Scott Rigell: It’s Clear Russia Influenced 2016 Election

I will be the first to admit that I never have liked GOP Congressman Scott Rigell, but as he has wound down his time in Congress, he seems to have finally gotten his head out of his ass in a number of ways and belatedly spoken the truth and stopped putting his political party ahead of the nation and the best interests of the residents of the Virginia 2nd Congressional District.  Perhaps knowing that he no longer had to worry about a primary challenge by white supremacists and Christofascists in the GOP base, Rigell has felt free to speak candidly.   His recent comments on the 2016 election and Der Fuhrer are most part directly on point.  One can only hope that newly elected Scott Taylor will act as Rigell has in the waning days of his term of office. Here are highlights on Rigell's remarks from Roll Call:

Retiring Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell, who made waves when he broke with the Republican Party over Donald Trump’s presidential nomination, said the president-elect's choice of Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State is “deeply flawed.”

In addition to his worries about Tillerson’s lack of diplomatic experience, Rigell told Hampton Roads TV station WAVY he is concerned about the Exxon Mobil CEO’s close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the role Russia may have played in the U.S. presidential election.

“It is clear to some degree they influenced our election,” Rigell said.

Additionally, Rigell hopes Trump takes seriously the implications of the hack, and heeds the intelligence agencies call for further investigation.

“I think it would actually heighten his presidency if he would lead and advance the cause of exactly what happened,” Rigell added. 

Rigell, who represents Virginia's 2nd District, was an outspoken opponent of Trump’s candidacy, and eventually endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson over his party’s nominee.

At one point, Rigell called the real estate mogul “a bully unworthy of our nomination,” and asserted that a Trump presidency would be “reckless, embarrassing and ultimately dangerous.”

Months later, Rigell’s opinion hasn’t changed.  “I have always said there is not one character trait in him that I would want my son to emulate. Not one," Rigell told WAVY. 

“I think Donald Trump has deeply divided our country, and I cannot see him bringing us together,” Rigell said. “Do I hope that happens? Yes, I do because I am an American first, but for him to say, ‘We are going to make Mexico pay for it’ is a bizarre statement."

Rigell decided not to seek a fourth term in January, and will be replaced by Republican Scott Taylor.

I guess Rigell's conversion is a case of better late than never.  Scott Taylor needs to know that we will be watching him closely, especially when it comes to voting on anti-LGBT legislation.  Personally, I cannot fully trust Taylor after his endorsement of Trump. 

GOP's Scott Rigell - Vote for Anyone Other Than Trump

I hold no love for retiring GOP Congressman Scott Rigell - who in his first campaign was endorsed by an anti-gay hate group leader, but even Rigell seems to understand that the Republican Party has become akin to a dangerous rabid dog that is best personified by the rise of Donald Trump.  Hence Rigell's "Open letter to Virginia Republicans" which urges voters to vote for anyone other than Donald Trump.  The tipping point for Rigell seems to have been Trump's refusal to disavow David Duke and the KKK.  Despite Trump's attempt to pretend he did not know who Duke is, old interviews reveal that Trump knows exactly who Duke is and what he stands for.  Here are highlights from Rigell's denunciation of Trump: 

Never before have I grabbed a word like catastrophic to make a political point.  It's like pulling a fire alarm; if you do it, there had better be a fire.  There is a fire and it's raging within our Republican party.  I am convinced that if Donald Trump becomes our nominee, the harm done to our party would be nothing short of catastrophic. 

I reject Trump as our nominee based on his judgement, temperament and character, all of which point to a reckless, embarrassing and ultimately dangerous presidency.   

Just this past Sunday, Trump's poor judgment was on display.  He failed not once, not twice, but three times to denounce the KKK and its onetime leader, the infamous racist, David Duke.  Looking a bit confused when asked about the KKK and Duke, Trump pleaded ignorance.  What void must exist in the heart of a person who when asked about the KKK has to struggle for even a moment as to what his position is?  And what void must be present in the mind of a would-be president who is unapologetic in quoting Mussolini and states publicly that he admires Putin? 

Perhaps it is because Putin is a dictator.  Trump's pledge that he will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it certainly reflects a dictator's mindset.  Mexico will not pay for a wall, nor should it, and it's reckless for Trump to make that claim.

