US Senate candidate George Allen sets aside millions for TV ad buy around Labor Day

It will soon be time to turn off your TV sets if the rhetoric or image of Republican Senate candidate George Allen[1] makes you queasy. According to  Alexander Burns, Allen’s Senate campaign recently announced that it is setting aside millions for air time during the fall to bludgeon Virginians with his negative campaign message.[2]

When the spending spree has lifted, Allen may have reserved a little more than $3 million in air time between Labor Day and the U.S. Senate election in November. In addition, Allen is also stowing away a couple hundred thousand dollars in air time for ads over the summer.

What this means for you, me, and the average television viewer in Virginia is a deluge of political commercials preaching the gospel of George Allen. Of course, the Allen campaign’s own commercials will be in addition to those already infiltrating the airwaves via so-called Super PAC groups.[3]

George Allen’s strategy, and that of his supporter Super PACs, seems to consist of flooding the TV screens of Virginians with negative messages until they become so pervasive and saturated in our minds that even the biggest liberals come out as reborn Allen supporters.

Whether or not Allen’s strategy works, Virginia has undoubtedly entered a new, more in-your-face version of politics that has hardly been equaled by any other time in the past.[4]

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_(politician)

[2] http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/george-allen-buys-fall-tv-time-127516.html

[3] http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2012/jun/14/kaine-targeted-american-crossroads-super-pac-ad-ar-1989066/

[4] http://news.yahoo.com/super-pac-era-handshakes-even-matter-073508720.html

Cuccinelli loses another battle against the winds of greenhouse gas regulations

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) groundbreaking (and lifesaving) greenhouse gas regulations on Wednesday, denying Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in his challenge of the regulations.[1]

The court backed the EPA’s 2009 determination that climate change has a damaging impact, denying two state-backed and two industry petitions seeking to derail the EPA’s original determination that greenhouse gases constitute a health risk and should therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act.[2] The U.S. Court of Appeals also upheld the so-called “tailpipe” rule that set greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light-duty trucks starting with models in 2012. 

After the ruling, Cuccinelli said he plans to waste more of Virginia’s taxpayer dollars by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Cuccinelli is a known climate change denier.[3] 

After the ruling was handed down, industry lawyers have been left with few options. One is to take the path Cuccinelli has already said he’ll travel. The other path industry lawyers could take is petitioning the court of appeals to rehear the case. Cuccinelli obviously feels he has a better chance of winning in the Supreme Court.

For now, however, Americans can breathe a little easier, literally. The EPA’s new greenhouse gas regulations may only affect new power plants, but the symbolic blow to big carbon polluters like coal plants, in particular, marks an important shift in America’s, and Virginia’s, energy policy.[4] Thus, to conclude that the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations are somehow unnecessary misses one aspect of the significance of these regulations.

No one should expect America’s biggest carbon polluters to back down without a fight. Indeed, Big Coal is already on the war-path to reinstate coal atop America’s A-list of energy-use resources.[5]

Politics is about constant struggle between conflicting interests. This time, however, all of Big Coal’s money and all of Big Coal’s men (i.e. lobbyists) may not be able to reinstate coal’s once untoppled position in America again. America’s clean energy future is one step closer to realization.

---

[1] http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/06/26/1

[2] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/court-rejects-cuccinellis-challenge-epa-finding

[3] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/15/cuccinelli-warms-to-his-task-of-climate-change-denial/

[4] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/03/27/climate-rules-why-natural-gas-will-be-the-big-winner-in-new-greenhouse-gas-regulations/?xid=rss-topstories

[5] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/03/27/climate-rules-why-natural-gas-will-be-the-big-winner-in-new-greenhouse-gas-regulations/?xid=rss-topstories

Sullivan’s reinstatement at UVA: what it means for public universities across Virginia

In what might be the final acts in this engrossing drama at the University of Virginia (UVA), Teresa Sullivan was reinstated as the university’s president after a deafening outcry[1] by the school’s faculty and students.[2]

Only three weeks ago, Sullivan had been kicked to the curb, an ouster that was largely kept secret from the student body and faculty of UVA[3].

The incident caused such a spark in Virginia that Governor Bob McDonnell threatened to dismiss the entire UVA governing board. If only Virginia’s governor would devote such time and attention to matters more pertinent to the direct welfare of all Virginians!

Not only did Sullivan’s dismissal cause an uproar in Charlottesville, a statewide discussion was sparked about the best way to run public universities in austere economic periods.

On the one hand, there are the “Sullivanites”, those who see higher education as a means of promoting an education outside of the strict confines of “relevancy” and “pragmatism,” an education that values the arts and humanities just as much as the “money making degrees” that have taken center stage on America’s theatre of consciousness.

