Worst Virginia Political TV Ads of 2014 (So Far)

Here are a few nominees for worst (e.g., least effective, most cringe-inducingly lame, etc.) Virginia TV ads of 2014 so far. Please feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments section. Thanks. 1. This one is so mind-bogglingly stupid it defies belief. In short, Eric Cantor had an enormous advantage in terms of name ID, incumbency and money over the almost-completely-unknown Dave Brat. So what did Can'tor and his brilliant consultants do? That's right, spend a s***-ton of money to launch ridiculous, completely non-credible attacks on Brat, effectively spending their own money to raise Brat's name ID and make people look into his candidacy. 2. Lynwood Lewis came within 11 votes of losing a race he was supposed to win easily (at least that's what the so-called "experts" kept saying), after running to the right, dissing/ignoring the "base," etc. This ad epitomizes all that, using Republican framing (e.g., regulations are bad) and emphasizing working with Republicans, when what Lewis needed to do was fire up his district's Democratic "base" voters. Does this lame ad get you fired up in any way, shape or form? Nope, didn't think so. 3. This ad by conservadem Mike Hymes attacking his Republican opponent, Ben Chafin, is on the list mostly because of two things: a) it was a completely ineffective waste of (a lot of) money, as was Hymes' entire ad campaign; and b) attacking defense attorneys for doing their job MIGHT be politically effective at times (obviously not in this special election for Virginia State Senate), but it's pathetic nonetheless. 4. When I first watched this ad, my jaw literally dropped at how bad it was, from the cheesy music to some random people speaking the words "race," "gender" and "orientation"...then finally the point, that these things don't define who we are. Then, how does Euille talking about how his campaign's all about "leadership, passion and know-how" (with a backdrop of Washington, DC monuments, for some reason) relate to anything that came before it in the ad? Got me. And neither did voters, apparently, as Euille received just 8% of the vote in the Democratic primary, and now may have opened himself up to a Mayoral primary challenge from 1 or more opponents. Talk about money NOT well spent!

New Ethics Law: Loophole Piled on Loophole

by Elaine in Roanoke

I thoroughly enjoyed today's column in the Roanoke Times by that curmudgeon, columnist Dan Casey, whose writing is the best thing about the Times these days. Casey discussed something that should be reported by every media outlet in the state as part of the coverage of the gross embarrassment that is the Bob and Maureen McDonnell trial. Casey decided to tackle one simple question: Could another state office holder cause another corrupt mess like this one, while supposedly following the new 2014 Virginia ethics law? His answer, after reading the entire text of the new "ethics law," is a resounding, "Yes." As Casey stated, the new law has so many loopholes that a person could "drive trucks of Rolexes right through them."Item by item, Casey shows how all the stuff that Bob and Maureen McDonnell got as the "quid" part of their quid pro quo would be perfectly legal under the empty law the General Assembly had the gall to pass in the last session. For example: The $6,500 Rolex watch? While the new law forbids tangible gifts worth more than $250, the limitation applies only to lobbyists or businesspeople doing business with the state. Jonnie Williams was neither at the time. He just wanted McDonnell to use the influence Bob and Maureen were happy to peddle to promote his dubious product, a health supplement made from tobacco.  There's another loophole in the law for unlimited gifts from "personal friends," so all Bob McDonnell would have had to do was to say that Williams was his buddy. (By the way, that was part of the defense at the trial. The catch there was the testimony of Williams that the whole relationship was strictly "business as usual.")

