2017 Virginia Governor Poll: Cooch 37%-Cantor 16%-Bolling 8%-Gillespie 8%-Obenshain 7%

More evidence, coming on the heels of yesterday's Public Policy Polling (PPP) 2016 Virginia data, that Virginia Republicans looove their extremists! Ken Cuccinelli's campaign for Governor of Virginia in 2013 was largely seen as a disaster...but Republican primary voters in the state want him to be their candidate again anyway. 37% say Cuccinelli would be their preferred nominee in 2017 to 16% who pick Eric Cantor, 8% each for Bill Bolling and Ed Gillespie, 7% for Mark Obenshain, and 1% for Pete Snyder. Also interesting: Democrats are not at all tuned in to the 2017 governor's race, but to the extent they are, Mark Herring leads Ralph Northam 33%-9% for the Democratic nomination. As for the general election, it's basically neck-and-neck at this point, although Mark Herring does slightly better than Ralph Northam. Again, though, it's very early. On the Democratic side both of the most likely contenders for 2017 are relatively unknown. Attorney General Mark Herring has 46% name recognition with Democratic primary voters and for Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam it's 37%. Those numbers are a good reality check on how much attention voters pay to down ballot offices.Herring starts out with a substantial lead over Northam for the nomination, 33% to 9%. But at 58%, a strong majority of voters are undecided.The hypothetical general election match ups we tested for 2017 all start out close. The match up between the preferred nominee on each side, Cuccinelli and Herring, starts out as an exact tie at 38% each. Herring also ties Obenshain at 34, leads Cantor 36/33, and trails Gillespie 38/34. Northam trails all the Republicans but by generally tight margins- 2 points to Cantor and Cuccinelli at 35/33 and 37/35 respectively, 4 to Obenshain at 36/32, and 7 to Gillespie at 37/30.

Thoughts on Mike Signer's Superb Book, "Becoming Madison"

