The Women of Maine vs. Susan Collins

Susan Collins has deserved to be defeated for years as she has claimed to be a moderate Republican but then vote for some of the most reactionary GOP agenda items.  During the Trump occupancy of the White House her double speak has been even more egregious and if current polls are accurate, she may be sent into, in my view, a much needed forced retirement.  In some ways Collins is like moderate Republicans I knew 25 years ago who were at the time indeed moderates who eschewed the most insane elements of the GOP agenda typically linked to Christofascists or extreme anti-tax fanatics.  But over time, despite their protestations to the contrary, they have drunk deeply of the GOP Kool-Aid, including embracing the racism espoused by Donald Trump and the white supremacists that are a key element of Trump's base (I don't reference evangelicals separately because they are increasingly one and the same with the white supremacists).  Now, Collins is facing a backlash from Maine voters who are tired of her self prostitution to Trump and Mitch McConnell and the ugliest elements of today's GOP.  A lengthy piece in Politico Magazine looks at Collins' self-inflicted political difficulties.  The reality is that there are no longer any "moderate Republicans" - they all put party ahead of their constituents, especially average Americans.   Here are article excerpts:

For most of her nearly 24-year Senate career, Collins has been a quiet, head-down, never-miss-a-vote lawmaker known for an unwavering moderate approach that balances ardent fiscal conservatism with a liberal-pleasing reputation for supporting women’s reproductive rights. Then came the polarizing Trump presidency, and suddenly Collins found herself at the consequential center of bitter political battles—on issues ranging from the proposed repeal of Obamacare, which she resisted, to tax cuts and the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, which she supported. She is far from the only lawmaker to have cast deciding votes; however, Collins’ reputation has taken a conspicuously harsh hit. In 2015, after winning reelection with about 70 percent of the vote, she was considered one of America’s most beloved senators. Today, she is the most reviled, derided for her increasingly lockstep party-line votes and for the often belabored manner in which she has justified herself. She’s been lampooned by "Saturday Night Live"; The New Yorker recently satirized her for taking hours of deep reflection before deciding to order whatever Mitch McConnell is having for lunch.

But it is in Maine, where “Bye-Bye Susan” bumper stickers have become common, that the opposition represents an existential threat as she pursues a fifth term. Last year, during the presidential impeachment process, Collins’ refusal to attend several town hall forums begat another bumper sticker asking: “Where’s Susan?” Prior to the state’s shelter-in-place order, protesters gathered almost weekly outside her six state offices, taking issue with everything from her decision to side with President Donald Trump on family separation to her embrace of corporate tax cuts. Residents have made a pastime out of sharing videos of gotcha-conversations with Collins at fundraisers and in airports. In February, Colby College issued a poll showing Collins with a 42 percent approval rating in the state. Among women under the age of 50, her approval is only 25 percent. Her Democratic challenger, Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, has a slight edge in recent polls, and the Cook Political Report now lists the race as a toss-up.

[I]n a state with the nation’s highest percentage of both female registered voters and women who turn out to vote (about 77 percent and 65 percent, respectively, according to the Center for American Women and Politics), Collins’ plummeting support among women represents an especially dire threat to her reelection prospects. The Kavanaugh vote has energized outside groups such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which recently rolled out a six-figure ad campaign denouncing Collins for turning her back on Mainers. But many women voters I spoke to in towns around the state say that while the Kavanaugh vote angered them, they perceive a larger trend—that Collins has abandoned her native Maine in favor of standing with her GOP peers and funding from corporate donors. Understanding the roots of Collins free fall is key to understanding not only her predicament but the mood of the electorate—in Maine and the nation as a whole—heading into November. It’s a simple question with complex answers: Is it Collins who has changed or is it the voters? For years, Maine was the crown of Yankee Republicanism. The state produced socially progressive, pragmatic, secular moderates like Senators Margaret Chase Smith and William Cohen, who also served as secretary of Defense under Democrat Bill Clinton. Collins began her career as a Cohen staffer. When she first ran for office in 1996, she carried that mantle. She was elected on a platform that included strong opposition to the death penalty, and support for reproductive rights and congressional term limits (she vowed she’d serve no more than two terms, then return to Maine and let someone else take her place).
 The state has one of the highest percentages of independent voters—about 38 percent, according to the Secretary of State’s office. And even voters affiliated with a party regularly split tickets in the ballot booth. In 2008, Collins won all 16 counties in the state. That same year, Barack Obama took all but one. Both succeeded by distancing themselves from the policies of George W. Bush. In 2014, Collins was reelected with nearly 70 percent of the vote; two years later, Hillary Clinton picked up three out of four electoral votes, while Trump collected just one.

