The Citizens Referendum Group

In Saturday’s issue of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Graham Moomaw writes about a new petition drive associated with the 10-year-old baseball stadium issue.

A group seeking a voter referendum related to Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ proposed Shockoe Bottom development plan has filed paperwork with the Richmond Circuit Court to begin collecting petition signatures, said former state Democratic Party Chairman Paul Goldman, who is spearheading the effort.

Click here to read the entire article. 

The name of the ad hoc group that Paul Goldman is working with is the Citizens Referendum Group. I am a member of the group, as well. At a meeting today Goldman handed out copies of the petition. A brief discussion of how to proceed ensued.

It should be noted that the group’s plan is to stay on a positive course, without attacking anybody. Sometimes honest people with good intentions disagree. However, while this group is made up of people who have varied interests and opinions, they stand united by a commonly held belief that addressing the baseball stadium issue through democracy in action is now the best course for Richmond.

Since this brouhaha is over 10 years old most people in Richmond who give a hoot about baseball, Shockoe Bottom, local political priorities, and related stadium issues, have already made up their minds. So, with its petition drive the job of the Citizens Referendum Group will not be that of a salesman. Instead, it will more like a farmer harvesting a ripened crop.

Plenty of signatures are out there; more than enough. They just need to be collected.

Then there’s this: A citizens referendum will get the struggling members of City Council off the hook much better than whatever might come out of another consultant’s study. The definitive results of a plebiscite in November, however it would turn out, would give the side that prevails a stamp of approval that shouldn’t be questioned. 

More news about this developing story will be posted here soon.

Post at Bearing Drift misses the mark

A story I wrote with an accompanying illustration has been used to make a point by a writer at Bearing Drift, a conservative blog. Since the writer, Shaun Kenney, got something wrong, I tried to leave a comment under his post. I wasn’t able to complete the task. Not sure why.

Here's what I wanted Kenney's readers to see:

While it’s a bit disconcerting to see my work used in this way, I can laugh it off. However, I do want to make something clear: When Shaun Kenney writes, “which clearly outlined a small black child watching the whirlwind approach,” that’s his view of the illustration. And, if what was intended by the artist (me) actually matters this time, Kenney missed the mark.

Art-wise, my intention with that 1991 political cartoon was to imitate the familiar 1904 illustration of the Tar-Baby by E.W. Kemble, as it appeared in the famous Uncle Remus folklore story, as written by Joel Chandler Harris. Moreover, it most certainly was not intended to be a depiction of “small black child” watching anything. Anyone who knows the Tar-Baby story should know better. Kemble drew a lump of tar wearing a hat and I followed suit.

Click here to see the 1991 political cartoon in question.

Wising up

From the times have changed department: Some Richmonders need to wise up and stop clinging to old ways. In 2014 denial is standing in the way of pursuing prosperity.

From here on, there’s going to be a lot more money in telling the whole truth about the Shockoe Bottom slave markets and the Civil War, than there will be in keeping history buried and perpetuating fantasies about the Lost Cause.

Picture Your Corporate Sponsorship Here

Of course, if Mayor Dwight Jones gets his way and a baseball stadium is built in Shockoe Bottom, the city will want to sell the naming rights to some entity with a deep pocket. Thinking about how wildly inappropriate that game could get reminded me of a piece I wrote for Richmond.com in 1999. It was one of several attempts I made in those days to have a little fun with what were current events.

Yes, there have been some changes since I wrote that wiseass piece in 1999. The Landmark Theatre is now the Altria Theatre. And, some remember it was called The Mosque for about 70 years. Yes, Altria used to be called Philip Morris, but that's another story, plainly for another day. Then again, how much really hasn't changed since 1999?

The original piece is posted below:   

Picture Your Corporate Sponsorship Here
F.T. Rea
Richmond.com
Mon., Nov. 22, 1999

Richmond City Manager Calvin D. Jamison is looking for a company to buy "naming rights" for The Coliseum. If he is successful, Richmond would be in step with many cities in the country that have taken on corporate sponsors for their arenas, ball fields, and other municipal facilities that lend themselves to such exploitation.

Of course, just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean it will happen. The City of Richmond has been waiting since 1995 for an entity to throw some bucks into the kitty for the right to put its name on the storied hall that is being temporarily called the Landmark Theater.

With the budget for the operation of the city growing every year, it's no wonder Jamison is looking for new ways to make ends meet. And since it costs Richmond six figures every year to subsidize The Coliseum, why shouldn't the City Manager listen to a company that wants to cough up seven figures to install their logo onto such a high-profile facility?

