West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia
Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Big Daddy Sen. Robert C. Byrd

Does the Pope smoke dope?

by: One Citizen

Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 16:03:48 PM EST


by:  One Citizen

It's a rhetorical question. Of course he doesn't. At least not the real Pope.
Photobucket
Now let's ask a real question of our rhetorical Pope (depicted above). Did Rockefeller really believe that his "public option" had even half a chance?  Really?

Jay certainly acted all holier-than-thou when he tore apart Dr. Howard Dean for criticizing the Senate bill the other day. Funny, but I never heard Rockefeller get fired up like that during entire time congressional Neocons were staving off the much-needed intelligence oversight of the Bush administration by Rockefeller's panel. Even when Cheney tried foisting the responsibility for torture over onto Congress, Rockefeller never got as upset as he did at Howard Dean.

There's got to be some reason for his outburst. Rockefeller certainly didn't get torqued when Obama abandoned his public option amendment. There is always the strong possibility that Rockefeller's bargaining away of real reforms for giant giveaways to the insurance industry may be connected to how the health industry stocks jumped as an immediate reaction to what his Senate Finance Committee passed.  Check it out at this link.

By the way, most folks aren't aware that insider trading is still entirely legal for members of congress.

One Citizen :: Does the Pope smoke dope?
Senator Rockefeller seems to have almost papal-like infallibility, at least when it comes to never getting seriously grilled by the media. And, like the real Pope, he seems to always pontificate about being at peace with settling for less, urging followers to just keep faith, all-the-while wearing tailor-fitted designer raiment of the finest cloth.

Coincidentally, Jay's infallibility has also been passively sanctioned practically in perpetuity by the Republican party. For some odd reason the GOP never spends any serious cash to run anyone against him.

It is notable that Rockefeller very quickly and relatively quietly sacrificed the strong public option bill he'd sponsored, for the purpose of "bi-partisanship". In contrast, by holding out, Senator Ben Nelson earned himself an amazing mandate which requires the taxpayers of West Virginia (along with the other 48 states) to pay for the expansion of Medicaid for his entire state of Nebraska. Virtually forever.

Of course, hindsight being 20-20, it's easy to opine that back when Obama made it clear that single-payer was off the table practically at the outset of legislation, Rockefeller could have planted his heels firmly right then and there. That way, his public option likely would have had a far better chance of surviving.

I wonder if he learned anything from the experience. By his over-the-top reaction to Howard Dean, he pretty much telegraphed that he never really wanted to learn from the experience, just carp at Dean.

But this health care "reform" legislation has really not yet played completely out. We'll have to wait and see what Rockefeller finally does. My bet is that he'll vote to pass anything, including (or perhaps especially) the giant bonus package his Senate is striving to award insurance industry CEO's.

As for bargaining on behalf of health care for West Virginians (Rockefeller's constituents), I'm left wondering how is it that he can still remain so staunchly in support of the coal industry despite experts having recently revealed how it poisons coalfield families at alarming rates.

It just so happens that

[b]uried in the deal-clinching healthcare package that Senate Democrats unveiled over the weekend is an inconspicuous proposal expanding Medicare to cover certain victims of "environmental health hazards."

Unfortunately, the proposal doesn't cover the victims of coal ash, slurry in our aquifer or black lung for Rockefeller's constituents. It's for asbestos victims from a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana for Max "Blue Dog" Baucus.

