Another Short Period of Total GOP Control?

Virginia Republicans are having a tough week.

The GOP majorities in the legislature are based around suburban districts in Northern Virginia, Richmond and Hampton Roads.  One of the reasons Republicans have been so successful in these elections is how irrelevant Democrats have been in those areas to addressing voters concerns.  Meanwhile, voters stopped believing that the social issues that they agree with Democrats on are under the threat that Democratic candidates have claimed.  With bills such as mandatory ultrasounds before abortion moving through the legislature, voters are suddenly starting to wake up and realize that these Republicans are not about the "jobs, jobs, jobs" they claimed. 

Check out Janet Howell's Facebook page for the kind of reaction her amendment to require rectal exams for men is generating and you can watch live as people start to realize what is actually happening right now in Virginia.

Meanwhile, former GOP Commonwealth's Attorney candidate Matt Geary committed suicide this weekend, after a campaign where GOP leaders like Bob McDonnell, Ken Cuccinelli, Bill Bolling and Eric Cantor all pulled support from his campaign for having had an affair.  Seriously.  Republicans have members of Congress with hooker-diaper fetishes, and they are going to publicly humiliate and destroy someone for having an old-fashioned affair?  Is this really a major political party and not an arm of the taliban?

Of course now GOP bloggers can't even wait until the body is cold to defend their leaders.  That's what the Virginia GOP is now- controlled by hacks who will try to destroy anyone who disagrees with them or steps out of line.  Of course Bearing Drift probably doesn't even understand the irony of attacking Lowell Feld and Blue Virginia on it's page in the same disgusting, vicious manner that they attacked Geary a couple months ago.

The good news is the public is paying attention, and this period of total GOP control in Virginia has an experation date for November 5th, 2013.  Hopefully ten years from now when this group tries to come back into power again the voters won't forget what a bunch of freaks they are... 

Comments

[Heisenberg]

Just keep in mind of how much of a pompous asshole Shaun Kenney (aka the pope of politics) is...

Republican politics is vicious and they'll eat their own at the drop of a hat. I've experienced it first hand and am still trying to get the knives out of my back.

[Lola]

Huffington Post picked up the story and this morning it had more than 2,200 comments. Will we see Sen. Howell pay a visit to Rachel Maddow next?

[Natedogg614]

November 5th, 2013....

Not if Obama wins re-election. Virginia History (at least since the late 1960s) has shown that the party that loses the White House wins the Governor's mansion in Richmond the following year.

Not sure if that pattern will be bucked in 2013 or not (seems to me that 2001 would have been the year for that to happen, but it did not).

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

If you are a moderate, free-will, informed Republican, a pro-choice Republican, you need to accept that your party has been acquired by a few well funded individuals with a narrow, profoundly undemocratic self-interest agenda. This arrangement requires politicians with retail ethics, little shame, and no self reflection. Look around, did you affiliate with the Republican Party so that you could hang out with dim-bulb culture war types and "well-oiled weathervanes"? Move on, Team America needs good conservatives.

[Natedogg614]

"This arrangement requires politicians with retail ethics, little shame, and no self reflection."

Sounds just like the modern Democrat Party to me.

[Kevin]

Wow, I expected a little more than the "I know you are but what am I?" retort.

[Natedogg614]

Kevin,

MMM-kay, how about this....

Why is it that one has to be a moderate and pro-choice in order to be "free-willed" and "informed"? Is it not possible that one can be both thinking and a principled conservative? Why is the implication that one who is conservative is automatically reactionary, wrong, and stupid? Indeed, is it not impossible to presume that there are plenty of reactionary or ill-informed liberals out there? Or is it automatically assumed that liberals are clear-thinking and right about everything? There seems to exist a blatant double-standard between liberals and conservatives, and with regards to who could be informed and who could have free-will. It's frankly very troubling in this, the 21st centry. I would argue that there are plenty of politicos on the left side of the political spectrum who lack ethics and don't have a great deal of shame either. Such a viewpoint should not be reserved exclusively to members of the Republican Party.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

Don't over-think it son. I'm just saying that the Republican Party of Eisenhower has been sold to the highest bidder, and even Reagan would be attacked by this gang. If you are ANY of the things I described, then you need to find a new political home - or reconcile yourself to the wrong side of history. You know, loserball.

