Robert Hurt Votes Against Jobs Bill; Also Opposes Mom, Apple Pie

In what can only be described as a thoroughly baffling move, Sen. Robert Hurt has voted against a bipartisan bill that would have extended unemployment benefits for laid-off workers. The bill, S.B. 239, was specifically directed at workers enrolled in retraining programs, and qualified those workers for up to 26 weeks of additional benefits. In today's vote, all 22 Senate Dems voted in favor of the bill, and yes, to their great credit, half the Senate GOP voted yes. It was actually introduced by Republican Sen. John Watkins of Midlothian. Special thanks to Martinsville's own Roscoe Reynolds, who was a co-sponsor.

Sen. Hurt, however, was one of nine Republicans in the State Senate to vote against the bill. More importantly, he was the only senator from the Southside to take that stand. For some reason, Hurt turned down a bill that should have been a political no-brainer. There are just some things you NEVER vote against under any circumstances, and unemployed workers certainly fall into that category. Moreover, the bill is funded by stimulus money, so Hurt can't even pull out the "we-don't-have-the-money" defense. I'd be very interested to see his statement when this inevitably becomes a media storm. For Robert Hurt to represent Southside and vote against helping unemployed workers is not just a terrible strategy, it's also woefully out of touch.

I'm not even angry about this. Just very, very puzzled. The only explanation I can think of is that Sen. Hurt is doing damage control with the Tea Party/extreme anti-spending wing of his party--maybe he thinks voting against anything connected to the stimulus will undo some of the damage he's taking for his vote on Mark Warner's budget. The problem? It won't work. He has just demolished his "sane moderate" image and, if this becomes a big story, he has alienated countless voters in what should be his strongest region. I wonder how much of this has to do with campaign consultant Chris LaCivita?

Now the bill will go to the House of Delegates. Will Morgan Griffith and his merry band reprise their notorious anti-stimulus/anti-middle class vote from last year? Only time will tell.

Music Monday: "The Real Me" by The Who

I think the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake "Wardrobe Malfunction" was the best thing to happen to the Super Bowl in years. Ever since then, it seems the NFL has had no choice but to put real musicians on for their halftime show--Paul McCartney, Tom Petty, The Who, etc. I guess when you can't cover up an abject lack of talent with sex and fireworks, it narrows the field. Anyway, I thought The Who did a stellar job last night, playing classics from their heyday. I don't know who he is, but their drummer fit in quite well; it can't be an easy task to fill John Bonham's shoes.

There was, however, one song I thought they should've played. Here's "The Real Me," from the chronically-underrated Quadrophenia album.



Don't get me wrong, Tommy is a classic. It was the first rock opera and has rightfully earned its place in music history. But as a fully realized, conceptually straightforward and coherent narrative, Quadrophenia is a far better album. Tommy has a tendency to ramble toward the end, and I personally still don't get how a deaf, dumb and blind kid could be redeemed by a pinball game. On the other hand, Quadrophenia hits you with "The Real Me" right away and builds into a few more rockers before the close of side 1. The album is energetic and more well-developed than its predecessors, and the whole thing just flows really well.

On top of that, the storyline is excellent--it presents an image of an adolescent British kid trying to fit into the youth culture of the day (is he a Mod or a Rocker?) and find his way in society. It is specific to 1960s/70s England, but the themes are pretty universal.

And as for the music itself...well, I mean it's The Who, man!

Congrats to the Saints

In honor of the Saints' victory in the Super Bowl, I've decided to post this video. A friend of mine sent it to me, and I don't think you can go wrong with a funny dog.



Though I was pulling for the Colts, I find it very difficult to be upset at a Saints victory. There's no doubt New Orleans could use a pick-me-up in light of the devastation that still exists in much of the city. Plus, I have mad respect for Drew Brees--not only is he a great player, but by all accounts he's also a good guy who does a lot for his community.

It sucks that football is over...but now it's only a few weeks until pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training.