Which goes to prove that Wabi-Sabi was right. Rockefeller's no Blue Dog.  He hasn't the spine of a Blue Dog. And unfortunately he lacks the integrity of a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders I-VT, who

was angered after a new government-run health plan was dropped from the legislation to win over moderates like Nelson and Landrieu, held out on backing the bill until Reid, D-Nev., agreed to a $10 billion increase in support for community health centers. source

Finally, check out FireDogLake Jane Hamsher's Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill

  1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations - whether you want to or not.
  2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
  3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can't afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
  4. Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
  5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
  6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits - like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions - until 2014 when the program begins.
  7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
  8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
  9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
 10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year - meaning in 10 years, your family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

And to think that Rockefeller jumped on Howard Dean in public with both feet just for speaking ill of the bill.  Although Jay may have gotten publicly cranky with Dean because he failed to deliver on his health care amendment and then never brought home any special concessions to his home state, it's a pretty safe bet that once Congress starts to pass legislation to stop global warming, Rockefeller will finally draw a line and deliver millions in tax subsidies to his pals running WV's coal industry. All-the-while leaving the development of green job alternatives out in the cold.

Since there's no stock ticker measurement for the success of subsidizing green jobs here, in the estimation of some, it'd be a worse sin than smoldering cash just for the smell of it.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
wild eyed (4.00 / 4)
This kinda stuff makes the website look kinda kooky. I get your point(s). But is it necessary to bludgeon our own this way? Funny works, but wild-eyed fuming tends to just shut things down. Speaking only for myself here, of course.  

Jay's "bipartisan" sacrifice of progressive values during negotiations is legendary. (4.00 / 1)
If you don't believe it, just watch as he brings home the bacon in the form of coal operation subsidies once global warming legislation negotiations begin in the senate.  And then try not to retch while he, Shelley Capito, Joe Manchin, and the WV media all proclaim it as a great "win-win" for West Virginia.

Of course they'll continue to ignore the fact that entire communities living in and around coal operations get sick and die at rates of up to five times faster than the general Appalachian population. And that coal extraction's toxic industrial waste costs multiple times more to West Virginia than it ever brings back to our state. source

What's gut wrenching about the whole deal is that as coal gets phased out, WV could really use an investment in developing green-collar jobs. So Jay's pimping for "clean coal" ends up being at the very least short-sighted, and at worst, greed-driven.

Either way, it's wrong.

Twilight campfighter, as you read this, don't forget that Rockefeller descended from a long line of staunch corporatist Republicans. Nor that when he was defeated after having publicly declared that he was opposed to surface mining, he's on record as having changed his stance 180 degrees.

BTW, can you explain why Rockefeller hasn't even tried to re-introduce Proposed HR 299 (described in this article) after Massey bankrupted Cannelton for the purpose of dodging their responsibilities to the miners?

It was, after all, a concern expressed by both houses of the West Virginia legislature (see WV S.C.R. 58)

"Petitioning the United States Congress investigate the loss of insurance coverage and pensions for active and retired coal miners due to the bankruptcy of Horizon Natural Resources and the closing of Cannelton Mine in Kanawha County."
Whereas, On August 31, 2004, Federal Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a decision that allowed for the sale of Horizon Natural Resources' assets, which include Cannelton Mine located in eastern Kanawha County; and
Whereas, As a part of the settlement, the Court allowed Horizon Natural Resources to void its contract with workers, thereby eliminating its contractual obligation to provide medical insurance coverage to the active and retired membership; and
Whereas, The Court also permitted the company's assets to be sold "free and clear", leading to the termination of health benefits for retirees covered by the Coal Act, a federal statute enacted by Congress in 1992 to prevent coal companies from abandoning retirees; and
Whereas, As a result of the decision in Federal Bankruptcy Court, on September 27, 2004, the Cannelton Mine was idled and 250 coal miners lost their jobs and health benefits; approximately 100 active miners were laid off before they could accrue full pension benefits; approximately 1,000 retirees and their spouses in Kanawha and Fayette counties lost their health benefits; and local and coal mine-related businesses in this state lost thousands of dollars owed to them; therefore, be it
Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the Legislature hereby petitions the United States Congress investigate the loss of insurance coverage and pensions for active and retired coal miners due to the bankruptcy of Horizon Natural Resources and the closing of Cannelton Mine in Kanawha County; and, be it
Further Resolved, That the Legislature hereby requests Congress determine whether the bankruptcy laws should be amended to ensure that workers' health and pension benefits are protected; and, be it
Further Resolved, That the Legislature hereby requests the Governor review and develop policies and programs to protect the economic welfare of coal miners and communities negatively affected by mine closures as a result of bankruptcies of coal mining companies and convene a meeting of federal, state and local elected and appointed officials associated with coal mining and coal miners' health and safety to review and evaluate the 1992 Coal Act and other federal and state laws in light of the Horizon Natural Resources' bankruptcy to determine the need for amendment of these laws; and, be it
Further Resolved, That the Clerk of the Senate is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to West Virginia's congressional delegation and the Governor.