 

Through these and other bizarre statements we have come to know Trump.  We have seen how he draws from a putrid well in making his case for his candidacy.  He rarely debates but chooses instead to belittle. On the trail he caricatured the physical challenges that a respected reporter has to overcome every day of his life.  The terms he used in reference to a female news anchor cannot be printed here, nor are they uttered in my home.

 

So what kind of role model would Trump be to the next generation of Republicans?  Short on ideas?  Belittle your adversary! Need an edge on the disadvantaged?  Mock them!  Want others to think you're a strong leader when running for a party leadership position?  Just keeping jabbing your finger in your opponent's face!  Have differences with a veteran?  Challenge his honor and service to our country!

 

It all leads to one clear, irrefutable conclusion:  Trump is a bully, unworthy of our nomination.  My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgement, temperament and character needed to be our nation's commander-in-chief.  Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee.

Everything I have learned in life about leadership, about business, and about our incredible country tells me to pull every alarm in the house.  A con man is among us.  With great respect I implore you, my fellow Republicans, to vote for any candidate but Donald Trump. 

 Wow!  I must admit, this makes me have a respect for Rigell that I never had previously.  One can only hope that sane Republicans will follow his lead and oppose Trump should he win the GOP nomination. 

Scott Rigell Will Not Seek Re-election

Hate group leader endorsed GOP Virginia 2nd District Congressman Scott Rigell has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2016.  Perhaps the prospect of a possibly less gerrymandered district helped push his decision.  Whatever the real cause, having an open race in a presidential election year could bee a boon to Democrats.  The Virginian Pilot looks at Rigell's decision and the furry of activity it will prompt.  Here are excerpts:

U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell, a three-term congressman from Virginia Beach, surprised supporters and colleagues Thursday by announcing he will not seek re-election this year.

His decision sets the stage for a competitive contest to replace him during an election cycle in which Hampton Roads and the rest of Virginia will be a main focus of presidential candidates who likely have to win the state to win the White House.

Once elected, Rigell supported House Republicans’ repeated attempts to abolish the Affordable Care Act. He also supported efforts to limit nondefense discretionary spending while consistently championing Pentagon programs and veterans’ issues. He called them vital to the country but also key linchpins of the Hampton Roads economy and his district’s dense military population.

Rigell broke ranks with Republicans on some issues. He joined Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, in recent months to demand that Congress take a vote to authorize the use of military force against Islamic State terrorists – a vote that GOP leaders refused to allow.

With his departure, the district’s voters, who narrowly favored Obama in both his elections, may be open to considering a Republican or a moderate Democrat. Rigell’s stepping down also may be unsettling for Republicans nationally who viewed a strong incumbent’s re-election in the 2nd as helping them carry Virginia in the presidential election.

“I don’t see a path to the White House without Hampton Roads,” said Curtis Colgate, GOP chairman of the 2nd District.

State Del. Scott Taylor, one of five Republicans who unsuccessfully competed against Rigell in the GOP’s 2010 2nd District primary, said Thursday that he’s considering running.

University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato said people shouldn’t read too much into Rigell’s decision. He noted that Rep. Robert Hurt, a Virginia Republican who also was first elected in 2010, also decided not to run again.

Rigell's departure is no loss to fair minded Virginians.  Interestingly, the young and good looking Scott Taylor has made overtures to support the Hampton Roads LGBT community and attended last year's HR Pride launch.

Why the Fate of Virginia’s Congressional Map Matters

Here in Virginia despite changing demographics and urban growth that are hostile to the policies of the Virginia GOP, Republicans remain in a stranglehold over the House of Delegates and a disproportionate number of Congressional seats remain in Republican hands. How has this happened?  One word describes the problem: gerrymandering.  State and congressional districts were carefully draw to give Republicans an advantage so that minorities and "liberal" areas were packed into a small number of districts.  Now, Virginia's congressional district map is facing revision after court rulings struck down the horrifically drawn 3rd District that is pictured above (I live in the 3rd district, but used to be in the 2nd until it was redrawn to protect Republican Scott Rigell).  A piece in MSNBC looks at why the outcome of this redistricting matters.  Here are excerpts:

When voters in Virginia went to the polls in 2012, a narrow majority backed President Obama’s re-election bid, just as they’d done four years earlier. In a closely watched U.S. Senate race, the commonwealth’s voters also elected Sen. Tim Kaine (D) over former Sen. George Allen (R) by about six points.