Apparently Circuit City is considering it. If the deal goes down, we might soon see the circus and annual basketball tournaments held at the Circuit City Coliseum. And why not?

We applaud Mr. Jamison's state-of-the-art thinking and wonder what other publicly owned properties might become cash cows for the city. Humbly, we submit the following suggestions:

Let's go for the gold: The monuments on Monument Avenue should take on corporate sponsors. Why wouldn't Colonial Downs go for the equestrian theme? Maybe the best horse for them would be J.E.B. Stuart's, since it seems to be in motion. Just slap that racetrack logo onto the horse's ass and listen for the sound of the gravy train.

Then there's Matthew Maury, "Pathfinder of the Seas," with that big globe. How about a travel agency for Maury? A quick look at The Yellow Pages suggests Cruises Unlimited as a possible sponsor.

Cha-ching!

Next, we go for another one of those perfect fits. Instead of The Coliseum, we steer Circuit City toward sponsoring City Hall. That way we could call it Circuit City Hall.

Along the same lines, we could focus on a little local trivia and sell the naming right of the Lee Bridge to Sara Lee; making it the Sara Lee Bridge. (Sara Lee's happens to have been the original name of Sally Bell's Kitchen on West Grace Street. Maybe the first hundred grand could go to pay off Sally Bell's disputed tax tab with the City.)

The 6th Street Marketplace has been a drain on Richmond's resources for a long time. Maybe we could change that by selling the naming rights to a company that fits its image. How about The Forest Lawn Cemetery and Crematorium?

The most visible pieces of city property may be its police cars since they are mobile. Why not sell display advertising space on the patrol cars, just like cabs and buses?

The cars could have a Richbrau logo on their sides. And an ad for fightin' Joe Morrissey on the back.

Everybody makes money.

There's no limit to what fortune could flow from this concept. There will always be yet another space for an ad that could bring in some dough. A few more ads can't hurt us any more than the zillion our pickled brains have already been exposed to.

Finally, when he's making public appearances, Mayor Tim Kaine could wear a special mayor's suit adapted after the fashion of a NASCAR driver. On his official get-up there would be logos for sponsoring companies. There's no way Ukrops, Ethyl, or CSX can pass up this opportunity.

Come to think of it, didn't Richmond already do much the same thing when it hired Calvin Jamison from Ethyl?

Referendum update

Today’s meeting to share information and discuss the referendum strategy went well. We even shared a few laughs.

A group of some 20 Richmond citizens discussed a few different approaches, including my idea of simply outlawing a stadium in the Shockoe Bottom neighborhood. As one who is (almost) always happy to go with a better idea, now I’ve put that thought on the back burner.

Everyone had a chance to speak. The discussion was thoroughly civil and orderly. A range of reasons to want a referendum were talked about. But most of our time was spent on what we want to say on the petition(s) to put before a judge, so we can start gathering signatures.

The two approaches that gained the most favor, somewhat of a consensus, take different paths. One would say that anytime the city wants to build a large stadium, arena, etc., and use public funds, it will require that a referendum be held before final approval from Council. The other would address the bonds to pay for it, and call for a referendum to be held beforehand.

We will probably not be trying to dictate to City Hall where to build a stadium, or where not to build a stadium.

Hopefully, the two ways of allowing the voters to weigh in that the group settled upon today will allow for some who questioned other approaches to now support the referendum effort. As far as I’m concerned, the most important thing at this point is to let the people have some say-so. I'm for democracy.

And, I’m confident the voters of Richmond will enthusiastically support a way to put the kibosh to the notion of baseball in the Bottom, whatever path is used.


We're going to be gathering again soon to look over the legal lingo Paul Goldman is in the process of crafting. More news soon.

To follow the discussion in the meantime, go here.

Referendum info to be aired on WRIR

 

Instead of swallowing a deliberately misleading public relations campaign, let’s have the public weigh in. Instead of conducting another opinion poll, let’s get real. Moreover, the forces for the mayor’s revitalization plan “love” it that some people have the gotten the misconception that only a handful of activists are against their scheme.

With a citizens’ referendum on the ballot, not only is outlawing a stadium in Shockoe Bottom possible, it would offer youngsters in Richmond a splendid opportunity to see democracy in action.

Want more info? Tune in to a radio interview that will lay out the case for a referendum. It will air on WRIR 97.3 FM at 4 p.m. today. Open Source’s Don Harrison will be asking the questions. The answers, however enlightening or lame, will be coming from yours truly.