Elaine in Roanoke :: New Ethics Law: Loophole Piled on Loophole

How about all of Maureen's fancy clothes? The same gift-from-friend loophole applies here, one adding up to about $20,000 in her case. What about the $15,000 for wedding catering for daughter Cailin McDonnell? That is an "intangible" gift. Under the new law, there is no limit on such gifts to officials or their immediate family, so there would be no need for Cailin to report it because the law defines immediate family as only a spouse or child under 18 living at home. Cailin is an adult, so the gift is exempted from reporting. Plus, the catering is a legal twofer because Cailin could claim Williams was a "personal friend." Oh, and all those family vacations worth thousands also could be just "personal friend" gifts under the new law.Next come the loopholes in the new ethics law that make those pesky, huge loans to Maureen and Bob still legal. Under the new law, the loan of $50,000 to Maureen would have to the reported as being from Jonnie Williams, but its value would be listed as $5,001 to $50,000, making it impossible for voters to gauge the importance of it. The $70,000 to McDonnell and his sister could well escape reporting altogether because it was made to a business partnership, not just to the governor. Finally, we come to the stock that the McDonnells bought and then sold in December of one year, only to repurchase the same stock in January of the next year to avoid reporting ownership. Conveniently, the new law makes people report stock owned at two different times in the same calendar year, thus it would still enable someone like McDonnell to continue to hide a stock purchase by using the same dodge he did. Casey's conclusion is that the legislature has done nothing to insure that some future office holder couldn't do just what Bob and Maureen McDonnell did. Indeed, I believe the new ethics law is simply another scam perpetrated by politicians who evidently worked very diligently to make sure that none of them would have to give up any of the perks that people shower on them when trying to buy their offices. It's "still the same old story" in the Old Dominion, but it's not "a fight for love and glory." It's just another way Virginia can claim that we have no political corruption. Nothing that politicians do here if they are careful enough to follow the loopholes built into the ethics law is illegal.  Ipso facto, no matter what you do there is no crime. The status quo remains.

"Embrace GOP positions, snub base...Lose elections anyway"

I think Miles pretty much nails it with this tweet. Here are just a few examples, off the top of my head, who have done what Miles describes (and lost anyway) over the past few years in Virginia.*Creigh Deeds 2005 (ran as a conservative Democrat against Bob McDonnell, only got a few more votes than Leslie Byrne, who ran as a proud, forceful progressive) *Creigh Deeds 2009 (the whole theory by the so-called "experts" was that a more conservative Democrat from a rural area would have more appeal to independents, "moderates," blah blah blah. So much for THAT theory!) *Jody Wagner 2009 (although she certainly did everything Miles talks about - she even agreed to meet with progressives, LGBT activists and environmentalists who were dismayed by her campaign - in fairness she had no chance given the wipeout at the top of the ticket) *Glenn Nye 2010 (ran to the right, ran away from the Democratic Party, lost by 11 points to Scott Rigell, while Tom Perriello - who ran as a strong Democrat, proud of his values - only lost by 4 points in as tough or tougher a district) *Rick Boucher 2010 (He gave coal companies everything they asked for. He lost anyway.) *Ward Armstrong 2011 (As Miles wrote on November 9, 2011, "As for me, what I'll remember most about the 2011 election cycle is this ad from House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong trashing just about everything Democrats believe in. The leader of House Democrats - as chosen by his fellow House Democrats - distances himself from President Obama, a woman's right to choose, reasonable gun safety regulations, and limits on air pollution - all in one ad.") *Paul Hirschbiel 2012 (classic conservadem campaign, classic results, as he lost by 8 points to Scott Rigell while Tim Kaine AND Barack Obama were winning that district) (Honorable mention: Wayne Powell 2012 would have lost to Eric Can'tor anyway, but running to the right certainly didn't help him any.) *Mike Hymes 2014 (Classic example; this one wasted something approaching a million bucks to get 9,264 votes - around $100 per Hymes voter, many of whom would have turned out with a simple notice that there was an election, so it's actually a lot worse than that - and lose by 28 percentage points, in addition to running away from Democratic values on issue after issue - woohoo!) (Honorable mention: Lynwood Lewis 2014 - he came within 11 votes of losing a race he was supposed to win easily, after running to the right, dissing/ignoring the "base," etc.) Sensing a pattern here?