I just finished reading Becoming Madison: The Extraordinary Origins of the Least Likely Founding Father, by author/scholar/politician Mike Signer (former Democratic Lt. Governor candidate; recently elected to the Charlottesville City Council). I've got a few thoughts, but first here's what current U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) and former U.S. Senator Chuck Robb (D-VA) have to say about the book.Tim Kaine: "James Madison would be called a 'flip-flopper' in today's political climate. Thank God he changed his mind and concluded that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was not just good politics but necessary policy. This is just one of the wonderful aspects of James Madison's life that Michael Signer captures so well in this important biography. Our nation owes huge debts to Madison, and today's civic leaders owe a huge debt to Signer for reminding us why." Chuck Robb: "One of the great contributions of Michael Signer's Becoming Madison is the relevance of Madison's role in the epochal debates surrounding the birth of our nation to the issues we face today, especially Madison's commitment to attacking ideas rather than individuals. The way Signer captures the palpable tension, vitriol, and passion in Madison's war of words and ideas with Henry is masterful." Let me just start by admitting that I knew VERY little about James Madison before reading this book, and now that I know a lot more about this truly great man, I'm embarrassed about that. Why? Because, as Mike Signer portrays Madison, this anxiety-ridden-but-briliant man was arguably the most important figure in ensuring that the United States of America as we know it ever came into being in the first place. As one Amazon.com reviewer puts it: Signer's book is full of exciting revelations, and I think an alternate subtitle could have been: What They Never Taught You In High School History Class. I never knew, for instance, that, in those few short weeks of the Constitutional Convention, Madison changed the course of American history. Had he lost the debates against Henry, it is quite possible that the United States as we know it today would never have come into being, and that I may have been born in a country called Virginia. I never knew that Patrick Henry, that famous firebrand and author of the immortal words "Give me liberty or give me death!" could be petty, self-serving, manipulative, and dangerous for democracy. I never knew of the close friendships between Madison and people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. It was fun to get to know the founding fathers through their private correspondence and conversations they held while visiting one another in their homes.Thanks to Signer's book, the Founding Fathers became much more real to me.I also came away from this book with a much deeper appreciation of just how messy and fragile and beautiful American democracy is. No matter whose side you are on in the Constitutional Convention debates Signer powerfully narrates, you sense that Madison and Henry and their respective supporters were fighting for big and important things. They were fighting for the fate of democracy itself, and they knew it in their bones. How different this is from the petty self-interests, private agendas, finger-pointing, and general vacuity of so much contemporary political debate. The way Signer tells the tale, Madison and the other founding fathers can inspire us in our own time to strive for a higher level of political discourse, and to become our best selves as Americans and as human beings. Therein lies the lasting legacy of James Madison, and of Signer's wonderful book. I agree with all that, and would just add a few more points that jumped out at me. 1. The importance of Madison's "method" ("Find passion in your conscience. Focus on the idea, not the man. Develop multiple and independent lines of attack. Embrace impatience. Establish a competitive advantage through preparation. Conquer bad ideas by dividing them. Master your opponent as you master yourself. Push the state to the highest version of itself. Govern the passions."), which he employed to tremendous impact on several occasions, including the climactic debate with proto-Tea Partier and raging demagogue Patrick Henry in the Virginia constitutional ratification convention.2. How certain people I knew little about, but had generally thought about in positive terms, turned out to be villains or at least fools in Signer's account. First off, Patrick Henry reminds us all of everything wrong in American politics today, with his ad hominem attacks, demagoguery, fear mongering, wild-eyed negativity and recklessness calling to mind the Tea Party, as well as current political figures ranging from Ted Cruz to Ken Cuccinelli to Donald Trump. Then there's George Mason, who I had always thought of positively, but most certainly don't anymore after reading this book and his opposition to the U.S. constitution. Same thing with James Monroe, except that I had never thought particularly highly of him anyway. 2. The book should remind us all that American politics was just as vicious - if not more so - back in the early days than it is today, and dispel the notion that things are more "poisonous" today than they ever were. On the other hand, today we have wildly irresponsible/sensationalistic/shallow mass media, the troll-ridden intertubes, money in politics run amoke (and hidious SCOTUS rulings like "Citizens United" making matters worse), and other problems we didn't have back then. Still, it was far from genteel back in the late 1700s - nor was there any absence of partisanship, pettiness, division, disunity, etc. - and anyone who thinks it was some kind of utopian period where the great Founding Fathers brought the 10 Commandments down from Mt. Sinai is simply ignorant, if not utterly delusional. 3. The issue of slavery was the "elephant in the room," causing even great men like James Madison to contort himself into logical and moral pretzels trying to square circles that were un-square-able. Also, the seeds of the Civil War were clearly drawn in those early days, although how on earthy Madison et al. could have avoided that, while still getting the U.S. government up and running, is beyond us today, just as it was beyond them then. 4. It's interesting that Thomas Jefferson, idolized in Virginia today (although I am not a big fan) was largely absent - and out of the loop - for the debate on the U.S. constitution, as he was busy serving in Paris as minister to France. 5. It's fascinating to see the tough-and-go Virginia ratification debate and narrow vote come down, in some ways, to a highly parochial, narrow issue of commercial navigation rights for property owners on the Mississippi River by "the men of Virginia's Kentucky region." As is often the case, politics can be extremly "hyper-local," even as the overall debate attempts to "think globally." 6. James Madison was a hero not just for what he accomplished, but for what he had to fight through - crippling anxiety attacks, insecurities, etc. - that literally had him hiding under the covers in his room for days/weeks on end. Yet somehow, Madison managed to gather himself when he was most needed, conquer his anxieties and perform at the highest level, both in writing and in speech. To me, that might be the most impressive thing of all about Madison, who after all was not a god or even a demigod, but a real, flesh-and-blood human being, just like the rest of the men (and they were basically all white men - women and African Americans were not welcome, barely even recognized as fully human at the time) who founded this country. 7. Finally, great job by Mike Signer pulling all this together, doing all the research, and so skillfully bringing this all to life. This book is a must-read, and also an important public service in and of itself, as this story is both important in and of itself but also HIGHLY relevant to U.S. politics today. I haven't talked to Mike about the book, but I would for instance be interested in hearing more about what parallels (and differences) he sees between today's anti-government Teapublicans and the anti-Federalists of the country's earliest years.