On the other hand are the proponents of “free market” higher education, an education whose buzz words include “relevant,” “cost effective,” “market oriented.”[4] These proselytizers of the free hand of the market seek only those solutions which can maximize benefit for the maximum number of students. Sounds like a reasonable goal to strive for, right?

One of the biggest problems with this approach is that if the “free hand of the market” is allowed to work its magic, many of the disciplines that millions of Americans hold degrees in or wish to hold in the future would be left by the wayside in the never ceasing search for cost effectiveness. Oh well, you say, but before we jump on the free market bandwagon we should at least attempt to assess what we are actually losing in the process.

Until now, no one that I can tell has really given careful consideration to what America might lose if the arts and humanities are degraded to a second or third class status in our institutions of higher education. These disciplines may not give students the best chance to earn six figures upon their graduation, but when did it become a law that all individuals want big money jobs that give little by way of individual fulfillment?

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/university-of-virginia-students-feel-betrayed-after-ouster-of-teresa-sullivan/2012/06/22/gJQAU4aLvV_story.html

[2] http://www.nbc12.com/story/18885619/uva-board-reinstates-ousted-president-after-outcry-by-students-faculty

[3] http://www.chron.com/news/article/UVa-board-to-consider-reinstating-ousted-president-3653560.php

[4] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/21/ouster-uva-president-was-justified-sullivan-dismissal-highlights-what-wrong/

Harsher DUI law set to take effect on July 1 in VA, a long wait for a necessary step

Given the seriousness of driving while intoxicated behind the wheel of thousands of pounds, it’s surprising that the announcement of a new Virginia law to require first time offenders to drive only with an ignition interlock device after their first offense was recently made[1]. The law is set to take effect July 1.

At present, Virginia law mandates that judges enforce interlock devices for first-time offenders with a 0.15 or higher blood alcohol content. This requirement also applies to subsequent DUI offenders.

Under the new law, the number of interlock devices installed in vehicles in Virginia “is expected to soar” as a result of the new law, according to the Richmond Times Dispatch.[2]

While some Virginians will cry foul at what they perceive to be a harsh sentence for first time offenders, it’s time for drinkers to take responsibility for their actions, especially when those actions put others in harm’s way.

Among my groups of friends in high school, driving intoxicated wasn’t frowned upon or openly discouraged, and my group of friends was or is hardly the exception.[3]

Young people are not the only ones making irresponsible decisions, unfortunately. The problem also persists between the ages of 25-34, give or take a few years.[4]

Even though I’m not inclined to look to the long arm of the law for our society’s answers, it seems as though certain important elements in our society have not stressed the seriousness and inexcusability of driving drunk.[5] Thus, in typical Virginia fashion, stiffer penalties have been put in place to stem the tide of unnecessary deaths due to drunk driving.

This new law, however, will not be the perfect panacea. It will still take the added effort of family members and friends to discourage driving while intoxicated. Maybe we can use this opportunity to relearn individual responsibility as an initial step to gradually take our lives back from government laws and institutions.

---

[1] http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/jun/25/tdmain01-cost-of-dui-to-rise-for-many-first-time-o-ar-2010924/

[2] http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/jun/25/tdmain01-cost-of-dui-to-rise-for-many-first-time-o-ar-2010924/

[3] http://www.t-driver.com/the-problem/driving-under-the-influence/

[4] http://www.adp.cahwnet.gov/Criminal_Justice/DUI/faqs.shtml

[5] http://www.underyourinfluence.org/

President Obama ahead in Virginia according to new poll by ODU and Virginian-Pilot

A recent Virginia poll conducted by Old Dominion University (ODU) and The Virginian-Pilot came up with some surprising results: President Obama is preferred over the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by Virginia’s voters.[1]

Of the 776 voting-age Virginians who were interviewed over the phone between May 16 and June 15, 49 percent said they would vote for President Obama on Nov. 6 as opposed to 42 percent who chose Romney.

The 7-percentage point advantage held by Obama is noteworthy, according to ODU political scientist Jesse Richman.[2] Among other things, the 7-percentage point advantage falls well outside of the 3.5 percentage point margin of error.

Of course, it’s late June and the presidential election is months off. Those numbers certainly can, and probably will, change.

But another important finding points to where President Obama will most likely be orienting his economic policies in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. In a word, conservative.

6 in 10 of those interviewed stated that the nation’s economic policies need to turn a more conservative direction. Even though social issues were also raised during the interviews, it’s a platitude by now that “It’s the economy, stupid!”[3] That is, if President Obama cannot win a sizable majority of the American public’s trust on economic policy, he probably won’t win his bid for re-election.