[S]he also prides herself on voting against her party more than any other senator, in either party.

But some observers of her career say those number don’t really add up—or at least they haven’t in over a decade. They say she’s rarely, if ever, opposed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell since the 2009 stimulus debate (Collins famously stepped across party lines to vote for the resulting recovery act, but only after gutting it of several key provisions, including funding for schools and pandemic flu preparations).
[I]n September 2017 she resisted Trump’s highest legislative priority—overturning Obamacare—by announcing she would not support a repeal plan. Pundits on the far right accused her of being a closet Democrat. But many in her home state cheered the independent-minded senator they’d long known and loved.

That enthusiasm began to erode in December that year, when Collins voted in favor of a tax reform bill that not only included the biggest cut to the corporate tax rate but also included a substantial cut for wealthy Americans. Then, in 2018, came the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, widely viewed as a anti-abortion ally with a history of writing in favor of stricter governmental regulation of abortion . . . . . the pressure on Collins to reject his nomination became intense. Sexual assault survivors flew to Washington to share their stories and opposition to his candidacy.

It also brought unexpected financial challenges. In the weeks leading up to the Kavanaugh confirmation, several nonprofit organizations in the state banded together to launch a crowd-funded campaign to fuel any potential Collins challenger. The campaign stipulated that any money raised would be allocated only if the sitting senator voted in favor of Kavanaugh. They quickly raised almost $4 million, even though Democrats had yet to choose a candidate to oppose her.

On October 5, 2018, Collins took to the Senate floor with a 45-minute speech announcing her support for Kavanaugh and delivering a harsh rebuke of what she called “a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.” This stand aligned her with some of Trump’s most reflexive defenders in the Senate, such as Joni Ernst of Iowa and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, while Murkowski, with whom she had once been allied in opposition to DeVos, remained conspicuously silent about her views of Kavanaugh, choosing to vote “present” rather than in favor of nominee.

But has Collins turned her back on her supporters? Has she actually transformed from a reliable check on Trump, as she seemed to be in the early days of his administration, to a dependable ally who offers token criticism but votes with him on all key issues? Or have voters become so rigid in their opposition to Trump that they can no longer abide her support for anything that might be considered helpful to the leader of her party?

“Every decision she makes seems to align her more closely with the Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell movement,” Shea says. “Here in Maine, that’s become the anvil around her neck.”

Shea also points to figures like congressional voting records maintained by ProPublica. In 2009, Collins voted against her party 31 percent of the time. In 2019, that figure had dropped to around 11 percent. And while some of those votes included opposition to two federal judges otherwise supported by her party, many others were on issues considered insubstantial by congressional watchers.

The majority of the 1,008 respondents to the February Colby College poll felt that Collins was more interested in voting with political affiliations, rather than principles. It’s also a big reason why current Democratic state Speaker of the House Sara Gideon—a relative political newcomer who moved to the state in 2004—is ahead of Collins in both recent polls and fundraising efforts for the first quarter of this year, even though her party has yet to hold its primary.

Gideon has also received an endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy nonprofit that endorsed Collins in her 2008 and 2014 campaigns.  . . . . In 2007 and 2008, Collins scored a perfect 100 percent. A decade later, it was 21 percent, thanks to her vote to confirm David Bernhardt as secretary of the Interior, and her endorsement of anti-environmental bills like one that sought to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

“A member of Congress is expected to make up her mind about what is in the best interest of her constituents. Again and again, during Trump’s presidency, Collins has shown she’s not willing to do that,” Sittenfeld says. “We have an extreme and radical president who has so little interest in what is good for places like Maine. We need a champion who will stand up to him.”

“Maine women and Maine voters have remained consistent,” she told me last week. “Susan Collins is just not the leader she once was, particularly when it comes to reproductive health and rights. In the past, we counted on Senator Collins to put women’s health and well-being ahead of partisanship and political games, but we can no longer do so.”

Hopefully, Collins will be shown the door by voters come November.  Like just about everyone in the GOP, she has sold her soul. 