PPP: Virginia Republicans Love Extremists Trump, Cruz, Carson, Walker; Bush, Christie Not So Much

(P.S. For all of you who believe it's "too early" for the polls to "mean anything," see The End of the 2016 Election Is Closer Than You Think ("The campaign might be lost even before the GOP picks a nominee.") - promoted by lowkell)

The following poll results, courtesy of Public Policy Polling, confirm exactly what many of us already thought about Virginia Republicans: they are extremists. Note who they like the most: Scott Walker (+40 points favorable); Marco Rubio (+38); Ben Carson (+36); Mike Huckabee (+30); Ted Cruz (+24); several of whom - Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, possibly Walker as well - are firmly in the "extremist nutjob" category. Meanwhile, who are they NOT as thrilled about? That's right, the perceived "moderates" (even though they're "severely conservative" themselves Jeb Bush (barely in positive territory at +4 points) and Chris Christie (under water at negative 19 points. Then there's former Gov. Jim Gilmore, who gets no love at all from Virginia Republicans, with a negative 15-point net unfavorable rating, and 39% not even sure about who the guy is apparently! Ouch. Anyway, if you ever hear someone in the corporate media or whatever try to claim that Virginia Republicans are not extreme (even after they nominated the "Extreme Team" of Cuccinelli/Jackson/Obenshain for the top three statewide offices in 2013), just point them to this poll. 

Graph: Mark Warner 2014 Underperformed Mark Herring 2013, Particularly in the "Blue" Areas

If you check out the graph below (as usual, click to "embiggen" it), what you'll see - based on numbers from VPAP for 2013 and from Daily Kos' super-sharp data crunchers - is how relatively well (or NOT well, depending on how you look at it) Mark Herring performed in each State Senate district in the 2013 general election for Attorney General compared to how well Mark Warner performed in each State Senate district in the 2014 U.S. Senate election. Positive bars indicate that Mark Warner 2014 did better in a particular State Senate district than Mark Herring 2013, while negative bars indicate that Warner 2014 did WORSE than Herring 2013 in a particular State Senate district. A few findings that jumped out at me include:

1. Warner 2014 did better than Herring 2013 in just 13 out of 40 (about one third) State Senate districts, while doing worse in 27 out of 40 (about two thirds).
2. Of the 13 districts where Warner 2014 did better than Herring 2013, nine were "red" districts" and only four were "blue" districts.'
3. In general, Warner 2014 underperformed Herring 2013, particularly in the "blue" State Senate districts.
4. Warner 2014 particularly underperformed in Northern Virginia State Senate "blue" districts, while he doing better in Richmond area (McEachin, Dance), Hampton Roads (Miller, Lewis, Lucas, Locke, Alexander) and rural (Deeds and Edwards) "blue" districts.
5. Warner 2014 particularly OVERperformed in rural Southwestern and Southside Virginia, districts like Carrico, Newman, Chafin, Smith, Ruff and Stanley. So...perhaps some of the Warner appeal to "red," rural areas is still alive, but it clearly wasn't enough to compensate for the underperformance by Warner in suburban and exurban areas, particularly the "blue" districts in Northern Virginia like Ebbin's, Saslaw's, Favola's, Puller's, Howell's, Wexton's, Colgan's, Petersen's, Barker's and Marsden's.

Anything else jumping out at you here?

15 to 1: Republicans Lose Every Key Fundraising Match-Up

Good news from DPVA: The latest reporting period fundraising totals show the strength of the Democratic effort this November. In every key Senate matchup, the Democrat outraised the Republican. Democrats have the momentum, support, and infrastructure that sets them up to win in November.  The Democratic Party of Virginia outraised the Republican Party of Virginia by a factor of 15:1. In SD06, Senator Lynwood Lewis outraised Richard Ottinger by 2:1. In SD07, Gary McCollum outraised Frank Wagner by $30,000. In SD10, Dan Gecker outraised Glen Sturtevant by 2:1. In SD13, Dr. Jill McCabe outraised Senator Dick Black by 3:1. In SD21, Senator John Edwards outraised both of his opponents combined. In SD29, Jeremy McPike outraised Hal Parrish, who spent more than he raised. "It's no surprise that Democrats' message of growing jobs is resonating across the Commonwealth while Republicans and their top priority of discrimination fell flat.Virginia is ready to have a state Senate that will work with Governor McAuliffe to build a new Virginia economy," said Susan Swecker, Chairwoman of the Democratic Party of Virginia.