For all of the cries of “socialism” aimed at President Obama, however, there doesn’t appear to be a fundamental difference between President Obama’s and his predecessor’s economic policies.[4] President Obama has extended the Bush-era tax cuts and both have undertaken deficit spending to spur the economy.[5] And like President George W. Bush, President Obama clearly sees deficit spending as a SHORT TERM solution to the U.S.’s financial woes.

Ironically, though, what might become center stage during the presidential contest is who’s interests President Obama and Romney serve. Is it one class of American’s or all classes? In the case of Romney, it’s not too difficult to determine[6].

---

[1] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/poll-virginians-conservative-prefer-obama

[2] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/poll-virginians-conservative-prefer-obama

[3] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/its-the-economy-stupid-what-to-expect-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

[4] http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama-Bush-Economy.htm

[5] http://useconomy.about.com/od/people/p/President-Barack-Obama-Economic-Policies.htm

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/us/politics/for-wealthy-romney-donors-up-close-and-personal-access.html?_r=2&hp

New TV ad targets Kaine’s fiscal policies with bogus claims and flagrant misrepresentations

The Koch brothers financed Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian foundation, released a new Television ad targeting U.S. Senate candidate Tim Kaine of Virginia.[1] The 32 second ad attempts to paint Tim Kaine as a “deficit spender” and a tax hiking paragon in typical sound-bite fashion.

Aside from the usual rhetorical flourishes, a quick look at Americans for Prosperity’s official website demonstrates the group’s focus on reducing the size of government and lowering taxes.[2]

According to AFP’s Virginia director, Audrey Jackson, Tim Kaine “can’t spend your way to prosperity or tax your way to economic freedom.” As usual, no evidence was given to substantiate these bogus claims.

As is often the case, however, what conservatives and economic libertarians take as gross spending of taxpayer money is the soundest way to stimulate our nation’s economy so that more American’s can experience economic freedom.[3] In other words, “short-term stimulus with long-term discipline.”

Tim Kaine has always been a proponent of fiscal discipline[4], which is why Virginia retained its triple A bond rating under Tim Kaine’s tenure as Lt. Governor and Governor of Virginia[5].

But as Tim Kaine acknowledged, cutting your way out of a fiscal challenge is a recipe for further disaster, a recipe that economic libertarians and conservatives seem all to ready to cook up.[6] Kaine noted that “The all cut approach is a weakening approach, not a strengthening approach.”

Because we as individuals tend to see those political candidates who we PERCEIVE to share our own policy views with rose-tinted glasses, we tend not to see the sound policy positions of those political figures who we do not identify with. For all of the criticism Tim Kaine has received about his economic policies, this is one area in particular that Tim Kaine can hardly be assailed on.

Instead of questioning Tim Kaine’s economic history, let’s continue to question the motivations of the Koch brothers and their plethora of well-funded “foundations,” think-tanks, Super PACs, and the list goes on. What would an America look like as the Koch brothers envision it? Yes, I shudder at the thought too!

---

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PP48GNZj5iQ

[2] http://americansforprosperity.org/about/

[3] http://economistmom.com/2008/10/how-deficit-spending-can-be-fiscally-responsible/

[4] http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Tim_Kaine_Budget_+_Economy.htm

[5] http://www.kaineforva.com/about_tim

[6] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/06/tim-kaine-outlines-economic-strategy-at-senate-campaign-event.html

Virginia representative successfully attaches amendment to drill off of VA’s coast

Buried beneath the headlines of Sen. Mark Warner’s (D-VA) and Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) outrageous vote against clean air in the U.S. Senate[1] was[2] a proposal tucked into a larger U.S. House of Representatives “energy production bill” on Thursday. The proposal would grant leases for oil and gas drilling and exploration off the coast of Virginia.

The representative who wishes to harm Virginia’s coastal waters[3] is none other than Virginia Beach’s own Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA Beach) who successfully amended his offshore exploration and drilling provision to the legislation. The energy production bill was approved in the GOP-controlled U.S. House of Representatives along mostly party lines with a 248-163 vote.[4]

Aside from the important fact that it’s uncertain how much oil and gas is off the coast of Virginia to begin with[5], proceeds stemming from any companies drilling off Virginia’s coast wouldn’t even be directly received by the commonwealth!

Add to these two convincing reasons not to drill off of Virginia’s coast the potential for large-scale ecological and economic disaster stemming from a new and devastating spill, and you have the perfect formula for NOT drilling off the coast of Virginia.

