something that might happen 500 or 1,000 years from now.“ 2013 ends with Virginia Uranium Inc. currently [giving up the fight http://shar.es/OuXaq] to overturn the state uranium mining ban. What's behind this extraordinary turnaround -- and what does it signal about where Virginia is headed? Is the Commonwealth, years behind national trends on energy, the environment and sustainability, about to catch up? That will depend on those of us who care about these issues raising our voices and holding public officials' feet to the fire. But there's increasing evidence that we -- finally, finally! -- have the wind at our backs. Consider these factual morsels: *For all that the left loves to bash Terry McAuliffe, the fact is that he ran and won on progressive positions -- including on energy and climate change. He skillfully took advantage of Ken Cuccinelli's extremist attack on Professor Michael Mann by [campaigning with Mann http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/11/inquiring-minds-michael-mann-cuccinelli-climate] and proclaiming that we must respect scientists and their findings if we want to move Virginia forward. *Several environmental groups joined in the battle, including the Virginia League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club. Most impressively, Tom Steyer's [NextGen Climate Action http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/tom-steyer-virginia-election-2013-climate-change-99611.html] invested a stunning $8 million in the race, including (per Politico) "$3.1 million in TV advertising, $1.2 million in digital ads, 12 different pieces of campaign mail [and] a field program that hit 62,000 households on get-out-the-vote weekend." Beyond the successful impact on the governors' race, think about the value of all that outreach in educating the Virginia electorate about climate change. *While you may not have thought about the Hampton Roads area as a hotbed of environmental activism, that may be changing as the region faces environmental hazards on two fronts: potential uranium mining on one side, and a rising ocean on the other. Combine those threats with [the promise of light rail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide_Light_Rail] and maybe the area is moving in the green direction. And maybe that's one reason why Terry McAuliffe swept the major mayoral endorsements in the area, including the Republican mayor of Virginia Beach. *Meanwhile, environmental activism seems to be on the rise in the state. The first indication of this was the spring uprising against the hybrid tax, led by Del. Scott Surovell and Sen. Adam Ebbin, who gathered nearly 7000 signatures to petition Gov. McDonnell to eliminate it from the transportation bill before signing it. While McDonnell did not get rid of the annual fee, he did [reduce it from $100 to $64 http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3655:gov-mcdonnell-keeps-arbitrary-hybrid-tax-defying-public-outcry&Itemid=23]. That's what you call a partial victory -- and an invitation to keep fighting until this lousy policy is repealed. *More recently, activist A. Siegel (who posts on BV from time to time) posted [an online petition http://t.co/At9P3HA1XD] asking Governor-elect McAuliffe to redirect donations to his inaugural committee from fossil fuel companies to purchase solar panels for the Virginia Governor's Mansion -- and impressively for such a low-profile issue, gathered 1,781 signatures in 10 days. Put all the pieces together, and what do you see? A Virginia poised to move out of the ranks of Alabama and Mississippi when it comes to energy and the environment, and reposition itself to compete with the leading states on these issues. We gained the upper hand in the uranium battle because, this time, environmentalists played the political game effectively and got powerful voices on our side -- local officials including some Republicans, and most importantly our Governor-elect. Just think about how much more we can accomplish in the next 4 years -- and then, let's get started.