Trying to introduce such a bill to the Bush-run Congress ended up being no more than lip-service to the miners, as Rockefeller should well have realized. But that sure didn't stop him from flogging it in the press.

How much are you willing to wager that he'll never try to re-introduce it while there's even half a chance that it'll actually pass?  And just why do you think coal operators have decided to "primary" Rahall, but not Rockefeller?


[ Parent ]
so the (0.00 / 0)
concept of a fresh start only applies to consumers and not to coal companies?

[ Parent ]
Laughing to keep from crying. nt (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
OC nails it again (0.00 / 0)
in my humble opinion...it takes a drastic approach to open people's eyes, I would agree 100% with the reasons so stated and I still don't believe we let our elected officials engage in insider trading...that's beyond me.

And why is there an expansion of Medicaid and more state aid, even before Nelson? (4.00 / 3)
Why is MLR (medical loss ratio) of 85% in there? Its' 78% now in WV.

I am not in the Kill the Bill crowd. Stop demanding better, no.
I watched the entire Senate Finance Committee markup.
Look up how many times Rockefeller was voted down by his own caucus.

There are some things, especially for kids, that start in six months.
I expect the conference committee to move the main effective date forward.
It is one year earlier in the House.

At least reporters are calling the need for 60 votes the result of GOP filibuster now, instead of accepting the GOP framing of the new normal anymore.

For a process geek, that is another success,

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance


Rockefeller isn't the problem. Republicans are the problem. (4.00 / 5)
If just one Republican was willing to allow an up or down vote on this bill, then we would have a far better bill that includes many of the provisions that Rockefeller fought for.  To slam Rockefeller when the President failed to push harder and when people like Max Baucus shut down many aspects of more meaningful reform doesn't make much sense.

The Medicaid expansion to 133% of federal poverty level (currently it's 33% for WV parents and ineligible if you're not a parent), continuation of CHIP which will serve even more WV children, enforced loss ratios that limit insurance companies profits and put at least 85% into medical costs (currently some companies take up 30% in profit), the ability to keep a child on your insurance up to age 26, and subsidies to help others pay for insurance are all very good developments that Rockefeller is helping make a reality. The ability to get insurance through an exchange without limitations due to pre-existing conditions, and other positive components of the bill to support prevention and child well-being are significant positive developments.

How about we focus some of this passion on the Republican naysayers and members of the Democratic caucus that are sitting on the sidelines for this debate? Rockefeller has shown the leadership to take an active role, and I for one think WV is better off because of it.

In a good conversation everyone speaks.  In a great conversation some even listen.


Let's not forget (4.00 / 3)
that with 60 votes we shouldn't have needed even one Republican vote. Their opposition should be irrelevant. Sadly this legislation was hobbled from the outset. If they had started the bargaining with single-payer we might have had a better outcome. If the President had campaigned for HCR like he campaigned for himself it might have made a difference. Instead they wasted months chasing after Olympia Snowe's vote and ended up succumbing to the tantrums of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson's shakedown, not to mention the thick-headedness of Mary Landrieu who lied throughout the process as well as any right winger.

Is is the best we could have done. Hell no. It may be better than nothing, but let's not forget that the will of the people was overruled by the will of the insurance industry. They are the ones getting the best deal.