McEachin Nails It on the Budget

State Sen. Donald McEachin absolutely throttled Gov. McDonnell for his myopic no-new-revenue-ever mantra in the face of the worst budget crisis in decades. This originally appeared at Blue Virginia and I wanted to pass it along, because frankly I think this needs to be VA Dems' operative message going forward in the McDonnell Administration. Below is some text from the film if you don't quite have time to watch the whole thing.

Mr. President, I for one cannot cotton, cannot accept the notion that we are about to even begin to conceive of crafting a budget that contains no new revenue. I'm happy to work with any member of this body in moving towards that reality. But make no mistake about it, Mr. President, we are morally bankrupt if we decide to balance this budget on the backs of the poor, on the backs of those who are vulnerable, on the backs of those who live in the margins. We are morally bankrupt, Mr. President, if we decide to balance this budget by putting more people out of work.

We all said we were for jobs, Mr. President, but what we have failed to tell the people of Virginia is that these budget cuts, we're no longer talking about fat, we're down to bone. As the Senator from Fairfax has said, we're down to amputations, Mr. President. We cannot put more people out of work, it is wrong, we ought not be about that business, and the words coming that have been coming from this side of the aisle, by those who have taken to this floor, have been trying to draw the connection between these budget cuts and loss of jobs.

We need 8,000 jobs a month just to catch up with the 201,000 jobs we've lost since 2007. I do not see any leadership from the third floor in that regard, and quite frankly Mr. President, after this past campaign, when we saw "Bob for Jobs," I expected better, and I do consider that to be a failure of the standards of leadership.

"We're down to bone" is something Richmond Republicans apparently don't understand--they seem hell-bent on wrecking even the most fundamental state services until nothing is left. Are conservatives the new anarchists?

Big hat tip: Lowell at Blue Virginia.

I-73 Clears a Hurdle; What Greens Should Learn

Those of you who have spent time driving along this blog's namesake between Roanoke and Martinsville may have noticed something: the smattering of road signs labeled "Future I-73 Corridor." As I've stated before, those signs have been there so long they've become almost a joke--in fact, I've given thought to re-naming this blog "Future I-73 Corridor." Maybe on April Fool's Day? We'll see.

Anyway, after over a decade of talking about and planning for the eventual construction of Interstate 73, the project cleared a significant legal hurdle last week. From the Martinsville Bulletin:

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal of Virginians for Appropriate Roads over construction of Interstate 73.

The court’s order was filed Monday.

The appeal was of U.S. District Senior Judge James C. Turk’s ruling in July against Virginians for Appropriate Roads, which sued federal and state highway and transportation officials.

The citizens group challenged the Federal Highway Administration’s Record of Decision on March 30, 2007, approving construction of I-73 between Interstate 81 near Roanoke and the Virginia/North Carolina state line.

The suit claimed that the highway administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not adequately considering alternatives to the approved corridor, including an upgrade of U.S. 220; not postponing environmental impact statement until construction funds for I-73 were available; and not considering the environmental impacts of the interstate project, according to court records. (My emphasis)

Pay attention, fellow progressives; there's a lesson here for environmentalists. I'm as green as they come--I completely support alternative energy, smart growth and cleaner lifestyles. I thoroughly oppose offshore drilling, uranium mining and nuclear power among other things. I'm also a big fan of the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House last year. But I think sometimes well-meaning Greenies are guilty of oversimplifying the ease with which our favored changes can be made.

For example, in the above quote, Virginians for Appropriate Roads wanted to see if U.S. 220 could simply be upgraded instead of building a new interstate. Anyone who has driven 220 for any amount of time can tell you how damn-near-impossible that would be. Route 220 is basically an old dirt road that got paved over, with steep hills, narrow lanes, hairpin turns and all. Throw in the fact that it's crawling with 18-wheelers and it becomes a remarkably unsafe and unsettling place to drive. Upgrading it would require just as much work (and probably just as much environmental impact) as building a new road altogether. Moreover, using a lawsuit to stall I-73 was a terrible idea from a strategic standpoint: holding up a project that would bring tangible economic benefits to places that badly need them is not exactly a PR win.