Audio: E.W. Jackson Says Nobody's Going to Change Ferguson "folks' minds by facts"

A few...uh, "interesting" observations from our old pal, theocratic bigot and all-around extremist nutjob E.W. Jackson from his trip to Ferguson, Missouri.*"Don't let...Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world come in and turn it into something that the people of that community kind of lose control of, and...the New Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam they come in and stoke all of this violence and hatred..." *"If this police officer is not indicted...and convicted, you're going to see more violence in Ferguson...could spark violence across the country." *"I don't think anybody who...feels angry and that something unjust happened, I don't think they care what the facts are. I think they know two things. They know he (Michael brown) was shot six times and they know that he was unarmed. And they don't care about the rest, they don't care that it was a 6 foot 4 young man weighing 290 pounds coming up against about a 150-pound officer. They don't care that the police officer may have already been injured in a confrontation. They don't care that he might have been running at the police officer. In other words, it's not going to matter to these folks what facts come out; they know he was shot six times, they know he was unarmed, and as far as they are concerned, there is absolutely no justification for it and the police officer ought to go to jail. So you're not going to change those folks' minds by facts." *"When you stand up and you create the cry that's been created...'hands up, don't shoot'...This is supposed to be a depiction of what happenedbetween Michael Brown and Officer Wilson, that Michael Brown put his hands up and said 'don't shoot' and Officer Wilson just gunned him down in cold blood. So when you perpetrate that sort of picture of what took place, and then you say, as Al Sharpton said at the funeral, you know, 'America's got a problem'...'no justice no peace' [Jackson snickers/laughs], you know, we're not getting justice so there's not going to be peace. And you get the Nation of Islam in there - which we know has a reputation for being racially divisive, hateful, mean, horrible..." *"The reality is Ferguson has no military equipment; I mean, that was one of the myths that got debunked. The only think Ferguson has is two non-working helicopters [laughs] that were donated several years ago. Everything else they have is standard police equipment that the police department itself went out and bought..." *Al Sharpton "implied that millions were being spent to arm the police as if they were a Gestapo, and no money was being spent on education, which we know is also not true..." In sum, Jackson perpetuates the far-from-proven/heavily-biased Fox News/Rush Limbaugh narrative of what happened in Ferguson all the way (e.g., that Michael Brown was dangerous because he was a big guy, that he might have injured the much-smaller officer, etc.). He denigrates the residents of Ferguson, suggesting that they're not going to listen to any facts and are just riled up (in part, supposedly, by outside agitators like the "Nation of Islam" - natch). He mocks the "hands up don't shoot" chant by protestors. He also strangely claims that all the military equipment we saw with our own eyes on numerous news reports was apparently a figment of everyone's imagination. Of course, no interview with a right-wingnut like Jackson would be complete without a reference to the Gestapo. Anyway, just another day in the life of E.W. Jackson, who a year ago today was coming down the home stretch of his run for Lt. Governor of Virginia as - and this can't be emphasized enough or too often - the Republican Party of Virginia's freakin' nominee! Amazing.

Top Political Analyst: Barbara Comstock "Uniquely Polarizing"

Given how "broken" Congress is, overwhelmingly because the extremist Tea Partiers and Tea Party Republicans have made it that way, the LAST thing we need is yet another Tea Party Republican who one of the top political analysts in America calls - and for VERY good reason, given her history of obsessive persecution of the Clintons, etc. - "uniquely polarizing." Just say "no" to Barbara Comstock and her friends Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, the Koch brothers, Sean Hannity (see photo below) Willard "Mitt"/"Etch-a-Sketch" Romney (ditto), etc.

Some Reading for Gov. McAuliffe BEFORE Dan Snyder Comes Calling for Corporate Welfare

