I definitely support Ken Cuccinelli. He is highly intelligent & has guts to pursue his beliefs. Good eg - the repeal of Obamacare. Ken has never lost an election yet & he will not lose this one either. He works hard to preserve the VA values & laws. Terry McAuliffe has a lot of money & that is about it.

You bet! All elected offices should be term limited.

that's just some blogger.....

I agree Lea!

you smell like an idiot - open mouth and insert leg...

Cuccinelli is a no nonsense guy & protects the laws of VA. He is running to help our great state. Terry is again, just running to run for something.

Its too bad that legislatively Mark Warner is more and more of a disappointment every year. Does McAuliffe really live in Va.?

Do you live in VA? If so, an alternative perhaps would be the District or the People's Republic.

that's the way to win an argument, Brad L....lie about Obama....very impressive

Oldtowner -

While I agree Obama is not a Dictator, he's the closest thing to a Totalitarian we've ever had.

So OldTownie....point out where I lied. Speaking of NOT impressive ....

The only thing that has been destroying this county is the Republicans with their borrow and spend policies!

@chris ambrose...LOL repubs with borrow and spend ? Clearly you must be at a 2nd grade education level.

Brad L: Perfect example of how the GOP has become the party of borrow and spend: the ENTIRE first decade. Borrowed all our future's on a credit card with no funding for 2 wars and the donut hole. Then used taxpayer money to subsidize subprime home lending (see the root of the in his Rose Garden speech, June, 2002, WH archives and some YouTube coverage).

It's exactly because of the GOP borrow and spend (ie: no taxes, it's all FREEE whheeeee) that we are in the current economic mess. Brad, seems you are the one in desparate need of modern history as you are living in an alternative universe.

There probably will be, but the Libertarians don't have anyone with any credibility AT THIS POINT.

Is right of center someone that was an activist women protectionist at UVa when he was an undergraduate?

Judy, really!An ag who sues climatoligists and the feds over Obamacare.REALLY?

But we need CANDIDATES first. Candidate development is not something one can do in a month or two.

He got out and is making big $ - which is another problem with the system.

Tom Davis is a Rhino why would he make a difference?

He's still at MWAA, believe it or not. And so are a few others.

Bravo JimTh -

More government = less liberty.

Oh yeah, Jim Th: Cuccinelli is really for liberty and freedom of choice for women! That's a laugh. I'm no huge fan of McAuliffe, but Cuccinelli is scary.

I don't understand your comment JimTh. I value liberty above almost all else, and see neither candidate doing spit to ensure I keep it. So what is clear about it?

i totally agree with you, KEL. I'd rather vote for anything or anyone other than Cuccinelli. Extremism of his type doesn't belong in the U.S. Ever.

TTS - You belong in North Korea.

Kel has no facts as usual. He's a lib trying to ruin the country as is Dictator 0bama.

If you like Mother Russia or Obama then McCarpetbagger is your man.

Betty, you are absolutely right. We cannot afford to obsess over social issues lsuch as abortion while we have a jobs crisis. A jobs crisis that has been axacerbated by sequester. Ken cuccinelli will do just that, focus on those social issues. At the same time, with his extreme "starve the beast" mentality, he will do nothing to seek mitigation of the sequester's impact on VA.

By the way, if you feel contraception is the way to reduce abortions, then Ken is definitely not your guy. cuccinelli is on the record opposing contraception.

I don't like either, they are too far to the left and right for me. As far as the dark ages...you haven't seen Cuccinelli's family at church, have you? All his girls are missing are the bonnets. I always look around for little Joe to pop up with his wagon. Yeah, I know that's not the dark ages but we still don't need to go back to when a woman's place was in the kitchen slaving over her man.

Maybe you can elaborate Betty Martin Fairfax County is dominated by democrat politicians.

I agree. We need to stay away from the social issues when there are people out there suffering from lack of jobs or cut-downs to their present job. It is pretty bad when our military has their school bill benefits pulled out from under them! They deserve to be treated better than that. The economy is a mess. The US is in so much debt. We need to study our candidates for true leadership potential - candidates that want to build this country up. I think that Cuccinelli is the one to help VA!

Speaking of an idiot Analyst...

Good post, "The Analyst." It never ceases to amaze me how some of these quacks manage to see the U.N., which is about as dominating as a tadpole to be an organization filled with evil, ingenious masterminds.

Republicans and Republican policies are to blame for virtually every problem the U.S. has right now.

TGG you need to learn facts. You fall into the same mold as Analyst who obviously can't analyze anything. You liberals are ruining this country. Your children, if you can find anyone to be with you, will be paying for the debts created by Dictator 0bama.

Brad L. You are the idiot. The debt we have are Republican debt. Obama has gut over half a $trillion from the Bush deficit and over $2 Trillion from future deficits. Almost ever dime on the Debt he inherited were incurred as a result of Republican borrow and Spend polices started by Reagan.

Reagan quadroupled the size of the debt. Clinton cleaned up his mess by balancing the budget. Then bush more than doubled the debt again and left Obama with a ruined economy and a $1.4 Trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009 (which started 4 months before Obama took office). The Bush deficit has been brought down to $900 billion under Obama. Still entirely too large but 1/2 Trillion less than the Republican mess he inherited.

It would be much better if the Republicans in Congress would have accepted one of the four grand bargains he has offered. They never care about debt, they only care about making sure the richest people in the country don't have to pay taxes!

Chris Ambrose, you need to understand out to read data and understand facts son. I realize you are a stupid liberal who can do neither however. You simply can't help it.

Brad L: Try a little civility and rational approach to a dialogue. You have repeatedly called names of anyone who disagrees with you to "dictator" "stupid" and :"idiot.

As is often said, we judge others as we see ourselves. Your words simply reflect how you see yourself: "dictator" "stupid" and "idiot".

You're giving any other conservative on this board a bad rap. Knock it off.

Brad L. I understand conservatives are uncomfortable with facts, but then just ignore them. Don't responsd to a listing of very factual data that demonstrates to anyone that Republicans are much worse deficit spenders than Democrats by saying I "don't know how to read data." What in the data is wrong? The problem you have is nothing is wrong. Anyone familiar with the facts knows the Democrats have been much more fiscally conservative than Republicans for the past half century. You need to go back to Eisenhower to find a fiscally conservative Republican!

um....Betty Martin.....your property taxes are determined by your local government...either county or city government. The Governor does not set your property tax. Just saying.....

Yes, and the BOS is getting ready to raise our property taxes. Guess what party most of the BOS belongs to? Democrat.

oldtowner - perhaps you too would enjoy the People's Republic much better.

Less Government = More Liberty

OLDTOWNIE you need to get your head out of the place it's dark and stinky. You libs just want to raise taxes and grow govt and it's clearly ruining this country.

Democrats know nothing except TAXING people. We are going to be like Cyprus where they try and just take 10% from everyones bank accounts. But that's probably Dictator 0bama's strategy because his followers generally have no money because they max out all of their credit cards month to month just like his Government.

How does that work, Betty? Do you believe jobs get created out of thin air by rich people who've been propitiated by having their taxes lowered? Are you comfortable driving around on crumbling roads, failing bridges, and around our decaying infrastructure? I guess so, because you have the ridiculous notion that we can run a state without actually paying for the costs of having it. You're worried about taxes when you should be worried about things like the infrastructure and access to emergency and safety services. What do you think pays for those things anyway? That's right, Betty. It's taxes. That's how we give you all the things you take for granted and which you believe we can have without actually paying for them.

again, Betty....it was Gov. McDonnell who raised your sales taxes.....He's a Republican, dear

But the sales tax is a regressive tax. That means it is applied uniformly and everyone pays their fare share and the sales tax applies to everyone. It's not like someone else is paying the tax for you but you still get to enjoy the benefits the tax supports.

Actually Ronald, you are describing a flat or proportional tax. You are right. The sales tax is regressive. That means that lower income people pay a HiGHER portion of their income for the tax than well off people.

And how will Terry McCarpetbagger a member of the party of always higher taxes prevent that?

couldn't agree more with Catzmaw.....

Boy do you have your priorities screwed up! Yes let's elect a crook who knows how to scam money.

Catzmaw: No offense, but you are going overboard. None of what you mentioned means a hill of beans to people who are not working especially kids who just graduated college and still can't find a job. At some point, the taxes are too much. You should check the tax rates in Virginia and Fairfax County. When you add everything up including fees for business licenses, etc., it is close to 50%. We all want nice roads, but enough is enough. We first need jobs. And McAuliffe is busy golfing with Obama and creating jobs outside of Virginia. He's never really done anything other than try to run a campaign for Hillary Clinton and we all know how that turned out. I actually use to to be a Democrat and supported Hillary Clinton, but the Democrats are too focused on social issues. We need someone who cares about small business and Obamacare is killing small businesses. We need someone who understands that. Yes. People need good health care, but they don't need Obamacare. There needs to be sane solutions. And you know people can take personal responsbility and use contraception. There are alternatives to abortion. It seems like the Democrats are only worried about sexual issues. We need to put food on the table too.

Why doesn't UVA release the emails? If there is nothing to hide then there shouldn't be a problem. Just like the wonderful transparency we have with the current occupant of the WH. You libs will vote for McAuliffe because you don't have the courage to think.

@Catzmaw wrote:

"We're located on a seacoast which is facing rising waters due to global climate change..."

This is patently false. Fact is, sea levels in the Atlantic Ocean have fallen at least 19 inches in the last 1,000 years. Sea levels have risen before and sea levels have fallen before because, wait for it, the climate does change - naturally.

Catzmaw is clearly ignorant of the facts.

Catzmaw and oldtowner why would you disagree with the Constitution? As for Global Warming or Climate Change it always happens moot point. Then again don't know why abortion clinics can't be regulated they do perform medical procedures. Don't know where he said he agreed with invasive ultrasound.

