• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

RVA Mag

Richmond, VA Culture & Politics Since 2005

Menu RVA Mag Logo
  • community
  • MUSIC
  • ART
  • EAT DRINK
  • GAYRVA
  • POLITICS
  • PHOTO
  • EVENTS
  • MAGAZINE
RVA Mag Logo
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contributors
  • Sponsors

After Latest Poll, Brat/Spanberger Race a Toss-Up

Chaz Nuttycombe | September 17, 2018

Topics: abigail spanberger, Dave Brat, opinion, va-07, Virginia Elections

Though my last article positioned Abigail Spanberger as the favorite to win Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, I now see the race as a pure toss-up following the New York Times/Siena poll that came out last week. Though there are a few  oddities–such as Rep. Brat winning 18-29-year-olds and Asian-American voters, possibly due to the very low response rates among the first group and small sample size of the latter, Siena is still rated as an A pollster by FiveThirtyEight, so both sides need to take this poll seriously, especially the Spanberger campaign.

Brat leads by just four percent in this poll, which is just about what GOP gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie won the 7th District by in the 2017 primary. This poll is about what I’d give Dave Brat in his best case scenario. I do not think it is likely that Brat will do exceptionally better than Gillespie did last year; maybe he does a few tenths of a percent better. This poll is definitely good news for Brat, who is facing his toughest re-election yet.

Some of my pundit colleagues have argued, as early as mid-August, that Brat is slightly favored to win re-election. I understand why they believe he might be, but I think the race is a dead heat; the combination of a strong challenger in Abigail Spanberger and one of the worst GOP candidates in recent history at the top of the ticket, Corey Stewart, has made it exceptionally difficult for me to say Brat is the favorite right now.

If I were to put a range for the margin of victory in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District though, I would say it goes from Brat +4 to Spanberger +3. Spanberger’s campaign will have to make sure they do well with moderate Republicans who plan on voting for Kaine but may split their ticket for Brat, especially those moderate Republicans who liked Eric Cantor and are still mad about his loss to Brat in 2014. I am not downplaying the importance of Spanberger having to turn out her base though. She will need to turn out African-American voters in areas like Brookland,  Fairfield, and the Southside of Richmond, as well as improving on Northam’s suburban gains last year by winning heavily among women voters; in the NYT poll she leads women by 13 points, but that’s probably not enough to win. There’s plenty of time for her to widen the gap, but even if she does, her campaign should still invest more time in areas they barely won during the primary, like southside Richmond and Fairfield, to make sure they turn out enough voters to find a path to victory.

It will be interesting to see how the race in Virginia’s 7th develops. Had you told me a month ago that the 2nd Congressional District would be a better pickup opportunity for Democrats than the 7th (I currently rate VA-02 as Lean D; Luria wins by 5-10 percent), I would’ve rolled my eyes. The status in highly competitive races like these can change dramatically over a short period of time, so you can bet your bottom dollar I’ll be writing more pieces on Virginia’s 7th before election day.

‘Berger vs Brat: Predicting the 7th District Congressional Race

Chaz Nuttycombe | August 7, 2018

Topics: abigail spanberger, Dave Brat, opinion, political predictions, Virginia 7th district

Before the June 12 primary, I would have called the 7th congressional district race between Democratic challenger Abigail Spanberger and Rep. Dave Brat a pure toss-up.

But after Spanberger’s landslide win, and Corey Stewart’s poor performance in the GOP primary in the district, I’m considering the district as a democratic lean. Stewart only took 33 percent of the vote in a district that was once a Republican stronghold. Spanberger is favored to win by at least 5 percent, but unlikely to reach double digits against incumbent congressman and Tea Party hero Brat.