Jeb Bush Hires Anti-Muslim, Anti-Gay Extremist

So much for Jeb Bush's pretense of being the GOP "moderate."  After hiring a gay communications director - one has to wonder what that individual is now thinking - Bush has reportedly hired Jordan Sekulow, a far right Christian extremist as part of Jebbie's campaign staff.  The take away?  That Bush is only too happy to prostitute himself to the ugliest elements of the Republican Party base.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at Sekulow's ugly track record which doesn't bode well for anyone hoping that the GOP might regain some shred of sanity.  Here are excerpts:

He [Sekulow] frequently appears on right-wing television to pontificate—his face caked with makeup, hair gelled back, suit shining, and double chin taking on a life of its own—about a wide range of topics, from Christian persecution to conservative persecution. On social media, he branded those behind the proposed Ground Zero Mosque “terrorists.” And in his capacity as executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, televangelist Pat Robertson’s snake oil mega-mall of right-wing legal causes, he has lobbied foreign governments to ban homosexuality and fought efforts to allow exceptions to anti-abortion laws when the life of the mother is at risk.

And on Friday, he announced he’s going to work for Jeb Bush. That’s right, Sekulow will be a senior adviser to the political action committee of the likely Republican presidential candidate most often labeled a moderate.

While Bush has not endorsed Sekulow’s extreme anti-gay position, Salon’s Luke Brinker notes that he also has not “staked out positions substantially at odds with those taken by Sekulow and the ACLJ.”

Until this point, Bush’s hires have done nothing but bolster his moderate reputation—especially on the issue of marriage equality.

In 2012, when Sekulow and his father, Jay, chief counsel for the ACLJ and geriatric rocker, were advising the Romney campaign, it was reported by Mother Jones’ Andy Kroll that the pair had opened their own ACLJ offices in Africa to lobby local officials. In Zimbabwe, where homosexuality was outlawed in 2006, they “pushed an agenda that backs outlawing same-sex marriage and making sure that homosexuality ‘remain[s] a criminal activity.’” The younger Sekulow, the publication reported, traveled to Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital, to lobby officials in person. The father-son duo made similar anti-gay lobbying efforts in Russia.

In hiring Sekulow, Bush is extending an olive branch to the far-right, but he is also perhaps damaging himself should he make it to the general.

Sekulow has dabbled in islampahobia, even supporting anti-Sharia law measures in Oklahoma.

Jeb Bush is No Moderate and Is a Pig Headed Fool

Michael Schiavo, the husband of the late Terri Schiavo,who became a national cause for the Christofascists before she was finally taken off life support, has little nice to say about Jeb Bush. While Jeb Bush is marketing himself as a "moderate" - at least by current GOP standards - the Schiavo incident shows that when confronted with a choice between pleasing the Christofascists in the GOP base or accepting medical and scientific knowledge, Bush consistently chooses ignorance and religious insanity.  Past actions are always a better indicator of what one will do if elected than words said on the campaign trail to get elected.  Bush's past actions offer little to support his current claims of being a moderate.  Politico Magazine has lengthy and detailed coverage on the issue and the Schiavo debacle in particular.  What's frightening is that Jeb Bush seems to have the same stubborn mindset as his idiot brother, the Chimperator, where facts don't matter, only he personal belief.  Here are excerpts:

Michael Schiavo called Jeb Bush a vindictive, untrustworthy coward.  For years, the self-described “average Joe” felt harassed, targeted and tormented by the most important person in the state. “It was a living hell,” he said, “and I blame him.”

Michael Schiavo was the husband of Terri Schiavo, the brain-dead woman from the Tampa Bay area who ended up at the center of one of the most contentious, drawn-out conflicts in the history of America’s culture wars. The fight over her death lasted almost a decade. It started as a private legal back-and-forth between her husband and her parents. Before it ended, it moved from circuit courts to district courts to state courts to federal courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court, from the state legislature in Tallahassee to Congress in Washington. The president got involved. So did the pope.

But it never would have become what it became if not for the dogged intervention of the governor of Florida at the time, the second son of the 41st president, the younger brother of the 43rd, the man who sits near the top of the extended early list of likely 2016 Republican presidential candidates. On sustained, concentrated display, seen in thousands of pages of court records and hundreds of emails he sent, was Jeb the converted Catholic, Jeb the pro-life conservative, Jeb the hands-on workaholic, Jeb the all-hours emailer—confident, competitive, powerful, obstinate Jeb. Longtime watchers of John Ellis Bush say what he did throughout the Terri Schiavo case demonstrates how he would operate in the Oval Office.