[ Parent ]
Will of the people? (4.00 / 1)
Progressives did not elect Obama.  There are not enough liberals, let alone progressives, in this country to elect anyone.  Obama attracted enough moderates to win.  Most Democrats in Congress are not Progressive, either, and they have no obligation to vote as the President or the party decides.  West Virginians should certainly understand that being a Democrat covers a wide spectrum of positions.  People are pointing out that the current problem with the Republicans is that they have shrunk to a very narrow right-wing margin.  

What is happening right now is what is supposed to happen in a democracy - people are balancing the various costs and benefits, and we will get a program that represents a bunch of compromises.  You may think that "the will of the people was overruled by the will of the insurance industry," but it is possible that a majority of the people actually believe that the insurance industry is fine as it is and shouldn't be dismantled.  They may be wrong - the people often are.  That is why it is dangerous to argue for the will of the people, rather than the good of the people, to prevail. Congress may not always act for the good of the people, but that, not the will of the majority, should be the goal.

(If all of your friends jumped off a cliff...)


[ Parent ]
Oh just wait until... (0.00 / 0)
U.S. Senator Joe Manchin becomes the new Lieberman-Nelson type.

[ Parent ]
Wish I had the patience to say something as constructive as Wabi Sabi (4.00 / 2)
"tore apart Dr. Howard Dean"? "over the top"? I watched the video and "tore apart" is pretty far from reality. If Rockefeller were any more laid back, he wouldn't be speaking at all, and he was hardly the only Democrat who criticized Dean for his position.

And our other Senator demanded special consideration in the bill for "the victims of coal ash, slurry in our aquifer or black lung" and has sponsored legislation for developing green jobs and has been ever-vigilant against the excesses of the coal industry?  I think not.

What is over the top is your ad hominem attack and innuendo about Rockefeller's financial benefit, while at the same time invoking his inherited wealth.  

Perhaps Rockefeller continues to get elected, and the Republicans don't bother to run anyone against him, because the people of West Virginia believe he serves them well. To claim otherwise is to claim that a large majority of West Virginians are stupid or have been bought.


It's the Republicans (4.00 / 3)
Several comments that came to my mind have already been made. One, you are talented but occasionally it just looks like you hate all politicians, even the ones who are progressive. High standards are fine, but please unleash your artistic assaults on more deserving targets. Jay Rockefeller is not an enemy of the people. Glare to the right once in awhile.

Problem is, when I "glare to the right", I see Jay. But that ain't my fault. (4.00 / 1)
Once you read my reasons for distrusting Jay's actions, explain to me how far I am from true center.

When he served on the defense intelligence oversight panel, Rockefeller's influential vote to give Bush the keys to fire up the war machine and crash it into Iraq without any budget oversight was about as right wing as it gets. Posing as member of the loyal opposition to the Republican administration, his vote as someone who should have known that Bush was lying about Iraq's threat surely swayed other Congressional members to follow his lead.

Rockefeller was on that same oversight panel when we were attacked on 911, although from the way he soft balled his inquiries during later hearings into administration intel "failures", you'd have thought he was neocon patsy.

It was the same with hearings when Bush promoted Condi Rice from failed National Security Advisor to Secretary of State.  Ditto regarding Rockefeller's participation in hearings making Porter Goss head of CIA.  

Check out how "fired up" Rockefeller got when Goss left the CIA after the briefest stint of any chief there weakened and under a cloud:

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said Goss' mission was to lead the agency with foresight, but his tenure was marked by a staff exodus and a demoralized work force.

"The management problems hindering the effectiveness of our intelligence programs are not limited to the CIA however," Rockefeller said. "There are red flags throughout the intelligence community."

yeesh.

And it isn't as if I didn't also fax Rockefeller the dire warnings against his voting to confirm the "Sleeping Ambasador" John Dimitre Negroponte replaced J. Paul Bremer as the senior U.S. official in Iraq. It was entirely predictable that the horrors of Abu Ghraib "happened" on Negroponte's watch.