Spanberger is one of the best Democratic recruits for the US House in the country, certainly in my top 10. Judging by the yard signs all over the west end of Henrico County, which Spanberger is certain to carry, her campaign has strong grassroots support. Of course, this isn’t the only area Spanberger needs to carry in order to flip the 7th for the first time in decades. She’ll also need to carry Chesterfield County, ensure a high turnout in Southside, and continue to make the western suburbs even bluer. At the moment, I’d say she’s favored to carry Chesterfield, too, likely to improve on Northam’s margins there last year. The final population center is in Spotsylvania County, which contains the blue-trending suburbs of Fredericksburg, where Brat and Stewart are currently favored to carry, Stewart by less than 5 percent, and Brat by more than 10 percent.

Outside of Richmond, toward the rural part of the Capital Region in Goochland, Powhatan, and Amelia, Spanberger is likely to improve on Northam’s margins with Sen. Tim Kaine at the top of the ticket. In fact, Kaine may even flip Goochland County, though it’s almost certain to split its ticket for Brat. Right now, Kaine is estimated to lose Goochland County to Corey Stewart by less than 5 percent, similar to when then-State Senator Northam only lost the county by 4.53 percent to E.W. Jackson in the race for Lieutenant Governor in 2013.

Though it’s possible for Kaine to flip it with an estimated margin that small, depending on where the coordinated campaigns of Kaine and Spanberger decide to spend their resources. Perhaps the campaign will follow the classic Kaine formula of winning in Virginia he set in 2005: nuking the GOP in the most populated areas, Richmond, northern Virginia, and Hampton Roads, while investing little resources elsewhere. Or, they could go a different route and invest in flippable counties like Goochland and Nottoway, while making sure they meet the minimums in the populated parts of their races.

Regardless of which path to victory the campaigns decide on, Spanberger is still likely to be the next congressperson of the Commonwealth’s 7th district. Brat no longer fits the 7th district now that Hanover County, his base of support in 2014 as a Randolph-Macon professor running for office, has been redrawn into Virginia’s 1st district.

The Tea Party that put Brat over the top in his historic primary win is not as dominant in the remaining counties in the 7th as they are in Hanover County. Brat has refused to meet with constituents at a town hall for over a year now, earning a reputation that he’s as unavailable as his predecessor, Eric Cantor. More tangible indicators are also working against him. He’s been consistently outraised by Spanberger in every quarter, seemingly thanks to her large pool of volunteers operating phone banks, canvassing operations, and other outreach.

Spanberger is not certain to flip the 7th, but she’s absolutely favored at this point to become the first woman to represent the district. It’s still August though, and there’s a long way to go until election day.

This columnist has volunteered with the Democratic party of Virginia.

An Open Letter from an African Writer, To the Chesterfield Restaurant Owner Who Ruined My Day

Sarafina Sackey | June 27, 2018

Topics: African studies, chesterfield, opinion, richmond

Dear Becky,

You’re the owner of Caddy’s Restaurant on Midlothian Turnpike. And you just posted this absurdly racist comment directed toward black Congresswoman Maxine Waters.  

“Maxine Waters, shut your your big fat lips, no one wants to hear your rasium [sic] remarks…Go back to Africa where you’re from.”

I’m actually from Africa, born and raised in Takoradi, Ghana, and I’m really disappointed you made such comment. You are a restaurant owner, therefore people look to you to represent your community. You may not know how impactful you are to others, but you are influencing your community through your actions and words. And this is what you teach them? (Also, maybe learn how to spell. “Rasium” is not a word.)

Enough with the racist comments and stereotypes about Africa. Every action has its own consequences and you, Becky, are responsible for yours. When the President started making racist comments about Africa (remember the “shit hole countries” remark?), people were upset, but people like you simply didn’t care, because unlike me, you didn’t have to. I think it’s time the world and America learns the truth about Africa.

In case you didn’t know, history shows that Homo erectus (one of the earliest species of humans) were the first of the hominins to emigrate from Africa. From 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago, this species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe. One population of Homo erectus, also sometimes classified as a separate species Homo ergaster, remained in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens–the human species as we know it today. Each and every one of us originated from Africa, the continent you despise so much. Before you come at someone with such a racist comment, do your research.

