Both Willard "Mitt" Romney and George Felix Allen are tools of Big Oil, although I'd actually argue that Allen's even worse than Romney. Either way, these guys are bad, bad news, unless that is you're an executive of ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, etc. As for the rest of us? We're just screwed - not to mention addicted to oil forever - if either Willard or Felix gets elected.
Based on this brand new poll by USA Today/Gallup, it appears that the Republicans' relentless war on women is working out perfectly - for Democrats, that is! :)
President Obama has opened the first significant lead of the 2012 campaign in the nation's dozen top battleground states, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, boosted by a huge shift of women to his side.
In the fifth Swing States survey taken since last fall, Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.
The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney's support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.
Smart women; now we just need men to come to the same conclusion (that voting Republican is dumb), and November could be a landslide of epic proportions. I mean, at this point, Republicans have managed to alienate the following major voting blocs in this country: 1) women (over 50% of the population and well over 50% of voters); 2) African Americans (over 12% of the population, and overwhelmingly in the Democratic column); 3) Hispanics/Latinos (16% of the population, although lower as a share of voters - but growing fast!); 4) Asian Americans (5% of the population); 5) religious minorities and, to an extent, Christian non-evangelicals (not sure the exact percentage, but it's high); 6) young people, liberal suburban and urban whites, etc, etc.
Who's left after you've alienated all those people? Well, there's always the top 1%, Faux "News" zombies, Rush dittoheads, the Tea Partiers, the Birthers, the John Birchers, the Pat Robertson wing of the party, and...uhhhhh? Still, let's remember that the Koch brothers and corporate America will pour huge amounts of money into misinforming, lying, obscuring, deflecting, etc. in 2012, and that this will convince a LOT of people to vote against their own interests. Which means we can't take for granted that we're going to win this thing, we have to work our butts off against the forces of reaction, ignorance, bigotry and fear, as has always been the case in human history, for every bit of progress we manage to wring out. That's just the way life is, no sense whining about it, let's just get on with fighting for what we know is right.
The always superb FiveThirtyEight by Nate Silver has an eye-opening analysis of the Supreme Court's ideological lurch to the right, making it "the most conservative since at least the 1930s." Note the spike in the red line towards the far-right portion of the chart since 2005? You think that this trend might, just might, have something to do with the fact that President George W. Bush put John Roberts (2005) and Samuel Alito (2006) on the Court, with the super-conservative Alito replacing the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor? Gee, ya think?
Also remember, even before Roberts and Alito joined the Court, it was already solidly conservative (aka, "right wing," as these people are NOT traditional conservatives in almost any sense; more like Republican political hacks), as you can see from Nate Silver's chart, and also considering egregiously right-wing partisan rulings like Bush v. Gore. Since 2005, it's only gotten worse (note: imagine how much better off we'd be if Al Gore had become president in 2001, not George W. Bush?!?), with the horrendous, Democracy-destroying Citizens United ruling, and of course the Heller decision on the 2nd Amendment, which Justice John Paul Stevens correctly said overturned longstanding precedent and "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law."
This past week, we saw the Tea Party Supreme Court apparently "ready to engage in some despicable judicial activism on ObamaCare," with far-reaching implications for the country - and the Court itself - if it engages in such an extreme degree of right-wing judicial overreach (in this case, ironically, they'd be overturning a core conservative idea, the "individual mandate," which "is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation," and which was included in Republican health care bills in 1993, 2007, and of course in "Romneycare"). It's beyond "ridiculous" into "utter travesty" territory.
My feelings exactly. Thank you to Rep. Jim Moran for articulating this so powerfully and eloquently, and for doing whatever he can to fight this "stunningly radical" Republican budget (and agenda more broadly)!
The Republican Budget introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan is a radical document. At its core is a massive redistribution of income from lower income Americans to the wealthiest members of our society; one that will undermine Medicare, and cripple our infrastructure and social safety net programs that protect Americans facing hard times.
Make no mistake; this budget resolution would end Medicare as we know it, passing rising health care costs along to states and senior citizens.