New PPP Poll: Hillary Clinton Up 50 Pts. Over Sanders in Virginia; Gilmore at 1%

These results - and tweets by PPP Polling - are funny and/or interesting on several levels: 1) by a 65%-12% margin, even Virginia Republicans don't think that former Gov. Jim "No Car Tax!" Gilmore should run for president; 2) "Poor Pataki" - lol; 3) the concept that "pro-Confederate flag Democratic primary voters" is Jim Webb's "base," and that Webb's trailing Hillary Clinton by 42 points even among them!; 4) Webb trails Bernie Sanders by 6 points for second place, even though Webb used to be...you know, U.S. Senator from Virginia (yikes); and 5) Clinton leads Webb by 76 points among African-American primary voters in Virginia - you mean they don't like Webb's enthusiasm for the Confederacy? Who would have ever guessed it? LOL 

Video: Jim Webb on the Diane Rehm Show

UPDATE 10:53 am: Caller asks about climate change (finally!), says Webb's record "not the greatest" on that. Webb says our environmental record in this country is "very strong." "I think we need to focus on cleaner air, clean water programs." On global climate change, we have to go after global solutions. OK, this is utter bull****, avoiding the issue and U.S. responsibility for massive carbon emissions. Claims China isn't signing up, blah blah blah. Webb says investment in solar and wind are "good invstements." "I'm an all-of-the-above" when it comes to energy (blech). Bottom line: Webb really doesn't "get it" on this issue, just doesn't understand energy and environmental issues at all, and he makes it clear every time he opens his mouth on the subject(s). That alone disqualifies him for president, IMHO. Ugh. UPDATE 10:51 am: Question on returning jobs to the U.S., stopping tax credits to companies that ship our jobs overseas. Webb says first find ways to "grow our economy," which means "reducing the corporate tax rate but eliminating the loopholes." Invest the money on infrastructure projects here. Strengthen the nature of collective bargaining, "I'm a union guy." Germany is one of the healthiest economies in the world, and unions are a "part of the formula." UPDATE 10:49 am: Question on Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Webb says he's supported "a number of free-trade agreements." "The TPP is...more complex," concerned about lack of "transparency" when this agreement was being negotiated. On the agreement itself, Webb says he generally supports free trade agreements, but it really depends on labor provisions, and at this point he wouldn't say he supports TPP. UPDATE 10:48 am: So far, utter fail by Diane Rehm in this interview, really just going over ground that's already been well covered, nothing new or interesting, no really penetrating questions, disappointing. UPDATE 10:40 am: Question on the Confederate flag. Basically, we've already heard this answer multiple times, not sure why every interviewer feels the need to keep asking it (as if there aren't far more important issues out there, starting with climate change). "There are no two cultures in America that are more closely intertwined...than the southern Black and the southern White." Uh, that's one way to put it! "Thin veneer at the top manipulating the emotions" of whites vs. blacks. OK, what the hell does any of the even mean? It's not just a "thin veneer." This all sounds like a complete bunch of bull**** to me. Webb takes a shot at Donald Trump's comments about Mexican Americans. UPDATE 10:36 am: Question on Hillary Clinton's economic plans, feeling that working class Americans have not made the gains that the wealthiest Americans have made, how would his plans differ from hers. Webb says he started talking about this "nine years ago," that "wealth accumulation has gone very heavily to capital" as opposed to labor. UPDATE 10:32 am: Question on criminal justice reform. Webb says this is a "leadership problem for the country when we have so many people in prison...at the same time people don't feel any safer in their neighborhoods" (on that latter point, it's so strange people feel that way, given that crime rates have been falling for decades...). Webb says if he were elected president, he would issue an executive order to establish a commission on criminal justice reform. UPDATE 10:29 am: Asked about the Affordable Care Act, Webb says it was a "journey." Claims that as the bill made its way through, there was never a specific legislative proposal from the White House, and "that's what caused the country to become so worried" (utterly untrue, not sure where on earth he gets that from! also, ever hear of the "making of sausage?"). "I voted 17 times with different Republican proposals" but "we are better off than if we hadn't had the program." Webb notes that people have always claimed big programs like Social Security and Medicare were "socialist." UPDATE 10:26 am: Question about Webb's comment that the Democratic Party supposedly had moved "too far to the left." Webb says it's on the "social issues we've been debating." Huh? "I'm worried that the Democratic Party's message has become less inclusive even as it's become focused on interest groups..." Again, huh? Webb talks about Wise County remote area medical clinic, says "these are people who should be naturally affiliated with the Democratic Party," but supposedly nobody's focusing on helping people in the "rural mountain" areas. Again, huh? Isn't that what Democrats have been doing with the Affordable Care Act and much else? UPDATE 10:24 am: Question about Webb getting into positions of power and then walking away. Webb says it's "healthy" to come into government and be "citizen servants as the constitution originally thought of us and then go back into private life..." Webb says in the Senate he was able to focus on issues of economic fairness and criminal justice reform, plus the post-9/11 GI Bill. UPDATE 10:20 am: My god, is this entire interview going to be on the Middle East? Bizarre and not newsworthy, given that we've heard Webb's views on these issues for years and they haven't changed. UPDATE 10:18 am: OK, this is wayyyy too much time on the Iran deal, just repeating the same thing over and over again. Time to move on to something else. UPDATE 10:15 am: Webb says he's "comfortable with having left the Senate." UPDATE 10:13 am: I disagree strongly with Webb on the Iran deal. First off, these negotiations should NOT have been a Congressional process, as that would have 100% guaranteed no chance of a deal (plus, it's the executive branch's role to negotiate with foreign governments, not Congress'). Second, it sounds like Webb sees no benefits to the U.S. of this deal, which I just think is absurd. Third, I disagree with Webb's leaning towards opposing this deal and basically his whole attitude on it. What are the alternatives to this deal? Webb doesn't say, because there really aren't any, other than "bombs away." On this, Webb sounds much more like a Republican super-hawk than a Democrat.