You technically don’t belong here, either. From the time settlers first stepped foot on these shores, America became a country of immigrants. And if you think Africa is a slum, you’re wrong. It is a beautiful continent, filled of rich countries with rich cultures and educated, loving individuals with principled morals and values.  

Hearing someone say this to another human is deplorable. America is not white. The immigrants, the people who created, built, and designed this country make it great. The food, culture, dance, music, and so much more were brought here by people like me. It was not born here. I see aspects of my own Ghanaian culture filtered through American, Virginian, and Richmond culture every day.

If you want to destroy your business by being racist, then good luck. Prior to your deleting these posts, your social media page revealed a history of offensive and controversial comments.

“I am not a racist, I believe every home should have a color TV,” you said in a post. What exactly are you suggesting? Do you really not think this is derogatory to people of color, therefore qualifying you thus?

Another of your posts said, “I’m proud to be white. I bet no one passes this on because they are scared of being called a racist.”

Last month, you shared a post voicing your agreement with TV star Roseanne Barr, after Barr’s racially-insensitive comments on Twitter. Haven’t you done enough harm already? In a response to someone’s criticism on Facebook, you said, “Sorry. If everybody else can speak what they think, I can too. It is a country that we have freedom of speech and I use quite often.” Just because we have freedom of speech doesn’t mean you have anything of value to say. There are and there always will be consequences to your words. Your one Facebook post just ruined the day of a young African girl.

Have you actually sat down to think about how you feel when someone hurts you? Yeah Becky, words really do hurt. They can make or break an individual.

Lots of love,

Sarafina 

An actual person from Africa.

Mocking Immigrant Children is a New Low, Even for The Richmond Times-Dispatch

Saffeya Ahmed | June 21, 2018

Topics: immigration ban, opinion, Richmond Times Dispatch, trump, undocumented immigrants, zero tolerance policy

Today’s print edition of the Richmond Times-Dispatch features an editorial cartoon mocking the separation of families at the southern border, and I am utterly outraged. Unless you think the forced separation of children from their parents is somehow acceptable, featuring this cartoon is absolutely disgraceful. 

The audacity of Richmond’s major newspaper to publish a cartoon poking fun at a situation, which has seen over 2,300 children removed from their parents, diminishes the very real pain of these families and attempts to normalize inhumane “zero tolerance” immigration policies. Showing a cartoon as low as this one is not only a blow to the immigrant persona, but is also an attempt to “other” the experience of immigrants who are seeking asylum from violence.

Mayor Stoney even tweeted a photo of the cartoon and called the image “shameful.”

The cartoon suggests to families attempting to cross the border one piece of advice that might ultimately “solve” this crisis; “Step 1: Stay Away” and underneath it, reads, “The End.” To suggest that a crisis as major as this one could be solved by a two-word, eight-letter proposition is a pitiful oversimplification of a very serious, complex problem. The most ironic part? I wonder how many refugees and illegal immigrants wouldn’t have to flee their countries if the U.S. hadn’t destabilized nations by propping up right-wing dictators in favor of U.S. interests; for example, U.S.-backed Guatemalan President Jacob Árbenz and the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua.

I am ashamed that something so ignorant and racist would be published in a newspaper associated with my city; a city that claims to be progressive. 

RTD tweeted in response to the immense amount of public disapproval the cartoon received. The tweet reads, “There’s been much social media chatter about a cartoon on the #RTD editorial page implying immigrants can avoid illegally entering the country. We publish many columns, editorials, and cartoons that criticize Trump’s immigration policies and support immigration. We love balance!”

 

Let’s get one thing straight here: this cartoon is not “balance.” This cartoon is xenophobic, shameful, and pathetic. It renders the situation of these immigrant families as invalid and oversimplified. What is there to joke about when thousands of immigrant children are being ripped from their families and left to live in cages?

