Find out how Cooch took $55,000 from the disgraced "U.S. Navy Veterans Association," in apparent exchange for his promise to get the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs (which had "notified Thompson's group that it no longer qualified for an exemption from state registration requirements") off the group's back. Can we say "pay-to-play?" Find out more.
(Hahahaha, the Teapublican freak show gets even freakier! - promoted by lowkell)
From reports in national media outlets, Donald Trump will not be endorsing Newt Gingrich. Instead, he is endorsing the Mittster...Willard "Mitt" Romney.
I fail to understand how an endorsement by Trump helps Romney one iota.
#1: Romney, the son of a man who was born in Mexico, not the United States, is going to tie himself to one of the leading detractors of President Obama's birthplace...even after the President presented his long form birth certificate? A bit of irony here?
#2: Romney, a super rich American who obviously can only relate to those in his own class is welcoming the endorsement of another super rich American who obviously cannot relate to anyone other than those of his own class.
#3: Romney, who seems totally unattached from low and middle income Americans, is attaching himself to The Donald, who basks in the spotlight and is always seeking publicity for himself and his television show.
I could understand The Donald endorsing Gingrich. They both have very grandiose egos and very grandiose ideas. In many ways they seem to be cut from the same cloth.
But why would Mitt Romney want to stand beside The Donald? The Donald has proven consistently that he will make as many outlandish remarks as the Mittster has himself. So he sure can't help deliver the message.
Great job by Rep. Jim Moran, his full statement is on the "flip." As Moran says, the Republican assault on federal workers is nothing more than "a cynical attempt to tap into misguided resentment fostered by the far right against the federal government and the 2.1 million men and women who serve our nation as civil servants." Thank you to Rep. Moran for calling them out on that!
P.S. It's speeches like this which demonstrate why Rep. Moran will be, and should be, reelected overwhelmingly this coming November.
As a diehard Democrat and Teddy Roosevelt progressive, I don't usually praise anything Sarah Palin does. To the contrary, I usually try to ignore her, or if I pay any attention at all, to mock her. Still, I've got to admit, she's got a following among the Teahadists. Check out her Facebook page, for instance, where she has nearly 3.3 million people who "like" her. Also, check out the response to her latest Facebook post, entitled - no, this is not a joke! - "Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left." First, a sampling of Palin's argument:
...The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.
[...
But this whole thing isn't really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties' operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard's choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans "bitterly clinging" to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the "wisdom" of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn't win. Well, here's a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.
[...]
...Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in '08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they're now using every available microscope and endoscope - along with rewriting history - in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party's primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?
Hahahahahaha; is this great stuff or what? Go read the comments on Palin's Facebook page, and you'll see that most of her fans agree. Sample comments: "Very well said Governor....Thank you and God Bless." "OUTSTANDING!" "Amen, sister!!!"
Based on all this, would it be fair to say that there's a wee bit of a clash between the "grassroots Tea Party movement" and the Republican Party establishment? Hmmmm...gotta go ponder that one -- for about 2 seconds. Answer: yes! And to that, I say, "OUTSTANDING!" :)
Gov. Jan Brewer may be best known for her extremist policies, from draconian immigration rules to banning gay marriage and state recognition of domestic partnerships. But she's also known for extremely erratic behavior, and yesterday was no different as she charged up to President Obama and angrily jabbed her finger in his face:
The unusual confrontation--which included Brewer pointing her finger at Obama, and Obama walking away--centered on Brewer's newly published account of a meeting she and Obama had at the White House in June, 2010, officials said.
Obama descended the stairs of Air Force One and was greeted by Brewer, who was waiting for him along with other politicians in a traditional receiving line. Brewer offered Obama a letter, which she later said was an invitation to sit down with her to discuss Arizona's economic "comeback" and to join her for a tour of the U.S.-Mexican border.
The president told Brewer he would be happy to meet with her, a White House aide said, but also informed the governor that he thought she had been inaccurate in describing their earlier session in the Oval Office.
Brewer's book, "Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure the Border,'' details her conservative approach to dealing with the state's illegal immigration challenges. An review published in the Arizona Republic said that Brewer casts Obama as "condescending" and skewers him repeatedly. Although she originally described their Oval Office meeting as cordial, the newspaper said, "in the book she calls the president 'patronizing' and said 'he lectured me.'"