 

But just a little further down on the ballot is where things get tricky. If you add up all the votes case in each of Virginia’s U.S. House races, roughly 49% of Virginians voted for Democratic candidates, while about 51% supported Republican candidates. The state has 11 congressional districts, so if there was some kind of parallel between voter preferences and partisan results, we might expect to see five Democrats head to Congress from the state, along with six Republicans.

 

Except that’s not what happened. Of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats, Democrats ended up with three victories to the GOP’s eight. Dems may have won nearly 49% of the vote, but they also won about 27% of the representation.

After the 2010 Census, Virginia’s Republican-dominated state government carefully crafted a district map intended to maximize GOP victories. How? Step one, of course, was drawing lines in such a way as to keep as many African-American voters together as possible, effectively creating noncompetitive districts.

 

Late last week, this map ran into some trouble. The Washington Post reported:

A panel of federal judges issued a ruling Friday that Virginia lawmakers illegally concentrated African American voters into one congressional district to reduce their influence elsewhere, bringing the state a step closer to being forced to redraw its election map.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia affirmed its earlier decision and ordered the Virginia House of Delegates to redraw the state’s 11-district congressional map by Sept. 1.

 It’s not yet resolved – an appeal is inevitable – but this has the potential to be a pretty big deal.

If you’re thinking this might be a contentious process, you’re not alone. As the Post’s report added, “Democrats and advocates for reducing the influence of politics on redistricting applauded Friday’s decision. And they could benefit politically: Diluting the African American makeup of the state’s black-majority district would make adjacent districts less Republican and potentially vulnerable to Democratic challenge.”

 

If appeals fail, Virginia lawmakers would have to return for a special session this summer.

The approach of today's Virginia GOP is that if you cannot win because of your policies and agenda, you win by disenfranchising minorities and gerrymandering the districts.

U.S. Supreme Court Remands 3rd District Gerrymandering Case

As noted in previous posts, when Virginia redrew its congressional districts, the Virginia GOP took great care to gerrymander the 3rd District - in which I now reside - to shift as many minority voters and liberal voters into the redrawn 3rd District as possible to make the 2nd District safer for Scott Rigell and the 4th District safer for religious nutcase Randy Forbes.  A panel of district court judges found the redrawn 3rd District - which isn't even contiguous - to be unconstitutional.  The GOP appealed and now the U.S. Supreme Court has sent the case back to the lower court where it is likely to be struck down again and thereby force a redrawing of congressional districts on more proper basis.  The Daily Press looks at the high court's action.  Here are highlights:

The U.S. Supreme Court sent Virginia's 3rd District gerrymander case back down the pipe on Monday, a move that brings Virginia another step closer to a redraw of its congressional map.

The nation's highest court vacated and remanded a three-judge panel's decision in the case, which alleges that state leaders focused on race when lines were drawn for the 3rd District. The district is represented by U.S. Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, D-Newport News, and it meanders back and forth across the James River, taking in minority populations from Hampton Roads to Richmond.

It's part of a map that led to an 8-3 split, in favor of Republicans, for Virginia's congressional delegation, despite a statewide electorate that has leaned slightly toward Democrats in recent years.

Voters, backed by a Democratic law firm that targets redistricting cases, alleged that minority voting strength was diluted in surrounding districts by the 3rd District gerrymander, and a panel of three federal judges in Richmond agreed last year, ordering the legislature to draw a new map.

That triggered the U.S. Supreme Court appeal by Republican members of Congress looking to protect the current map.

Monday's remand will likely lead federal judges here to re-affirm their initial order, according to Marc Elias, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

"The Alabama decision supports our position," Elias said in an email. "We expect the three-judge panel to reach the same result now that Alabama has been decided."

The decision may also impact a separate case, alleging similar racial gerrymanders in a number of House of Delegates districts, including two on the Peninsula.

Any redraw would impact not just Scott's district, but surrounding ones and, potentially, every congressional district in the state.

Plaintiffs argue that mapmakers packed black voters into one heavily minority district in order to make surrounding districts less competitive and, thus, safer for Republican candidates.

Today's Virginia GOP cannot win on the issues, so voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandered districts are required to maintain a false GOP majority.   Sadly, I don't see the Virginia GOP - or national GOP - changing unless and until the Christofascist and Tea Party loons are exiled to the political wilderness where they belong.