Placing ridicule on children who have lost their parents and been forced apart from their families by this country’s administration is absolutely horrifying. The United States of America has been at the forefront of traumatizing tens of thousands of immigrant children crossing the border and part of RTD’s response is a cartoon mocking them? This cartoon was published in the editorial section of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which I acknowledge is a separate entity from the paper as a whole. However, publishing this content in print shows a serious lack of judgment and a tone deafness we have come to expect from RTD.

Our nation is housing children in converted Walmarts and letting them sleep in cages with foil blankets. There are recordings of young children crying for their parents from tent camps. Absolutely nothing is funny about this crisis. And to ridicule thousands of families fleeing horrifying circumstances is cruel and uncalled for.

I am disappointed, frustrated, and downright insulted that this content would ever be published in Richmond’s newspaper. It is impossible to say the illustrator of this cartoon has any idea what compassion or true American ideals are. The US consistently prides itself on equality, justice, and acceptance, but when its citizens see no problem mocking suffering children, is it really our place to take pride in those ideals anymore?

In the Face of Injustice, ‘Neutrality Is Not A Morally Acceptable Option’

Rabbi Michael Knopf | March 27, 2018

Topics: opinion, passover, rabbi michael knopf, temple beth-el

Passover, the Jewish holiday commemorating the enslavement and liberation of the Children of Israel from Egypt, is right around the corner. In just a few days, Jews everywhere will gather not only to recall the story of the Exodus but also, through conversation and ceremony, to internalize, personalize, and universalize the narrative.

For us Jews, the Exodus from bondage in Egypt is not mere history. Our tradition also instructs us to understand the Exodus as an allegory about the present. In every generation, the same drama plays out: Some will seek to secure their own privilege and power by relentlessly vilifying and oppressing the weak, while the oppressed will yearn for liberation, dignity, and equal opportunity. Every person, in every time and place, thus faces a fundamental choice: Either you can be a Pharaoh or you can be a Hebrew; either you are an oppressor or you are the oppressed.

Some may argue that within the Exodus story there is a third possibility. Weren’t there regular Egyptians who did not themselves enslave any Hebrews? Technically, yes. But, at least the way the Bible tells it, during the four centuries of Israelite bondage in Egypt, not once did any of those Egyptians protest Pharaoh’s oppressive policies. Only a handful of courageous Egyptian women engaged in acts of civil disobedience. Everybody else stood silently on the sidelines as an entire nation was brutalized.

How do you think Pharaoh interpreted his people’s silence? Just as any modern leader would, Pharaoh doubtlessly assumed his people supported or at least tolerated his policies. It is natural to interpret an absence of protest as agreement. In this sense, silence always benefits the status quo. So, while the average Egyptian may not have personally harmed any Israelite, by failing to speak out, he effectively sided with the oppressors. Perhaps that’s why the ten plagues afflicted all Egyptians, and not just Pharaoh.

The moral of the story is, either we are on the side of justice or we are opposed to it. Neutrality is not a morally acceptable option. Either we are engaged in shaping a society in which everyone is uplifted, or we are helping some remain privileged and powerful while others are degraded and disenfranchised. Every moment we are not fighting for justice we are impeding it, including when we remain neutral and silent.

As a rabbi, this awareness has always fueled my social activism. And it especially drives me now, at this moment when injustice is routinely entrenched in policy and cruelty seems to have become a governing philosophy.

For instance, how can I, as someone devoted to a tradition that commands, literally dozens of times, to “love the immigrant, for you were immigrants in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:19 is but one iteration of this law) remain silent when politicians enact policies that systematically target members of our country’s immigrant community, vilify immigrants (especially those from “sh*thole countries”), conduct warrantless searches of people who appear to be foreign, hold those suspected of violating immigration law without trial or bail, break apart families, destroy lives, and shatter the dreams of young people who have known no other home? I cannot, and so I have been active in the Central Virginia Sanctuary Network and in pro-immigrant advocacy.