As Charlie Pierce put it, "The president engaged her for a while and then politely walked on, as we all try to do when confronted by crazy people at places like airports and bus terminals."
I certainly wouldn't call the incident unusual considering Brewer's history of erratic behavior. Brewer has lied in an attempt to inoculate herself from criticism, claiming she'd been compared to Nazis & that it was offensive because her father died fighting Hitler - when in fact her father was not even a veteran and died of cancer in 1955. And there was her behavior in 2010's gubernatorial debates:
Former Senator and Willard "Mitt" Romney advisor Norm Coleman says, point blank, "We're not going to repeal Obamacare." Of course, that completely contradicts Willard that he'll "repeal Obamacare" (a ridiculous notion, since only Congress can "repeal" a piece of existing legislation, unless we turn into a dictatorship). Coleman adds that "Obamacare" doesn't work without the individual mandate, which is an interesting admission from the Teapublican side of the aisle.
Former 10th CD (Virginia) Democratic nominee and health care expert Judy Feder follows up with some interesting thoughts:
I think that the [Supreme] Court is going to find that the individual mandate is constitutional. In fact, only one appeal's court has gone the other way...If it does go away, I think that there are challenges, it's not the only way that the law can operate, there are other things, it's not as good...but I'm betting on it sticking...I'm really interested to hear Sen. Coleman say that they're not going to repeal, because they sure do say they're going to repeal. And I think you're right, they repeal at their peril. There are lots of [popular] things in this law...coverage of drug costs for seniors, coverage of children up to age 26...
Great points by Judy Feder, as she completely kicks Norm Coleman's hindquarters. Most importantly, though, is the first thing Coleman admitted, better known as a "gaffe" in the sense of accidentally speaking the truth when you're not supposed to, that the Republicans will not - repeat NOT - be repealing the Affordable Care Act anytime soon. All their claims to the contrary are just machismo, bluster, and pandering to the teahadists.
P.S. More video of the discussion is on the "flip."
On the "flip" are a few excerpts from President Obama's State of the Union speech tonight (9 pm ET). In general, the White House has been emphasizing that this speech "will be a bookend to the President's speech in Kansas last month about the central mission we have as a country," and "about how this is a make or break moment for the middle class...where the President believes we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few."
The SOTU speech will lay out President Obama's "Blueprint for an America built to last." It includes four main "pillars": 1) "bring about a new era of American manufacturing, with more good jobs and more products stamped Made in the USA;" 2) "a new era for American energy - an economy fueled by homegrown and alternative energy sources that will be designed and produced by American workers;" 3) "new ideas for how we'll make sure our students and workers get the education and training they need so that we have a workforce ready to take on the jobs of today and tomorrow;" and 4) "the President will call for a return to American Values - of fairness for all, and responsibility from all."
I'm looking forward to President Obama's speech, and to the start of a campaign in which Democrats articulate their vision for America, which needless to say stands in stark contrast to the John Birch Society Teapublicans' plans to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer. By the way, the latest national poll indicates that the American people are not liking what they're hearing from Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who are seeing abysmal (and getting worse!) approval/disapproval ratings, while President Obama's net approval rating has risen to +10 points (53%-43%).
With the country better off on almost every metric than it was when Barack Obama took office in late January 2009, this election by all rights shouldn't even be close. But, most likely, it will not be easy, as is usually the case in life. For now, though, I'm just enjoying watching the Republican Party implode, and President Obama do us proud. Enjoy the SOTU, and feel free to use this as an open thread. Thanks.
(Good analysis. My guess is that Romney will manage to eke out a victory in Florida based on his head start and money advantage in the Sunshine State, combined with his more aggressive attacks against Gingrich. If Gingrich does win Florida, I wonder if there will be increasing calls among Republicans for a white knight to ride in and save the party from disaster. Stay tuned... - promoted by lowkell)
Mitt Romney was unable to score a decisive blow against a sedate, subdued Newt Gingrich in yesterday's Florida GOP primary debate. As a result, the affair was largely a snoozer that will not substantially impact the contest in Florida.
Romney took a hatchet to Gingrich, calling him a Washington influence peddler and a disgraced politician abandoned by his own party.
