Krystal Ball for Congress

Virginia's 1st Congressional District is not exactly the "bluest" around. However, Barack Obama did quite well there in 2008, winning 48% of the vote, an improvement over Tim Kaine's 46% of the vote in 2005 and Jim Webb's 44% in 2006. Next year, Democrats will select a nominee to take on Rep. Rob Wittman, a politician who supposedly was a pro-environment moderate but has voted 92% of the time with Eric Cantor and John Boehner, against the economic recovery act, against the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, and against strong health care reform legislation. In short, Wittman has turned into a cookie-cutter, lockstep, knee-jerk Republican loyalist who apparently has lost the ability to think and reason for himself. Instead, Wittman just votes "no," "no," and "no" to everything, along with the rest of his party.

Obviously, it's time for a change in the 1st CD. Fortunately, there's an excellent Democrat running who will work to bring that change. Her name is Krystal Ball, and today I am enthusiastically endorsing her for the Democratic nomination and for Congress. I've got to say, I've had some tough calls over the past few years in Democratic nomination contests, but this isn't one of them; Krystal is the clear choice for a large number of reasons.

First, I'd like to strongly recommend that you read Krystal Ball's Blue Virginia interview; it's very impressive. Aside from her energy, enthusiasm, and intelligence, Krystal Ball is a strong "pro-growth progressive" who I believe is clearly "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Basically, I agree with everything she says in her interview, but here are a few highlights:

*She believes "in government’s basic role as a social equalizer, leveling the playing field in favor of those struggling in poverty..." I couldn't agree more.
*She believes "in strong environmental and financial regulation." I couldn't agree more, on both counts.
*She believes "in civil liberties, the right to choose for ourselves in marriage, reproduction and self-defense." I couldn't agree more, on all counts.
*She would "vote in favor of a robust public option." I couldn't agree more.
*She would "vote in favor of a revenue neutral carbon tax, in favor of a strong cap and trade bill, in favor of aggressive mandatory renewable energy standards for vehicles, appliances, etc, and against drilling off Virginia’s coast or environmentally sensitive areas, ANWR and against mountaintop removal coal mining." I couldn't agree more, on all counts.
*She believes in "strong unions." I couldn't agree more.
*She believes that education is "the ultimate equalizer" and that "one of the reasons income inequality has increased is because of the way that our public education system has failed many of our most vulnerable students." I couldn't agree more.
*She is "100% committed to full LGBT equality at every level including repealing “DADT”, allowing full marriage equality and...hate crimes legislation." I couldn't agree more, on all counts.
*She has "attracted hundreds of volunteers, thousands of campaign supporters and hundreds of donors because my campaign has an excitement that has galvanized people" and believes that "winning in the 1st CD is all about getting Obama voters to actually show up for a mid-term election." I couldn't agree more, particularly after the Creigh "Not an Obama Democrat" Deeds debacle. The "tea partiers" are going to be revved up - heck, there might even be a "tea party" candidate in this race to challenge Wittman from his right - so we've got to get Democrats excited. That's where Krystal's energy, enthusiasm and progressive ideas come in. Without those, we might as well concede this race now. We certainly shouldn't make the same mistake we just did in Virginia, believing that only a Democrat who runs away from being a Democrat can win elections here. To the contrary, all that does is make Democrats look weak, while not picking up any conservative support and probably losing support from independents who find it hard to respect someone who isn't even proud of who they are and what they believe (example on the right: Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli).

Now, having laid out my rationale for strongly endorsing Krystal Ball, here's my reasoning for just as strongly not endorsing Scott Robinson, who I had the chance to meet and have dinner with back in July.

In his Blue Virginia interview, there were several problematic points from my perspective.

First, while I'm concerned with the national debt as well, I don't believe that the middle of a deep recession is the time to be slashing spending or cranking up taxes in order to deal with it. That's not what I learned in Econ 101, anyway. Instead, I want people in Congress who understand that our main challenges right now are jobs, health care, energy and the environment. I'm not really seeing that understanding with Scott Robinson.