Further, the Ryan Budget devastates the federal government's ability to invest in our nation's future. Under the Ryan Budget, by 2050 most of the federal government, with the exception of defense, Social Security and health care, would no longer have the money to function.
More than 60 percent of the cuts in this Republican budget come directly from programs for lower income Americans, like SNAP, Pell Grants and Medicaid. Taking from the least of us to fund massive, unnecessary and unsustainable tax cuts for the rich is not a fair or reasonable solution to our fiscal problems.
The Ryan proposal is not a budget for the America that we grew up in and the nation we know today. This is a budget for Grover Norquist's America, a radical conservative fantasyland where government will not, and cannot, play a role in assisting those who need it and investing in our future to create jobs and grow our economy.
Today, on this third and final day of the Supreme Court hearings on the Affordable Care Act, a coalition will be at the courthouse steps to share personal stories and show support for keeping the law intact.
The court this afternoon takes up the portion of the new law which would expand Medicaid. Linda Christenson, a retired teacher from Arlington, will share her story about how Medicaid helped her and her husband, who suddenly found themselves caring for their 14-year-old granddaughter.
"She had no medical insurance whatever, because her parents had lost both their jobs, and she came with a pre-existing condition. The medication for it was outrageously expensive."
Christenson says she and her husband live on a fixed income, and were not allowed to add their granddaughter to their health plan. She adds that this was the first time she has had to rely on Medicaid, and credits the program with saving the family from severe financial distress.
But hey, the Roberts court didn't seem to care about the real-world impacts of Citizens United (i.e. one casino mogul funding virtually all of Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign), so why would people like Antonin Scalia care about people dying because they don't have health insurace? Gotta break a few eggs to protect the Koch brothers' preferred political interpretation of the Constitution, know what I'm sayin'? (Photo via Flickr's Elvert Barnes.)
According to the local police in Sanford, Florida, backed up until recently by the local prosecutor, the Attorney General and the Governor, Chapter 776 of the Florida Statutes created a year-round hunting season on your local homo sapiens. A mean alligator gets more protection in the Sunshine State than humans walking upright on two legs based on how the law enforcement community in Florida interprets what is called the state's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense statute. Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager, was shot and killed a month ago by a self-appointed neighborhood "watch captain" a short distance from his the townhouse of his father's fiance. The killer stood by the body when police arrived, claiming self-defense under Florida's human hunting license law.
"Stand Your Ground" statutes were originally intended to implement the "Your Home Is Your Castle" doctrine, to allow a family to protect itself from home invaders without having to be constitutional lawyers when deciding whether to use lethal force. I don't have any sympathy for those who break into someone's home with felonious intent. As they say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Someone breaks into my house, I am not about to use a lifeline to call a lawyer and ask whether I might get into trouble should I start unloading a shotgun, or Glock 17, in the direction of those doing the B and E.
But over time, the reach of the "Castle doctrine" has been extended in some states - carjackings is one area - until it set in motion what happened to Trayvon Martin, and many other victims we don't know about.
Where was Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli today? I'm not sure about his entire schedule, but for a couple hours, I caught him speaking to a few hundred anti-"Obamacare" Tea Partiers at the "Road to Repeal" rally at Upper Senate Park. Needless to say, he wasn't speaking at the much larger Reason Rally (UPDATE: I hear there were upwards of 20,000 people at the Reason Rally vs. a few hundred - maybe 1,000 - at the Tea Party rally. Guess which one the corporate/conservative media covered? Hmmmm.), which I happened to run into (I didn't have any idea there even was such a thing as a "Reason Rally," but live and learn I guess!) as I walked to the Smithsonian Metro stop.
I did find it encouraging that so many more people were out on a rainy Saturday to rally for something positive than to angrily rant and rave about how "Obamacare" (actually, almost all of the Affordable Care Act was taken from the Heritage Foundation, the 1993 Republican health care bill, and "Romneycare," but details details - heh) is unconstitutional, an infringement on people's liberty, the end of the "greatest health care system known to man," the beginning of the end of FREEDOM!!!!, and other assorted Limbaugh/Faux falsehood and insanity.