Romney needed to cut Gingrich down to size, and quickly. Buoyed by the momentum of his win on Saturday, Gingrich is up by five points in Florida. He has opened up a small enthusiasm gap, and pulled even with Romney on his most important selling point: electability.
Given Gingrich's elephantine personal baggage and numberless ideological apostasies, it should be easy for Romney to paint the former speaker as an erratic, unelectable, egotistical flip-flopper.
"President Obama is not letting congressional gridlock slow economic growth. Here are the actions he has taken to support the middle class."
I'd also remind everyone that, in spite of utter obstructionism by Congressional Teapublican'ts, we're actually better off by almost any metric than we were three years ago. Thank you Democrats, thank you President Obama, and NO thank you Eric Can'tor et al!
Newt Gingrich arguably won South Carolina - and resurrected his candidacy for the umpteenth time - on the strength of a single debate answer.
The masterful rhetoric of Newt Gingrich's response to John King's question at Thursday's debate about allegations made by his wife that he had asked her for an "open marriage" saved his campaign and propelled him to victory.
Carefully calibrated anger has been a staple of Presidential debates for decades - recall Reagan's famous retort to Jon Breen in 1980: "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!" - but surely the genre has found it's new touchstone.
Gingrich was ready for the question, and responded with a blistering display of righteous scorn anger toward the moderator and the media. Eyes wide, eyebrows slanted, jaw hard set, the former jabbed his finger at the moderator and accused him of "mak[ing] it harder to govern this country."
There's tons of competition for "stupidest Washington Post story ever," but Center for American Progress, group tied to Obama, under fire from Israel advocates has got to immediately jump to one of the top spots on the list. Seriously, I read that thing, and several things happened: 1) I lost several precious minutes of my life that I will never get back; 2) I feel significantly stupider after reading it than before; 3) my eyeballs hurt from the burning "teh stupid;" 4) I'm concerned for the author of this piece, as he might have seriously hurt himself straining and reaching for some semblance of a real story here, let alone a connection between a couple of think tank staffers' personal tweets and the Obama administration, Middle East policy, etc. Ugh.
How might the Sermon on the Mount have been different if Jesus was in the Tea Party? That's the question anchoring a new campaign by American Values Network that will culminate in the release of its first animated video--Tea Party Jesus' "Sermon on the Mall"--this Thursday in advance of the SC primary.
Rather than presenting arguments for why Tea Party teachings are counter to Christ's, the video uses Tea Party quotes, signs, and policy positions to rewrite Jesus' famous Sermon, and lets Christians decide for themselves if the language and policies of their political leaders sound right coming from the mouth of their Lord and Savior.
It's pretty hard to go anywhere online today without noticing a blackout - even Google's logo has joined the cause. Wikipedia explains the action:
SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short for the "Stop Online Piracy Act," and PIPA is an acronym for the "Protect IP Act." ("IP" stands for "intellectual property.") In short, these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the blackout.
The bills have shattered party lines. According to ProPublica, in Virginia only Rep. Bob Goodlatte has come out for it, standing with liberals like Senators Barbara Boxer & Al Franken. And only Rep. Jim Moran & Sen. Mark Warner have come out against it, standing with conservatives like Representatives Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul & Paul Ryan.
It's an issue on which your voice really could help decide the position of your representative and Sen. Jim Webb. Today Wikipedia will help you locate your member of Congress through any page. If you call your member of Congress and get an answer on their position, let us know in the comments below!
UPDATE 1:31pm: Rep. Gerry Connolly's office tells me he opposes SOPA as well.
(By the way, if Congress is in session, as Republican'ts claim, then why are members scattered all over the world? Also, if this were a business, would opening the doors for 30 seconds, then shutting them again in the customers' faces, count as "open for business" in Republican'ts' eyes? - promoted by lowkell)
Washington, DC - Congressman Jim Moran, Northern Virginia Democrat, today took to the House floor to call on House Republicans to return to Capitol Hill to begin work extending the payroll tax cut for a full year. During the Pledge of Allegiance, Republican leadership cut Members' microphones and following the Pledge, refused to recognize Rep. Moran. Returning from the floor, Moran released the following statement:
"Today House Republicans reached a new low. I went down to the House floor to repeat yesterday's call by House Democrats for Republicans to return to their jobs and begin work on a full year extension of the payroll tax cut. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Aderholt refused to recognize me on the floor and in a dramatic show of Republican authority, leadership cut off the microphone during the Pledge of Allegiance and kept them off afterward when I asked to be recognized.