That's wrong. He emphatically stated that the reason he didn't want his son to get a social security number is because he would be "tracked." Sorry, buddy. You've got it wrong!!

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/politics/25virginia.html?_r=0

"More recently, he has been channeling the fears and frustrations many tea partiers feel toward the federal government. While campaigning last year, he told a crowd he was considering not registering his son for a Social Security number because “it is being used to track you.”"

There ya go!! Do you feel better now?

Now what about them "Grays" coming out of UFOs to steal your chickens?

My theory about Tea Partiers is this:

The X-Files was a Sci-Fi show on Fox about diabolical conspiracy theories launched by a subversive government against its people. Tea Partiers, who I'm sure are devotees of Fox News, correlated Fox News with the Fox broadcasint network and concluded the following:

The X-Files was a documentary!

This theory explains a lot!

I'll still take my chances over a candidate who, as another blogger put it, "is grounded in reality, does approve of science, and is not interested in forcing women to undergo invasive procedures." With Cuccinelli at the helm, can the jackboots be far behind? We don't need a governor who uses bullying tactics to force compliance. Is this what someone else's notion of "moral man" is? Better change to another church.

Let's see now. Kookenelli has spent a few mil $ on going after UVA for so-called 'bad' climate science and a few more mil $ taking on and losing against Obamacare. Hey a few mil here and a few mil there and we might get some decent roads in NOVA.

KELp likes to call people names because she doesn't have any facts.

What 1Ronald is trying to say is that i love the jackbooted Obama thugs that are already here. Someone please assassinate that mofo.

APL you should change it to Another Liberal Who Knows No Facts. You make statements that are outright lies. Oh wait, you learned this from Dictator 0bama and his minions.

I don't know how you can consider women's health care a "sexual issue" but to answer your question, the only reason democrats are "worried" about those issues is because of the Republicans persistent efforts to focus on restricting those rights.

Betty, of course you are right. However the liberals don't understand facts and truth.

Name one prominent tea bagger in each scientific field with any reasonable set of credentials. And BTW, working as a 'scientist' while on the drug company dole doesn't doesn't count.

KEL you seem to have an agenda son. Define "tea bagger". Do you mean someone who believes in our constitution as opposed to Dictator 0bama? You need to learn the facts.

APL the USA will be bankrupt way before global warming effects us.

Are you the one driving the car with the windmill?

When the climate stops changing we are all dead.

Over 31,000 scientists deny climate change as well, many of whom used to believe in the theory before the infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph' was debunked as a fraud.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Wrong patriotic liberal( lol i get the joke). Republicans have supported adult stemcell research for years. Its embryonic stemcell research we dont believe in. No cures or reliefs to its record.

So Thomas Jefferson was not a patriot? Abraham Lincoln was a liberal, was he not a patriot?

Chris Ambrose Lincoln was a Republican.

John smith. I never said Lincoln was not a Republican. I Said he was a liberal. That was when the Republican party was the progressive party and the Democrats were the conservatives.

It's clearly evident!

Please read Terry's activities regarding Global Crossing. Entrepreneurship?? More like insider trading fraud. Dio you think he didn't know when to pull out and make his 100k 18 mill? Shame on you for supporting this 1%er crook.

And why is Virginia becoming 'increasingly moderate?' Because Liberals, when they destroy one City and/or state like Maryland then move to a 'red' state where they can begin their assault on liberty and freedom. Our liberty and freedom have been under attack for 80+ years and we must endure a fight just as long to reclaim it for our kids sake.

Otherwise, our kids are screwed.

Lee Hernly, I always have to laugh when conservatives equate the rise of the modern mixed economy since the 1930s as an "assualt on liberty and freedom." While the Democrats have been championing things like Social Security, Medicare, a quality environment, investing in science, eduction, roads and infrasctructure etc, etc, etc. Republicans have been on the assualt on people's personal lives regarding things as personal as health care decisions and who people can marry. I have to scratch my head, how do programs that imporove people's life expectancy and quality of life assualt freedom, but laws specifically restricting your feedom don't?

I presume you haven't noticed that the increase in life expectancy and quality of life over the past 80 years has been many times greater than that of the previous 200 years. It might be nostolgic to be able to go back and time 100 or even 200 years and see how people lived. But anyone seriously wanting to live a quality life, will take the era of "big government" any day.

@Chris -

Before the Liberal assault on our economy in the 30s, government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged about 3%. It is now near 25% of GDP and growing. As Benjamin Franklin said:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Conservatives are for some government. Some government is good yes. I remember smog-filled days in my childhood so yes, the EPA has done some good.

The problem is, government has FAR exceeded it's limits under the Constitution and the federal government has been shredding the Constitution since the mid-1800s. The modern-day Democrat party has ramped that up in the last 40+ years.

[..]

@Chris -

[..]

As for Social Security and Medicare, the actuaries for both, appointees of President Obama, have come out and said that both need reform - NOW. Both are deeply in debt in unfunded liabilities (meaning the federal government doesn't have the money) to the tune of somewhere between $86T to $132T dollars or 550-900% of GDP. Some economists peg that figure closer to $200T.

So how have those two Liberal policies work out? This is why all Liberalism does is redistribute misery.

"Republicans have been on the assualt on people's personal lives regarding things as personal as health care decisions and who people can marry."

Really? Considering just how badly Liberals have intruded into people's lives over the decades, that's a LOL. The recent abortion law in Virginia was simply an update of the informed consent law considering 99%+ of abortion clinics were already performing ultrasounds. As for gay marriage, last I looked, the people voted for a Constitutional Amendment in Virginia, not the Republicans.

Lee, of course the government spends more than in the 1920s, and with it has come tremendous growth. I don't know about you, but I would prefer to pay 30% in income taxes with the current per capital income of over $50,000 as opposed to 10% income taxes with a per capita income of 80 years ago, which was $750.

With those taxes came tremendous growth, economic security, and quality of life improvements.

By the way, where is the EPA in the constitution? Too bad a number of Republicans want to abolish it.

Brina,

I have read about this and I see no basis for your accusation of insider trading fraud. I do not subscribe to the “automatic guilt” reaction. He was an investor, but he was never an employee, he never served on the Board, and the SEC ruled “no wrong doing,” after an extensive investigation. He made an investment in a fiber-optic cable company that was initially extremely successful but eventually filed for bankruptcy at a time in the early 2000’s when many other technology startups also began to fail. So, no, I don’t really buy into all the conspiracy theories on that.

Brian,
Sorry for the typo on you rname. I meant "Brian," not "Brina."

@Chris -

For the EPA, I am all for cutting its budget in half.

"Lee, of course the government spends more than in the 1920s, and with it has come tremendous growth.

[..]

With those taxes came tremendous growth, economic security, and quality of life improvements. "

So, Government creates growth in the economy? For Government to 'create growth in the economy,' it has to take money out of the economy from you the taxpayer. So, in actuality, government spending stalls the growth of the economy.

As for:

" I don't know about you, but I would prefer to pay 30% in income taxes with the current per capital income of over $50,000 as opposed to 10% income taxes with a per capita income of 80 years ago, which was $750."

Personally, you and I could sit down over a beer and knock government spending back to the levels it was in the pre-1930s (3% of GDP). This would reduce spending to around $400B to $450B a year and would abolish the need for the IRS so you and I could keep more of our income instead of handing it over to the government.

Now, that's what I call 'hope & change'.

@Chris -

BTW/ where is Medicare in the Constitution? When Medicare was passed in the 60s, Liberals promised that Medicare spending would never exceed $12 billion a year (Liberals promise a lot of things and never own up to it - I used to be one myself...). It's now over $400 billion a year with a deficit/unfunded liabilities in the neighborhood of $43 Trillion dollars (that's trillion with a T) and growing daily.

If nothing is done, our kids will be faced with dealing with this insurmountable debt.

Lee, it looks like you need to take econ 101. The government does not take money out of the economy. What do you think it does with revenue, stick it under a mattress? The government invests the money right back into the economy. I am not saying every that the government (or private sector) spends money on creates a significant return, but in most cases both the private sector and government sector investments make returns. Only a complete idiot would deny that the tremendous growth and quality of life improvements in the post WWII era are not largely the result of government.

Moderate Virginia is the answer to continued loss of individual rights and liberties by the Republican Evangelical Party who have continually passed more and more laws that have manufactured criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Money for jails. Not roads. Not schools. All that jail money could go for decent things for decent folks. Nationally, Republicans have and continue to want to engage the US in foreign wars on foreign soil to prove what? $1 Trillion lost in Iraq and growing. And complaining because Obama wants to wind down the war in Afghanistan. And we're doing all we can to hold them back from Syria. They will keep spending until the US dollar is worth zero. Forget our kids. Forget their grandkids. We're in too deep to see the top of the hole. Which NOW is the time to start a THIRD PARTY. Before 2016. Before Jeb and Hillary duke it out.

@Chris-

" The government does not take money out of the economy."

Then where does the money come from? It doesn't grow on trees unlike what the majority of Liberals think. The money comes from taxes, fees, etc that you and I pay. So you and I take our money and hand it over to the government. The government then redistributes that money.

Considering we're $16 Trillion in debt (as much a $100-$148 Trillion if you count the unfunded liabilities of Social Security & Medicare), exactly how has government helped 'grow the economy'?

Again, some government is good. It sounds like you need the facts of life for Liberals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLr2if-BdA4

@Chris

The great Milton Friedman explains why your economic thinking is pure fallacy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc

That's more positives then McCarpetbagger will ever have Barbara.

Too bad about more global warming lies eh Patriotic Liberal nudge nudge.

I think that Mr. US white male Lee Hernley get off the Internet, turn off the electricity, give back all of his books if he has any, forget everything he was ever taught in school, turn over the keys to his car ( let alone drive on any road) and swear to never go to see a physician or PA at a hospital or clinic because for each of these institutions or systems we have committed the sin of socialism.