I guess what I'm saying is that we need to be honest about the fact that this is still an incredibly complicated issue; there's still a delicate balance between industry and environmental progress. Yes, we're trying to make a cleaner, greener world that will ultimately benefit all of us, but there are a lot of working-class people in our state who depend on the current economy for their livelihood. The biggest example of that is coal, which is basically the entire economy of the Southwest--it will take a long time to dislodge that, and we have to have an alternative to offer the folks who will lose their jobs when the mines close. Environmentalists should focus on promoting economic growth through green jobs and go into the big battles with a sense of humility. The I-73 case is a teachable moment, and I think we'd all do well to learn from it.

Music Monday: "Blue Ridge Mountains" by Fleet Foxes

After a one-week hiatus, Music Monday returns with the Fleet Foxes playing "Blue Ridge Mountains" live on Letterman. Here's the video:



The Fleet Foxes' self-titled debut album drew rave reviews and put them on the indie music map. I'm not really sure how to categorize the songs or what genre they fit into--maybe a bit of country/folk-rock? Whatever you want to call it, it's pretty excellent. It doesn't really sound like this, but for some reason it reminds me of Rubber Soul. The full instrumentation and intricate harmonies give the album a really unique sound and I highly recommend giving it a listen. "Sun it Rises," "Quiet Houses" and "Blue Ridge Mountains" are songs that stick in your mind. It's smooth, mellow and complex, and it's a great soundtrack for driving around the Virginia countryside. See you next Music Monday, and enjoy the Fleet Foxes.

WaPo: 5th District Tea Party, GOP Hold Foot-Shooting Party

This article in the Washington Post speaks volumes about the division in the Fifth District GOP. For the most part, the article gets it right--although I think it drastically overestimates Tom's vulnerability and makes the Fifth sound like an oversimplified backwater. Still, give this a look:

As in New York, Republican leaders in Virginia are backing a moderate state lawmaker, Sen. Robert Hurt, whose record enrages many conservatives, including a disparate band of Tea Party activists. To them, Hurt is not a real conservative because of his past support for tax increases, and they're promising a third-party challenge if he wins the nomination. And lurking on the sidelines is Virgil H. Goode Jr., the former GOP congressman who lost to Perriello by 727 votes and has hinted at running as an independent.

"We want a conservative, not a situational Republican," said Laurence Verga, a business owner from the Charlottesville area and one of five Tea Party candidates in the Republican primary. "I really believe the 5th District congressional election is about the soul of American politics." (My emphasis)

But that's nothing compared to this:

It started when national and state Republican leaders began urging Hurt, an affable lawyer from rural Pittsylvania County, to get into the race. Hurt had name recognition and a political base. And his moderate views -- he voted for a $1 billion tax package in 2004 and for smaller tax increases in a roads plan in 2007 -- might play well with independent-minded voters.

But many conservatives were angered not just because they oppose Hurt's moderation but also because they are deeply resentful of being told who their candidate will be by party leaders in Richmond and Washington. Their anger grew when Hurt's supporters successfully pushed for a primary over a convention, giving him a more inclusive format that tends to favor moderates. Hurt also received $7,000 from U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip, confirming Tea Party suspicions that the GOP was fully involved.

"The fact of the matter is that Robert Hurt is the establishment candidate, and it appears that the GOP is doing everything it can to make sure he is the nominee," said Bill Hay, who leads the Jefferson Area Tea Party organization in the Charlottesville area. "That's causing a whole lot of bad blood right now between some of the Tea Party people."

Wow. Robert Hurt = the establishment. I never would have thought I'd hear conservatives throwing around that meme. Far be it from me to tell the righties how to run their primary, but I'd be embarrassed if 5th District Dems had this kind of discord.