Supreme Court Reasserts Voting Rights Act

Gerrymandered Virginia 3rd District - note how parts are not even contiguous

When the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, many racists conservatives joyfully hoped that the Court was on a track to destroying the Act entirely.  Now, in a ruling Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, the Court seemingly sent a message that it is not ready to open the doors to a return of Jim Crow era gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. And here in Virginia, the ruling may be very meaningful in the challenge to the GOP gerrymandered 3rcd Congressional District which was carefully draw to loan minority voters into one district and favor Republicans in the surrounding districts.  Here are highlights from Politico:

The Supreme Court stopped just short of ruling Alabama’s redistricting plan unconstitutional on Wednesday, but it sent a clear message to lawmakers across the country that the Voting Rights Act can’t be used to justify maps that predominately group voters together based on their race.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court sided with black lawmakers and Democrats in Alabama in throwing out a lower court’s decision that upheld the GOP-drawn state legislative map. This was the court’s second high-stakes decision in two years dealing with the Voting Rights Act and will likely have an effect on redistricting legal battles in states like Virginia and North Carolina.

The case was brought by African-American lawmakers in Alabama who argued that the Republican-controlled Legislature packed thousands of black voters into existing majority-black state legislative districts to secure a GOP-advantage in the other districts.

[T]he ruling simply called the lower court’s decision “legally erroneous” and sent the case back to it without ruling whether Alabama’s redistricting plan is unconstitutional.

“The appeals focus upon the appellants’ claims that new district boundaries create ‘racial gerrymanders’ in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion. “We find that the District Court applied incorrect legal standards in evaluating the claims.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote on the case and joined the court’s four liberal justices to make up the majority.

But while Breyer only remanded the case backed to the lower court for further consideration, he strongly suggested that some of the districts should be deemed unconstitutional. “That Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State,” he wrote.

For partisan advantage, Republicans have historically tried to “pack” minorities into districts, while Democrats have attempted to “crack” majority-minority districts in the redistricting process to spread minorities into more districts to boost Democratic candidates, even at the expense of providing safer seats for minority candidates.

States lawmakers — of both parties — will now have to employ a much more nuanced way of using race in the redistricting process, said Justin Levitt, another redistricting expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who also worked as the Democratic National Committee’s National Voter Protection counsel in 2008.

“This isn’t a case about Alabama,” Levitt said. “It’s about how officials consider race. Other states have very similar philosophies as Alabama. The court today said, ‘Guess what? They’re wrong.’”

The court’s ruling is a victory for Democrats in Virginia, where a panel of federal judges ruled recently that the Republican-led Legislature’s decision to pack African-American voters into the 3rd Congressional District, which is represented by Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott, was motivated purely by race — a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Virginia’s Republican members of Congress appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The case has given Democrats a chance to push for new lines that could make at least two districts — the 2nd and 4th, currently represented by GOP Reps. Scott Rigell and Randy Forbes, respectively — more competitive once some of the black population from Scott’s district is moved.

“Similar to Alabama, here in Virginia we have suffered from racial gerrymandering by the GOP designed to dilute the voting power of minority voters,” said Morgan Finkelstein, spokeswoman for the Virginia Democratic Party. “Today’s ruling shows that the legal system — and the country — is paying more and more attention to this troubling issue. We need compact, contiguous districts and remain hopeful that Virginia Republicans will stop stalling and work with us towards achieving equal representation for all Virginians.” 

The husband and I used to be in the 2nd District until the Virginia Republicans redrew the boundaries of the 3rd district to move blacks - and certain liberal voting neighborhoods such as ours - into the 3rd district to provide safer seats to GOP Congressman Rigell and Forbes, both of whom need to be voted out of office in my opinion.

Too Many Risks to Virginia Offshore Drilling?