I think that KEL has an agenda. Is that you Terry? KEL has demonstrated that he is a socialist just like Dictator 0bama, hell bent on ruining this country.

Cut taxes in Virginia? I would like to pay less in taxes too. Everyone would. But Virginia has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country. Virginia is no longer a rural backwater. It has urban areas that are what drive the economic prosperity in the commonwealth and, like it or not, urban areas need resources unless you would prefer to choke off the quality off life and halt the economic engine of VIrginia.

The last time I checked, revenue did not grow on trees. I know Republicans have become delusional to the point that they think cutting government waste will solve all our budget problems and allow us to lower taxes. Look at our transportation situation. You have Ken Cuccinelli still arguing, after decades of drift on this issue, that we could find the money in the budget to upgrade our roads without raising taxes. He is either being dishonest, or has no comprehension of the situation. Either way, it makes him not qualified to be Governor.

Brian is correct. But the libs don't understand facts and clearly don't like the TRUTH.

Dude Tim Kaine was the biggest job killer the state has ever known and John Warner as well as Jim Moran have their pockets so deep in the defense industry, how will they explain themselves to Virginians. Va. was long good for business with many jobs and low taxes.

I agree. I like Bolling as well. Too bad we don't have more choices.

Against was actually what I meant. Typo...

Bolling was turning into a Rhino he would of made things worse like Tim Kaine. Wonder who paid off Bolling.

Ellie, if you think suing academics, ruling that universities can't prohibit discrimination, bullying members of the Board of Health by telling them to ignore thier professional opinion or else his office would not defend them if they were sued, and wasting precious tax dollars on frivoulous law suits charactorizes "an effective Attorney General" you are living in an alternate word. Ken has been a disaster for Virginia. He has scared business away from the state by making us a laughing stock.

Frankly, you are a laughing stock if you think we can find a couple billion a year under some rock to pay for our transporation needs - especially since you indicate that you don't want to touch eduction. Even your Republican friends in the legislature admit they would have had to decimate education to even attempt a plan like that.

@Chris -

Suing academics? Considering that Dr. Mann's infamous 'hockey stick graph' has been proven to be a fraud for the 2nd time, if Dr. Mann took money to propagate this fraud, wouldn't you want your tax dollars back? If the scientist were a Republican, I'm betting the answer would be yes.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/the-hockey-stick-broken-again.php

"ruling that universities can't prohibit discrimination"

Under Virginia law, public universities cannot make laws against discrimination on their own which is the essence of what the Cuccinelli memo said. No where in the memo did the AG state he condoned discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

As for your misleading Board of Health mention, issued a memo that warned the Board of Health that if they acted outside the scope of their duties/authority that his office may not be able to defend them.

As John Adams used to say: 'Facts are stubborn things.'

The Democrats still stand for the same values that did for the past 80 years. The only thing that has changed is that they have become more inclusive as the country has changed. 80 years ago, they were not the party of civil rights. The Republican party of Eisenhower no longer exists. Eisenhower understood that government could be a powerful force for good. Eisenhower was also the last fiscal conservative Republican. Fiscal conservativism has become totally a Democratic concept, for the past 30 years.

Israel has changed alot since the time of JFK. JFK would never have supported the Israeli policy of land confiscation and forced expulsions of Palestinians.

By the way, George Bush is the one who shut down the space program.

@Chris -

JFK was a supply-sider who believed tax cuts spurred economic growth instead of raising taxes so that the government can redistribute the money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScMvZinMb6E

So no, today's Democratic party does not believe in the same things that the Democrats did in Eisenhower's era. The Constitution is one of the most beautifully written documents in human history but it is also one of the most flawed. The difference between Conservatives and the establishment (whether Liberal Democrat or Liberal Republican) is that where the Constitution is silent, Liberals want to assert their will over the people (as you have stated you support). Conservatives believe the power belongs to the people and yes are the only one's looking out for the minority.

"Fiscal conservativism has become totally a Democratic concept, for the past 30 years."

Q: Who is the only President in human history to run $1T+ deficits?

In 2008, President Obama called George Bush's adding $4T in debt 'unpatriotic' yet he's proceed to add $6T+ in less time than Bush.

"Israel has changed alot since the time of JFK. JFK would never have supported the Israeli policy of land confiscation and forced expulsions of Palestinians."

The Palestinians gave up the land they seek in 1948 when they refused to accept that land as a state for them.

Lee, there you conservatives go again. Supply economics is voodoo economics and is a dead theory that has been left on the ash heap of history. Kennedy's decision to cut taxes was a simple pragmatic one that Democrats would still do today: Eisenhower and the Republican Congress had raised taxes so high, that income was effectively capped at $200,000 a year. He did that because it was necessary to pay off the WWII debt. Unlike the Republicans of today, he also said the country could still afford to invest. With that, Eisenhower initiated the interstate highway system, NASA and brought the federal government into public education for the first time.

By the time Kennedy took office, Eisenhower's investments had paid off, the debt was largely retired and taxes could be cut. Republicans seem to think that Democrats support taxes just for the sake of taxing people. No, we support taxes because we are fiscal conservatives who believe you should pay for the services we demand from Government.

You have your facts wrong on Obama. He inherited terrible deficits from Bush but has made dramatic cuts in the defict despite the Bush depression and complete obstructionism by the borrow and spend Republicans in the House.

Chris, there you go again with misleading statements.

Every time federal taxes have been cut, federal revenue has gone up. It happened after the 1919 depression, in the 1960's under JFK, in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, in 1996 after Clinton cut taxes, and yes even during Bush 43's reign when he governed economically like a Liberal (the deficit in 2007 was down to $168B because of the tax cuts).

So no, supply-side economics is not 'voodoo economics'. It has a proven track record of success.

Now, as for Eisenhower, in one of your other comments, you identified President Eisenhower as a Conservative. The Eisenhower administration expanded Social Security, instituted the federal highway system through the implementation of gas taxes and by working with a Democratic Congress (not Republican - Democrats won both Houses in '54) to raise tax rates to 91%. Eisenhower may have been 'a Conservative' but, he left much of his domestic policy to his cabinet and to the Democratic Congress. This action caused the multitude of recessions in the 50's and early 60's. Eisenhower did not believe in cutting taxes until the budget was balanced. With expenditures on the rise, it was never going to happen.

Eisenhower said: "We cannot afford to reduce taxes, and reduce income until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."

So no, Eisenhower's actions were nothing of a Conservative.

Chris wrote -

"You have your facts wrong on Obama. He inherited terrible deficits from Bush but has made dramatic cuts in the defict despite the Bush depression and complete obstructionism by the borrow and spend Republicans in the House."

The deficit was $400B when President obama took office which Obama immediately turned into a $1.4T deficit. The deficit, until this FY, has not been below $1T since. So where are the dramatic cuts? The recent sequester was only a cut in the growth of government spending, not real cuts by any stretch of the imagination.

As for a 'depression', the depression of 1919 was much worse than the recent one as were Eisenhower's recessions and the great recession of 1981-1982.

As Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste eh?

I must say, Mr. Hernly, you certainly to like creating your own facts.

Here's a link to the deficit:

http://www.federalbudget.com/

If you can't read that, it clearly states the deficit in 2008 was 10T, long before Obama was in office.

This site isn't Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or the Glenn Beck show. You can't just make things up and expect them to be blindly believed without question. We all realize that the "Make things up and trick 'em" mode of operation has been the de-facto standard for the Republican Party since 2000, but it's worn off. More people now disbelieve you than ever before.

Here's a new trick you, Boehner, McConnell, and the entire Republican Party should try: HONESTY.

... who knows, it just might work ... but you'd also have to start dealing with facts and reality.

@tg -

"If you can't read that, it clearly states the deficit in 2008 was 10T, long before Obama was in office."

There is a difference between the annualized deficit and the National Deficit. I was speaking about an annual deficit. The annual deficit, for FY 2009, was $400B when Obama took office, according to the budget for that year. President Obama voted for and instituted much of TARP $800B+ as well as a cadre of other spending which took the deficit for that FY to $1.4T +.

The National Debt/Deficit (http://usdebtclock.org/) is a accumulation of the annual deficits. Yes, the National Debt was $10T in 2008, due in large part to George Bush 43 governing economically like a Liberal. In 2008, President Obama called Bush 43 adding $4T in debt during his 8 years 'unpatriotic' and has proceeded to almost add more debt than the first 43 President's and has projected major annual deficits that make Bush 43's pale by comparison for years to come.

Our kids deserve better and don't deserve the fiscal child abuse that the Liberal politicians (Repewbics & Democrats) in Washington are heaping upon them.

"This site isn't Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or the Glenn Beck show. You can't just make things up and expect them to be blindly believed without question."

I do my own research, unlike Liberals, who watch the liberal-leaning MSDNC, NBC, ABC, and CBS News and take it as Gospel. My best advice for you is to turn your TV off and do your own research.

@TG -

BTW/ I am not a Republican. I am a Conservative first and foremost and yes I do back Republican candidates that are Conservative.

Lee Hernly you really need to get your facts straight. You say that the budget deficit was $400 Billion when Obama took office? WRONG! The defict for fiscal 2009, which was put forward by Bush 1 year before Obama took office and started 4 months before Obama took office, was $1.4Trillion. As of FY 2013 it is projected to be $900 Billion. Still unacceptably large due to the Republican House's unwillingness to agree to balanced deficit reduction. Nevertheless, it is HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS LESS, YES LESS, THEN THE BUSH BUDGET OBAMA INHERITED!

This really should not suprise anyone who is reasonably receptive to facts. After all, Carter left office with a smaller defecit than he inherited from Ford. Reagan and Bush #1 sent defecits through the stratosphere and more than quadrupled the debt. Clinton cleaned up the mess & balanced the budget.