[Natedogg614]

I'm not any of the things that you outlined. And again, I think you'll find folks of the same description of both sides of the aisle. The GOP is certainly not the party of Eisenhower (it's moved more to the right) and moreso than the Democrats are the party of Roosevelt (it's move more to the left). Indeed, our politics have become very polarizing (didn't happen overnight...more in the past 20-30 years, although Obama epitomizes it in many ways).

[Brian Kirwin]

Let me get this straight. You blame GOP bloggers for not waiting "until the body was cold" but the post you cite was responding to a post on Blue Virginia.

So, no criticism for Democrat bloggers not waiting for a body to be cold, but scorn for GOP bloggers for responding?

Weak.

[Loudoun Insider]

Don't kid yourselves, folks. Both parties are full of unethical self absorbed assholes.

[GretchenLaskas]

Politics aside, I am so sorry to hear about Geary. How hard this must be for his family.

[Noticed]

Expiration, not experation. Perhaps that's the way they taught you to spell at Robinson High School?

We know that Benny-Wenny would never engage in disgusting, vicious attacks. Isn't that so, NAMBLA boy? Maybe this explains his and Lowell's fascination with rectal exams.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

A conservative, elitist Supreme Court gave us Citizens United, and anonymous big-money SuperPACs purchased the political process. "Corporations are people my friend", says the Mitt. And how, exactly, is that serial philanderer, disgraced former Speaker New Gingrich still in the race? Oh yeah, his cynical Casino buddy keeps filling his cup. Maybe twelve unelected guys decide the course of the Republican Party. They buy you circuses, you call them debates.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

I'm still trying to figure out what is "disgusting" and "vicious" about Jane Dudley's post on Bearing Drift you linked to. Seemed pretty straight up to me.

[WillC]

There is a "stupid party" and an "evil party." Every time we forget which is which, Republicans start talking social issues and remind us what's what.

[Noticed]

That's right, Bubby. Money to Republicans should be illegal, but it's OK if George Soros, labor unions, trial lawyers, or the typical gaggle of Hollywood leftists give large amounts to Democrats.

[NotJohnSMosby]

Brian, did you win your race? I haven't seen you post since the November elections. How did it turn out for you?

[change]

As I have stated before the pendulum swings…
Just as D’s overreached with Obamacare etc… the R’s overreach with silly “feelgood” legislation.

It is sad that this man decided to take his own life, but it was a decision he took. No one should blame others for that decision; particularly when the facts are not all known.

[A Voter]

Wow, NLS is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Had Republican leaders supported Geary, the Libs would be going crazy over family-value hypocrisy. But since that "ideal" situation didn't happen, they're attacking Republicans for not standing by a guy who was having an affair. There's just no winning with these people.

If a Republican had proposed a crazy amendment (like the nut-job Janet Howell did) requiring anal penetration for all men, as a means of attacking another bill... the Libs would be up in arms about wasting government time/money, out-of-touch Republican legislation, and you'd hear many a cry about how Republicans should get back to supporting jobs instead of supporting such goofy legislation...

But, can you really expect much from a crowd who continue to support the failing and unpopular policies of our President?

[NotJohnSMosby]

A rectal exam for a guy who can't get it up and is asking for boner pills is actually medically useful. He may have prostate cancer or something else wrong with the plumbing that is causing impotence.

Forcing doctors to perform an ultrasound that isn't medically needed and then having to explain what it looks like to a woman waiting on an abortion is not medically useful.

That's what Janet's amendment pointed out, very clearly. The guys get a prescription and a "go get'em", the women get intimidated.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

One difference Moseby. In the case of an abortion, they are about to end an innocent human life.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

NLS I'm disgusted that you would equate removing political backing from a candidate as somehow causing his death. I don't care what his political opponents did to him, to take one's own life is a decision that no one makes but themselves. The fault for Geary's death lies with Geary. A sad end, and traumatic to his family, but his own responsibility and no one else's.

[Loudoun Insider]

I'm still waiting for all the right wing outrage about their party's leaders abandoning their rightful Republican nominee for a good ole boy insider "Independent" like Janis, who then got a cushy $100,000 a year government job from Bob McDonnell as his reward for destroying the local GOP. All the never ending loyalty pledge BS from these people, yet no outrage over Geary's treatment by the RPV establishment. Hypocrites.