The case showed he “will pursue whatever he thinks is right, virtually forever,” said Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida. “It’s a theme of Jeb’s governorship: He really pushed executive power to the limits.” . . . . “He may be wrong about something, but he knows what he believes.”

And what he believed in this case, and what he did, said Miami's Dan Gelber, a Democratic member of the state House during Bush’s governorship, “probably was more defining than I suspect Jeb would like.”

[Judge] Greer cited “overwhelming credible evidence” that Terri Schiavo was “totally unresponsive” with “severe structural brain damage” and that “to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid.” His judgment was that she would not have wanted to live in her “persistent vegetative state” and that Michael Schiavo, her husband and her legal guardian, was allowed to remove her feeding tube.

Even one of the law’s [Terri's Law] architects up in Tallahassee expressed unease.  “I hope, I really do hope, we’ve done the right thing,” Republican state Senate president Jim King said. “I keep thinking, ‘What if Terri Schiavo really didn’t want this at all?’ May God have mercy on us all.”  Bush had no such qualms.

“Terri’s Law” had mandated the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and Jay Wolfson, a respected lawyer and professor of public health at the Stetson University College of Law and the University of South Florida, issued his report in December. . . . he wrote, Terri Schiavo was in “a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement” and “cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment.” He wrote that the practically unprecedented amount of litigation consisted of “competent, well-documented information” and was “firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law.”

The seven state supreme court judges took less than a month to dismiss unanimously “Terri’s Law.” . . . Bush told reporters he was “disappointed, not for any political reasons, but for the moral reasons.” He said he didn’t think it had been “a full hearing.” Legal analysts disagreed. They called the ruling a categorical rebuke of what Bush had done.

In June, the medical examiner released Terri Schiavo’s autopsy, which confirmed what the judges had ruled for years based on the testimony from doctors concerning her prognosis. Her limbs had atrophied, and her hands had clenched into claws, and her brain had started to disappear. It weighed barely more than a pound and a third, less than half the size it would have been under normal circumstances. “No remaining discernible neurons,” the autopsy said. She couldn’t see. She couldn’t feel, not even pain. Forty-one years after her birth, 15 years after her collapse, Terri Schiavo was literally a shell of who she had been.

Today, looking back, what makes Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo, angriest about the case is Bush’s letter to McCabe. Even after 18 months of legal wrangling, even after her death, even after the autopsy—after all that—the governor asked a prosecutor to initiate a retroactive criminal investigation of his client. It struck Felos as “odd,” “bizarre”—“personal.”

What makes him “untrustworthy,” he said, is that he fought the courts as long as he did just because he didn’t like the decisions they kept making. “I wouldn’t trust him in any type of political office,” he said.

[S]aid Connor, the Bush attorney, “I never, ever heard Jeb Bush waver in the midst of the political fallout. He was steadfast.”  That’s what bothers his critics.

This very same mindset took America into the disastrous Iraq War.  We do NOT need another Bush in the White House ever.

Why A President Romney Would Govern From The Far Right

Once upon a time I suspect a number of voters believed that Mitt Romney was a moderate who would not become a puppet of the dark forces of the far right in the Republican Party.  In retrospect, that view seems to have been a fantasy.  Not only has Romney pandered disgustingly to the Christianists and Tea Party loons, but his willingness to do anything to further what he believes to be in his political interest is telling in terms of how the far right will hold the puppet strings during any Romney administration.  Having seen the fate of moderates like Senator Lugar, Romney will be beholden to the forces that might rise a primary challenge to his reelection should he win a first term in the White House.  A column in the Washington Post looks at this reality and why Romney would not govern even remotely as a moderate.  Here are excerpts:

For all of Mitt Romney’s talk of what he would do on Day One in the White House — Bomb Iran? Or was it Planned Parenthood? — there’s just as good a chance he would be tacking up two pictures on the wall. One would be of George H.W. Bush and the other of Jimmy Carter. They both became one-term presidents after they were challenged in the primaries. This is a lesson for Romney.

It is also a lesson for everyone who thinks that if Romney becomes president, he would govern from the center. This is a widely held belief, encouraged by the Romney camp itself and the supposed gaffe of Eric Fehrnstrom that the world would see a different Romney in the general election: “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.” This is not a gaffe but a feint. Romney would be able to restart nothing.