George W Bush took hundreds of billions in surplus and turned it into $1.4Trillion in defecit. Obama is just cleaning up Bush's mess. Like Clinton cleaned up Reagan's and Warner cleaned up Gilmores. It is a pattern.

Also, do you remember Gore running on the "lockbox"? He was derided for that. All he was doing was trying to simply the argument that we needed to use the first decade in the 21st century to continue the Clinton surpluses so we could pay down the debt in time for the baby boomers to retire. Then we had the genious of the Bush tax cuts so that the Republicans could "Starve the beast" and the rest is history.

Chris -

As you can read in the President's 2011 budget proposal, the White House writes the following about FY 2009 budget:

"Decreased tax revenue and high spending resulted in an unusually large budget deficit of about $1.4 trillion, well above the $407 billion projected in the FY 2009 budget."

[..]

A 2009 CBO report indicated that $245 billion, about half of the excess spending, was a result of the 2008 TARP bailouts."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2011-BUD.pdf

The budget for FY 2009 was approved in June 2008 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml). However, the final spending bills for the budget were not finalized until March of 2009 and the budget was FINALLY signed into law by President Obama that same month.

Democrats have yet to pass another budget.

Lee, there you go again. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that tax cuts pay for themselves with increases in revenue as supply siders claim. It has NEVER HAPPENED. This the well deserved term "Voodo economics." The reason there is an increase in revenue from time to time is due to improving economic situations. Those improvements may or may not be related to fiscal policies of the government such as spending increases or tax cuts, but it is the increased growth that boosts revenue. Based on your logic, since tax rates under Obama's first term in the lowest rates in nearly 3 generations, there should have been tons of money coming in and great economic growth right? It does not really work that way.

Neverthess, there has NEVER EVER been a time when the growth in tax revenue from such economic growth offset the cost of the tax cuts. Hence, the huge Reagan and Bush deficits which created the fiscal crisis we are in today.

I never called Eisenhower a conservative. He was not, he was a rational, pragmatic Republican who cared about the country. Today's Republicans only care about how much they can pad the wealthiest people in the country's bank accounts.

Chris wrote:

" After all, Carter left office with a smaller defecit than he inherited from Ford."

Cater's 'inherited' deficit in 1976 was $53 Billion and when he left office it was $73 Billion so come again?

"Clinton cleaned up the mess & balanced the budget. "

And how exactly did Clinton balance the budget w/o the GOP's help? Under Article 1, Section 7, the Constitution gives the power of the purse strings to the House.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html

btw/ If you want the truth, Clinton & the GOP Congress borrowed (stole) from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to balance the books.

The budget got balanced under Clinton because of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that created boatloads of new tax revenues (due to the tax cuts) and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending still soared under Clinton and he still added to the National Debt during his 8 years in Congress.

And yes, I voted for Gore in 2000.

Chris wrote:

"Neverthess, there has NEVER EVER been a time when the growth in tax revenue from such economic growth offset the cost of the tax cuts. Hence, the huge Reagan and Bush deficits which created the fiscal crisis we are in today."

As you said Chris, there you go again.

The one thing that Liberals don't like to mention about tax cuts, and as Bill Clinton learned in the 90s, when you cut rates, the wealthy actually pay more. When you raise rates, the wealthy tend to hide more of their income from taxation.

For example, after JFK's tax cuts were enacted, the economy expanded by more than 42 percent and tax revenues rose by one-third, the rich saw their share of the tax burden climb to 15.1 percent from 11.6 percent.

In the 80s under Reagan, revenues from personal income taxes increased 28 percent (adjusted for inflation) by 1989. And yes, the rich wound up paying more. The share paid by the top 10 percent jumped to 57.2 percent from 48 percent of total income tax revenues.

Under Clinton, the 1993 tax increase (at the time the largest in history) didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Look up the IRS tables yourself. While the economy grew at a modest rate after 1993, it did not really get going until after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997.

[..]

[..]

Under Clinton, after the tax cuts were enacted, revenue grew by 35%, whereas spending grew by 9%. And yes, the rich paid more.

And yes, even under Bush 43,tax rate cuts created a virtuous chain reaction of higher economic growth, more jobs, higher corporate profits, and finally more tax receipts. The problem with Bush was while revenue grew at a higher rate than the early 2000s, government spending also rose. And yes, the rich paid more in taxes than before the tax cuts were enacted.

So yes Chris, there have been multiple times in American history when the growth in tax revenue from economic growth offset the cost of the tax cuts.

As John Adams used to say, facts really are stubborn things.

Chris - Even Jim Moran admitted that President Bush's tax cuts worked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJyS1WJNisM

Problem is, Moran believes that Government should be able to take the wealth you create and 'spread the wealth around'.

Because, as we know, Democrats think they know how to spend your money better than you do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zISKoQegbxM

Sorry Lee, I can't waste my time talking to someone who has no regard for the facts. First of all, overall taxes were increased under Clinton. Of all people, you should not that. It is because taxes were increased (along with the economic growth) that the budget was balanced. The ecomomic growth was caused by factors other than tax cuts. In this case it is obvious, because overall taxes were increased under Clinton. Just as they were increased under Eisenhower and the economy boomed in the 50s. Just as they were decreased under Bush and Obama and the economy sank. Tax rates play a very insignificant role in growth.

Finally, you are so far off in your analysis on growth. There is not a shred of truth in your suggestion that tax cuts have been paid for entirely by growth caused by the tax cuts. What I can't figure out is if you are that stupid to believe it or you think everyone reading this are stupid enough to believe it. I really don't have any more time for your nonesense since you don't want to stick to facts, but I leave you one interesting question:

If reducing taxes always produces more tax revenue than is lost by the cut, why does anyone (Democrat or Republican) ever promote raising taxes? If we need more revenue, all we need to do is cut taxes. What a no brainer! It just goes to show how much of an ignorant ideolouge you are.

to Chris Ambrose.: Hi, I don't know about you, but I remember several of these posters back in the fall, before the presidential election, making outrageous false claims about Pres. Obama and being convinced Romney would win. Enough said. They are spouting the same untruths. I found it a waste of time to respond; they just come back with more falsehoods. I think they fit the definition of internet "trolls." So I'm staying out of this. But I would never vote for for Cuccinelli.

Chris -

You wrote:

"I never called Eisenhower a conservative. He was not, he was a rational, pragmatic Republican who cared about the country. "

In this comment you wrote:

" Eisenhower understood that government could be a powerful force for good. Eisenhower was also the last fiscal conservative Republican."

http://oldtownalexandria.patch.com/articles/virginia-s-next-governor-ken-cuccinelli-terry-mcauliffe-or#comment_6721808

I would agree that Eisenhower believed in fiscal Conservatism however, as I stated to you previously, his actions told a different story.

Lee, obvioulsy you don't understand what a fiscal conservative is. I stand by what I said, I never said Eisenhower was a conservative. He was a pragmatic, rational Republican. Something that went the way of the dinosaur begining with Ronald Reagan. Eisenhower was a fiscal conservative, which since you don't understand what that means, is someone who believes spending should not outpace revenue. In the case of the government, even fiscal conservatives and most economists make exceptions for emergencies and economic slumps. But in good economic times like the 1950s, 1960s, 1980s, 1990s or early 2000s, you should carry a balanced budget. Eisenhower and Kennedy were fiscal conservatives. Reagan was a borrown and spend social conservative and fiscal liberal. Clinton was a fiscal conservative. Bush was a Borrow and spend Reaganite on steroids. Obama has had a very tough time because of the recession, but he has consistently tried to get long term fiscally conservative polices through, in spite of Congress. The Republican Congress likes to confuse the public (and you are obviously buying it) by implying that a fiscal conservative means someone who opposed government spending - even if we run deficits. That is NOT what a fiscal conservative is.

"Sorry Lee, I can't waste my time talking to someone who has no regard for the facts. First of all, overall taxes were increased under Clinton. Of all people, you should not that. It is because taxes were increased (along with the economic growth) that the budget was balanced. The ecomomic growth was caused by factors other than tax cuts. In this case it is obvious, because overall taxes were increased under Clinton. "

As I stated to you previously, Clinton did raise rates in 1993 which at the time was the largest tax increase in history. If these tax increases were good for the America, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses at the time and lost both Houses of Congress.

After that devastating defeat, Clinton said he thought he had raised taxes 'too much' (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/19/us/clinton-angers-friend-and-foe-in-tax-remark.html).

Unlike President Bush 43 and our current President, President Clinton was a terrific manager of the economy (The Agenda by Bob Woodward is a fantastic read).

So you're denying that Clinton signed Welfare Reform in 96, tax cuts in 1997, reduced trade barriers, cut capital gains, and working with the GOP, kept spending low. All of this helped achieve the first balanced budgets in a generation.

As John Adams used to say, facts really are stubborn things.

Chris wrote -

"Something that went the way of the dinosaur begining with Ronald Reagan.

[..]

Reagan was a borrown and spend social conservative and fiscal liberal."

There you go again Chris playing fast and loose with the facts.

Actually, Reagan was a BIG follower of Calvin Coolidge and his policies of limited government. He even had a portrait of Coolidge in the Oval Office. What Reagan was good at was compromising with Tip O'Neil and Democratic leaders to get things done as he had O'Neil over for drinks at the White House many times. What Reagan didn't see coming was that the Democrats went back on their word many times during his tenure. This caused Reagan to raise taxes something like 11 times during his tenure. Even after all that, Reagan still left office with very high approval ratings.

"Obama has had a very tough time because of the recession, but he has consistently tried to get long term fiscally conservative polices through, in spite of Congress"

And just what fiscally Conservative policies has he tried to get through Congress? The failed Stimulus? ObamaCare? Infrastructure bank?