Should I condemn Rockefeller for voting to confirm Negroponte as Bush's ambassador to Iraq? As senior Dem on the Senate oversight intel committee, should i even mention that Rockefeller is indirectly responsible for the horrors of Abu Ghraib, or should I just keep my trap shut for the purpose of party unity?

By the time it came for Rockefeller to confirm Negroponte to be Bush's Director of National Intelligence (which he did, again, after pitching several soft ball questions to him), I was pretty much out of breath from blowing my whistle at Rockefeller.

Let's not forget that Senator Jay had also kept a tight lid on any objections he may have had when his Republican-run senate intel oversight committee look the other way over what the CIA did to Valerie Plame and former ambassador Wilson.

He sure kept quiet when Bush awarded former CIA chief George Tenet the Medal of Freedom for letting his administration get by with all those lies about Iraq's weapons capabilities.  And instead of raising a major media stink over Republicans stalling his committee results regarding their study over the failure of our defense intelligence, he just sort of quietly objected ...for years.

Softly mouthing objections seems to be one of Rockefeller's hallmarks. At one point he even figured out how to object so softly that he virtually guaranteed the success of the action to which he had opposed.

When the Bush administration briefed Rockefeller on domestic spying, he gave Dick Cheney the following  


July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

Now think about it. That little stunt of writing a note to mark his objection and then telling Cheney it would be buried in his desk was nothing short of incredible. With it, Jay virtually guaranteed to Cheney that he certainly wouldn't be leaking to the press, or anyone else during the time that the illegal surveillance was taking place.

For the record, Rockefeller never publicly oppose the Bush administration's domestic wiretapping program until 2007. So YOU tell ME why he stepped up only after the Democratic congress took control, and after the White House abandoned its previous position and said it would no longer allow the NSA to intercept such electronic communications without court approval.

Jay's a real oversight tiger, ain't he? Is there any wonder why the 911 commission rated congressional oversight of defense intelligence as a failure?

By the way, I remember very well how "shocked" Jay was when it was revealed that Bush's smarmy cadre was wiretapping the private phone conversations of our troops back in Oct. 2008, although I can't remember ever hearing that he did a damned thing about it. I only bring it up because it's the closest I've seen to Rockefeller ever appearing outraged during an interview, other than when he implied that Dean should "grow up" the other day. It's quite obvious that Jay upset over the news of NSA taps, but it wasn't because they'd infringed on our soldiers' right to privacy. Otherwise, he'd have kicked some bureaucrat's ass for letting it happen. No, it was because Rockefeller had been publicly embarrassed after having assured America that the NSA was only eavesdropping under individual warrants.  In other words, the incident either

a. publicly exposed his lie, or

b. publicly exposed his lack of oversight.

Bluebird, my friend, I learned very early in life that sins of omission were just as damnable as sins of commission. In other words, if I witness wrongdoing and fail to act, I am just as culpable as if I'd done the evil deed myself.

Why shouldn't our leaders be held to the same standard?

Now that you know a little more about Rockefeller, what kind of odds are you giving that he'll "bring home the bacon" for coal operators in the form of millions of dollars worth of "clean coal" tax subsidies while ignoring coal operators whom we all damn well know are poisoning our rural communities, underfunding our schools, destroying our roads and buying off our state politicians?


[ Parent ]
Leaks never came from the Congress and they are proud of it (0.00 / 0)
If they did, you think the briefing were foreshortened before, just wait.

Crazy Dutchman Pete Hoekstra R-MI has come close. You do remember the war of words between the Speaker and The Company on briefings? NSA stands for No Such Agency

Feinstein replaced Rockefeller as chair of Intelligence and it was announced well before the Congress came back in January 2009. As a member of the committee you lose the ability to schedule hearings on your own.

Riddle wrapped in an enigma.
How do you publicly protest a classified program?

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance


[ Parent ]
Apparently you wanted Rockefeller to break the law (4.00 / 1)
Clearly Rockefeller had objections and concerns. He expressed them to the powers that were in place and they ignored him and consistently hid the truth.  The Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee works under very rigorous constraints in order to protect the privacy of national security matters.  Once again you're blaming Rockefeller for not complaining louder, but Bush and Cheney and the Republican majority were the ones raping the Constitution.