For those who’ve come to the issue recently, the information may provide some historical background. Knowing how we got here helps. For those who’ve been opposed to building a stadium in Shockoe Bottom for several years, perhaps what’s revealed about a new team dedicated to putting a citizens’ referendum on the ballot will provide some encouragement.

LovingRVA is Mostly a Smokescreen

Some people who are firmly against the building of a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom have let themselves become convinced that if the voters are asked to settle the issue by way of a citizens' referendum that they might lose. The main reason for that fear appears to be the LovingRVA public relations campaign now being promoted by Venture Richmond.

What follows is my attempt to assuage those fears with a little bit of analysis and a smattering of anecdotal history. It starts with a two-part question.

Who is the LovingRVA campaign aimed it and what is its purpose?

My answer is: The target has three layers and winning over the general public is the third-most important of those layers. It is more about creating the illusion of a juggernaut bandwagon. Here’s what I mean:

Before my days at the Biograph Theatre I worked at WRNL. In those days, over 40 years ago, when I was learning how to put together an advertising campaign from a master ad salesman, Lee Jackoway, he taught me to define the target for the message before working much on the creative aspect of it. In my eagerness to write snappy copy, he told me I was putting the cart before the horse.

Jackoway, the radio station's general manager, said to consider the target on three levels: The message should be crafted to get the attention of the primary target. Then appealing to the secondary target should be considered. Finally, the third target would usually be the general public.

Example: If the new product is a supposedly healthy soft drink, then the campaign would be designed to launch it successfully. According to the client’s market study males and females, 12-to-17, should be the primary target. The secondary target might be their mothers, who do the family shopping. Then tertiary target would be everyone who might consume a tasty alternative soft drink.  

To appeal to the most important target the ads might suggest that the hippest kids already like the new product. To appeal to the secondary target the ads might tout health claims -- better than cola. Then, on the third level, to the general public, a soft sell would allude to the product’s refreshing, easy-to-like flavor.

The target for the LovingRVA campaign is City Council. Yes, just nine people. But they are the people who are supposed to decide whether to follow the mayor’s lead or not.

The secondary target is the local press. The point here is to provide the media with a narrative that says the city is evenly divided over a 10-year-old controversy. Evenly divided and in need of leadership. With prefabricated quotes and an avalanche of signs, coasters and doodads with LovingRVA logos, it makes the job of reporting easy for the busy people working on a deadline to file a story. No investigation needed.

Besides some of the biggest advertisers in town are already on the bandwagon for baseball in the Bottom. Which means a story that advances that same cause will probably be well received by station managers and publishers.

Promulgating the illusion that the Loving RVA campaign has won over thousands of Richmonders, folks who were sitting on the fence, helps with providing cover for the aforementioned nine people -- the decision makers. Jackoway always stressed that a good salesman should always make his pitch directly to the decision-maker.

Then, the spillover reaches the public at large. And, yes, the LovingRVA thing probably has hoisted some young city dwellers -- new to considering the issue -- onto the bandwagon for baseball on the Bottom. Still, most adults who have paid any attention to the brouhaha made up their minds well before the LovingRVA propaganda hit the street.

The results of the only scientific study of preference were published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch in October of 2013. Among the results were these telling numbers: Richmonders preferred baseball on the Boulevard over the Bottom by 64 percent to 25 percent. My experience tells me the LovingRVA campaign has not done anything to change those numbers dramatically.

Of course, another thing the LovingRVA smokescreen is doing now, four months after those numbers were published, is to discourage people from working on using a referendum to decide this thing without depending on City Council.

That’s because the people pushing the mayor’s “revitalization” plan, with its baseball stadium component, know perfectly well they will lose if the people decide. 

Baseball-related congestion problem? Forget about it.

Regarding Richmond's baseball stadium kerfuffle, in the last couple of weeks there's been a lot of chatter about the bogus traffic study, or the lack of a traffic study. Self-styled experts have come out of the woodwork saying that without millions to change the roads in and out of Shockoe Bottom the congestion just before and after games at the new stadium would be a mess.

On the surface that makes sense. After all, the Flying Squirrels have been drawing 6,000-plus to games at the Diamond.

Well, I don’t doubt that City Hall is not being forthright about the potential for traffic and parking problems, as well as other things. But here’s another angle to consider:

Maybe Team Baseball in the Bottom isn’t so worried about traffic-related problems, because those on that team are privately expecting only 3,000 baseball fans will be attending the games at the new stadium. Or, if you listen to some disgruntled longtime fans in the suburbs, perhaps 2,000 would be a better guess. Hey, once the newness of the stadium wears off, if the Squirrels only average 1,500 fans for weeknight games, maybe the traffic problem won‘t be so bad.