President Obama has indicated that he wants to open areas offshore from Virginia's coast for oil and gas exploration.  The move has outraged environmentalists while thrilling Virginia Republicans who never seem to pause to worry about potential disasters that could happen.  As always, there is talk of creating new jobs, but as a former in-house attorney for a major oil company some years ago, I remain very skeptical about boasts of the number of jobs created.  From my experience, most of the technical workers would be imported in from elsewhere and send their earnings back to their home states and at best Virginia would see increases in rentals of some office space, residential housing rentals, and some small amount of business for local marine suppliers.   A column in the Virginian Pilot looks at the risks involved.  For those who don't know, the American Petroleum Institute is a lobbying arm of the major oil companies and its "studies" are about as reliable as something coming out of The Family Foundation on gays.  Here are excerpts:

IT TAKES a lot of assumptions to conclude that offshore drilling will benefit Virginia:

-- That the Navy will reverse years of analysis and decide that drilling poses no danger to its training mission offshore or its installations onshore.
-- That oil companies won't imperil Hampton Roads' tourism and commercial fishing with a spill, as has happened everywhere else.
-- That despite years of resistance, every state in America will now agree to simply hand over royalties to Virginia.
-- That Maryland and North Carolina won't care when Virginia tries to seize their territory.
-- That oil jobs - notoriously transient and temporary - will abandon places like Texas and Louisiana for Hampton Roads.
-- That a time with some of the lowest gas prices in recent history is also the time to start drilling for some of the most expensive oil and gas on the planet.

Despite all that, the White House' decision Tuesday to allow drilling off four Southeastern states was cheered by pro-petroleum politicians and their supporters. Among the parcels included was "Lease Sale 220," off Virginia's coast.

The federal decision comes less than five years after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. That disaster killed 11 and fouled huge swaths of the Gulf of Mexico. The environmental damage is inestimable.

The scope of the Deepwater Horizon disaster temporarily halted efforts to open Virginia's coast, but memories are short. Politicians from Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms to U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine cheered this week's decision.

U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell, as he has before, claimed that offshore drilling would "create 25,000 good-paying jobs for Virginians." The source of that number - which has risen from 19,000 in recent years - is a study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute. The same report concludes that Atlantic coast offshore drilling would produce 279,562 jobs by 2035.

It's not likely to do so without imperiling others.   The U.S. Navy uses the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Virginia for training. In 2010, the military concluded that 72 percent of the "Lease Sale 220 area should have no oil or gas activity due to our intensive training and testing in the area and the danger this would present to oil and gas industry personnel and property."

Sessoms, Warner, Kaine and Rigell - indeed, every elected official in Virginia - is acutely aware that Oceana Naval Air Station was nearly gutted in 2005, after the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission decided houses and businesses had been allowed too close to the fence line. There was serious consideration of moving the Navy's East Coast master jet base to Florida, a prospect that would have hollowed Hampton Roads.

Navy officials aren't likely to welcome drilling in the Virginia Capes, especially after the military has warned repeatedly of the dangers, including in 2006:

"Any structures built in the water... would restrict where military air wings can fire their weapons, drive aircraft further away from the coast, increase fuel costs and wear and tear on the airframes, increase flight times en-route to training areas, and increase the risk to aircrews...."

No matter what great benefits proponents promise, the dangers are real: To Navy operations, to the environment, to the tourism industry, to commercial fishing.

None of these cautions is likely to deter drilling supporters, who've proven themselves willing to make the assumptions necessary to support the petroleum industry. Experience shows the dangers are more likely than 279,562 jobs.

The threats are greater than the promises that the Hampton Roads economy and environment won't be damaged by an industry with a long history of destruction.

Sadly, I agree with the editorial, not that this will deter the pawns in the pockets of the petroleum industry.

Vote to Move Virginia Forward in November

Attorney General Mark Herring, Lt. Governor Ralph Northam, Rep. Bobby Scott, friends Claus and Robert and Suzanne Patrick in yellow.

The following is a reprint of my latest column in VEER Magazine which makes the case for re-electing Mark Warner to the U.S. Senate and electing Suzanne Patrick to replace Scott Rigell in the Virginia 2nd Congressional District:

For non-political junkies (for the record I will admit that I am a political junkie!), living in Virginia can be exhausting given its off year state elections which result in Virginians undergoing political campaign overload literally every year.  But every year’s election cycle does matter and the outcome can have a huge impact on our lives and the society in which we live.  The 2014 mid-term national elections are no exception and, if voters are complacent, the wrong candidates could end up being elected to the detriment of many Virginians.  This year’s important contests are for (i) the United States Senate between incumbent Democrat, Mark Warner, and former lobbyist and GOP candidate Ed Gillespie, and (ii) for the 2nd Congressional District between GOP incumbent, Scott Rigell and Democrat Challenger, Suzanne Patrick.