How can I, as someone whose tradition holds as foundational that all human beings – created in God’s image – have infinite worth and equal dignity, stay neutral when our leaders pursue explicitly stated goals like banning Muslim immigrants? Or when they perpetuate noxious myths about people of color, or when they are repeatedly accused of sexual assault, or when they support and safeguard men who brutalize and prey on women? I cannot, and so I have been fiercely committed to supporting the Muslim community in the face of rising Islamophobia, to activism on behalf of refugees, to advancing racial justice, and to helping amplify women’s voices and supporting strong female leadership.

Furthermore, my tradition mandates that, in a just society, all people have equal status, privilege, and protection (see, for example, Leviticus 24:22). How can I therefore not voice my concerns about the availability of a quality education for all Americans? How can I not express my fears over the equal enforcement of civil rights laws or the erosion of voting rights?

Our democratic institutions and the norms that support them are also reflections of the Jewish notion of human equality. Those institutions and norms are facing unprecedented daily assaults, both from hostile foreign powers and our own leaders, all while those officials who are meant to defend us from such threats have failed to protest in any meaningful way. The ways in which our current leaders have undermined and warped our democratic institutions are too numerous to list here but to name a few, the President has demanded his political opponents be criminally investigated, interfered with active investigations, threatened top law-enforcement officials, and attacked federal judges, all steps that, both individually and in the aggregate erode the independence of law enforcement and the judiciary.

Likewise, the President has ignored, and in some respects has actively encouraged, Russia’s interference in our country’s elections, actions which both make us less free and less safe. Meanwhile, congressional leaders, charged with the responsibility to check such abuses, have at best largely remained silent about them, and at worst have actively encouraged the President’s words and actions. Can I, as a rabbi, in good conscience remain silent about any of this?

How can I, as someone whose tradition insists that human life is a supreme value, stand idly by when our leaders refuse to help resettle refugees, or when millions of guns, legal and easy to buy, threaten our children at school, at the mall, at the movies, at concerts, all because our leaders value the concerns of well-funded special interests above the lives of vulnerable citizens, all but ensuring shamefully common, uniquely American, man-made tragedies like last month’s mass shooting in Parkland, Florida?

Were I to remain silent in the face of such egregious injustices, I, too, would be responsible for perpetuating them.

Similarly, since my tradition teaches that healthcare is a fundamental human right and a communal obligation, I feel obligated to work to ensure that everyone in my community has access to affordable, quality healthcare. If I don’t do my part to fight for universal coverage, then I am partly responsible when people do not receive or cannot afford the care they need.

Since my tradition calls for enough redistribution of wealth from those who have the most to those who have the least so that “there shall be no needy” (Deuteronomy 15:4), I feel obligated to purse tax policies that further the goal of economic justice. If I don’t do my part to fight against tax reform that favors corporations and wealthy individuals, then I am partly responsible when people become trapped in cycles of poverty.

Since my tradition requires planetary stewardship, I feel obligated to stop and reverse global climate change before it’s too late. If I do nothing to champion policies that would protect our planet, then I am partly responsible when our world becomes unfit for human habitation.

While I may not be guilty of all the injustices prevalent in my world, if I’m aware of them and fail to act, I nevertheless bear responsibility for them.

As Passover nears we should all be reminded that we perpetually face a basic choice: we either stand on the side of righteousness or on the side of evil. There can be no neutrality. And, just like Pharaoh and the Egyptians, the choices we make – the actions we take or refrain from taking, the injustices we perpetuate or tolerate or protest – determine our fates – it is time again to decide where and with whom we stand.

Opinion: Mark Holmberg Misses the Point on Monument Ave Debate, Big Time

Landon Shroder | June 26, 2017

Topics: Confederate monuments, opinion, politics, Richmond Times Dispatch

Mark Holmberg’s most recent editorial, Mayor’s narrative about Monument Avenue ‘not the whole truth,’ proves he is woefully out of touch with the current conversation.

For starters, let me say this: Reducing this city’s ignoble history to a series of blatant generalizations and clichés is not only naive, but highly dangerous. We now live in a politically charged time where the debate over Confederate symbols is driving the next generation of white supremacy, white nationalism, and alt-right ideology.