Video: Rep. Gerry Connolly Skewers Joe LIEberman's Idiocy on Iran Deal

Just when you think that warmongering nincompoop Joe LIEberman has gone away...he's baaaaack! This time, he's trashing the Iran agreement even before reading it or having any idea what he's talking about. Anyway, good for Rep. Connolly for skewering LIEberman's "mishegas." Rep. Connolly: "I must say, Sen. Lieberman, I'm troubled by things you've said here today. You agreed with Congressman McCaul, you said you agreed with everything he said. One of the things he said was why engage with Iran at all? Do you think it was a mistake to engage with Iran at all?" (answer from LIEberman is a bunch of b.s.) Rep. Connolly, responding acidly to LIEberman trashing the Iran deal as "not a good one" for the U.S. and its allies, without even reading it: "Yes, I heard you say that. In fact, I heard you council us we should vote not. Seems awfully early to do that, but apparently you've made up your mind. (LIEberman says "I have") Well I haven't." Rep. Connolly: "We can't pretend that there's a perfect alternative...You also said we could just go back to the P5+1 and say we just couldn't sell it let's start over again...Sen. Lieberman, I don't know anybody who believes that that has any high probability of success. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is likely to happen. If we disavow this agreement, P5+1 falls apart, and Iran races, not walks, to accelerate its nuclear development program and they're not about to come back to the table..." (LIEberman's answer -- "well I don't know") Ugh, what an embarrassment that LIEberman used to represent the state I grew up in.

Rep. Don Beyer Applauds President Obama's Iran Deal

Here's a statement on the Iran deal from Rep. Don Beyer. Also, see the statement from Sen. Tim Kaine on the "flip." Personally, my initial reaction to this deal is that we all need to look at the fine print, but that in general it's the "least bad" option when it comes to Iran, given that the second "least bad" option was basically endless bombing/war/sanctions (the latter would eventually fall apart, as the international coalition would splinter) to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Having said that, of course I don't trust Iran's horrendous, human-rights-abusing, terrorism-sponsoring, expansionistic theocratic dictatorship in any way, but unless anyone has a better idea regarding how to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, I really don't feel like listening to hysterics from the usual suspects - John McCain, Linsdey Graham, Bibi Netanyahu, etc. I'd also note that the Bush administration completely failed to head off Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program in 8 years of their administration, and that yet again a Democratic administration appears to have achieved what a Republican administration couldn't. Shocker, eh? ;)