There's hardly a guarantee the attendance for games will be as strong in a new location. In most business situations, location matters.

But since some of the well-heeled players who stand to cash in on building big in the Bottom and on the Boulevard will have already made their money by the time the umpire says "batter up," some of them may not care so much whether the Squirrels end up drawing large crowds in their new location.

Sarcasm about traffic trouble aside, if the opposition to baseball in the Bottom can’t coalesce to form a legal barricade to building Shockoe Stadium, the push for baseball in the Bottom, in all likelihood, is going to be successful. The traffic and parking problems will just have to sort themselves out.

OK, there are several excellent reasons to oppose putting a stadium in Shockoe Bottom. But if those opposed to it would rather argue about which reason is the best one that road paved with good intentions leads only to a dead end.

Unless some City Council members change their minds, the grumbling by baseball fans opposed to building a stadium in Shockoe Bottom will soon be just a quaint memory. Likewise, unless some Council members change their minds, those who want to protect Shockoe Bottom from a development that would do another injustice to its history will have to watch Jones’ published revitalization scheme go forth. The same goes for those who don’t want to see Richmond spend/risk any more money on professional sports facilities.

In my view, today it’s probably too late to depend strictly on a clever new PR campaign to cajole members of Council, to pry them away from supporting the so-called "revitalization" plan. The time for that sort of strategy was six months ago.

In Richmond citizens can bypass their government's say-so with a binding referendum. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Not an "advisory" referendum, as was discussed last summer, but a "binding" referendum. Binding is more difficult to make happen, but it can be done with a petition-signing campaign. Not an online petition, but on paper -- signatures in ink.

To end the push for moving baseball from the Boulevard to the Bottom, it will take much more than establishing another Facebook page or throwing up another cute web site. Forget about useless online petitions, too.

Sadly, because it would take a lot of work, pursuing the referendum option doesn’t seem to appeal to many of the well-meaning people who oppose baseball in the Bottom. The most visible of that scattered opposition seem happy to go on speculating about which members of Council might be secretly leaning their way.

They might as well be in a lifeboat. In the distance they can see land, but it would take a lot of rowing by cupped hands in the water to get there. Instead of pitching in, to get that vital job done, the group in the boat opts to yell at the shore, hoping someone will hear the noise and send them oars or maybe even a motor -- to make the trip easier.

It says here that members of Council who are already counting on big campaign donations and other favors from Team Baseball in the Bottom developers and their associates aren't listening. Worried about a baseball-related congestion problem a couple of years down the road?

Forget about it. There are worries to do with this brouhaha much more deserving of your immediate attention.

Who's Against Democracy?

When a high-profile controversy flaps in the breeze, unresolved for a decade, it can take on a life of its own. So it has been for Richmond’s dilemma concerning where minor league baseball should be played. 

For many Richmonders the baseball stadium issue has become frustrating in a way unlike any other they can remember. It hasn't been difficult to get the idea that a few hungry developers have been intimidating local officials to acquiesce to their wishes. 

When the stadium brouhaha started 10 years ago, for me, the thing that stood out was the talk about professional baseball coming from folks who seemed to know little about it. Gradually that morphed into how wrongheaded the baseball in the Bottom concept was, from a practicality standpoint. Maybe John McEnroe said it best, "You cannot be serious!

Then it got to be more about Shockoe Bottom’s remarkable history; I grew up in this town and recent revelations about the slave market have amazed me. I've come to understand that what was buried in Shockoe Bottom after the Civil War was deliberately covered up. It's turned out to be another layer of denial. How in good conscience can we go on averting our eyes from what really happened in those slave jails? From how many there were?

Now, for me, it’s come down to being about democracy, too. Maybe that's the trump card in this game.

You see, on this issue I’ve become convinced the local politicians aren’t speaking for the people that voted them into office. And, they know it. It's hardly unfair to say the PR team pushing the scheme to shoehorn a stadium into the Bottom isn't speaking for anything but money -- quick money. Nor do I think most voters can identify with the sort of full-time activists who not only oppose baseball in the Bottom, they oppose everything any government does and relentlessly spew derision at any convenient politician.

The combination of all those voices, all trying to speak over one another, has become a numbing cacophony. It has become a pestering wall of noise in our lives. Given that, when it comes to the stadium issue, who is now speaking for John Q. Public? 

A binding referendum would speak for those who care enough to vote. Put it on the ballot and let all the campaigners push for their side as hard as they like. Only such a referendum on whether to build a stadium in Shockoe Bottom, or not, can settle this matter in a satisfying way.