Virginia AG Recount Open Thread. UPDATE: Obenshain Concedes to Herring

In addition to the excellent background diary posted by Dan Sullivan this morning, it seems to me that an "open thread" on the Virginia AG "recount" is in order. Note that this spreadsheet, being updated by @Taniel and @notlarrysabato, is an excellent source for the latest numbers. As of 5:12 pm, Mark Herring has picked up 183 votes, while Mark Obenshain has picked up 92 votes, for a net increase of 91 votes for Herring and a lead of 256 votes (up from 165 votes at the start of the "recount").UPDATE 8:22 pm: Adam Zuckerman of the Herring campaign reports, "Final results: Herring +907. Herring 1,105,045. Obenshain 1,104,138." UPDATE 4:07 pm: Talking Points Memo reports: "'As we near the conclusion of the recount I'm confident that the final total of the recount is going to show Mark Herring ahead,' Obenshain said Wednesday at a press conference. Obenshain added that the attorney general race is 'over.' He said he called Herring earlier in the day to concede the race." UPDATE 12:56 pm: ‏@benpershing tweets, "Odd scene at #vaag recount court in Richmond, lawyers keep arguing over ballots even though Obenshain will concede." Ha, gotta love lawyers! UPDATE 12:35 pm: The @washingtonpost tweets, "#BREAKINGNEWS: Republican candidate Obenshain will concede in Virginia AG race http://wapo.st/18RvoD2 " :) @MSchmidtRTD adds, "@MarkObenshain to hold news conference at 3pm. Several sources indicate he may be conceding in #VAAG race before court wraps recount today" UPDATE 11:51 am Wednesday: Per WRIC, "Herring's campaign says the 866-vote edge has been reached with 73 percent of the recount statewide completed." UPDATE 8:35 pm: @BrianSchoeneman tweets about Fairfax County's results: "Final unofficial numbers until we finish double check: Obenshain +206, Herring +572. Net Herring + 366. 13 challenged ballots." UPDATE 5:04 pm: @notlarrysabato tweets, "1158/2558 in- margin is 632.  Mark Herring 1,104,510-- Mark Obenshain 1,103,878.  This one's over folks" UPDATE 4:54 pm:  ‏@benpershing tweets, "Loudoun has completed its #VAAG recount: Herring net gain of 62 votes, w/ 2 challenged ballots sent to Richmond." @Taniel tweets, "Insane: Thanks to Loudoun, Mark Herring's lead has now broken the 600-vote barrier -- 632, to be exact!" UPDATE 3:34 pm: I'm told that Herring picked up 2 votes in PW County. UPDATE 2:42 pm: Herring campaign attorney Marc Elias said that there's a lot of counting going on, with data flowing in every minute. Having said that, as of 2:25 pm today, 49% of the state has been recounted, and Herring has gained 742 votes, Obenshain 300, for a net increase of 442 votes (and a 607 net margin for Herring). What's most important, in Elias' view, isn't the absolute numbers but what the trend is and how the recount is shaping up. One question is trying to figure out which challenges might or might not be upheld. But the number of challenges isn't that great (there are under 100 so far) and are highly unlikely to change the outcome. (note that there have been more challenges to Herring ballots than to Obenshain ballots)

Ken Cuccinelli's Corrupt Pal "Bobby Thompson" Sentenced to 28 Years in Prison

ABC News reports: An Ohio judge today sentenced the mastermind of a $100 million charity scam, who had become a major Republican campaign donor, to 28 years in prison.John Donald Cody, who operated under the pseudonym Commander Bobby Thompson, appeared before the judge with a bushy grey beard, dressed in an orange jump suit. Gone were his trademark pompadour hairstyle and stylized mustache he wore when posing in photos with prominent politicians, including former President George W. Bush and House Speaker John Boehner... ...Cody spoke briefly before hearing his prison sentence and being slapped with a fine of more than $6 million for overseeing a bogus charity called the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, which preyed on people's sympathy for American military veterans at a time of war. He offered no apology. So, does this guy's name - his fake name, that is, not his real one - ring a bell? If not, it should, because Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was closely connected to the guy back in 2009. A few quick links to joggle your memory chips.*Top Cuccinelli Contributor's Mysterious 'Charity' Under Scrutiny *Shannon connects Cuccinelli campaign promise, donation ("'I think the timing is devastating,' Shannon said in an interview. 'You receive huge contributions, and then you stake out policy positions. I'm not in government any more. I'm not a prosecutor any more. It's not for me to say if something illegal happened. But I'm just stating the facts.'") *Democrats call on Cuccinelli to give away donation from man linked to charity under scrutiny *WANTED: The con man who gave Cuccinelli $55,500 *Cuccinelli Won't Give Up Money From Founder Of Alleged Scam Charity -- Also Not Eager To Investigate *The Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Ken Cuccinelli Starting to get the picture here? So, the main thing I don't understand is why this quid pro quo, pay-to-play scandal wasn't a huge issue in the 2013 gubernatorial campaign. I mean, Johnny Williams was bad, but this is much, much worse if you ask me...