I have the distinct advantage of knowing three out of the four candidates involved.  From my perspective, the November election in these two contests is a very clear choice between moving Virginia and the nation forward or a destructive effort to move backwards in time to a mythical time that never existed.  Despite my long Republican past, the two candidates that deserve election and who will move Virginia and America forward are Democrats Mark Warner and Suzanne Patrick for the reasons that I will set forth.

For most Virginians, Mark Warner is a known commodity, having served as a popular governor (he ran against and defeated one of my former law partners) and a very good U.S. Senator for Virginia.  Mark has a track record of putting the nation first and political party second, and has demonstrated that he will strive to work on a bipartisan basis despite the Republican Party obstructionism which has made the current Congress one of the least productive in history.  As I have noted in past columns, America has one of the most expensive and least cost efficient health care systems of any advanced nations where those with insurance coverage pay exorbitant bills to pay for the treatments written off by non-profit hospitals.  Recognizing this reality, Mark Warner has supported the Affordable Health Care Act which, although not perfect, over time will decrease the rise in health care costs and expand the number of Americans who have health care insurance.  He also supports legislation that will aid increasing jobs and boosting the economy. He also understands that our broken immigration system needs reform.  On social and civil rights issues, Mark supports equal rights for LGBT individuals, supports immigration reform and minority rights and respects a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions with the counsel of her physical and family.

Mark Warner’s opponent, Ed Gillespie, in contrast is supportive of all of the failed Republican policies of the last 35+ years.  Gillespie talks in generalities about jobs, the economy, and energy resources, but offers few specifics beyond the typical GOP approach of slashing taxes for the wealthy, slashing social programs (using subtle race baiting code words, of course, in his ads to suggest that some undeserving individuals are free loading off others), seeking to repeal safety and environmental regulations, and over all leaving the middle class to slowly regress further economically.  With upward social mobility now higher lower in America than “Old Europe” as the Republicans derisively call it, Gillespie offers nothing except the canard that cutting takes and cutting regulations will create jobs to reverse this downward spiral.  On health care, Gillespie would repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and return us to the totally broken health care system that predated it where insurance companies control the market place.  Worse yet, on social issues, Gillespie would keep LGBT Americans second class – if not 3rd class – citizens and would have women’s health care decisions made by aging white men and/or religious extremists such as those at The Family Foundation who believe women should be subordinate to men and basically bare foot and pregnant in the home. In short, Gillespie seems to yearn for a recreation of a misogynist version of the 1950s when gays, blacks, Hispanics, and women “knew their place.” Oh, and did I mention that Gillespie was a lobbyist for Enron?

Given the contrasts between Mark Warner and Ed Gillespie, anyone who wants to see Virginia and America move forward in the coming years needs to vote for Mark Warner.

A similar contrast is presented to voters in the 2nd congressional district between Scott Rigell and Suzanne Patrick.   Like Gillespie, Rigell’s main mantra to improve the economy is to (i) cut taxes for the affluent, (ii) repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and leave millions of Americans without health care coverage, and (iii) allow offshore oil drilling off Virginia’s coast.  As a former in-house counsel for a Fortune 50 oil company’s oil and gas subsidiary, I suspect I know far more about oil exploration than Mr. Rigell.  First, should such drilling be permitted, most of the jobs created would go to oil industry companies based outside of Virginia that would bring in personnel from outside Virginia.  If jobs were created as Rigell boasts, few would be Virginia jobs.  As for offshore oil production being a quick fix for America’s foreign oil dependency, even if oil were to be found in economically feasible quantities off Virginia’s coast, bringing such production online would take a decade or more at the earliest and provide little relief.

On social issues and women’s rights, Rigell, like Gillespie is more than willing to prostitute himself to religious extremists at The Family Foundation. On gay rights, Rigell has followed the dictates of the Christian Right and, although invisible on his current campaign website, Rigell has been endorsed in the past by the founder of a leading anti-gay hate group. Rigell also was a leader of a far right group that broke away from Galilee Episcopal Church in Virginia Beach following the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. True to form, Rigell also opposes a woman’s right to access family planning services and would restrict access to contraception.

Opposing Rigell is Suzanne Patrick, a retired Navy Commander, who like myself has held government appointments from Republican office holders. Suzanne is a fourth generation military officer who has had overseas postings in Beijing, Berlin, Delhi, Seoul and Warsaw.  In 2001, she was appointed by President George W. Bush to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy.  In short, she knows the needs of our military from the inside out unlike Mr. Rigell.  On job creation, Suzanne has ideas that go far beyond tax cuts for the rich and leaving millions of Americans without access to healthcare insurance, including the need to rebuild America’s infrastructure and to position Virginia’s port facilities to remain competitive in the changing international market place.