With a referendum on the ballot the school children in Richmond would have a splendid opportunity to learn a civics lesson about what it really takes to keep a democracy working properly.

Generally speaking, politicians don't like referendums that come up from citizens' groups. In Richmond they've made it hard to do. Nonetheless, while it won't be easy to get the question on the ballot in November, it can be done. In Virginia citizens can write laws. It will take a serious petition-signing campaign to drive a stake into the heart of baseball in the Bottom. But it can be done.

And, if the baseball in the Bottom forces swell up and get the majority of the votes, I won't like it, but the will of the people is a righteous thing. Moreover, I'm not scared.

OK. Who's against democracy? 

'The Gold Standard: High on the Hog, 1977-2006'

High on the Hog 25 (2001). Photo by Chuck Wrenn.

STYLE Weekly's annual music issue is out now. My contribution to this overview of local music history is: "The Gold Standard: High on the Hog, 1977-2006." Click here to read it.

Click here to see the entire cover story package with stories from several writers.

Blue's 'Mojolation' is a tonic

This has been a brutal winter in Richmond and with the short days some of us don’t need more reasons to be depressed. The last snow event here (Jan. 29) knocked out my electricity and heat all night. The temperature outside was in the single digits!

When the power was restored at about 7 a.m., the temperature in my pad was in the 40s. It took nearly all day to get the chill out of my old bones.

A couple of days later, when I read an email that suddenly made me laugh at some of my vexations, I decided to get to work on an art project I’d been putting off. Which led me to the best decision of the afternoon -- I put Bill Blue’s new CD, “Mojolation,” on my Bose Acoustic Wave.

It was like a tonic. The gritty music from Key West was just what I needed to invoke a productive mini mania. Ended up playing it a second time, then -- speaking of Blue -- I took a Pabst Blue Ribbon break.

As I’m writing this, my favorite cuts are “It’s Gotta Change,” “Brand New Man” and “Who Let That Stranger In?” But a couple of the others are growing on me.

Bill’s new 11-song CD is quite well produced. The sidemen do a fine job. Moreover, it’s the work of a fully formed artist who's not trying to be anything he isn't, just to put out a commercial recording. After decades of gigging in saloons, Bill may well have put together a breakthrough hit album.

Since I’ve got a political cartoon to work on, I’m letting “Mojolation” take my mind off of the damn wintry-mix-of-the-century that -- oy vey! -- is supposedly heading my way. Listening to the "Guitar Whore" cut right now.

Nice.    

Flashback: Thanks, Aimee

Note: This piece was first published 14 years ago by Richmond.com (Feb. 16, 2000).  

*

Anniversaries are knives that can cut both ways. Although we may raise the glass to remember certain events, sometimes we end up drinking to forget. Since I tend to dwell on the calendar more than I should, last Friday afternoon I was in a somber mood.

Then, shortly after 4 p.m., I received an e-mail from a friend who lives in D.C. Until then, I hadn't realized that I had been fretting all day over the notion that I was alone in remembering that it was the Biograph Theatre's 28th anniversary. Upon looking at the e-mail, I smiled.

On Feb.11, 1972, the Biograph Theatre at 814 W. Grace St. was set in motion by a gem of a party. The first feature presentation was a French war-mocking comedy, "King of Hearts" (1966). On the screen, Genevieve Bujold was dazzling opposite the droll Alan Bates. In the lobby, the Fan District's version of the beautiful people were assembled. The champagne flowed and the flashbulbs popped.

As the new cinema house's first manager, at 24, this yarn's recounter was convinced he had the best job in town.

Repertory movie theaters such as the Biograph became popular in large cities and college towns in the late '60s and early '70s. The fashion of the era, driven by a film-buff in-crowd, elevated many foreign movies, certain American classics, and selected underground films above their current-release Hollywood counterparts. A repertory cinema's regulars viewed most of the product coming out of Hollywood then as naïve or corrupt.

For me, the gig lasted nearly 12 years, including five years of Rocky Horror midnight shows. Four years after my departure, seven years after the arrival of cable TV in Richmond, the Biograph's screen went dark in December '87. Times had changed and the theater could no longer pay its way.

But in that little independent cinema's heyday, Feb. 11 meant something to those familiar with the nightlife in the VCU area. The Biograph's second anniversary was the party that established the occasion of the theater's birthday as a date to mark on the calendar. That was the year of The Devil Prank.

Following a circuit court judge's well-publicized banning of a skin flick, "The Devil in Miss Jones" (1973), we booked an old RKO light comedy with a similar title - "The Devil and Miss Jones" (1941) for a one-day event.