But this is the most beautiful quote of all:

One option is to unite behind a single candidate. But they also discussed the possibility of recruiting Goode, who has not ruled out an independent bid. That would almost certainly split the Republican vote and deliver the victory to Perriello, which doesn't bother some.

"If Robert Hurt wins, then we have an ideologically inconsistent congressman for a couple of decades," said Bradley S. Rees, a conservative blogger and talk-radio host in Bedford. "I would rather we had an ideologically consistent Democrat who we can hammer on their records. We'll get Perriello in 2012 -- with a stronger, more consistent candidate."

Sure thing, buddy, we'll do that. We'll be happy to take you on with two more years of incumbency under our belt. Who is giving these guys their advice? I'm starting to think the activists have reached a saturation point where nobody's really sure what the right move is anymore. I can kind of respect the idea of demanding some sort of ideological commitment from a nominee, but their comes a point when it's just too much too ask of a general electorate. I never thought I'd see the day when Robert Hurt would be vulnerable from his own right--it will certainly be an interesting one to watch.

Tom on Southside's New Energy Economy

Congressman Tom Perriello gave Southside Virginia quite a shout-out from the House floor this past Tuesday, and I wanted to pass it along:



My favorite quote from the whole speech: "...and spending one billion dollars every day on oil that goes overseas to some of the countries that hate us the most is one of the dumbest strategies imaginable." Call it like it is. Way to be, Tom!

State of the Union

Last night I gathered with about 20 or so Martinsville-Henry County Democrats to watch the State of the Union and Governor McDonnell's response. The crowd was very receptive and enthusiastic, and I think they'll be energized for the coming election. I don't want to simply echo what the rest of the blogosphere is saying about SOTU, so I'll try to keep my comments fairly brief.

Overall, I think the President did a pretty good job. It was encouraging to see him out front, in his element, delivering a pep talk we all desperately needed to hear. I was especially glad to hear his plan to give the $30 billion in repaid bailout money to community banks--McDonnell's line about the closest government to the people being the most effective could also be applied to financial institutions. I'll expound on this in an upcoming post about the "move-your-money" phenomenon, but I trust my local credit union a lot more than I would ever trust Bank of America.

I was also glad to hear Obama talking up Stimulus/Recovery Act projects and the huge middle-class tax cuts his administration has put in place over the last year. By the way, Dems need a major PR blitz on these issues--why we cede the "cutting taxes" line to the Republicans is beyond me, especially since the Bush tax cuts mostly benefited the wealthiest Americans and helped create the massive deficit they're suddenly so concerned about. We also need major damage control to defeat the "the stimulus failed" meme; imperfect as the bill may have been, the fact remains that it very likely kept a lot of cops, teachers and road workers out of the unemployment line. Without it, there's little doubt that unemployment would be much higher and state and local governments would have fewer resources to deal with that burden.

The export-oriented language was good to hear, though I do have some concerns. Obviously it's desirable to shoot for more American exports, thus creating more jobs here at home. Ending corporate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas is a common-sense policy we should have been pursuing years ago. (It was a major applause line for Dems, but GOP Inc. stayed silent and seated. To any conservative Tea Party readers, that should tell you everything you need to know about who really cares about saving American jobs.) However, I would have liked to hear more about fundamental trade reform. If we really want to bring back some manufacturing jobs, we have to renegotiate NAFTA (as he promised during the campaign) and we need to use our leverage in the WTO to make trade fair. That means no more child labor, uniform environmental restrictions and labor laws comparable to those of the U.S. and Europe. President Obama did mention a lack of enforcement in the current trade agreements, so hopefully we'll be moving in a positive direction.