"The 160 million Americans who need an extension of the payroll tax cut deserve to have their voices heard. The temporary extension expires in just a few weeks. The American people have a right to hear from Members of Congress on the House floor."
In the following passage, Jonathan Chait articulates the first of four strategic reasons for President Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This passage is followed by comments by me on how this situation points to the unprincipled destructiveness of the Republican Party, and to the welcome news that President Obama is at last stepping up to the fight.
Fights between Congress and the president over presidential appointments have gone on for decades. But Senate Republicans have taken the fight to a new level by using the power to deny appointments to require changes in the laws. The Dodd-Frank financial reform established the C.F.R.B., but Wall Street hates it, and Republicans openly vowed not to confirm any director unless Obama agreed to weaken the law.
This is an entirely new use of congressional power to block appointments. The normally mild-mannered James Fallows has called this "nullification," and Republicans have begun using it to paralyze large swaths of the government. The normal presidential recourse against hardened opposition to an executive branch nominee is to make the appointment when Congress is out of session, but Republicans closed off that avenue as well, by holding pro forma sessions year-round. If it held up, this would give Congress enormous power over the president - allowing it to unilaterally halt any agency it likes in return for any demand at all. They have likewise refused to confirm any directors at all to the National Labor Relations Board, denying the agency a quorum and essentially halting the enforcement of federal labor law.
So Obama tried the audacious and legally indeterminate move of simply declaring the pro-forma session a sham, insisting Congress really was on recess, and appointing his man. If it stands up to the likely legal challenge - the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is threatening to sue - Obama will have taken a dangerous new weapon out of Congress's hands. Obama's maneuver may stand, or it may lead to a further reform of the confirmation process. But allowing Congress to functionally eliminate full-passed laws simply by denying the president any appointments to carry them out is a dangerous precedent that Obama would be derelict if he allowed to stand.
The Obama administration plans to use its executive authority to install Richard Cordray as head of a federal consumer watchdog agency in a defiant move after the Senate rejected the nomination last month, a White House official confirmed Wednesday.
President Obama is scheduled to announce the decision during an appearance in Cordray's home state of Ohio, where he served as attorney general until losing his reelection bid in November 2010. The president will portay his decision as an escalation of the White House's "we can't wait" campaign to take action that does not require congressional approval.
Of course, Republican'ts will scream that this is evil/unconstitutional/dictatorial/blah/blah/blah, even though they're the ones who - as usual - have been completely obstructionist, obstinate, uncooperative, juvenile, anti-democratic (small "d"), you name it. The fact is, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by an act of Congress, it needs someone to head it up, and there's absolutely no excuse for Republican'ts to keep blocking superbly qualified presidential appointments from so doing. And no, the gimmicky bull**** of keeping the Congress in "pro forma" session doesn't count. With that, commence Republican't whining in 5...4...3...2...1...blastoff.
P.S. If you want to express your support for Richard Cordray, and also help Elizabeth Warren build her mailing list, click on the image above. Again, thanks to President Obama, and go Elizabeth Warren! :)
Is it possible to have a caucus that no one wins? The results from Iowa sure look like it:
Mitt Romney has been campaigning for president for six years. He's spent millions of dollars of his own campaign money and has been backed by tens of millions in spending by shadowy outside groups (thanks, Supreme Court's awful, activist Citizens United ruling). Romney only managed 24.6% - 0.6% less than in 2008.
Extremist social conservatives certainly didn't support Perry (10% & clumsily indicated he'd drop out), Bachmann (5% & possibly dropping out this morning) or Cain (1% & already out). But even with supporters of controlling theocratic government consolidated behind him, Rick Santorum couldn't win.
Despite an alleged ability to draw independent & liberal crossover votes and what his supporters claimed was an infusion of people traveling to Iowa, Ron Paul still finished third.