It's now crystal clear that billionaire R**skins owner Dan Snyder has kicked off the bidding war von which jurisdiction (Maryland? DC? Virginia?) will offer the most taxpayer-funded corporate welfare to build his super-rich franchise a new stadium. It's also becoming more apparent why Gov. McAuliffe has been so reluctant to weigh in on the racist (or not, if you buy the R**skins' so-called "arguments" that it really isn't racist) team name issue. Anyway, as the process begins to figure out which suckers will cough up the most hard-earned, and much-needed-for-other-uses tax money so that mega-rich Republican Dan Snyder can get even mega-RICHER than he already is, here's some reading material for Gov. McAuliffe to check out -- BEFORE Dannyboy comes a callin'.1. First, some history from the last time (1992) a rich R**skins owner (Jack Kent Cooke in that case) came looking for taxpayer handouts from a Virginia governor (L. Douglas Wilder in that case). In particular, note: "Both Wilder and Cooke have said in recent days that they were surprised by the vehemence of the opposition to Potomac Yard and that they had assumed most Virginians would be excited about the prospect of the Redskins playing in the state. It was a pivotal miscalculation, especially during a time when the state government had gone through two years of budget cuts. Cooke would have built the $160 million stadium himself, but many thought the $130 million state subsidy for site improvements was unjustified." Is history about to repeat itself? Stay tuned! 2. Now, some economics. How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers ("Taxpayers fund the stadiums, antitrust law doesn't apply to broadcast deals, the league enjoys nonprofit status, and Commissioner Roger Goodell makes $30 million a year. It's time to stop the public giveaways to America's richest sports league-and to the feudal lords who own its teams.") 3. More economics. Football: A Waste of Taxpayers' Money: Why are we subsidizing such a hugely profitable sport?  ("...forget about GM and Chrysler, Solyndra, or even cowboy poetry readings. Fact is, nothing is more profitable, more popular, and more on the public teat than good old American football. That's right. You, dear taxpayer, are footing the bill for football through an outrageous series of giveaways to billionaire team owners and public universities that put pigskin before sheepskin." 4. Here's How The NFL Makes A Killing Off Of Taxpayers (see infographic above) 5. If You Build It, They Might Not Come: The Risky Economics of Sports Stadiums ("Time after time, politicians wary of letting a local franchise relocate -- as the NBA's Seattle Supersonics did, to Oklahoma City before the 2008-2009 season -- approve public funds, selling the stadiums as public works projects that will boost the local economy and provide a windfall of growth. However, according to leading sports economists, stadiums and arenas rarely bring about the promised prosperity, and instead leave cities and states mired in debt that they can't pay back before the franchise comes calling for more.") 6. Finally, just to demonstrate that it's not only progressives who oppose taxpayer-funded corporate welfare to wealthy sports owners, it's also the freakin' Koch brothers! ("So we have to ask - is giving handouts to professional sports teams a responsible use of tax dollars or is this money better spent somewhere else?  The answer seems clear. Our elected officials need to stand up for the taxpayers and stop giving out taxpayer-funded corporate welfare to professional sports teams."). Of course, the Koch brothers are wild hypocrites, as they LOVE corporate welfare for themselves, but the point is that this is NOT a left-right issue. To the contrary, this is an issue that everyone who pays taxes or lives in the state should agree on: it's a terrible idea to use our scarce tax dollars (which should be used for education, transportation, cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, retrofitting our buildings for energy efficiency and solar panels, etc.) to subsidize a wealthy, coddled, monopolistic bunch of billionaires, especially when it's almost certain that we won't get any return on our investment and ESPECIALLY at a time when we're running major budget deficits. So, Gov. McAuliffe, when Danny Boy Snyder comes a callin', all you have to do is very simply just say "no." You can slam the door in his face for dramatic effect (and bonus points) if you're so inclined. :)

Erick Erickson: Screw Our Children, I Want Cheap Coal Now

by Miles Grant

"Let the seas rise. Let the wind blow." That's top Republican commentator Erick Erickson's position on climate change. I would say he's a "conservative" commentator, but there's absolutely nothing conservative about wanting to gas up your SUV cheaply now and while leaving the pollution bill for future generations to pay. It's pure selfishness - "I've got mine so screw you" presented as profound political philosophy.Erickson may just be one blogger, but here he gets to the core motivations of today's Congressional Republican leadership - America isn't worth investing in. Energy? Just give me what's cheapest today - if we need alternatives tomorrow, someone else can spend the money on it. Education? If my family needs that, I can pay to send my children to private school, but I won't volunteer a dime in additional taxes to improve our community. The environment? I can buy home air filters and bottled water - if you can't, too bad for you & yours. "We are all going to die," Erickson cynically concludes. "Just not today." And by then, it'll be up to our children and grandchildren to build massive hurricane barriers outside every East Coast city to keep out the rising seas and monster storms as the bill comes due for all that cheap coal, oil and fracked gas.