In the first place, Romney would likely have a Republican House, and maybe a Senate, too. This means he has to work with a party that has just recently punished Richard Lugar for excessive moderation and is willing, at this very moment, to bring down the country’s credit rating another notch rather than budge on the debt ceiling. To Romney, who made a fortune with the clever prestidigitation of debt, this has to make no sense, but he would go along because (1) he’d have to, and (2) he always does.

Congress, though, would be the least of President Romney’s troubles. The real threat will come from the Republican Party’s very core, which likes him little and trusts him less. The moment he shows the slightest moderate or rational tick, someone such as Rick Santorum will barrel out of the GOP’s piney woods, screaming oaths, and enter the 2016 Iowa caucuses that, you might remember, Santorum won in 2012.

[I]t’s hardly conceivable that, as president, Romney will become the Romney some think he is. The forces that shaped him in the primaries and caucuses will not go away. He has been clay in the hands of the political right, and this will not change. After Romney recently disparaged Carter’s political courage, Gerald Rafshoon, once Carter’s communications director, shot back with this via Bloomberg View: “Scour Romney’s record for a single example of real political courage .  .  .  . 

The widespread belief that Romney would govern from the center is supposedly supported by the equally widespread belief that he is a liar. .  .   .    The belief that he would revert is the desperate rationale of nominal Democrats who have had it with Barack Obama and want to be excused for abandoning ship. 

According to what a family friend told the New York Times, Mitt and Ann Romney decided he should run for president because they both “felt it was what God wanted them to do.” Having done just that, Romney has left it to others to define what sort of candidate he would be. Nothing would change if he were president. Weakness is his one consistency. 

Like Obama or not, there's simply no way that I believe Romney can be trusted.   He'd even sell his magic Mormon underwear for the right price.      

Quote of the Day: The GOP Elite and Gays

I am frequently chastised by some for being vehemently against today's Republican Party and some think I'm a Democrat because of it.  What I am is someone who wants logic and reason and some shred of compassion for the less fortunate to control how government policy is formulated.  That simply no longer happens in the GOP.  Worse yet, a Romney presidency would likely see things even get worse as Andrew Sullivan summarizes very well:

The gay-inclusive elements in the elites simply do not have the balls to tackle the religious right. And this is particularly true of Romney, as this case now proves. The Christianists gave Bush a pass on social issues because of his born-again Christianity. They trust Mormon Romney not an inch. And this week demonstrates without any doubt that Romney will therefore not be able to deviate from their wishes an iota. He has no room to maneuver. The notion that he could be a moderate on social issues in office is, alas, a pipe dream.

Do we really want policy being set by the Christianists?  I for one do not and those who still cling to the vision of a Republican Party that no longer exists need to wake up and face reality.