P.S. There are more photos (actually, grabs from my Flip video in the rain, which is why the quality might not be the best on some of them) on the "flip," including some truly bizarre ones, an apparently racist one, the usual "socialist"/"Marxist" crap, a misspelling of "Kagan," and other assorted hilarity. I'll post video of Kookinelli's speech as soon as it finishes uploading to YouTube. Enjoy?
P.P.S. There were multiple shoutouts/tributes to the late/great Andrew Breitbart, including one speaker who claimed "we are all Andrew Breitbart," a speech by "Gateway Pundit" blogger Jim Hoft which lauded Breitbart as a hero, and even a song in Breitbart's honor (video coming later). Bizarre is one word for it. I'm sure you can think of other, stronger words.
Actually, no, this isn't Bob McDonnell laughing hysterically at Newt Gingrich's vow to fight until the very end, or Ayatollah Santorum's latest attempt to take our political dialogue back to the '50s - the 1350s, that is. Instead, this is a photo I dug up from the 2009 Shad Planking, back when "Bob's for Jobs" was just beginning to audition for a potential VP slot some day. But feel free to use this as an open thread to discuss the state of the Republican't freak show to date, the Illinois primary results (if Romney doesn't crush Santorum after outspending him 20:1 or whatever, does that count as another #FAIL for Romney?), McDonnell's chances of being on the (losing) presidential ticket this year, etc.
By the way, sitting next to McDonnell in this photo is none other than the former head of the for-profit "college" scam, now moonlighting as the ethically-challenged chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia. For a "leaked memo" from Brian which "Reveals That House GOP Leaders 'Directed' For-Profit College Lobbying Strategy To Keep Federal Money Flowing,"click here. After reading this, I think you'll agree that Bob McDonnell and Brian Moran are actually not so dissimilar - both will say or do anything to advance themselves, for starters.
P.S. A few more photos from the 2009 Shad Planking are on the "flip."
I'm having a hard time finding any flaws in Rep. Moran's reasoning here about how "it's time to accelerate our withdrawal from Afghanistan?" At this point, almost 11 years after the war began, are we really accomplishing anything over there? Thoughts?
Yet another reason, out of a gazillion (e.g., his economic "plan" to wage class warfare against the middle class and redistribute the income to the top 1%), to oppose Willard "Mitt" Romney for president. And remember, this clown's the supposed "moderate" in the 2012 Republican Freak Show. Yikes.
Yes, Prime Minister David Cameron is a real Conservative, not like the John Birchers, teahadists, science deniers, and other right-wing extremists masquerading as "conservatives" in America these days. At the White House dinner the other night, Cameron heaped praise on President Obama (see transcript on the "flip"; bolding by me for emphasis). In addition, as Dana Milbank reported the other day, Cameron praised Obama on Iran ("The president's tough, reasonable approach has united the world."), debt reduction ("if you look at the U.S. plans for reducing the deficit over coming years, in many ways they are actually steeper than what we're going to be doing"), and numerous other topics. Now, if we only had some real Conservatives, capital or small "c," in the United States, as they do in the UK.
Before their arrest, the assembled group of congressmen, religious leaders and cultural icons spoke about the humanitarian crisis faced by hundreds of thousands of Sudanese who have been prevented from receiving international aid by president Bashir.
Clooney and the group of protesters stepped onto embassy grounds after giving short speeches, at which point they were instructed that they must leave or be arrested. On the third warning, officers told the group they were under arrest, and the protestors lined up to get handcuffed and were removed to a waiting van.
In an interview yesterday on NPR's "All Things Considered", Efraim Halevy, who "led Israel's National Security Council and Mossad, Israel's national intelligence agency, from 1998 to 2002," says that Mitt Romney's bellicose rhetoric regarding Iran is potentially "disastrous" for Israel. In addition, Halevy says that President Obama is handling the situation very well, is taking "a very tough line" on Iran, "has led the world" on this issue, and as a result the Iranians "are beginning to blink."