If You Can't Defend McDonnell, Attack the Messenger

What we have here, is the failure of circumspection so common among neo-conservatives. The "here" are the personal attacks resulting from yesterday's post about former Governor McDonnell's accumulating and compounding hypocrisy. Somehow facts and evidence are irrelevant in the neo-conservative world unless they support your position.It must be painful to have fallen for the original McDonnell shtick hook, line and sinker. Accepting this new fiction of a defense with all its twists, turns, and subplots as relief for the cognitive dissonance caused by recent revelations provides relief. Then someone points out the concurrent serial hypocrisy of McDonnell embracing a priest who casually violated his vow of celibacy with another man; behaviors McDonnell has blatantly condemned as antithetical to his core conservatism. This resonates and echoes hypocrisy. There is no argument that can refute the blatant self-serving behavior of their fallen hero, so resort to personal attacks. Suddenly the raw truth of the McDonnell formula for defense being revealed is turned on its head and becomes an attack by the left on homosexuals. That is some desperation. This is just another brick in the wall McDonnell is building to defend himself. And we are cautioned that if we want to sway public opinion we need to make nice. Part of one rant is not only unintelligible but also contains utter nonsense: "But it does show you an insight into the liberal extremist mind. Democrat (sic) bloggers, especially Lowly (sic), must not really like gay people. They need their votes, and the fact that they don't like religion makes gay people social "brothers in arms" with hatemongers like Lowly (sic), but in reality they only use gay people to shore up their own power." Where to start?

Dan Sullivan :: If You Can't Defend McDonnell, Attack the Messenger

Liberal extremist mind...if he is pointing that at Lowell, he doesn't know Lowell at all. Lowell and I disagree from time to time, but never because he is so far left. Lowell, unlike the neos, is a reluctant pragmatist... Lowell must not like gay people? Really? Let's see some evidence other than Brian Kirwin's desperate circular critique... "(Democratic bloggers) need their votes?" Looking for where those get cast for bloggers... "(Gays) don't like religion?" Oh...I get it! In Brian's world, gays are all soulless heathens and have that in common with all their social "brothers in arms." Now I have to wonder about the Republican gay community with whom Brian associates. In my experience, there are more religions that reject gays than gays that reject religion.I have spent the better part of the last six months trying to better understand the dynamics of power and the use of sex to enforce it as part of a project that addresses the issues in the military. Part of what I have observed during this journey is that the third rail of neo-conservatism is sexual identity. It is imperative that these fellows walk tall and wield a big "stick" or, sans that, open carry. When either of those two tools is used with a woman, the neos are confident they are real men. Women who accept that subservience are allowed to believe they are peers and to pretend such. That gives you a measure of neo-conservative women. Frankly it appears that the neos simply lose their minds in any discussion that involves non-traditional gender and sex roles. All of what I've read from the right in response to Lowell's post has been defensive and angry. But his critics can't bring themselves to address the McDonnell reality directly. Cowardice and fear. Fear about who they are, who they are among, and who they've fallen for. These aren't true conservatives; these are reactionaries. I long for actual conservative intellectuals who will call out their own malfeasants.

Video: Jim Webb Interview in Iowa Fuels 2016 Presidential Talk

Fascinating interview with Jim Webb by Iowa Press (yes, Webb's in Iowa...hmmm) a bit earlier today; here are a few key quotes: *Asked if he's running for President in 2016, Webb says we're in a "transitional period in the country," that we "need to have a strong debate inside the Democratic Party and between the two parties" about where we need to go, and that "I'm curious about the political future of the Democratic Party and of our country." *Asked how he feels about Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Webb says "I think there’s time to have that discussion later." When pressed by a reporter, "Why not now?", Webb responds, "It would probably take up the whole show.” *Webb reiterates his three themes from 2006, emphasizes "economic fairness and social justice" and how "the stock market has almost tripled since March 2009" but "real income for workers actually has decreased in the same period." Webb says things are not going well for working people in this country, and the "solution for that is only going to come from the Democratic Party." *Webb says he doesn't believe the phrase "don't do stupid stuff" is a fair characterization of the Obama Administration foreign policy, that "it's a very complicated world right now," that the "pivot" to Asia for instance was "healthy" and "good." Webb also praises the Obama Administration for the "careful way" it's approached the Ukraine situation. *Webb isn't a fan of the administration's Middle East policy and points his finger at Hillary Clinton. “I can’t understand why people would have supported the notion of arming certain groups inside Syria a couple of years ago...I say that not only as someone who has spent a lot of time working on foreign policy, but as a journalist in Beirut in 1983 when the word I got from Marines on the ground was: 'Never get involved in a five-sided argument.'" *On Iraq, Webb says "we do not belong as an occupying power in that part of the world...We opened up Pandora's Box when we invaded Iraq...[going into Iraq] unleashed this sectarian violence." Webb says we should be extremely careful in differentiating between terrorism and Sunni animosities towards the government in Iraq. *"We need to realign our military based on the articulation of national strategy...where our strategic needs are." *Asked about not running for reelection in 2012 but putting his name out there for president in 2016, Webb says "I was raised to lead," and that stepping away from a paralyzed Senate "doesn't mean that I'm stepping away from public service." *On Ferguson, Webb says it's very difficult to have an "open and frank discussion." He adds that Democrats should be "very careful about making judgements right now," that we first need to get "all the facts on the table" about what exactly happened. Webb adds that it's "unfortunate that the appearance anyway of sort of a militaristic presence among our members of the police is not a good signal to be sending at an emotional time." *When asked if he could see himself running in the Iowa caucuses, Webb responded, "I really have enjoyed the past few days I've been here" and laughed. He says he hopes that he'll be coming back to Iowa frequently.