A press release announced that the theater was throwing a party to celebrate the anniversary of its opening day, admission would be free, and the titles of the movies were listed. (A Disney nature short subject - entitled "Beaver Valley" - was added to flesh out the program.)

As planned, no one at the theater answered any questions from the public or the media about the nature of the shows. The people who didn't notice the difference in the two titles merely were left to assume whatever they liked.

On the day of the party the staff decorated the lobby with streamers and balloons, laid out the birthday cake, and tested the open keg of beer. Spurred on by news reports of the Biograph's supposed intention to defy a court order, hundreds were in line by lunch time.

By show time, 6:30 p.m., the line of humanity stretched almost completely around the block. Thousands of people were waiting to see a notorious X-rated movie without knowing a Jean Arthur/Bob Cummings comedy was going to be shown instead.

The atmosphere was electric when I unlocked the box office. Only the first 500 in line could be admitted because that was the auditorium's seating capacity. Contrary to what I had expected, the audience didn't all get the joke at once. The realization came in waves.

Most of those who got inside enjoyed the night, one way or another. The movies had to be funnier in that context than ever before, as long as you could laugh at yourself. To wash down the taste of the hoax, free beer was available.

Of course, there were a few people who were still miffed, but so many more loved being in on such a massive joke that the grumbles hardly mattered.

The story of the stunt hit the wire services and it appeared in newspapers all over the country. NPR did a piece on it. Needless to say, the frothy publicity only added to the luster of what was truly a unique night.

In subsequent years, the occasion of the annual party served as a reunion for everyone who had ever worked or hung out at the theater. Sometimes special films were brought in for a screening, or a band would play after hours.

Another anniversary that was rather unusual was the tenth. In 1982, a Louis Malle film that had been shot in the Jefferson Hotel was in its initial release. We booked the picture to open on Feb. 11 and combined with VCU's Anderson Gallery to stage a party that served as a benefit for the art gallery.

"My Dinner with Andre" was a movie about two friends talking over dinner. The actual meal they ate in the movie was provided by a local caterer named Chris Gibbs. He also created restaurants such as Gatsby's, Fifth Avenue, and Winston Churchill's. Each day of the movie's shooting schedule, the flamboyant Gibbs would show up at the set with another batch of Cornish Hens and wild rice for the actors to pick over as they spoke their lines.

For our party, Gibbs served the art movie/art gallery patrons the same dinner as the actors on the screen were having. It went over like gangbusters. The local media ate it up, which of course validated the notion that a good time was had by one and all.

Naturally, since then, the theater closed and the tradition has atrophied. There was a small party for the 20th anniversary even though the cinema's screens had long been dark.

Back to the e-mail that made my day - here's how it worked: A few weeks ago, Style Weekly ran an interview with singer/songwriter Aimee Mann, a Richmond native and former lead singer of the '80s New Wave band 'Til Tuesday. The article mentioned her recent success with the song "Save Me" from the movie "Magnolia." Among her fond memories of Richmond, she spoke of having enjoyed going to the Biograph as a teenager.

Aimee looks familiar, but I don't really remember her from her Open High School days (in the late '70s). I sent the article to the friend I mentioned, Ernie Brooks, because I knew he was enthusiastic about "Magnolia."

Brooks, a regular at the Biograph in the '70s, subsequently attended Mann's recent performance at the Birchmere in Alexandria. During a break, he presented her with an almost never-worn Biograph T-shirt from his collection.

Ernie claims she was nearly overwhelmed by his gesture. However, in spite of what my experience tells me about such stories, I'm choosing to believe him.

In turn, she autographed a copy of her "Magnolia" CD for him. Ernie then e-mailed me a scan of it attached to an account of his conversation with Aimee.

On the cover art she had written - "To the Biograph, many memories, Love Aimee."

Upon seeing her simple message, my frame of mind changed instantly. Instead of letting mid-February's inevitable dreariness continue to bum me out, it even occurred to me how lucky I was to have been in on the adventure the Biograph was.

Because of a quirky art-movie connection, facilitated by way of an old friend of the Biograph, a willowy blond from the past beamed me a pleasant mood swing: a virtual happy anniversary present.

Thanks, Aimee. And congratulations on your Best Original Song Oscar nomination for "Save Me." I'll be watching to see what you are wearing on Oscar presentation night.

Ain't life grand?

-- 30 --

They’re going to have to prove we were communicating.

McDonnell: For us to have been in cahoots they’re going to have to prove we were communicating. Do you know MY wife?

-- by F.T. Rea

Goosing the Squawkers

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union performance last night was smooth.