BREAKING: GOP Nominates Anti-Semitic "Joke" Guy for VA State Senate

Yep, they really did. @ClarkeGOP tweets, "John Whitbeck wins 33rd VA Senate Republican nomination with 70% of vote !!!" See the video below of Whitbeck "joking" around. As if that's not bad enough, he's also a far-right winger in general (the normal/sane Republican, Joe May, is running as an independent). What a party, huh? (Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, etc. all rolling around in their graves)

And Virginia's 2013 Person of the Year Is...???

Before I get to my reasoning and ultimate choice, here are my two main criteria for choosing Virginia's 2013 Person of the Year. First, I'm using the same definition that Time Magazine does for its "Person of the Year;" namely, "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill, and embodied what was important about the year." And second, I'm taking into account the Blue Virginia community's voting on this question.With that, here's my reasoning on each of the nominees, in reverse order of their standing in the Blue Virginia poll. Keep in mind that there were only 48 votes cast, despite the fact that Blue Virginia has 2,432 registered users. To me, that says a great deal about the level of enthusiasm - or lack thereof - there is for just about anyone in Virginia politics at this point. 14-15. 3-Way tied between Eric Cantor, Boyd Marcus and Bill Howell (0 votes): I'd argue that he should have received a few votes, as he is the "leader" (using the word loosely) of the House of Representatives Republicans, the folks who did yet more damage to America in 2013. But no, his impact on Virginia per se wasn't huge, except insofar as he played a role in the government shutdown in October. Still, I'd rank Cantor higher than tied for last place. I'd also rank Bill Howell several notches higher at least, as he played a huge role in getting the deeply flawed, but "bipartisan" (that magic but mostly meaningless word) Virginia transportation bill passed, and also in maintaining the enormous GOP majority in the House of Delegates. As for Republican consultant-turned-McAuliffe-supporter/consultant Boyd Marcus...yeah, he didn't really have much of an impact in 2013. 10-13. Four-way tie between Robby Mook, Jonnie Williams, Robert Sarvis and Russell Wilson (1 vote each): I'd rank both of these guys higher, as Mook (McAuliffe's campaign manager) played a major role in keeping USS McAuliffe afloat, on course, and away from deadly icebergs in 2013. That's no small feat. As for Jonnie Williams, he played a huge role in almost bringing down Gov. McDonnell, in ruining McDonnell's political future, and in tarnishing Ken Cuccinelli's ethical reputation as well. That's a big impact for one hustling huckster. In the end I don't believe that Robert Sarvis had much impact on the election, and I also don't think he had much impact on the way Terry McAuliffe ran his campaign or will govern. So... meh. QB Russell Wilson had a big impact on the Seattle Seahawks, but on Virginia? Not so much.

lowkell :: And Virginia's 2013 Person of the Year Is...???