Meet the (Gay) Priest that Homophobic Hypocrite Bob McDonnell is Now Living With

The following story most definitely falls into the "you can't make this s*** up" category. So, you know how Bob McDonnell, now on trial for corruption as governor (and busy throwing his wife under the bus while rolling back and forth over her a few times, proving he's a complete cad as well as a sleazeball), has moved out of his home with Maureen and moved in with a priest (Rev. Wayne Ball of St. Patrick's Catholic Church in Richmond)? Well, how about we meet the good Reverend (note: thanks to Ben "Not Larry Sabato" Tribbett for the tip on this one, since he really broke the story).Yeah, it's this same guy. The Rev. Wayne L. Ball, a Norfolk priest who pleaded guilty late last year to a misdemeanor sex offense, has been reassigned to St. John's Catholic Church in Highland Springs, according to The Catholic Virginian, a biweekly diocesan newspaper. The move is effective June 2.Ball, 42, has served as pastor of Norfolk's Holy Trinity Catholic Church since 2000. The current pastor at St. John's, the Rev. David V. McGuire, will replace Ball at Holy Trinity. In December, Ball pleaded guilty in Norfolk General District Court to the misdemeanor charge of frequenting a bawdy place. Norfolk police arrested Ball and a 41-year-old Richmond man on the night before Thanksgiving in a parked car in a Norfolk park. The judge continued Ball's case until July 8 and will dismiss the charge if the priest has no further criminal problems and completes 80 hours of community service by June 3. The man in the car with Ball received a similar deal. [...] Ball will be the second Catholic priest who recently pleaded guilty to a sex crime to serve at St. John's in Highland Springs. In February, the Rev. John P. Blankenship, who served at St. John's from 1973 to 1977, pleaded guilty in Prince George County to four counts of sodomy. The charges stemmed from incidents that occurred after Blankenship's time at St. John's. Look, it should go without saying that I have no problem with priests -- or any other religious officials, or anyone else -- being gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, etc. What I DO have a problem with is massive hypocrisy among politicians, such as a guy who richly earned the nickname "Taliban Bob" for his viciously anti-gay rhetoric and actions hounding/harassing LGBT people (not to mention his right-wingnut, theocratic, holier-than-thou, Pat Robertson-trained moralizing about what we all should or should not be doing in the privacy of our own bedrooms; not to mention the fact that when McDonnell himself wasasked by reporters if HE had ever violated Virginia's "crimes against nature" laws, he said "not that I can recall").  Anyway, this is the priest - Wayne Ball - who "Homophobe Bob" McDonnell is now living with in a rectory in Richmond. Just when you thought this trial couldn't any more soap opera-ish or bizarre... P.S. Again, let me just emphasize that I don't have any problem whatsoever with Rev. Ball being gay. I DO have a problem with Bob McDonnell spending his career telling everybody what's right and wrong sexually as well as who they can and can't marry; voting for anti-gay legislation; and generally being a homophobic jerk; and then moving in with a gay priest after moving out with his wife Maureen. Holy hypocrisy alert, Batman!