Not that I think it was a great speech, soaring rhetoric, etc. It was just enough of this, and of that. He touched all the bases. He seemed pleasantly confident, rather than confrontational. Still, with his phrasing, he seemed to be having fun making the Republicans have to stand up to applaud for things they didn’t want to ... but they had to.

And, it seems to me Obama deliberately gave the rightwing extremists enough fresh material to keep them squawking well into the time for March Madness and the spring thaw.

In my view that was high on his list of goals with that annual ceremonial address to Congress. What I saw unveiled last night was a confident strategy to provoke the most ambitious and vociferous of Republican squawkers.

Q: Other than it might be fun, why would the usually cautious president want to provoke them?

A: The White House has figured out that the whole Tea Party era has stopped accumulating momentum. It's bogging down. It’s fizzling out.

Pick you metaphor, culture-wise, the crazy rightwingers have had their day. It all peaked at some number -- I'd guess maybe 28-to-30 percent of the voters. It’s on its way back to being the hardcore 15-to-20 percent thing it used to be. Now the angry take-the-country-back phenomenon's popularity is getting smaller in the rear-view mirror.

That's one of the most important takeaways from the Democratic sweep in Virginia.

While what I’m asserting may not be clear to most people yet, I think it will be sooner than you might imagine. In politics, things can change fast.

Anyway, happy to blow off the chance I could be wrong, what I took away from Obama’s speech was that the White House is going to pursue a provocative course that is bound to goose the squawkers. Rather than waste any more time trying to find common or middle ground with them, Obama is going to do things to provoke them into coming after him with their rhetoric -- mean-spirited blather that sounds stale.

Some will call for shutting down the government, again. Some will call for sabotaging the economy by playing debt ceiling games, again. Some will call for Obama’s impeachment, again. All of which will seem warmed-over, at best. Something new?

Maybe legal action over his executive orders?

So I'm suggesting Obama and his advisors have decided to help the fizzling process along by goosing the squawkers. Which should make more young voters, female voters and minority voters see the Tea Party/Fox News mindset in an increasingly more unfavorable light. When it seemed fresh, five years ago, that was one thing. Now it comes off as just more empty hype.

Not a solution.

Just squawk.  

Of course, in politics, when you can do the right thing, make your opponents act like fools, and help your party win elections in November, well, that’s a slam-dunk. Why wouldn’t you do it? Not bad for a guy who's usually a jump-shooter.

Perfect strategy for the coming March Madness season.

Like Obama, it’s smooth. 

McAuliffe stiff-arms Marshall

When it comes to Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s decision to walk away from defending the commonwealth’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, it's easy enough to understand why Republicans are squawking.

Squawk is part of their brand.

What’s hard to understand is why so many modern Republicans seem happy to jump on every sputtering bandwagon that comes along to squeeze whatever they can out of a moment. But it comes at the expense of soon looking bad … soon, and for a long time.

Democrats should encourage Republicans to squawk away.

And, by turning down State Sen. Bob Marshall’s request to appoint a special council to defend the amendment Gov. Terry McAuliffe is showing his savvy grasp of the moment. No doubt, he heard some advice to oblige Marshall, who was the biggest pusher of the 2006 charter change. It would look more bipartisan, it would entail little risk, so why not?

Instead, the savvy new governor politely still-armed Marshall. After all, this amendment never should have been there, in the first place. In 2006 it was a tactical gimmick. It was put on the ballot chiefly to goose conservative turnout in the election; now it seems poised to be put to sleep.

Ironically, the supposed chief beneficiary of the GOP's election-year strategy, George Allen, was too busy putting his own career as a senator to sleep. 

Once again, Republicans posing for a group picture of themselves making their case for being throwbacks to the bad old days. They seem blithely unaware that the caption under the photo is going to read:

They were among the politicians in 2014 who, like their flinty forebears in the '60s, stood defiantly on the wrong side of history.

In the not so distant future, Bob Marshall and his ilk are going to be seen by young voters as looking like villains in old news photos. Pictures in the same souvenir box with photos of Bull Connor and Strom Thurmond, padlocked public schools, open fire hoses, snarling police dogs, burned out churches and clippings of Richmond News Leader editorials.

Young voters, liberal or conservative on other issues, just aren’t going to be willing to support politicians devoted to resisting change on this front.

And, Byrd Machine-reenactor Bob Marshall doesn’t give a hoot about them.

The John Warner Endorsement

Former-Sen. John Warner has crossed the partisan aisle to endorse the man who filled his shoes in the US Senate, Mark Warner. 

Bravo!