[NotJohnSMosby]

No, they're about to remove a fetus, and the ultrasound has no medical necessity in that case. However, prescribing Viagra to a limp dick with a bad ticker can kill the guy, so a cardiac workup is probably medically beneficial.

[DCCyclone]

NotJohnSMosby, very smart comments as usual, thanks.

It's awfully soon to proclaim the VA GOP electeds in trouble for 2013, but they certainly are off to the kind of start that will piss off suburbanite swing voters and energize Democrats. But it will take a long time to see if it sticks into the next state election.

[Harry]

Bet there's a lot of "lights off" Republicans who wouldn't mind a good "rectal exam" reading Ben's post.

"Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found."

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

[Rtwng Extrmst]

Moseby, a human fetus is a human life.

[just the facts]

If we're going to be invading women's privacy and secondguessing their reproductive health decisions, we might as well require rectal exams and stress tests for men before prescribing Viagra. Without stress tests, some men may give themselves heart attacks or let cancer go undetected. You can't get more prolife than that, right?

I think the reason this was rejected is that there is a gender-based bias here where social conservatives who usually tout small government and individual liberty assumed the right to dictate a woman's reproductive decisions but somehow see no urgency in doing the same for men.

[Spock]

...let's face it..it's time for the GOP to bend over...

[Brian Schoeneman]

NJSM, I won, of course. Weren't you at the victory party?

[Not a right wing extremist]

Rtwng Extrmst, yes a human fetus is a form of human life as is an unfertilized egg cell and a sperm cell. What is your point?

[Rtwng Extrmst]

My point NARWE is an unfertilized egg cell or sperm will never naturally develop into a full independent person until after the egg is fertilized. Once that process has begun, a new life, represented by a new DNA string separate from the parents is in existence. This is more than just a part of the mother. It is unique and independent from her in the sense of the independent life it represents. It may be dependent on her to sustain that life (as by the way it will for years after birth), but it is nonetheless a separate human life from the mother. This is the crux of the matter.

This is also where arguments like JTF's fall short, because the real facts are that social conservatives view innocent human life as central to our individual sovereignty as described in our founding documents. We have no right to take away the innocent life of another. There is no more innocent form of human life than an unborn child.

This is not about invading a woman's privacy or a gender-biased view. Social conservatives are in fact in favor of individual liberty. It's just we are for individual liberty for all humans, not just those that are fortunate enough to make it outside the womb alive.

This is not about reproductive rights. People have access to contraceptives easily in this country and no-one is trying to take that away. However abortion is absolutley discriminatory in many ways. First and foremost it discriminates against the life of the unborn human child. Second it discriminates against men (in a truely sanguine way) since women have the right to kill their own off-spring without punishment, but if any man were to deliberately end the pregnancy of someone he had impregnated, without her consent, he would likely be charged with some form of abuse or even manslaughter (and rightly so). In addition a man is likely to be held culpable for the future support of that offspring (again rightly so) at the whim of the mother based solely on her choice of whether or not to kill the child. Abortion is the worst form of legal discrimination that has existed in this country perhaps since slavery, maybe longer.

Finally, there is no equivalent comparison of abortion to the idea of requiring rectal exams to qualify for viagra as some are implying here. Taking viagra does not result in the killing of another human being more than 50% of the time it is taken as abortion surely does every time its implemented.

[Ralph]

But since the fetus can't survive independently of the mother in the early months of pregnancy, it's not quite the same, right?

Not quite life, not quite not life.

[Stephen Spiker]

Nice of Ben to post an intentionally controversial, if entirely inane, post in order to generate some comments since this blog has been rather dead as of late.

Let's see:

1) Abortion? Check.
2) Rank hypocrisy? Check.
3) Speciously blaming a tragedy on an entire political party? Check.
4) Calling out other bloggers by name? Check.
5) Ridiculous prognostications have 0% of coming true? Check.

I'm just disappointed he didn't find a way to shoehorn in a Hillary Clinton reference, or talk about Tom Davis's personal life.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

"This is not about reproductive rights. People have access to contraceptives easily in this country and no-one is trying to take that away."