Please let me know, I am very curious. Especially after the President promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office and has given us deficits twice as large as the worst it has ever been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJvkkNmR_8

Chris Ambrose democrats are serious about fiscal conservatism? You are joking right? 6 trillion in debt in Obamas first 4 years. Are you insane or serious?

to Betty M: good lord, I can't believe you said this: "So far on this blog people are supporting McAuliffe because they want their freedom to have all sorts of sex with no consequences"; what could you possibly be thinking??? You have no credibility after making such statements.

What is the world does supporting the Israeli confiscation of land have to do with supporting freedom? I love how you conservatives have to break everything down to a sound bite like "freedom" for your feeble minds to understand it. Unfortunately, there is no logic to what you are saying so there really is no response, other than to say Obama, like JFK supports Israel. Neither could or should accept the seizure of Palestinian land. Even if you do not reject this practice for moral and legal reasons, you need to recongize that as long as it continues there will not be a peace in that region, and that is not in our (or Israel's) interest.

Sad but true Betty.

As long as Obama is alive he will always be the best advertising for the GOP.

You're right, John! That's why everyone's going blue, because the GOP is being shown as out of touch as described as "scary" with the electorate. LOL

EVEN the GOP agrees - try reading their analysis. Rand said "old and moss covered".

No bias here. Right from their own publications and mouths.

In case you missed it, here are all 100 pages.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/republican-national-committees-growth-and-opportunity-project-report/380/

Sadly, they maintain their policies are sound (while reversing positions on immigration as one example). They think it's HOW they're doing what they're doing. NOT what they ARE doing and saying. Message is the same. Just lipstick on a pig.

How has Cooch made a farce out of Va.? Dude got caught twice lying about global warming or climate change.

Explain Patriotic Liberal(Liar).

Cooch doesn't care how you worship or do not worship. Quit exaggerating! And why do you care how he raises his family?? Live & let live! I thought that Libs were supposed to be so tolerant.......

Rebecca -

I don't care how Cooch lives- but he does seem to have an opinion on how I as a woman lives with unnecessary medical procedures and the like.

But it matters not since there's no way he'll get elected. So Rebecca, if he does actually run and when he does actually lose - I'll expect you to acknowledge YOU were wrong.

I know, I'm pushing that. Not within the psychological profile of a far right conservative to reflect and admit any wrongs.

That attitude is precisely the problem. We need to accept that the reason there is not a peace agreement in the middle east is because of both side. Nevertheless, anyone who knows anything about negotiating in a situation like, has to understand that the power lies with Israel to make a deal. The palestinians have no leverage. Both sides need to come together but it is very difficult to expect the Palestinians to offer anything when they have nothing to offer and the Israelis refuse to put serious negotiations on the table.

You also need to get your facts straight. The 1967 was initiated by Israel. Yes, they were concerned of a planned attack before the launched it, but they were never attacked. Furthermore, the Israeli refusal to negotiate a land for peace deal since that time has hardened the impression in the region, right or wrong, that their pre-emptive attack was nothing more than an aggressive land grab.

to Barbara: Agree with you, but you know the conservative posters on here will just say those are "lamestream media" sites and therefore not truthful....go figure :)

Barbara i think you have left your brains at the local bar. Cooch has won all three of those issues.

Barbara 3 liberal sites seriously? Clueless.

Barbara -

1. Considering that Dr. Mann's infamous 'hockey stick graph' has been proven to be a fraud for the 2nd time, if Dr. Mann took money to propagate this fraud, wouldn't you want your tax dollars back? If the scientist were a Republican, I'm betting the answer would be yes.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/the-hockey-stick-broken-again.php

2. The AG issued a memo that warned the Board of Health that if they acted outside the scope of their defined duties/authority that his office may not be able to defend them.

Where does it state in the Board of Health's bylaws that they can act on their own?

http://www.vdh.state.va.us/Administration/boh/documents/2013/pdf/BOH%20Bylaws%20Revised.pdf

After all, women shouldn't have to face an abortion Doctor like Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-victim-calls-philadelphia-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell/story?id=12731387

3. As for his anti-tax stance on the transportation bill, you can MOST CERTAINLY raise the funds without raising taxes on Virginia including the ludicrous 'Hybrid Tax'. One thing to note about Mr. Cuccinelli though is that while he has said he is for limited Government, he has sworn off the no tax pledge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/cuccinelli-swears-off-no-tax-pledge/2013/03/13/d71f455c-8c47-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

It should be noted Barbara that Mr. McDonnell said virtually the same thing which got him elected in 2009. What did that get the voters? The largest tax increase in Virginia history.

It was impossible because, under Netanyahu, the Israelis have refused to put a single serious offer on the table. The Palestinians have never even asked for every inch of the West Bank in negotiations so that is a red herring. It is also not accurate to compare that situation to the plight of native Americans in the US. This is and has always been disputed territory. Even the Israelis recognize that. The only part of the West Bank that they claims as theirs is Jerusalum. The international community and the US does not recognize that annexation, but they claim the territory as theirs. However, the rest of the west bank is not even claimed by Israel and was only occupied one generation ago. Many of the people living their were there when it was occupied. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation to compare it with native Americans.

That is like saying the Lithuanians should have just accepted the Soviet occupation because it had gone on for over 40 years.

Hi Ellie,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you on two points.

First, you are right, I have not read every post in this thread as it has gotten very long and sometimes off-subject.

Second, I agree with your point that the Attorney General should be reviewing bills on the basis on legality. But, with regard to the transportation bill, for instance, I do not believe he was reviewing it on any legal basis.

The link below is shows a copy of his press release, opposing the transportation compromise:
http://bearingdrift.com/2013/02/21/cuccinelli-opposes-transportation-funding-bill/

The first thing I found interesting about it was that he said, “I have not yet seen the final conference report, and so my comments are necessarily limited until I have the opportunity to read the bill.” That statement indicates to me that he didn’t even read the whole thing, prior to opposing it.

Another interesting thing he said in his press release was, “In these tough economic times, I do not believe Virginia’s middle class families can afford massive tax increases, and I cannot support legislation that would ask the taxpayers to shoulder an even heavier burden than they are already carrying, especially when the government proposes to do so little belt tightening in other areas of the budget.” This tells me that his justification for opposing the bill was not based on legality, but was based on his personal opposition to or ideology against taxes.

Of course Kennedy would not have taken God out of the Democratic party platform, and Obama didn't either. If you believe otherwise, you have probably been watching too much Fox News!

At least the Democrats don't believe the US should be a theocracy as Ken Cuccinelli does.

Just have to add that I do not think that Jack Kennedy was a "devoted Catholic" but I will agree that he was baptized Catholic. Compared to Obama however, Kennedy was more like a modern day Republican. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country."

I agree with you about the unions, Ellie.

Well said. I used to be a registered Democrat in another state. I am now Republican, as I feel the Dems are often mean-spirited, angry, & unwilling to help others, unless it is with the government's money.

Ellie, the problem I have with "conservative" is that to the Republican party, "conservative" means "not inclusive" and "not willing to compromise". Until this past presidential election, the GOP did just about everything it could to alienate minorities by trying to change voting policies in such a way as to discourage minority voting, changing voting district boundaries to favor their party, promoting policies against gay marriage and gay rights, promoting social policies that limited women's medical rights, etc. In addition, the GOP position on no new taxes ever severely limits the ability of both our state and our nation to pay for needed improvements in transportation, etc. I respect the conservatives who want to keep taxes low, but they also need to be realistic about compromising in order to get things done, and they need to realize that many of us are not interested in extreme regressive social policies.

Ellie,

I hope you enjoyed your show.

I am not trying to destroy Mr. Cuccinelli for his moral values. I can respect him for having and standing by his values. It’s just that I don’t agree with many of them, and I would not like to see him try to impose them on the state.

You have a good point about the legal standing of different tax rates being imposed on different geographic locations. We’ll see how that all pans out. But I do understand the rationale behind it. The bill generates additional revenue for the Hampton Roads and NOVA areas. The money is deposited into special funds for those two areas, with the requirement of using that money on transportation projects in those localities.

As you know we have a lot of transportation needs in this area and we are also basically the “cash cow” for the entire state. All revenue usually goes to Richmond and then they redistribute it to different localities using a certain “formula.” Many in NOVA frequently complain that we do not get our “fair share” of funding out of this formula. I don’t disagree with that. But I also understand that our NOVA area generates a lot of local property tax revenue whereas the rural areas of Virginia have substantially less property tax revenue to rely on. So I think this new bill is attempting to rectify this somewhat with these new tax rates, for better or for worse.

Yes, and I would be afraid of those black helicopters circling over your house as well.

So only the libs can web bash now???

Sandra - your in good company with the plurality of VA. I am closing the door on the "Dark Ages" of American and VA politics and welcoming "The Enlightenment" albeit, once again.

For those unfamiliar, The political ideals of the Enlightenment influenced the American Declaration of Independence, the United States Bill of Rights. It emphasizes liberty, democracy, republicanism and religious tolerance. Its purpose was to reform the way of thinking using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thoughts, skepticism and intellectual interchange and completely opposed any kind of superstition, intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state.

So, it seems the Democrats ARE bringing us back to our Founders principles!

(thanks, Sandra, for giving me the chance to put this in...waiting for a barrage of the not so quite informed to begin!) LOL

Ellie,

I’m not so sure that I would agree that Democrats/Progressives/Liberals are either dominating in power or being angry and strident, but I would say...

• For those citizens who watch their homes wash away in a big storm and then hear their leaders deny any science about climate change,

• Or for those gay citizens who are not allowed to get married or adopt children,

• Or for those wheel chair bound senior citizens who no longer drive or are employed and no longer have a photo ID to take to the polls,

• Or for those women who are required to have a medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasound before they can get a Roe v. Wade protected abortion,

…. well then, yes, I would say those citizens may have cause to occasionally be angry and strident.