So, who are you going to believe, the former head of Israel's Mossad and National Security Council, or a bunch of shrill, wildly irresponsible Republican presidential candidates and shrieking right-wingnut bloggers? Yeah, tough choice, I know. LOL
By the way, just to be clear, I emphatically do NOT believe it is in the U.S. national interest for Iran to get nuclear weapons, because it would be disastrous for nuclear non-proliferation and would likely set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Instead, I'm with President Obama on this one -- "Iran's leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment. I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." Hopefully that won't mean force in the end, but first things first -- crank up the economic and diplomatic pressure, and let's see if the Iranian theocratic thugs buckle.
Having said that, the point of this diary is not to get into a debate about our Iran policy (although I received my Masters Degree in Middle East studies, lived in Israel, etc, I try to keep the focus here on Virginia, and secondarily on U.S. national politics), but simply to point out that the former head of Israel's Mossad and National Security Council thinks that Willard et al. are irresponsible idiots for their rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth rhetoric; are completely wrong and reckless in their attacks on President Obama (who is doing a great job on this, any so many other, difficult problems inherited from the Bush Administration); and should really not speak about matters they know absolutely nothing about. They just embarrass themselves when they do.
Diane Rehm nails it, but don't hold your breaths for Republican't candidates or the right-wing media (old or new) to forcefully condemn Rush Limbaugh's vicious misogyny, expressed not just once but multiple times, over many years. How can they condemn Rush, when the fact is, Rush is their biggest (no pun intended) spokesperson and the de facto leader of the Republican Party? Just as with their embrace of the teahadists, the Republicans have made their bed with Rush Limbaugh, now they're going to have to lie in it with him. Enjoy! LOL
While no can prove Mr. Limbaugh's apology is sincere, he says it was. He didn't gave it in person or over the telephone, so that is something to put into the final equation. True, he is in Florida, but he knew that when making those comments. On the other hand, giving his location, an in-person apology might not have been required although surely preferable. But it was in writing, so that's is something too.
Yet all this misses the larger point: Ms. Fluke is a symbol of a "we" thing, she has become a celebrity not for doing anything particularly great in terms of a personal achievement, but rather due to what El Rusho said about her as a symbol of women, which led to the President's phone call and the rest, as they say, is history.
She stood up for her beliefs and that of others: this is a good thing, and we all have to admire that and applaud it.
But the issue isn't her per se: again, El Rusho and others were using her to throw a bigger punch.
I have been in that position in a way on a far smaller scale although for an equally important cause at least to me.
My conclusion: You can't take it personally because what they are saying about you is about a lot more than you, it just so happens you are the convenient target. .
So I ask: What is better for those whose struggle you are the tribune for, dismissing the apology, or accepting it?
Good lawyer that he is, Webb systematically - bluntly, we might say - demolishes the Blunt Amendment ("to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and service"). Here's an excerpt:
This is NOT an amendment that addresses the necessary divide between the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof as outlined in the First Amendment of our Constitution...This amendment, by definition, attempts to widen the restrictions on our laws from the necessary divide between Church and State into the unknown and often undefinable provinces of an individual's personal definition of conscience.
The effect of this amendment on its face would be that any stakeholder could decide to deny health care benefits to any individual, on the very loose definition that to provide such care somehow violates a personal definition of one's moral convictions...Quite frankly, it would be the same thing as the Congress saying that not only should religious establishments be exempted from taxation under the doctrine of church and state, but also anyone who has a moral objection to paying taxes should not pay them, either.
As I said - bluntly demolished! Thank you, Senator Webb. :)
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!
Based on 
liberty, the end of the "greatest health care system known to man," the beginning of the end of FREEDOM!!!!, and other assorted Limbaugh/Faux falsehood and insanity.
Actually, no, this isn't Bob McDonnell laughing hysterically at Newt Gingrich's vow to fight until the very end, or Ayatollah Santorum's latest attempt to take our political dialogue back to the '50s - the 1350s, that is. Instead, this is a photo I dug up from the 2009 Shad Planking, back when "Bob's for Jobs" was just beginning to audition for a potential VP slot some day. But feel free to use this as an open thread to discuss the state of the Republican't freak show to date, the Illinois primary results (if Romney doesn't crush Santorum after outspending him 20:1 or whatever, does that count as another #FAIL for Romney?), McDonnell's chances of being on the (losing) presidential ticket this year, etc.
by Paul Goldman