Second, although Robinson dodged my question on his political ideology, everything I've heard - including my conversation with him a few months ago, his Blue Virginia interview, and what people in the district are telling me - is that he's a moderate-conservative, "Blue Dog" Democrat through and through. That's fine, if that's what you like, but I'm a proud progressive and am not a fan of the Joe Lieberman/Ben Nelson/Creigh Deeds wing of the Democratic Party.

Third, I strongly disagree with Robinson's apparent stance in favor of the Stupak and Nelson anti-abortion amendments in health care reform. We already have the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funding for abortion in most cases (exceptions being cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the woman); let's not restrict a woman's right to choose any further. I am strongly opposed to restricting women's rights to make deeply personal choices - in consultation with their doctors, families, friends, spiritual advisors, etc. - about their bodies and their lives.

Fourth, Robinson dodged my question on the public option, but what I'm hearing from people in the district is that he's going around saying that not only is he opposed to a public option, but that the American people would never accept one. That's utterly ridiculous, of course, as poll after poll has indicated strong support - in the 60%-70% range - for the public option. So not only would the American people "accept" a public option, they want one very much.

Fifth, Robinson says he would vote "no" on a "strong cap-and-trade bill." And while he does say that he'd support a "revenue-neutral carbon tax," that's really disingenuous given the fact that there's no serious chance (unfortunately) of a carbon tax, revenue neutral or otherwise, being passed anytime soon. What's on the table is "cap-and-trade," and Robinson opposes it. Not good.

While we're on the subject of energy and the environment, in my dinner with Robinson back in July, we got to talking about this topic. I made the case that it's crucially important that we "internalize externalities" and "get the price right" for fossil fuels. If we did, I argued, the rest would follow. If not, it wouldn't. Robinson disagreed, instead arguing that the energy and environmental situation will "solve itself," apparently by the magic of techno-optimism. Well, sorry, but that's not how it works. The bottom line is that we need an urgent effort to transition from a carbon-based energy economy to one based on energy efficiency, clean renewables, and (possibly) nuclear. If not, our economy will continue to suffer, as money pours overseas. If not, our national security will be threatened, as we remain addicted to oil from countries that are unstable and don't like us. And if not, the planet's environment will be in grave jeopardy as global warming accelerates. Unfortunately, I didn't get the impression that Scott Robinson really "gets" any of this.

Sixth, Robinson dodged my question on income inequality - as Jim Webb called it, "the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the middle class getting squeezed."

Seventh, I disagree with Robinson on "Don't Ask Don't Tell." I believe this policy is deeply flawed - not to mention inhumane and immoral - and should be repealed as soon as possible. Robinson apparently doesn't believe that.

Eighth, Robinson is right about the crucial importance of running "a strong grassroots organization that is based locally." Certainly, Tom Perriello - who he references as an example - did that. But, I've got to say (and with all due respect), having known Tom Perriello and having had a chance to hear what Scott Robinson's all about, Scott Robinson is no Tom Perriello. I simply don't believe that Robinson, a moderate-to-conservative Democrat, can generate the grassroots - let alone netroots - enthusiasm that Perriello did in 2008. And without that enthusiasm, he can't win the general election.

Finally, I'll quote Krystal Ball on Scott Robinson, because it sums up my feelings very well:

Scott Robinson has served our country and I am grateful for his service. There are two reasons to support me over Scott, one related to issues and the other related to electability. Scott is opposed to marriage equality, has made public statements against the public option, has not articulated a position on a woman’s right to choose (I fully support the a woman’s right to choose). Scott is not sufficiently distinguishable from Rob Wittman on electoral issues to make a meaningful difference for us in Washington. Scott’s hesitation to take public positions on issues, despite the fact that he has been planning a run for this seat for several years, demonstrates to me a lack of political courage. This does not serve our party and will ultimately not serve our country or the citizens of this district.

Given all this, I not only strongly endorse Krystal Ball for Congress but I've got to say that this was one of the easiest endorsements I've ever made in my life in a Democratic primary. Go Krystal!