But Republicans, in particular, just don’t like to be told that their domestic energy policies are untenable and ridiculous. If Republicans in Virginia truly want the commonwealth to be “the energy capital of the East Coast,” it would make sense to prioritize wind and solar energy[6] and not chase after substances at the bottom of the ocean that may not even exist.

---

[1] http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/khenderson/virginia_senators_fail_to_stan.html

[2] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/house-bill-allows-leases-drilling-virginias-coast

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033104207.html

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/gop-energy-bill-house_n_1616609.html

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033104207.html

[6] http://vasierraclub.org/2012/03/why-explore-when-we-dont-want-drilling-in-the-first-place/

Breaking news! George Allen likes the $6.4 million deal to keep the Redskins in Virginia!

In case anyone needed another reason to accuse George Allen of being a welfare capitalist or an “establishment Republican,” the former governor of Virginia provided a new line of ammunition on Wednesday when he threw his support behind the McDonnell initiated $6.4 million corporate welfare deal[1] to keep the Washington Redskins in Virginia.[2]

Also, for those who aren’t aware, the current Republican candidate for U.S. Senator in Virginia is the son of former Redskins head coach, George Allen, and the brother of the Redskins current General Manager Bruce Allen.[3] Hmmm…

When asked about the deal, Allen commented “…I don’t want to get into matters that are close family issues, but my father brought the Redskins down what’s now Route 28 41 years ago to Virginia. So I’m happy the Redskins are staying.”

Sounds like a typical Republican, doesn’t it? Welfare is ok, they appear to be saying, as long as it benefits family members of people they know, even if they are already considerably wealthy.

Just as typically, Allen argued that retaining the Redskins inside the commonwealth would work miracles upon our economy. Presto! Just subsidize the wealthy and all of your job creation dreams will come true![4] 

One has to wonder if folks like George Allen actually believe in some of the arguments they throw out like so many dollar bills into the wind to see if they’ll stick.

“Obviously,” Allen stated, “I like having the Redskins in Virginia.”[5] Well obviously so do many Virginians, just not at the cost of $6.4 million. The Redskins should be giving that out to all of their fans for the last decade of heartbreak and gross mismanagement.

So how much more taxpayer dollars would George Allen spend to “create jobs”? I thought that was the job of the market, anyways!

---

[1] http://www.examiner.com/article/mcdonnell-under-fire-from-both-sides-of-the-legislature-for-million-dollar-deal

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/george-allen-backs-deal-to-keep-redskins-in-va/2012/06/20/gJQAUNl8qV_blog.html

[3] http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jun/03/tdmain14-george-allen-bio-ar-1961428/

[4] http://www.politicususa.com/gop-jobs.html

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/george-allen-backs-deal-to-keep-redskins-in-va/2012/06/20/gJQAUNl8qV_blog.html

Over $1 million in uranium mining contracts handed out by McDonnell administration

Colorado-based Wright Environmental Services[1] had a big payday on Tuesday as it hauled in two separate uranium mining related contracts, one from the Virginia Department of Health and the other to assist the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME). The two contracts were worth $520,000 and $513,000, respectively.[2]

The contract awarded by the Virginia Department of Health is part of the McDonnell administration’s effort to assist Virginia’s multi-agency “work group” in their information gathering process to create a “conceptual regulatory framework” for lawmakers to review in the case of a lift to the three decades old ban on uranium mining.

The second contract will go towards assisting DEQ and DMME[3] analyze licensing, permitting, and engineering regulations.

Two teams have been assigned by Wright Environmental Services to work on the two studies with some overlap expected.

The bottom line, however, is that over $1 million in additional taxpayer money has been spent on a pair of contracts, the results of which may never benefit Virginians by way of energy from uranium ore. Why? Because uranium mining in Virginia is not safe enough to be conducted due to the lopsided ratio of rainfall to evaporation, among many other reasons.[4]

For one reason or another, proponents of mining uranium in Virginia have claimed that the process would be safe, but relative to what, on what grounds has this conclusion been based? Virginians and Americans in general have seen this movie one too many times. Big natural resource is found. Big company(s) and their political friends attempt to take financial advantage of the discovery. Local community and workers adversely affected.[5]

But those incidents were in the past, right? Those incidents were in another country, or another part of the country, or the technology wasn’t as “up to date” as the technology which exists today. The same responses have been given to the same concerns and Virginians therefore have every reason to be apprehensive.

---

[1] http://www.wrightenvironmentalservices.com/

[2] http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2012/jun/19/state-group-tasked-developing-regulatory-framework-ar-1999865/

[3] http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/

[4] http://www.pecva.org/index.php/our-mission/energy-solutions/virginias-uranium-mining-moratorium/592-water-a-uranium-mining

[5] http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/UM-3a.HTM