An Unrestrained Tea Partier in Power

It seems I'm not the only one fearful of what Virginia's new Kool-Aid drinking attorney general will do to the state over the next four years inasmuch as he's already reaffirmed that gays in Virginia are second class citizens - indeed a class not even welcome to exist in Cuccinelli's world - and has now filed what is likely to prove to be a frivolous lawsuit that will deprive countless Virginians of health insurance coverage and/or the means to seek assistance with crushing insurance premium costs. Bob McDonnell, is not much better, although he is allowing Cuccinelli to be the out in the open lightning rod. All this in just two months from alleged "moderates." I pray to God that the media and voters will not fall for the obviously false moderate spiel from other GOP candidates. The Washington Post looks at Cuccinelli's teabagger jihad against progress and rationality. It is an unsettling situation and one has to wonder how McDonnell expects to be a "jobs governor" when the Cooch is doing all that he can to frighten people away from the state - including current residents. Here are highlights:
*
Not five minutes after President Obama signed health-care legislation into law Tuesday, top staff members for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II made their way out of his office, court papers in hand and TV cameras in pursuit, and headed to Richmond's federal courthouse to sue to stop the measure.
*
Cuccinelli (R) went his own way, arguing that a Virginia law enacted this month that prohibits the government from requiring people to buy health insurance creates an "immediate, actual controversy" between state and federal law that gives the state unique standing on which to sue.
*
The move was classic Cuccinelli -- bold, defiant and in-your-face, an effort to use any means at his disposal to stop what he sees as a federal government gone wild. That approach has transformed him in just a few months from being a fairly obscure state senator into a national conservative folk hero -- a tea partier with conviction and, more importantly, power.
*
But as the fervency and number of Cuccinelli's supporters have grown, so has the vigor of his detractors, who are convinced that he is an ideologue using his office to further a political agenda and that he is interested only in representing those who share his views.
*
"He thinks he's the attorney general for Fox News," said Paul Goldman, a Richmond lawyer and former head of the Virginia Democratic Party. "He wants to be Glenn Beck's favorite attorney general, and he's moving right on up there."
*
Cuccinelli's newfound stature in his party could create tension in Richmond, where just a few short weeks ago it was Gov. Robert F. McDonnell who was being held up as the new face of the Republican Party, chosen by national leaders to deliver the response to Obama's State of the Union address.
*
Although ideologically in line with McDonnell, who was also elected in November and supports Cuccinelli's lawsuit to stop the health-care law, Cuccinelli and his confrontational style could complicate the governor's efforts to rebrand the GOP as inclusive and pragmatic.
*
"This back-of-the-hand, gratuitous, finger-in-your-eye, hand-on-the-chest stuff -- people don't feel good about it," said a senior Republican strategist in Richmond, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid creating a rift in the party. "It's not how you build a broad-based coalition."
*
It is hopefully becoming clear to all rational citizens that Cuccinelli is a nutcase and that Virginia's interests would be best served with him out of office and safely in a mental institution somewhere under heavy meds. Some of us called out alarm back during the campaign yet sadly, voters fell for the McDonnell/Cuccinelli campaign based on lies.

Is the GOP's Scott Rigell Another Ken Cuccinelli?

As a number of articles have noted, GOP political advisors have been lauding the McDonnell/Cuccinelli strategy of campaigning: pretend to be a moderate - even if one is a radical far right extremist - and avoid social issues if possible until after elected. Then the faux moderate can show his or her real colors. In the race for the 2nd Congressional District of Virginia, the currently preferred candidate in the GOP primary might well be another Ken Cuccinelli style Christianist. Who is this candidate? Scott Rigell, a local auto dealership owner with long ties to the Pat Robertson elements of the Christian Right. Perusing Rigell's campaign website it looks amazingly much like Bob McDonnell's did and even talks about " I WILL SERVE EVERY PART OF OUR COMMUNITY." But on closer inspection, it be comes clear that Scott Rigell will serve you only if you belong to a particular part of the community. And gays clearly have no place in that community. Repeated requests for a clarification of Ridgell's position on ENDA and DADT repeal have gone unanswered. Equally telling, the page on his website dealing with "family values" is something that The Family Foundation might have written (who knows, maybe it did). Here are some highlights:

*
As a nation, we must support legislation that will reaffirm marriage and family life as the foundation of a healthy society.
*
Over the last decade we have seen an assault on the institution of marriage and our core family values. In 2006, I was proud to have joined a majority of Virginians as we voted to protect traditional marriage in our state Constitution.
*
It is time we have public servants in Washington who will promote a culture that values life and protects the most vulnerable amongst us, at the beginning of life and at the end. That is why I am proudly pro-life.
*
Frightened yet? He's not a fan of comprehensive health care reform either (never mind that "highly regulated" system's like that of France rate far better than the USA's broken system - that only works well if one is wealthy like Rigell - and cost less over all). Here's Rigell's take on the issue:
*
Americans are deeply concerned about the cost of health care and access to affordable medical insurance. However, a reform that would create another over-regulated government run system, an approach already proven ineffective in countries around the globe, is not the solution.
*
If there is any question on Rigell's Christianist agenda, go to the website of his church where he is very active and involved in the leadership:
*
Church and Society. Biblical social commandments and Christian ethical principles are foundational to the well-being of every society.
*
Marriage, . . . God has instituted marriage to be a life-long union of husband and wife, intended for their mutual joy, help and comfort; for the procreation and nurture of godly children.
*
Human Sexuality. Sexuality is inherent in God's creation of human beings in his image as male and female. All Christians are called to chastity: husbands and wives by exclusive sexual fidelity to one another, and single persons by abstinence from sexual activity.
*
This sounds like Cooch's agenda and seems to further confirm that if elected, Scott Rigell will likely be another Bob McDonnell/Ken Cuccinelli Republican. The last thing Virginia or the nation needs is an elected official blinded to objective reality and the rights of other citizens by their personal far right religious dogma. While incumbent, Democrat, Glenn Nye has been a huge disappointment, should the choice come down to Nye or Rigell, the message is clear that we need no more religious extremists in elected office.