Wrong! Outlawing contraception is EXACTLY what the "personhood" nuttery is about:
http://www.sos.ms.gov/page.aspx?s=7&s1=1&s2=50

[Bolling's hairpiece]

Ben is just getting a bulge in his pants over the idea of a guy having an affair, so he HAS to make excuses for Geary.

Not surprising, since poor Ben has never been with a girl. Just a shame to see him put his desperation on this once fine blog.

[A Voter]

LOL - Good point, Spiker.

The Liberals are grasping at straws... and as some have suggested here, they've become the "bend over and take it" party, in lieu of any ideas to move the state forward.

I guess it's no wonder why the Dems have been booted from the House, Senate and Executive office of this state. The voters in Virginia are tired of their rhetoric, and their political games. Heck, at this point, even bogus bills like this are being voted down by bi-partisan majorities.

It's sad to see what the Democrats have become in this state, but it's great to see that that the voters have recognized that Republicans do a better job of representing them and their interests.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

2012 Virginia Republican House Bill #1 "personhood", making contraception and abortion illegal. Once again Virginia Republican politicians remind us - all that "small government" talk is a lie.

[A Voter]

Yup, Bubby... that's going to put Dems right back into leadership. Try to re-direct attention away from the lack of a Democrat agenda to move Virginia forward by attacking bills being proposed that haven't been passed by the opposition.

Reason #32 Why Virginia Voters Kicked out the Dems:

The Democrats have no plans to do anything that would improve the state.

[NotJohnSMosby]

Voter, when should legislation be attacked? Before it's passed and the criticism is to late, or when it's in the middle of the legislative process, when the outcome can still be determined?

[A Voter]

NJSM - You know as well as anyone that legislation is regularly proposed to fulfill special interests (or personal desires of specific legislators) and has no chance of passage, even when the sponsor is in the majority party.

This is one of those bills that we all know stands no shot at passage, or even getting the necessary votes from the majority party... let alone standing a shot at passage through either through the House or Senate.

So, even though Bubby knows that House Republicans will defeat the bill, he's attacking them as if they're all co-sponsors, or as if they were geared up to pass it.

It's grasping at straws and it's sad that the do-nothing Democrats in Virginia have nothing better to hang their hats on. But then, I guess that's why they're not in power any longer.

[James Young]

I would agree with NotJohnSMosby that Janet Howell's proposal to require a stress test as a precondition to prescribing Viagra might be medically justified.

However, when Janet Howell proposed a rectal exam, as well --- which I suspect that most men of the age to NEED Viagra are getting regularly, anyway --- she simply revealed herself as the asshat that she is.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

Ralph,

You say "But since the fetus can't survive independently of the mother in the early months of pregnancy, it's not quite the same, right? "

No, a baby can't survive for long independent of the care of another for years after birth. So by your logic, children aren't human life until they can survive completely on their own, right? What age would that be, eh?

Bubby, a personhood law would do nothing to make illegal any form of contraception that counters the intitial fertilization of the egg. If contraception of any form intentionally destroys a fertilized egg, I would count that as manslaughter myself.

[Not a right wing extremist]

Rtwng Extrmst, you are really twisting the reality to fit your distorted and very, very, very extreme views.

Ralph is abosultely correct, the personhood amendment does can outlaw contraceptives in certain circumstances.

But your logic is absurd. To say a fertiziled egg will independently develop into a human being is ridiculous. It will do no such thing without the mother. You can make the same argument about the unfertized egg, it just requires one more step (the mother getting laid) for that to happen.

But neither a fertized egg or a non-fertized egg is a person, they both have a long way to go. Nobody is arguing that fetization is not an important milestone in the developement of a person, but it is just that, a milestone, not the creation of a person.

To imply that a newborn child is just as dependent on the mother as a fetilized egg is just stupid. A mother can give he child up for adoption one minute after birth and the child will do just fine. You just don't get it, do you?

To suggest that women have the option to use contraceptions is also just plain idiotic. I guess parents should teach their daughters to be sure to insist to a potential rapist that they are using protection.

[just the facts]

Right wingers: How does repealling the 1 gun a month law promote a "culture of life"? This legislation was passed to curb rampant gunrunning from Virginia to gangs up and down the East Coast, not to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. So should we conclude that the VA GOP is objectively pro-gang?

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

Virginia HB 1 would outlaw birth control because birth control prevents implantation of the conceived embryo in the womb. Science class dismissed!