I didn't agree with Rockefeller's position on wiretapping, and he has been cozier than I'd like with big coal since he learned the lesson of his first failed statewide campaign in the 1970's, but his worst day is a hell of a lot better than George Bush and Dick Cheney's best.

By the way, if you think Joe Manchin, Gaston Caperton or any of the other possibilities we have headed to Washington after Byrd and Rockefeller retire are more progressive than Jay Rockefeller, then you will be sorely disappointed.

Of course there is the lingering Carnacki for Congress campaign, so maybe the prospects aren't as bad as I thought. :)

In a good conversation everyone speaks.  In a great conversation some even listen.


[ Parent ]
I prefer pie for Christmas. And that question is not the classic rhetorical flourish. (4.00 / 1)
Take some time and review that Finance Committee markups. There are a few live blogs around. I watched almost every numbing hour of it and other participated in the live blogs over at CongressMatters. Some was on CSPAN so they have archived it and the Finance committee website archived its webcasts. On that issue, your opinion of our senator might be influenced. Wyden and Rockefeller amendments were something that slinkerwink and FDL promoted. West Virgina native Carper D-DE voted against Rockefeller. Conrad D-ND made sure Wyden D-OR did not even get his vote. Tense last night of markup.

Personally I think LIEberman is going to pull a Tauzin and he will not be in the way. But that does not remove the other Democrats who opposed the public option who made it know in committee and voted with the Republicans. This has been a work in progress in the Senate Finance Committee since last summer, before the election. A lot of people weren't even noticing back then.

More people realize Senate Rules Suck. Glad more people are noticing. At least reporters are calling the super-majority 60 vote obstruction a Republican filibuster instead of any kind of new normal.

Merry Happy Festivus.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance


insider trading (4.00 / 1)
While it is technically true that "insider trading by Congress is perfectly legal", it is an ethics violation for a Congressperson or aide to profit from insider trading.

The article referenced implies that Bill Frist benefited in some way from insider trading; in fact, it appears to have been clients of an information-gathering firm who got information from lobbyists
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg...

Our Republican member of Congress would be the only one with major stock holdings not in a blind trust, including energy companies who would probably not benefit from green jobs programs.


How they could have with a straight face (4.00 / 1)
said it was okay for her to be on House Financial with her husband's job bis beyond me.

That she accepted it shows for me at least, that she still remains a felon's daughter.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance


[ Parent ]
It's not just her husband (4.00 / 1)
Most of her financial statement is his holdings, but there are quite a few, including Duke Energy, that she holds in her own right.

One of the reasons I was a Rockefeller campaigner way back when was I figured he had not incentive to embezzle.  It appeared to be a tradition when I was growing up, and Arch continued it...


[ Parent ]
Premium Advertiser

blog advertising is good for you

Welcome!

( Home )
Menu

Click here to join!

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About
- About WVaBlue.com
- Send us news at wvablue@gmail.com
-  Subscribe in a reader

Advertisers


Support WVaBlue

Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Current CO2 level in the atmosphere

Proudly displaying the West Virginia Red, White, Blue, Green and Orange.

Join me at http://www.350.org


WVa Democrats
  • Sen. Jay Rockefeller
  • Sen. Joe Manchin III
  • Joe Manchin for Senate (2010/2012)
  • Rep. Nick Rahall (WV-03)
  • Secretary of State Natalie Tennant
  • Auditor Glen Gainer
  • Treasurer John Perdue
  • Agriculture Commissioner Gus Douglass
  • Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw
  • Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin, acting as Gov.
  • Declared Candidates
  • Jeff Kessler
  • John Perdue
  • Natalie Tennant
  • Earl Ray Tomblin
  • Rick Thompson

  • Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
    Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
    This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
    Powered by: SoapBlox