The spending freeze? I'm skeptical. The cynical part of me says it's a gimmick that plays too much into the Republican narrative. On the other hand, it is true that our deficits are a serious problem--though it's blatant hypocrisy for Republicans to blame Obama for the deficits they built over eight long years. Yes, the stimulus is a big part of it, but that's what we call emergency spending--and it would have been a lot more manageable if we hadn't already been in a big hole. Regardless, I do admit that we need to address the deficit or it will eventually bankrupt us. So let's build roads, pay teachers, and create a better health care system, but let's pay for those things with real money.

As for McDonnell's response...*yawn*. It was standard Republican trope after standard Republican trope. It's as if Bob studied "Reaganomics 4 Dummies" flash cards before he went into the GOP-only HoD Chamber last night. He might as well have just yelled out "Drill, Baby, Drill!" over and over again--by the way, did anybody else get a really ominous feeling when his General Assembly colleagues got so excited about oil drilling off Virginia's coast? I hope they realize that one accident would turn our fisheries into toxic sludge and destroy our coastal tourism.Oh, and McDonnell's comment about defeating terrorists instead of protecting them was simplistic, jingoistic, inflammatory, and dishonest. For a governor to spout such nonsense on a national stage is inexcusable.

Although I guess it's pretty cool that a Virginia governor has given the SOTU response twice in the last four years. Anyway, I'm breaking my promise about a short post.

UPDATE: Rep. Tom Perriello nails it in his response to the State of the Union address:

“Tonight, I heard our President talk about jobs. I heard our Governor talk about jobs. I won’t stop until we turn this talk into real action and results for working families.

A year ago, we took dramatic steps to stop the bleeding and we’re starting to see the signs of recovery. Now we must be the change we promised by getting lending going to our small businesses, investing in our transportation infrastructure, and educating our workforce. It’s time to change our economic strategy from speculation on Wall Street to job creation on Main Street.

America can out-compete any country in the world if we reward innovation instead of failure, get our fiscal house in order, and restore the promise of the middle class.” (My emphasis)

Well said, Tom.

Sierra Club Campaigns for ACES

Last night I attended a really interesting meeting at the Danville Public Library auditorium. The event was put on by the Sierra Club, which is building grassroots support in the Fifth for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as Cap and Trade. Congressman Perriello took a courageous stand earlier this year by voting for it--even though the pundits all said he shouldn't. The Danville Register-Bee covered the event:

About 30 people brainstormed ideas to build support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act — also known as the cap-and-trade bill — which aims to reduce pollution and create green energy jobs. The legislation has received both strong praise and criticism for its plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

Trieste Lockwood, clean energy field organizer for the Sierra Club, said the organization has not had a strong presence in Southside for some time. Lockwood said the Sierra Club’s goal in Southside was to support 5th District Rep. Tom Perriello’s vote for the bill in June 2009.

“We’re working to support this bill because of all the clean energy jobs it will create in the country,” Lockwood said. “It will create a million jobs in the country and 45,000 in Virginia. I feel this area specifically will largely benefit because of the agricultural and manufacturing history.”

Local companies such as Red Birch Energy in Bassett and Piedmont BioProducts in Gretna are aiming to repurpose the local agricultural sector, transforming former tobacco fields into clean energy production in Southside. Lockwood and others said the ACES bill would further increase the green energy industry locally.

...

Lockwood said she was happy with the turnout and seemed optimistic for establishing a grassroots base in Southside in favor of the ACES bill.

“It’s good to know that people in the Southside care about the energy plan and the jobs it will create,” she said. “It’s this set of smart policies that will help clean energy happen in Southside.” (My emphasis)

This is very encouraging--Tom has taken a lot of flak from the righties over his ACES vote, even though the legislation will create forty-five thousand jobs in the state and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It's ironic that the supposedly security-minded Republicans would oppose something that will stop billions of dollars from going to unstable countries that don't like us. Then of course, there's the whole "clean" aspect of clean energy; it would be nice to stop ripping up the atmosphere and polluting our rivers.

Props to Trieste and all the Sierra Club volunteers who came out last night!