[Rtwng Extrmst]

NARWE,

"To say a fertiziled egg will independently develop into a human being is ridiculous. It will do no such thing without the mother."

First as I said, a fertilized human egg is a human being. Not yet fully developed, but no less human. And a newborn child up to near puberty will likely not independently develop either. It requires shelter and sustenence at a minimum. It is no less human because it is dependent on another. That is my point. When your grandmother gets old and feeble enough that she can't take care of herself anymore, does she cease existing as a human being?

A human embryo will not develop into anything else but a human, and an unfertilized egg will never develop into anything unless the sperm required fertilizes it. The fact that the embryo is dependent on the mother for shelter and sustenence is no different than that of a three year old's dependence. This is in fact logical. Your "logic" that just because an embryo is dependent on the mother for sustenence and shelter that it somehow is not human life deserving of protection IS absurd.

"I guess parents should teach their daughters to be sure to insist to a potential rapist that they are using protection"

Again, your logic is fallacious. It seems to imply that abortion should be accepted in the case of rape. Should we then allow a married woman who has a child from her husband and then subsequently is raped by that husband to be allowed to execute her child? The idea that it's ok to kill one human being for the crime of another is disturbing to me. People go through emotional pain every day, and I'm not trying to minimize the horror of rape, but it's not a reason to kill an innocent human being.

JTF, start a different discussion if you want to change subjects. Remember the old adage, guns don't kill people, people do. For example just because I oppose abortion doesn't mean I want to outlaw surgical suction devices or forceps, but I do believe the procedure should not be legal. Last I checked, murder was illegal in this state. If gangs are using guns to pillage and murder, I doubt they are buying those guns legally, one a month or not.

BHHS, not all forms of birth control work on the premise of preventing implantation. There are lots of forms of birth control.

[change]

I do find this an intriguing conversation.
I come away with two facts..
First, it seems those on the “extreme”? right believe that “life” begins somewhere in the “intent” stage, thereby necessitating laws against contraception.
Next, it seems those on the “extreme”? left believe that even a full term “baby”, “fetus”, is not a “life” until it actually exits the womb and can survive on its own without assistance.

My dilemma is that I fall somewhere in between… I believe “life” does not begin with the “twinkle in dad’s “eye”, but I also believe that the basis of life is when actual fertilization takes place to create the platform for a being.

Is there any point along the way that “ALL” could agree that “life” actually exists short of fertilization? With the advancement of science we move closer and closer to “viability” earlier in the birth stage.

I have truly wrestled with this issue and would appreciate thoughtful response as opposed to the extreme’s that often are penned.

[just the facts]

Still havent gotten a straight answer as to how repealling the gun a month bill is consistent with a culture of life. How does allowing the gun running that it was intended to stop to smuggle guns do anything but put people at risk? Why are you so protective of fetuses but not protective of all of people who might fall prey to violent crime?

[just the facts]

Rt wing extremist, it isn't changing the subject. It is challenging your consistency. What the heck is your burning need for more than a gun a month? The only people who "need" more than a gun a month are probably doing it for less than reputable and life affirming reasons which is the reason why the law was passed in the first place. My point is to challenge the consistency on the culture of life argument if the same people are advocating unlimited guns and opening the door to gunrunning for gangs up and down the east coast, as was happening before

[Rtwng Extrmst]

JTF,

I did answer your question. Guns don't kill people, people do. Last time I checked, murder was illegal. Do you favor one knife a month laws?

[chris]

Rtwng Extrmst is just that, an extremist. No need to pay attention to someone who believes that steps should not be taken to reduce murder or accidental death, because "murder is illegal" What an idiot. This is the same person who has indicated that he believes women are in this world to make babies. Move to Iran!

[Rtwng Extrmst]

Chris, are you saying women are not in this world to make babies? In fact from a biological perspective, both men and women are here for that purpose. I've never ever indicated in any way that that's their sole purpose in being here or value in life. That would be your inference not mine.

So as to the one gun a month law, can you show me how this has in any way directly reduced murder or accidental death? My point is if you take away the guns from everyone, only criminals will have them. Worse yet, crimes will still be committed, just via a different means. The problem of dealing with crime is the people themselves that commit crimes. Not the gun. Guns don't make people want to commit violent crime.