Ellie - I viewed all the CPAC speeches. Seems to me the angry and strident were coming from that wing. To Barbara's well stated sentiment - yes, when anyone infringes upon the most basic of Constitutional Rights such as voting or forcing medical procedures upon a citizen, you best expect a rousing NO. Which is why Cooch is toast.

to Locally....I watched some of the CPAC speeches....if you saw Sarah Palin, can you believe that McCain chose her as his running mate? It reminded me again of how not ready for elected office she is.....and it is truly a sin that McCain selected her. I never had any respect for the man after that debacle. This if off-point, but had to say it.....

oldtowner - Did you ever watch Game Change? You can stream it free. Fascinating account and the veracity of that account provided by McCain's own campaign and press managers.

Sad, McCain officially jumped the shark then. Always wise to know when to bow out gracefully.

LOL - they're pols. Rarely do I expect much integrity. People (pols included) give up integrity for power. Just got to keep them on a short leash. Isn't it always a choice between 2 evils?

hus•tler
/ˈhəslər/
Noun

1. An aggressively enterprising person; a go-getter.

2. An enterprising and often dishonest person, esp. one trying to sell something.

Which definition do you pick? I bet I know which one McAuliffe was referring to. :-)

Ellie - you're not paying attention to the trends. Since 1972 the GOP have continually lost ground. Now the major population centers of Norfolk, Richmond, and NoVA have gone blue.

None of that fares well for a GOP governorship. The continual attack on individual freedoms (voter rights and women's rights) have been a continuous push of this administration. Same as for the past GOP presidential run. Now, VA went blue last 2 presidential cycles voting against these issues that the state admin has continually pushed.

Why would you expect a different result doing the same thing over and over again in the governor's election? That's just crazy as they say.

Polls are still early. Waiting for the race to truly begin before counting any eggs. Seems prudent to do so.

Now, I will agree to your wisdom upon the governor outcomes once we know. Will you agree to publicly acknowledge on this board that you were wrong should it be a dem governor?

to Betty: you seem to be obsessed with Terry McAuliffe playing golf with the president. Are you jealous you haven't been invited? I was never angry that Dick Cheney didn't invite me to go duck hunting. And GW Bush never invited me to his ranch....and he spent plenty of time there.

Betty, I can't tell you the number of times that I've been called a Marxist, Nazi, etc. on Patch blogs, just because I don't agree with GOP positions. I'm not even a Democrat, I'm a former Republican that got pushed into becoming an Independent because the GOP went so far to the right it made me sick. Every time I've blogged on Patch, it's been the GOP supporters that have done the name-calling.

LOL! Betty, you funny. Apparently Palin's brilliance has escaped a plurality of Americans and the world.

Dear Betty: I believe Palin was using a teleprompter @ the CPAC convention when she criticized Obama for doing so..and yes, she was Gov of Alaska until she QUIT !!

Why are the Dems so obsessed with social issues??? Is that all you can talk about? Also you say, re-Lincoln being a Democrat, as they are defined today, is crazy. The Dems then & the Dems now love oppressing the minorities. The Dems wanted slavery then; & presently they enable people into poverty - which is an insult to them. You take away peoples' dignity by indirectly telling them that they are incapable of taking care of themselves. By doing so, the Dems can CONTROL them & their lives. There is poverty, & that needs to be dealt with by a hand's up, but not nearly to the extent it is now - look at how much the food stamp program has grown.

Rebecca - A little clarification for you on our political history in America.

During the time of Lincoln, the republican party was the LIBERAL party. Afterwards, the then conservative democratic party reinvented itself as what is today's liberal party.

Just because the party name today is republican does not mean that's what it was 150 years ago. Yes, the Dems back in Lincoln's day did want slavery under the auspice of state rights because they were then the conservative party of the day. It changed.

Change. Get it? They were once for slavery, they changed to the liberal party, Lincoln's republican party reversed to conservatism all leading to the democratic generational shift to the election of FDR.

Dems are not obsessed with social issues - it is the GOP that is pushing legislative initiatives restricting these rights. So I ask, why is the GOP are so obsessed with restricting individual freedoms and social rights? Why is the GOP wants the working class to bear the brunt of taxes while allowing tax loopholes and subsidies to corporations and the rich? Why is the GOP is obsessed with a women's medical decisions? Why is the GOP wants to CUT education, environment, medicare, and social security? The rich cannot maintain their power without the poor. That's why the GOP is so obsessed with eliminating anyway to help the poor, feed the hungry, or care for the sick and elderly. GOP=1, God =0

Locally involved - Very well put. Lincoln was a liberal, so was Jefferson. The thing that is so funny about conservatives is they cannot see the future. Or they are not comfortable contemplating a future different then how they currently live. Yet, they are all too proud to try to claim people like the founding fathers and Lincoln as if they are their own. The fact is conservatives were the loyalists who opposed the founding fathers during the revolution. Had these people lived during the Civil War they would have been afraid of what the end of slavery would bring, and would have been Democrats.

And Rebecca is so far off on her point on social issues that it makes your head spin. Democrats would want nothing more than to be able to ignore social issues. It is the Republicans who insist on passing laws that limit peoples' rights in this realm. To the extent Democrats are "obsessed" with these issues, it is that they are obsessed with fighting the Republican obssession to restrict peoples rights.

Thanks, Chris! You almost need to allow for the fact the conservatives are 'born' that way. Read a number of studies, the most interesting was the MRI scans where those that self described as conservative showed excessive grey matter in the right amygdala which is often referred to as the 'fear center" of the brain and too much is shown to be highly correlated with schizophrenia. Now, this is not me speaking, this is actual scientific study. Those that self described as liberal showed excessive grey matter in the ACC (more middle of the brain) which is associated with rational thought and empathy.

So, forgive them. They are truly born that way! Mainly very linear in thinking and therefore unable to be able to conduct 'what if' or a "thinking experiment" as Einstein called it. We all know someone like that. I just try to keep away as it is quite frustrating. However, if you want someone to do a black and white task, very operational oriented, they're the ones you want.

Now, off to dinner!

Betty - you seem confused. You do realize that EVERY bill that the far right pushes on those topics, right? You also seem to lack the understanding of immigration in America which provides the necessary labor and innovation that has driven America.

People get drunk and get pregnant? Really, and then WANT an abortion? I'm sorry for you. Really sad. Glad you are on the far right. Good for you.

Betty, seems to me the GOP is the party that has pushed transvaginal rape laws, finessed laws to try to put abortion clinics out of business, and has tried its hardest to defy gay marriage because it somehow "threatens heterosexual marriages". If the GOP would keep its mitts off those issues, I assure that the Dems would do the same.

to Betty....ah.....I don't really believe you ever were a Democrat, based on your recent posts here.....give me a break. Think you are posing as that to lend yourself more credibility. Go figure.... Read what you just wrote (3 hrs ago)....it's ridiculous. If we have a labor shortage in America, why are so many folks unemployed? You make no sense....I think you need to eat a healthy dinner (no BIG GULPS!) and take a rest.

Betty - You just posted "I switched from being a Democrat for over 3 decades to being a Republican. They just have smarter and more ethical arguments." So which is it, you are democrat or republican in your voting? You stated that it is the democrats that have been the fiscal conservatives for the past 30 years. So please do clarify.

I believe in rational, scientific thought leadership. I do not believe anyone who disagrees with me is far right. I do know that everyone who believes Palin is a smart cookie and that Obama is inexperienced is far right - and have proven themselves sadly lacking in our country's political history. This isn't a belief, this is a proven fact. Point: It was the tea party that first used the phrase tea bagger (without understanding of the modern day context), NEVER the president. See, sadly lacking in even contemporary news and history.

Just like Winston Church-Hill said, "If you are a Democrat in your twenties, you are normal. If you are still a Democrat in your 30's or above, you are stupid."

Betty, I'll bet your business needs plenty of government services like roads and the like. I know my business does. You can't keep expecting everything for free. That is the Republican viewpoint: Take all the government services but cut taxes and charge to future generations.

Rebecca, you have Winston Churchill's comment wrong. He never commented on the US Democratic party.

The only people who are stupid are people who are still followers of today's Republican party. That is unless you are super wealthy and care nothing about your country. In that case, you will be OK with everything the Republicans stand for.

How anyone can support the Republican policy over the past 30 years of cutting taxes with the intention of running up huge debts to "starve the beast" (basically intentionally force large deficits to force cuts in programs that the middle class depend on) is beyond me. Wealthy people don't need medicare and Social Security, they just want their tax cuts. That is why the Republicans are the party of the 1%.

Betty, do you even have a clue? First of all, I hope you are a millionaire if you voted for Romney. Did you even know his plan? He wanted to raise taxes on the middle class and cut services to the middle class all to pay for tax cuts for the super rich. There was simply no economic reason for someone who was not very well off to vote for Romney.

You also are nuts when you say Obama is just "tax, tax tax" Obviously, you are not aware of the fact that under Obama taxes fell to their lowest level in 2 or 3 generations!

The internet was created by the government and it would not exist if it were not for government regulation.

To say we can solve the structural budget problems that were created by the Republicans by "cutting waste" demonstrates tremendous naivette. There is a serious revenue problem in this country. Everyone supports cutting waste, and Democrats are usually at the forefront of those efforts precisely because they believe in government being efficient. Republicans are all for the waste because they love to point to it to prove their own ideological bias that government is all about waste.

to Betty...so you use the internet and therefore we don't need roads.....gee, that's real smart

to Kathy: I don't think Tom D wants to run. I admit I am not a big McAuliffe fan, but think he would be much better than the ultra-conservative Cuccinelli....Interesting how now a lot of the Republicans can't find much good to say about Romney....altho they sure did not like Obama. What goes around comes around.....anyway, Ken C is too weird for me

to Ellie: you and a few others on this thread keep referring to "Alinsky"....very clever....what script are you using? I'm the first to admit that McAuliffe has his flaws....but Cuccinelli is just a throwback to another era.....

well, excuse me betty....but you said and I quote: "and I do all my work from home. My candidates don't need to use roads to see me. We use the internet and phone all built by private businesses." Seems to imply we don't need roads, just the internet and phones, "all built by private businesses" (even tho that's not true). Neither I nor Pres. Obama are snotty bullies....you are just misinformed.