It's hard to see a path to victory for anyone but Mitt Romney - phony, lying, corporations-are-people Mitt Romney. The real question at this point: Will Republicans set aside their dislike of Romney & unite in their hatred of President Obama behind him anyway? Be so dispirited by Romney that down-ballot Congressional races swing to Democrats? Turn to a third party candidate like Paul? What do you think?
The Washington Post's GOP presidential candidate profiles featured extreme close-up pictures of candidates looking intently into the camera. Some, like Ron Paul & Mitt Romney, came out well, but for already mean-looking dudes like Rick Perry & Newt Gingrich, the results were downright scary. Today, the Post's Express cover features a composite of the pictures into one image with Frankensteinian results:
Barack Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, explains a few of the many ways (he says there are "over 40 different pathways") for Obama to get to 270 electoral votes in 2012. I particularly like the Virginia/North Carolina path, but I also see no reason why President Obama can't carry any or all of the following states next November: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and even Arizona (note: according to a new Pew poll, Latinos strongly favor Obama over Romney).
Meanwhile, for Republicans, the map is much more difficult, as they basically have to run the table, including in states with seriously unpopular Republican governors, like Ohio and Florida. Plus, Willard "Mitt" Romney gets to spend the next year explaining to the 99% of Americans why "corporations are people," why his work for Bain Capital buying up companies and laying off workers would be a good model for the country, why his flip flops away from universal health care, from strong action on clean energy and climate change, from a woman's right to choose, from LGBT rights, etc. mean we should trust him as far as we can throw him on anything. Answer: we shouldn't, and we won't. Sorry Willard (er, "Mitt")!
Needless to say, Ken Kookinelli wouldn't agree with Newt Gingrich - or with the many other (large majority of?) conservatives who, over the years, have (strongly) supported the individual mandate for health insurance. But sorry, Ken, you're wrong and Newt's right. Listen and learn, as Newt Gingrich - in his previous incarnation, prior to his run for the Loony Tunes Party presidential nomination, as a serious, sane human being - explains why the individual mandate is fundamentally conservative, moral, and absolutely necessary.
I think you've got to require everybody to either have insurance or to post a bond. But the fastest growing section of the uninsured is people over $75,000 income, who are making a calculated gamble that if they get sick, you'll take care of them. And I think that's just immoral...I understand the libertarian argument that says, well, if somebody really would rather run the risk of dying; that's not gonna happen! So what's gonna happen is you're not gonna take care of yourself, you're gonna be in a motorcycle accident or a car wreck or you're gonna have a stroke, we're gonna go to extraordinary measures to take care of you, you're gonna turn out to have no insurance, and then given your attitude you're gonna try to avoid paying...
Any further questions? Good, I'm glad to see that Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi all agree on something! :)
P.S. Also, here's Newt in 2006, arguing that "our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans," that "we agree strongly with this principle [of the individual mandate]," and that "[t]he health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system."
(Rep. Connolly quote: "Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party Republicans capitulated to overwhelming public disgust with their intransigence." - promoted by lowkell)
BREAKING: Talking Points Memo reports: "A top Senate Democratic aide says House Republicans have privately offered up the terms of their surrender on the payroll tax cut."
If true - and you never know with BONEr, Can'tor, etc. - it's about freakin' time, but the writing was on the wall with tremendous pressure from President Obama and a unified Democratic Party against the House Teapublican extremists. See below, for instance, as President Obama explains the importance of extending the payroll tax cuts into 2012. Also, see the video on the "flip" for Rep. Jim Moran hitting Republicans for refusing to extend the payroll tax credit. Among other things, Rep. Moran emphasizes the disarray in the House Teapublican't caucus, and also how important $40 per paycheck is to those in the middle class and those working to get there.
"Enough is enough. The people standing with me today can't afford any more games. They can't afford to lose $1,000 because of some ridiculous Washington standoff. The House needs to pass a short-term version of this compromise." - President Obama
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, and "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!
As a diehard Democrat and Teddy Roosevelt progressive, I don't usually praise anything Sarah Palin does. To the contrary, I usually try to ignore her, or if I pay any attention at all, to mock her. Still, I've got to admit, she's got a following among the Teahadists. Check out her 
Newt Gingrich arguably won South Carolina - and resurrected his candidacy for the umpteenth time - on the strength of a single debate answer.
In the following passage, 