This fact cannot be removed from the ongoing debate surrounding the future of our very visible and highly contentious Confederate statues. And our public voices, Holmberg included, have a responsibility to engage in the nuance of this debate and not cast lazy aspersions against Mayor Stoney.

Why is this important?

Because Holmberg’s inability to fully understand this issue or be curious about the direction of this debate highlights why Stoney’s commission is so needed. This is not a hard conclusion to arrive at, not when the opening salvo in his audacious opinion piece states: “Denouncing the ‘false narrative’ of the Confederate monuments on Richmond’s Monument Avenue on Thursday, Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney proceeded to dish up his own stony narrative of our world-famous avenue while announcing a commission to write the correct one.”

Implying what Stoney said was incorrect by putting “false narrative” in quotations (twice) and connecting it to language like “dish up his own stony narrative” only serves to seed doubt about what the conflict between the states was actually about — slavery. Is there another narrative which needs exploring when evaluating the prominence of a Jefferson Davis statue on Monument Avenue or the purpose it serves in 2017?

To suggest anything to the contrary is to provide fertile ground for narratives being advanced by white nationalist groups throughout Virginia. Look no further than the endless rallies being held in Charlottesville over the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. This is where being woefully out of touch with the current conversation becomes so detrimental to the conversation this city needs to have with itself, especially over racial issues.

Holmberg then digs in further by saying: “No doubt, the mayor’s personal narrative about Monument Avenue is partially rooted in fact. But it’s not the whole truth.”

Yet in the end, Holmberg offers no real facts or suggestions that might give the people of Richmond a new perspective. Instead, he takes readers on a prattle-fueled journey into the mindset of an aging demographic long past its prime. One that quickly dismisses what is important to people of color, our current generation, and younger politicians who are seeking solutions to complex issues, not just deferring to the status quo under the pretense that Monument Ave is “world-famous.”

And what little “facts” he does provide are about Commodore Matthew Fontaine Maury, who’s nom de guerre, “Pathfinder of the Seas,” sits on the corner of Monument and Belmont. However, this is little more than a bait and switch, a way to detract from the more imperious statues of Davis, Lee, Jackson, and Stuart. Are we to expect a sweet missive from Holmberg on the contributions made by Jefferson Davis next?

He continues: “The man who charted ocean currents and winds, a tireless researcher and author whose work in several fields before and after the war profoundly changed the world.”

But here is the simple truth: The men on Monument Avenue led an insurgent rebellion against the United States for the purposes of keeping human beings enslaved. This is not changed by the fact that Maury pioneered some naval and oceanic research, nor should Holmberg be referring to him as a “heroic scientist,” given the war crimes and moral bankruptcy of the Southern cause.

To do so, once again, suggests a version of history that lacks context and dismisses the modern conditions in which these statues exist. This is precisely why Stoney’s speech was delivered the way it was. Furthermore, Holmberg is not really sincere about seeking historical clarity. He is sincere about preserving the look and feel of Richmond’s antebellum and postbellum past, which is important to people who don’t have to be reminded about symbols celebrating their own oppression.

“I just wish the mayor had introduced this complex and controversial effort to correct the ‘false narrative’ with more grace instead of a stony and blanket condemnation of the many people who helped make Monument Avenue one of the most architecturally acclaimed streets in the world,” said Holmberg in conclusion.

Holmberg would do well to reserve some of his indignation for the lack of equal representation of African American history on Monument Avenue and leave the architectural acclaim to architectural critics. Until all of our history is elevated to equal prominence any real conversation about Confederate symbols made by people seeking to preserve the status quo is disingenuous at best — and racist at worst.

Perhaps the Richmond Times should implement a commission to study the context surrounding Mark Holmberg, because I can assure you, much like our Confederate statues, he is losing relevance.

 

sidebar

sidebar-alt

Copyright © 2021 · RVA Magazine on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Close

    Event Details

    Please fill out the form below to suggest an event to us. We will get back to you with further information.


    OR Free Event

    CONTACT: [email protected]