Betty - seems to me the one accusing others of name calling is actually the one most guilty of doing so. No, no one reduced you to that level. No one has that much power of you. You have always been like that - that aspect of your personality simply became apparent to all. It's not the first time you called someone a snotty bully or idiot - certainly not when referring to anyone that disagrees with your view.

The problem is you, not anyone else.

with all due respect, LI....I believe you meant he will push for expanded "medicaid" that will benefit all Virginians

You're right, oldtowner! Long day, really should know when to quit. Thankfully, I work with real copywriters and editors. There's a reason they take all my red pens. LOL

Have a good night.

Ellie you are off your rocker. You really believe that Planned parenthood's mission is to limit the black population?

I always have to laugh when I hear that crap on voter fraud. That is as stupid, inaccurate , and Paranoid as the gun nuts who say the government is going to use background checks to take their guns away.

Individual voting fraud does not exist. Who in their right mind is going to risk a prison sentence (5 years in VA) to cast a single fraudulent vote that has a zero chance of impacting an election? This is why, over the past ten years there has been less than 5 such cases nationwide. That is less than one fraudulent vote for every quarter billion cast! The real kicker is that in all of those cases, the fraud was probably not "fraud" at all because most, if not all, were probably in error.

Do you really think it makes sense to pass laws that deprive people of the ability to vote to address a non existent problem? The recent photo ID law in PA would have disenfranchised up to 300,000 people, that is why the courts blocked it. Passing such laws nationwide would disenfranchise millions, perhaps tens of millions of people and solve nothhing - unless you are a republican trying to put your thumb on the electoral scales.

Thanks, Ellie - same to you! All be safe on the roads in the morning (hmmm, if we can count on the weather guys getting the forecast right!)

We're happy for you, too, Betty! And, yes, it is going to be an interesting race. I think we'll see the same dynamics state wide as we saw in the presidential. Time will tell.

And you were paid off by whom to make this statement for your participation in this forum? How naive do you think people are to believe that your participation in this forum made you 'leave the Democrats'? Only other explanation is that you are but a flake that is easily taken advantage of...

Sorry you mistyped your comment above...we all know you meant to say: McAuliffe, GOOD and Cuccinelli ,BAD.
So I am happy to correct your inadvertant error LOL!

Cuccinelli is only "eminently qualified to be governor" if you believe the Governor's role is to be telling individuals thoughout the Commonwealth how they can live their lives. Ken Cuccinelli stands firmly against individual rights and freedom.

Chris, you've got that absolutely right! Cuccinelli as governor would be a disaster for anyone with more than half a brain (those with less than half are probably happy having someone tell them exactly how they should live their lives).

Betty -- Thank you.

Chris Ambrose -- Cuccinelli has repeatdly stood in favor of limiting the scope of government, which as it expands (the course Democrats advocate) can only restrict individual rights and freedoms.

Chuck Stein - "Cuccinelli has repeatdly stood in favor of limiting the scope of government, which as it expands (the course Democrats advocate) can only restrict individual rights and freedoms."

This statement is emblematic of idiological Republicans. You are totally wrong on two counts. First, Cuccinelli has repeatedly sought government intervention in citizens of the commonwealth's personal lives to try to force behavior on them that was consistent with his religous views. If that is not the heavy hand of government trampling on individual rights, I don't know what is!

Second, I love how conservatives insist on categorizing any time of government role as inherently taking "freedom" away. That is as stupid a line as it is naive. It sounds like you have been eating too much liberty pie!

First of all, by that logic, the more roads and schools that are built, the more our freedom slips away. The more government gets involved in protecting the environment, the more our freedoms slip away. Zoning laws? We might as well hang it up and head to the internment camps.

Of course these laws have some impact. Civil rights laws restrict the freedom of people to discriminate, environmental laws restrict your freedom to dump toxic waste in the river, zoning laws restrict your freedom to build an unsafe, unsighly structure, etc etc. But we live in a sophisticated society in 2013. Those laws are necessary and have a net positve impact on our quality of life and health.

KEL: You never disappoint!

Kathy: How is any of the 17 points above evidence of a decent people of conviction? LOL. Silly.

Hey, Chuck - how is Cooch's repeatedly standing in favor of limiting the scope of government while feeling free to regulate a woman's uterus? Seriously?? Get out of the dang bedroom and personal decisions! I might have agreed with you if Cooch also repeatedly stood against Viagra. Foolish. Both of you.

And this is how you tell a left wing liberal operative:

You mock decent people who have the courage of their convictions.
Alinsky Rule #5

Cooch's own actions deny his words. While he continues to waste our taxpayer money fighting the ACA he ignores the very fact that the health exchanges are the very definition of a free market!

While Cooch spews his belief in the Constitution, he continues to restrict a women's right to make her own medical decisions.

Cooch is hardly a man of integrity or qualified to be in any civil service role as evidenced by his own ignorance of the Constitution and free markets.

People should go back and read your comments, Kel. You spend more time on mocking others than on stating facts. It is very unattractive.
And, yes, I will state Alinsky's Rules. It is not from Beck, and you know it because you are a master at using them. Most of the Democrats are. Have you read "Dreams from My Father"? Alinsky was the master community organizer. Hillary Clinton wrote her dissertation on Alinsky. I recommend that anyone not familiar with Alinsky "google" the rules. Englightening to see what is being used against you. "Ridicule" is rule number 5.

Kathy: Most community organizers belong to organizations or churches. For example, many Quaker churches have outreach programs which include community organizers. A community organizer works in the office to gather information about the community and to collect data which could be useful, and he or she also works in the streets, talking directly with members of the community, organizing meetings, and promoting community empowerment. Ideally, a community organizer wants to turn responsibility over to members of the community: he or she is just there to get the ball rolling.

Hmmmm, helping a community take responsibility for themselves. Hardly fascist, socialist, communist. My niece is in Nicaragua on missionary work for her evangelical church doing to the same thing. Would you deny ANY organization or person helping a community to help themselves? This always confuses me when people bash Obama on this point.

Community organizers also network with a wide range of organizations. For example, a community organizer working with low-income HIV/AIDS patients might work with the Department of Public Health and social services agencies to get more care and services to people who need them. Community organizers are often skilled diplomats, as they must represent the views of the community they are supporting to government agencies and other local groups.

Lastly - could you pls speak with Brad L regarding his ridiculing?

Kathy - wasn't sure if you were directing your comment "taking Alinsky's rules" seriously to me, or not.

I wasn't referencing Alinsky. I was just simply defining what a community organizer is. I take it you really don't have any issues with groups and organizations involved in community organizing and that it does by and far help communities learn to take responsibility. Your issue is with Alinsky.

Yes, Alinsky is well regarded as the founder of today's grassroots movements. Heck, even Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, which is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.

The main disagreement with Alinsky really came from the 1960's where Alinsky fought to help the poor and disenfrachised, communities - primarily African American - which scared the heck out of the white establishment. Funny how it seems that still seems to scare the white establishment.

Locally,
My problem is with the rules themselves. Mocking people is not a good way to encourage dialogue. Ridicule is one of Alinsky's rules. There are other rules that I also find distasteful Some of the comments on this board-from both sides are inappropriate and unhelpful. Kel's comments referring to Tea Party people cross the line of proper decorum.(He used another term) He may think it is funny--but, it is not. According to Alinsky rule #7, ridicule is the most powerful weapon. It is also what you use when you do not have an argument. Most members of the Tea Party are law-abiding, respectful people. Contrary to some efforts on the left, they are NOT violent and disrespectful. Kel's remarks were way over the line.

I, personally, am not thrilled with Cuccinelli. I do prefer him to McAuliffe.
Also, Kel's addition of a letter to my initials implying that this is a racial issue is WAY over the line. This is what the left uses when they have used up other arguments. It is sad.

You really do take thoseAlinsky rules seriously. That is a step too far.

From Patch's Terms of use

"Acceptable Use

While we encourage people to be honest and post what’s on their mind, communities thrive when people care about each other, and as such, Patch expects all of its users to be respectful of others. This means that whether you are being complimentary or critical, whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with the subject of an article or another user’s comment, you should act in a civil manner and refrain from personal attacks – after all, these are your neighbors."

A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.The fact remains when you take the combined attributes of self-described tea party followers, they are white, older and less educated and their misguided characterizations and racial overtones cannot be ignored nor denied. These pics, as you know, are from both Tea party as well as conservative and general media sites - they are bi-partisan. They are what they are.

To KELs point - as we see this new generational shift in party politics we are seeing the end of the Reagan Democrats and the rise of people like yourself - and many of my GOP friends (some of which have served in Reagan and Bush 41 administrations) become the new "Obama Republicans".

Further indication of the centrist and fiscally responsible policies of the democratic party. Whereas the policies of the GOP have gone only to social issues (birth control, women's rights, alienation of voters, wasteful ACA fighting). These policies are self evident in Cooch's efforts.

And, why Cooch will not win any race in VA. The tide has turned. The trend is evident. To deny this is to deny the data.

Actually, I did.