Ken Cuccinelli Makes Taliban Bob Seem Moderate

I have done a number of posts on Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell's CBN University thesis and road map for a Christianist/GOP rule of society. Lost in all the discussion of McDonnell's extremism and out of the mainstream mind set is the fact that the GOP candidate for Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli (pictured at left), is even more extreme than McDonnell. Indeed, following Cuccinelli since he was elected to the General Assembly, in my opinion, he is a total whack job and cut from the same cloth as Bob Marshall, author of Virginia's "Marriage Amendment" that impacted not only same sex couples but also unmarried heterosexual couples who cannot formally marry because they would lose health insurance coverage or retirement benefits. In a speech nominating Marshall to run for U.S. Senate back in the spring (fortunately, Marshall lost out to lackluster Jim Gilmore), Cuccinelli described Marshall as a head of the curb. The same Bob Marshall who stated he'd be happy if anti-gay legislation cause all LGBT Virginians to leave the state.

*

Like Taliban Bob, Cuccinelli is attempting to depict himself as a moderate - a disingenuous lie, of course - since if his real positions were known, moderates and independents would run screaming to pull the lever for Steve Shannon. Cuccinelli's much scrubbed website, however, still gives hints of his true agenda. Here is a sampling:

*

As Virginia’s Attorney General, I will continue to support the sanctity of all human life, from conception to natural death. I will also strive to support women in crisis pregnancies.

*

Marriage: I believe marriage should be protected as a sacred union between one man and one woman.

*

I led the fight to pass the Marriage Amendment in Northern Virginia. I was one of only a small number of legislators around Virginia that actually went out and actively campaigned on behalf of the Marriage Amendment.
*

I have proposed numerous bills to protect marriage and families, and to reduce the incidence of divorce in Virginia.

*

Both the United States and Virginia Constitutions were written to permanently protect the individual right of law abiding citizens to own and use firearms for any lawful reason.

*

Translated, Cuccinelli wants no legal abortions in the state, prefers that individuals remain trapped in failed marriages, wants same sex couples and unmarried straight couples to have no legal rights in respect to each other, and has no problem with citizens running around with assault rifles and automatic weapons. The Daily Kos did a piece that compared Cuccinelli to Steve Shannon on the issue of employment protections which is enlightening. Here are a few highlights:

*

Although Ken will lead you to believe that he has "less friends" than Steve I think he is not realizing that his 0% rating from the AFL-CIO provides him with a great deal of "friends" within the big business community. Secondly, Ken's 100% NFIB rating compared to Steve's 50%. Again, a quick analysis will demonstrate a key difference between the two. Ken's 0% rating compared to Steve's 50% rating shows that Ken is absolutely unwilling to work with working men and women on any labor issue, consistently voting against it. You have to really work hard to obtain a 0% rating but Ken always succeeds.

*

Also telling of what Cuccinelli's real agenda is all about is his cozy relationship with James Dobson's Virginia affiliate, The Family Foundation, one of the most powerful religious extremist organizations in the Virginia. In 2008 - that's right just last year - The Family Foundation awarded Cuccinelli its "Legislator of the Year" award. One needs to be pretty extreme to win that accolade from the Kool-Aid drinkers at The Family Foundation, a group that has utterly no regard for the religious freedoms of others. Here are some highlights from the Fairfax Family Forum about this most telling award:

*

(Richmond, VA) – State Senator Ken Cuccinelli was named “Legislator of the Year” by The Family Foundation at their 2008 Annual Gala this evening. “It’s very humbling to be singled out among all of our dedicated pro-family representatives in Richmond,” said Cuccinelli. “But our efforts in Richmond on behalf of Virginia’s families couldn’t be successful without the hard work of groups like The Family Foundation.” “The traditional values we grew up with are under daily assault by liberals in Washington and Hollywood. We are not immune to the attacks on our culture here in Virginia and need to stand up for faith and families.”

*

Truth be told, Cuccinelli is as whacked out as Sarah Palin and the voters in Virginia had best wake up to the snow job that McDonnell and Cuccinelli are trying to foist on the citizenry. Neither of them are moderates and both of them will work to impose elements of McDonnell's thesis on all Virginians.