8-9. Two-way tie between E.W. Jackson and Tim Kaine (2 votes each): I'd argue that Jackson helped tarnish the Republican ticket as an "extreme team," and thus helped lose the election for Cuccinelli et al. That's "impact" of a sort. As for Tim Kaine, he had an impressive first year in the U.S. Senate, including delivering the first Senate floor speech ever in Spanish. The problem is, the Senate is so dysfunctional, that even if you have a good year there, you still can't accomplish much. Hopefully that will change in coming years.6-7. Two-way tied between Bill Bolling and GOP endorsers of T-Mac (3 votes each): Kind of "inside baseball" stuff, but I'd argue that Bolling's hostility to the Republican "extreme team" and the fact that numerous Republicans, such as Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms, endorsed T-Mac, cumulatively had an impact. Hard to prove, of course, but imagine if Bolling and the other Republicans had been 100% united behind Cuccinelli? 5. Ken Cuccinelli (4 votes): Cooch was my first, gut instinct pick for "Person of the Year." Why? Because, although he accomplished very little (if anything) as Attorney General, he did manage to allow the 2013 gubernatorial election to become a referendum on him. And that was not a good thing for Virginia Republicans, as we all saw on November 5. I'd add that even among McAuliffe voters, most said their vote was more AGAINST Cuccinelli than FOR McAuliffe. So, again, 2013 was to a large extent about this weird, wacky, extremist dude we like to call "Cuckoo." 3-4. Two-way tie between Bob McDonnell and Rosalind Helderman (7 votes): I also seriously thought about making Bob McDonnell "Person of the Year," as his scandals received a huge amount of news coverage in 2013, and certainly didn't help Republicans on November 5. But, in the end, what did McDonnell actually DO in 2013? Many people would point to the transportation bill, but I've addressed that and concluded that the bill passed in large part in spite of McDonnell. Also, it's mostly an alternative history case, but IF McDonnell hadn't been scandal tarnished and IF he actually wanted Ken Cuccinelli to succeed him as governor (I have strong doubts about that), perhaps he could have pushed Cuccinelli to victory on Nov. 5? We'll never know. As for Rosalind Helderman, I'd definitely say she (and her colleagues) played a significant role in the 2013 election through her/their reporting on Bob McDonnell's scandals. How much of an impact that had is very hard to quantify, but it certainly couldn't have helped Cuccinelli's run for governor. 2. McDonnell's former chef (7 votes): I mostly threw this one in there for humor value, and am surprised he received as many votes as he did. I would certainly say he had an impact (if nothing else, on the Governor's Mansion pantry - lol), but would rank him much lower than second. 1. Terry McAuliffe (11 votes): In our poll, McAuliffe got 23% of the 48 votes cast, not exactly overwhelming to put it mildly. But that was enough to vault him to the top of our "Person of the Year" poll. With all due respect, though, I disagree. For starters, as I noted above, this election became more of a referendum on Ken Cuccinelli than anything else. Note that this is exactly what the McAuliffe team wanted, so that's no knock on T-Mac at all. Yes, McAuliffe winning the Virginia gubernatorial election was a big deal, but in the end I'm not sure that T-Mac "affected our lives" much in 2013, as he wasn't in a position of power to do so. In 2014, on the other hand, it will be a completely different ballgame, and McAuliffe certainly has a chance to make a major impact on Virginia in the New Year. But for 2013...not so much. Bottom line, who's my pick for Virginia's 2013 Person of the Year? I can see arguments for several of the people mentioned above, but none that jump out at me as an obvious choice. So, my choice for Virginia's 2013 Person of the Year - an utterly uninspiring year in almost every sense for Virginia politics - would have to be NOBODY. Call it lame, call it a cop-out, call it whatever you want, but that's my pick and I'm sticking with it. Now, let's just hope we do better in 2014!

What Could the General Assembly Do to Slash Virginia's Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Note: We're having an interesting discussion in this post's comments section, and I thought it was worthwhile to kick it up to the "front page" of the blog. Here's my response to DJ Rippert's question to me about climate change, "what do you propose we do?" (specifically in 2014 in Virginia). I'd also add that the following policies wouldn't just help the environment, they'd be great for Virginia's economy as well. Enjoy.Here are just a few policies that Virginia's General Assembly could, in theory, enact in 2014. Note that other states have done these things, so they're not pie in the sky. 1. Enact a strong, mandatory RPS as many other states have done. 2. Impose a robust "net metering" requirement so that Virginia business and home owners can sell the power they generate back to the grid. (See herefor more on this one) 3. Change Dominion's business model by "decoupling" its profits from the amount of power it produces. Also, as part of this, provide strong incentives for energy efficiency and conservation. (See here for more on that subject) 4. Provide tax credits and other incentives, as many other states do, for individuals and businesses to install renewable energy and energy efficiency upgrades. 5. Encourage innovative financial vehicles for renewable energy, like REITs, Master Limited Partnerships, and green mortgages. (See here for more on this) 6. Capture the "externalities" from fossil fuels - pollution, health care costs, etc. - by putting a serious price on carbon and/or enacting a "cap and trade" (or "cap and divident" or whatever) system. 7. Rapidly phase out all fossil fuel subsidies, both direct and indirect (e.g., new roads that encourage sprawl development, ergo more fossil fuel consumption). 8. Instead of investing in roads, pour money into smart growth-oriented strategies - integrating transportation and land use, building high-speed rail, streetcar systems, bike trails, pedestrian improvements, Bus Rapid Transit systems, etc, etc. 9. Repeal the hybrid fee. Slap on a gas guzzler fee to replace the lost revenue and to discourage gas guzzlers. 10. Subsidize fuel-efficient homes and vehicles; disincentive inefficient homes and vehicles. That's just for starters, but it's certainly all doable. The problem? Bill "ALEC" Howell and the fossil-fuel-bought-and-paid-for House of Delegates will never go along. Grrrrr.