1. Important to all families, McAuliffe will protect a women's reproductive rights.
2. He supports individual freedoms and basic constitutional rights such as voting and women's healthcare rights and immigration.
3. He understands that low corporate taxes at the expense of the mass middle class is wrong. (Therefore, those of us in the middle class benefit, not the 1%)
4. He knows that record low taxes for the top brackets does not trickle down and hasn't in 40 years.
5. He will not spend $250,000 - like the current gov and AG did to cover up the exposed breast of the Virginia state seal.
6. He will not waste of time and money on silly social issues (see #5) and repealing the ACA.
7. He will assure that our children are taught properly with accurate text books (unlike this admin which apparently didn't think including slavery's role in the Civil War as important).
8. He will work towards marriage equality for all - not just for some.
9. He will move VA forward on clean energy, generating new business innovation and opportunity for all.

He will do everything the current GOP has refused to do. Yes, he will not continue the archaic policies of the past. Welcome to the Enlightenment - just as our forefathers intended as they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

He is everything VA needs and what the GOP is not.

Response to Locally
1. Not my issue--and shouldn't be a voting issue.
2. Individual freedoms includes the right to be sure that my vote counts and is not wiped out by a fraudulent voter. That is my right. I also do not know anything in the Constitution which mentions abortion as being a right-or free birth control. Also, when did immigration become a constitutional right? (I am in favor of immigration reform-but that is not a state issue.)
3.We have a very high corporate tax now. Remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do you remember the yacht tax? Put people out of work.
4.Regulations and taxes on business lose jobs. We need jobs.
5.Grea! I guess I don't know about this one.
6.The ACA is damaging to our economy and the federal government does not even know what it is going to do yet--did you read Wapo? Small business will hurt.
7.Will he create textbooks which attack our founding fathers as some of them already do? Will we have History books which tell facts and events and not concentrate on sociology?
8.I don't care. Not my voting issue either way.
9.Will he work on making energy costs affordable? I doubt it. That would help businesses and individuals.

Kathy -

1. Agree. No one should be voting on what a women's healthcare choices are.
2. Considering there have been than perhaps 5 legitimate voter fraud cases in the past decade, this is a non issue and your vote is not being wiped out. However, it does mean that legitimate voters are being robbed of their vote. SO, therefore, it is a right.
-- The Constitution doesn't say immigration is NOT a right. But a right of all who come to this land the right to life, liberty, and happiness. We are a nation of immigrants - even you. The pilgrims were immigrants (and uninvited at that). We have an immigration process problem, not an immigration problem. Thank an immigrant for continued taxes that pay for social security and ensure continued innovation in this country.
3. Corporate tax rates have been at 35% (top rate) since 1993 - you know, the decade of one of the largest innovation and job creating booms in recent years. The tax rate was 40% to 52% from 1942 until then. We hardly suffered from business and economic growth. FACT: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf
4. Regulations - such as food, environment, air - have ensured your safety and have hardly hurt business growth.
5. Seriously, can you believe such a waste of time and money? Plus, he really overpaid for graphic services.
6. The ACA HELPS business provide affordable healthcare as well as for the owners. Small businesses less than 25 employees are exempt.

7. Where did the comment regarding textbooks attacking our Founding Fathers come from? No aware of any textbooks that do that. We should always provide textbooks that are based upon fact and science. Sociology of any depth is not taught until college - not aware of such a mandatory requirement in public schools. Why even bring this up? Please address the fact that VA omitted slavery in their teaching of the Civil War. THAT's a serious flaw.
8. Appreciate marriage equality is not your voting issue - neither is it mine from a personal standpoint. It is my concern that all citizens are treated justly. Therefore, important to my fellow citizens and to me.
9. Your doubts do not matter. Clean energy furthers our country's objective of reducing dependency upon foreign sources. Clean energy also creates new jobs and business innovation - which is good for this state. This is important to all citizens of VA. WE should be leaders, not followers. Right now, we are so far behind on diversifying our energy sources, reflecting poorly upon our country. So, should be a concern for all citizens.

#4 Regulations are needed for safety-but they are going far beyond that-especially with AHCA
#5 I have googled and googled this and can find nothing about $250,000 being spent on this. It didItn't happen from what I can tell. Cuccinelli did want to cover "it", but did not. I could not find anything about money being spent.
#7 Neither McDonnell or Cuccinelli had anything to do with the textbook you mentioned. It was an absurd choice by the board. It was not widely used. As to "sociology"-have you seen the AP US History book? I suggest you find it. It is dull, boring and is more concerned with women and minority issues than facts and events. Of course, those issues should be included, but not be a sociological discussion at the expense of history.
On the other issues, I disagree. We look at these issues differently. I think clean energy should be pursued, but right now the cost of energy is damaging to our economy and clean energy is not going to help in the very near future.
We need to get people to work.

Kathy -

The ACA does provide the proper regulation to assure all have access to healthcare (like all should have access to clean water and air) as healthcare is not a choice – it is something we will all avail ourselves of at some point. Additionally, it provides the support that hospitals have been advocating for – to be paid for services rendered. When so many have to use the ER for ‘healthcare” because they are uninsured, this places an undue burden upon the hospitals and hinder their business. Additionally, the ACA promotes free markets as that is exactly what an exchange is! The regulations eliminate the denial, limits, and coverage of services provided assuring consumer protection for what they have paid for. Lastly, the ACA forces the insurer to become more innovative and efficient, therefore ensuring the health of the industry and lower prices in the long term to the consumer. That’s how business works. The insurers could have done that themselves, but chose not to. When an industry refuses to self regulate and act in the benefit of the user, regulation becomes necessary.

(cont'd) Kathy -

Regarding the VA state seal redesign, here’s one article (just took the first that popped): http://hamptonroads.com/2010/04/cuccinelli-opts-more-modest-virginia-state-seal

I am befuddled over your response to sociology in history books. Of course, there are historical impacts because of the way women and minorities are/were treated which resulted in historical events (like the Civil Rights and Suffrage Movements). But this is not sociology – not at the level studied at a collegiate level. I was taught Social Sciences in public school as well as history. The one certainly provides impact upon the history taught – why it happened should be studied to further understanding.

Of course, our perspectives are different. But I appreciate your patience in explaining your perspective.

Kathy, if #1 shouldn't be a voting issue, then someone needs to tell the GOP that. I resent the fact that a bunch of old, white men are forcing women in the state of Virginia to submit to a medical procedure that isn't absolutely necessary just to force a political point on people (and in fact, it was meant to be even more intrusive, except for the public outcry that occurred). THAT'S a key reason I refuse to vote GOP. So yes, if the GOP will get it's nose out of forcing people to do things their way for ideological reasons, then I will agree that we shouldn't be using that as an issue regarding voting. Until then, the GOP will NOT get my vote.

Sandra, You certainly should vote that way if you feel that strongly about it. My voting issue is jobs and the economy. While am pro-choice, it is way down on my list of voting issues. I am too concerned about the economy and the future of my children. I want them to have jobs and worry about supporting themselves and preparing for their own retirement. I don't want them carrying the load for my generation,

The stance is mutual joe b - anyone as short sighted and uneducated on, oh, so many subjects as you have exhibited - is all I need to vote against Cooch. The two of you are both from an obsolete era and perspective.

derp.

As usual a tooth ache of a person it is that you are. SPLC is engaging in a dangerous game by lumping in groups with whom they share disagreement with legitimate hate groups sans Kel. You wouldn't say that to my face boy!

Joe B - no one wants to see your face. You're an angry old man. Chill.

Ellie - again, derp. Please provide a rational (stretch, if you will) reason for Cooch - other than you believe him to have class.

What policies befitting VA citizens will Cooch support as gov? What actions has he undertaken during his current time as AG provides evidence of how he will lead?

And, again, this may be a stretch, please try to do so without disparaging the other side. This is not about the other side, it is about what Cooch can do for the citizens of this state.

Kathy - as stated before - do you really not think Joe B's comment is over the line and offensive? Really?

Again, I appreciate your passion for the Tea Party agenda, but I find it lacking in being fair handed in your analysis of what is offensive.

Kathy - all I'm saying is that admonishment of Joe B would simply be a fair criticism given your post regarding Patch's terms. I'm just asking for objectivity from your actions.

I have taken action re: Joe B. Yes, I can defend myself, simply requesting that you call out all, not just some.

Mary Ann,
You don't think having someone call you KKK is offensive and inappropriate. And, did you ever read what Kel wrote about the Tea Party? He did not use the term Tea Party-the term he used is a sexually offensive word. His jokes were sick and implied incest.

I think your excuse about the term is urban legend, Locally. If it makes you feel okay about it, so be it. However, Kel is clearly using a very perjorative and false term against me. That is NOT okay. I guess Mary Ann does not have a problem with it as I flagged it more than once and he continues to use it. That disappoints me about Patch. Maybe Mary Ann is too young to understand the significance of its usage.

There was no personal attack, Kathy. So don't take it personally.

As to the origination of the tea bagger: The evolution of the term

http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger

April 1
Several Tea Party protest sites encourage readers to "Tea bag the fools in DC." Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online later admits: "Conservatives started [using the term]... but others ran and ran with it."

The current Tea Party movement initially came up with the 'clever' idea of sending Tea bags to members of Congress. It was in their initial rallies that they started referring to this act of sending their representatives boxes of tea bags as 'TEABAGGING".

September 10
Badges with the message "Proud to be a Tea Bagger" are still on sale at Tea Party events, according to an article written later in the year.

April 14, 2010
Prominent conservative Andrew Breitbart posts a video on the site Big Government in an attempt to reclaim the term. "I'm Proud to be a Tea Bagger"

For visual proof http://washingtonindependent.com/67191/the-slur-that-must-not-be-named

If the Tea Party activists and their allies are going to take offense at certain terms being applied to them, they should probably avoid self-identifying with those same terms.

Locally,
I take KKK (which are not my initials) as a personal attack.

The possibility, exists, Kathy that the keyboard sticks or the letter was held down too long. Again, as Sandra stated, you gotta be thick skinned when posting on an open forum

I would empathize with you more, but you don't seem to apply to same standards to others who make blatantly open personal attacks. Fair is fair.