Here’s a SLANTblog piece from Sept. 1, 2007, that I wrote when John Warner announced he would not seek reelection: 

John Warner: good-natured, unflappable and unbeatable

 

Yesterday, Virginia’s Senator John Warner ended speculation over whether he plans to campaign in 2008 to hold onto his seat in the U.S. Senate. Standing before the Rotunda at the University of Virginia, Warner announced that he will not seek a sixth term, choosing instead to retire on Jan. 6, 2009.

At 80 years old, surely Warner deserves a less hectic schedule. Among his comments, the white-haired veteran of World War II (Navy) and the Korean War (Marines) said, “How fortunate, how blessed I have been.”

Well, he’s not the only one.

The citizens of Virginia have been fortunate to have had Sen. John Warner representing their interests since 1979. Although Warner has been a moderate-to-conservative Republican, both in his expressed views and with his voting record, he has not let GOP political hacks push him into violating his own standards to play team ball.

Thus, at times Warner moved decisively to scuttle the campaigns of Republicans he saw as unworthy of his fellow Virginians’ support. Following his leadership, the voters rejected an extremist, Mike Farris (1993), and an opportunist, Oliver North (1994). Thus, owing much to Warner's efforts, Virginians were spared from being represented in high office by a rather mean-spirited religious crackpot, on the one part, and a traitorous smirking wiseass, on the other.

Of course, since those days some on the GOP fringe have hammered Warner as a RINO (Republican in name only). Yes, that crowd has tried more than once to unseat him. That, while Warner has remained good natured, unflappable and unbeatable.

And, in spite of how many times I have disagreed with Warner’s positions on other matters -- including his past support of Bush’s policy in Iraq -- still, I must say thank you, Senator. Thanks for the thoughtful, measured way you have carried yourself over the last 28 years in office.

Alas, it seems Sen. Warner is one of the last of a dying breed doing the people’s business inside the beltway -- a courteous representative of the people who actually does his own thinking. The list of those who want his job brings to mind that Warner’s successor will be hard pressed to live up to the standard he has set.

-- Art by F.T. Rea

How many Virginia teams are going to the Big Dance?

Speculation about college basketball is fun for hoops junkies in July. It’s mandatory in January. Which inevitably leads to guessing the number of Virginia schools that will go to the NCAA postseason tournament by way of an invitation. Speculating about who might win conference tournaments is too much of a reach.

Conference affiliations?

There are four schools in the Big South. Three are in the Atlantic 10. Two are in the Atlantic Coast Conference, Colonial Athletic Association and Mid-Eastern. One plays in Conference USA.

If the selection committee had to make its choices today, only two programs would probably get bids to the field of 68 based on their records. A third team would be on the bubble. That, with 14 D-I programs in the commonwealth.

As of today Virginia has the best RPI, according to CBS Sports. The Cavaliers (14-5, 5-1 in ACC) are sitting at No. 22. Next is VCU (15-4, 3-1 in A-10) at No. 37. After pulling out of brief slumps both have played well recently. 

Richmond (13-6, 3-1 in A-10) is the team on the bubble at No. 52. The Spiders still could shoulder their way in with some good road wins.

All the way down at No. 178, the next on the RPI list is Wm. & Mary (10-7, 2-2 in CAA). With 351 D-I programs that means the Tribe stands in the lower half of them.

While ODU (9-9, 3-0 in Conf. USA) is currently leading its league, at No. 180, to put dancing shoes on in March the Monarchs will need to win their conference tournament.

After this the picture only gets more dismal. There’s really no point in bringing any other teams into this discussion. But as we all know, a late-blooming team can upset the field in March and qualify by winning its conference's tournament. That's why they play the games.

Why support the Binding Referendum Project?

After 10 years of squabbling over one revamped stadium plan and another a referendum in November could solve this nettlesome problem for good.

Last summer City Council voted 6-3 against holding an “advisory” referendum on election day. The other way to get a referendum on the ballot bypasses City Council. Rather than a mere show of voter sentiment the result would be “binding.” Among other things, that path involves getting many petitions signed by voters registered in Richmond.

That path also scares politicians of all stripes.

The first exploratory meeting to discuss developing this strategy was held in December. Another will be announced soon on Facebook and elsewhere. The effort to put together an ad hoc group to do the necessary legwork is being called the Binding Referendum Project. It is hoped this effort will lead to giving Richmond’s voters a chance to finally weigh in on this issue.

There is a list of reasons for wanting to prevent the building of a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom. Regardless of why one is against it, if the issue gets on the ballot those opposing such a stadium will win. And, yes, Mayor Jones knows that.

Go to Referendum? Bring It On! for more info.