July 14, 2015 (Washington, DC) – Congressman Don Beyer, former Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, applauded the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated by the Obama Administration's and the P5+1 Group with Iran over its nuclear program: “This is an historic accomplishment for President Obama, Secretary Kerry, the American negotiators, and the diplomatic process to prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions," said Rep. Beyer. "I commend our diplomats for skillfully averting a global showdown and blocking Iran’s efforts to obtain the bomb." Today’s deal, announced by Secretary Kerry this morning, is in line with the April 2nd framework agreed to in Lausanne and imposes significant obstacles blocking Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon in exchange for sanctions relief, dependent on critical nonproliferation commitments. Beyer continued: "We cannot allow a nuclear Iran and this deal will serve as a lasting deterrent to keep the United States out of another devastating war in the Middle East. Now I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to ensure this deal goes forward unhindered.” As Ambassador to Switzerland, Rep. Beyer hosted negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 countries and Germany in Switzerland, including the meeting in November 2013 during which the six countries concluded the primary agreement with Iran, known as the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA).

KAINE STATEMENT ON IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released the following statement on the Iran nuclear deal: "I applaud the U.S. negotiating team for its hard work to find a diplomatic solution to peacefully limit Iran's nuclear program. A nation's commitment to diplomacy is every bit as important as its commitment to military strength. Now that the negotiations have concluded, Congress must give the deal a thorough and independent review to ensure it cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. "One of the key reasons I co-authored the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, even over the initial objections of many in my party and the Administration, was to provide Congress a clear and constructive way to review a final nuclear deal. Given that the deal largely hinges on what Iran must do to get relief from sanctions imposed by Congress, the American public deserves to have its elected representatives review any final deal to ensure it is in our national security interest. In the days and weeks ahead, I look forward to discussing the terms of the agreement in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and examining the details before making a decision to either approve or disapprove the deal, which will provide Iran significant relief from economic sanctions. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to analyze this deal in the days and weeks ahead." ### DECLARACIONES DE KAINE SOBRE EL ACUERDO NUCLEAR CON IRÁN WASHINGTON, D.C. - El Senador Tim Kaine, miembro del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado, hizo hoy las siguientes declaraciones sobre el acuerdo nuclear con Irán: "Felicito a los negociadores estadounidenses por sus esfuerzos para encontrar una solución diplomática que limite pacíficamente el programa nuclear iraní. El compromiso de un país a la diplomacia es igual de importante que su compromiso al uso de su poder militar. Ahora que las negociaciones han concluido, el Congreso debe analizar el acuerdo cuidadosamente y de manera independiente para asegurar que elimine todos caminos que permitan que Irán obtenga un arma nuclear. "Una de las razones por las que copatrociné el Proyecto de Ley para la Revisión del Acuerdo Nuclear con Irán, a pesar de las objeciones iniciales de mi partido y la Administración, era para asegurar que el Congreso tuviera una manera clara y constructiva de analizar un acuerdo nuclear final. Ya que el acuerdo dicta lo que Irán debe de hacer para que se le levanten las sanciones impuestas por el Congreso, el pueblo estadounidense merece que sus representantes elegidos analicen cualquier acuerdo final y aseguren que el acuerdo beneficie nuestra seguridad nacional. En los próximos días y semanas, espero hablar sobre las condiciones del acuerdo en el comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado y examinar los detalles antes de tomar la decisión de aprobar o rechazar el acuerdo que aliviaría a Irán de las sanciones económicas. Espero trabajar con mis colegas en el Senado para analizar este acuerdo en los próximos días y semanas."

EW Jackson Rants About "rainbow military uniforms"; "transgender madness"

You know, when people are THIS obsessed with other people's sexuality, gender identity, etc., it kinda makes one wonder. I mean, do you have something you'd like to share with us, E.W.? Or maybe you and Dick Black, Eugene Delgaudio, etc. should all just "hug it out?" LOLP.S. Again, just as a reminder, this raving maniac really was the Virginia Republican Party's 2013 nominee for Lt. Governor of our state.