On social issues, Suzanne Patrick’s positions are 180 degrees from those of Scott Rigell.  She believes in civil law equality for all Americans and Virginians, including LGBT individuals. Unlike Rigell, Suzanne has attended events of the local LGBT chamber of commerce and been willing to listens to the needs of the LGBT business community.  On women’s issues, Suzanne believes that women and their doctors should make health care decisions for women, not aging white men in the House of Representatives.  Suzanne understands that with America’s changing demographics, the 1950’s mindset of Scott Rigell (Rigell’s idea of “outreach” is joining the James River Country Club) will hold both the 2nd District and America back.

This column does not permit the space to go into an in depth analysis to fully compare the four candidates discussed.  Suffice it to say, Ed Gillespie and Scott Rigell hold views that want to repeat the failed GOP policies of the last 30+ years which will in the process hold both Virginia and America back, if not move it backwards in time.  In contrast, Mark Warner and Suzanne Patrick recognize that Virginia, America, and the world are changing.  Therefore, our elected officials need to seek innovative solutions and recognize that the policies of the past no longer work.  If you want to vote to move Virginia forward, get out and vote in November and support Mark Warner and Suzanne Patrick.

Disclosure: Michael Hamar is a former 8 year member of the City Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia Beach and held a four year state appointment under former Governor Jim Gilmore. 

Mark Warner Slams Ed Gillespie on Anti-Gay Marriage Stance

NOTE:  For voters in the Virginia 2nd congressional district, Republican Scott Rigell's anti-gay views are the same as Gillespie's views.  Rigell's challenger, Democrat Suzanne Patrick supports LGBT equality.

As my upcoming column in VEER Magazine will make perfectly clear, I am no fan of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ed Gillespie for many reasons (it hits news stands on October 15th), including his rigid adherence to the national GOP's opposition to gay rights and calls for a constitutional amendment to strip gays of marriage rights.  Moreover, Gillespie is 100% prostituting himself to Virginia Christofascists and has a habit of barring the media from his gatherings with far right extremists.  One can only imagine the heinous statements and promises Gillespie is making if he doesn't want the media within earshot.  In last nights televised debate with Gillespie, Senator Mark Warner slammed Gillespie's anti-gay agenda. Politico looks at Mark Warner's attack on Gillespie's anti-gay bigotry.  Here are excerpts:

Ten years ago, when Ed Gillespie was chairman of the Republican National Committee, the party’s official platform called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But a Senate debate in Virginia on Tuesday night showcased just how much the politics of gay marriage — and the Old Dominion — have shifted over the past decade.

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, who did not publicly come out in support of “marriage equality” until March 2013, said he and Gillespie have “very different opinions” on the issue and tried to use the contrast to his advantage.

“When I was chairman of the Republican National Committee, the platform called for a federal marriage amendment,” he said. “And as chairman of the RNC, I stood for the platform.

The one-hour debate in Tysons Corner was broadcast on NBC affiliates throughout Virginia and on C-SPAN. Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” moderated. His first question was on the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday not to hear appeals of lower-court rulings striking down bans on same-sex marriage in several states, including Virginia. The commonwealth began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples later Monday.

“The court has ruled on this,” said Gillespie. “It is the law in Virginia today, and as I do not believe that a federal law is the proper approach, then of course I accept the decision by the Supreme Court not to take up this decision of the circuit court.”

Gillespie went out of his way to stress that “people should not be discriminated against … based on sexual preference or sexual orientation.”

Gillespie can claim that he is against discrimination, yet here in Virginia, his party has blocked every attempt to offer LGBT Virginians employment non-discrimination protections.  Equally bad, thanks to the Republican Party of Virginia, there are no laws no public accommodation laws in Virginia that protect LGBT individuals.  In short, thanks to Gillespie's GOP, gays can still be fired at will in Virginia, and landlords and sellers can refuse to rent or sell to LGBT tenants and/or buyers.  Actions speak louder than words - especially words thrown out in a debate to save Gillespie's sorry ass - and anyone who believes a word that Gillespie says is either a fool or an idiot.