Most of these obits are omitting another important transformation Byrd underwent; from a longtime supporter of all things coal to a man who recognized the importance of beginning a transition to a clean energy economy. Indeed, one of the last votes Byrd cast was against the infamous Murkowski Amendment, which would have stripped the EPA of the ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

To call West Virginia a coal-heavy state is a massive understatement — it provides 50% of the nation’s coal exports, and accounts for tens of thousands of our state’s jobs. Any politician publicly rebuking coal here is just asking for trouble, and Byrd was noted for being a champion of coal.

But in December 2009 Byrd wrote an op-ed that criticized modern-day mining practices and accused the coal industry of “having its head in the sand” on climate change. State pols were sure there must have been some mistake. Governor Joe Manchin chalked the whole thing up to a “misunderstanding.”

But it wasn’t a misunderstanding… after 50 years in the Senate, the 92-year-old statesman had apparently revised his views on both coal and global warming. Byrd found it increasingly difficult to argue that the interests of coal companies and the interests of his state are one and the same.

Between noting the clearly debilitating effects of mountaintop removal mining and noting the reality of climate change, Byrd found it increasingly hard to continue to support coal. Many other politicians in his position would likely have continued to support it anyway — that being the politically safe thing to do. But Byrd spoke up, despite a lifetime of backing coal.

This shift should give hope to all those who recognize that the environmental practices and energy policies we have now are not sustainable — even the most stalwart of fossil fuel supporters can see the light, if, as Byrd did, he has the conviction to keep the long term interests of his constituents at heart. His transformation would have been completed would he have been able to vote for comprehensive clean energy reform.

You can read Byrd’s op-ed here. Rest in peace, Senator.

I never thought I’d write this, but I think we’ve discovered a new level of stupid below the heretofore impenetrable Sarah Palin floor.

It’s not unlike the discovery of a previously unknown species of protohuman deep within a cave somewhere, revealing some new twist in the constantly expanding canon of human evolution. There is, in fact, a Republican of national prominence who makes Sarah Palin seem brighter and less contradictory by comparison. That’s not to say Palin has miraculously become smarter or better spoken, it’s just that the idiot curve is now redrawn in her favor.

Yes, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi is arguably the new king of all Republican stupids. Palin must now relinquish her Twitter feed, her fork cork and her trident. For Haley Barbour has arrived.

What is it about Republican governors? They’re either appearing in interviews with a blood-soaked cletus geeking turkeys in the background, or they’re lying about hiking the Appalachian Trail, or they’re honoring the Confederate States of America while ignoring slavery, or they’re entertaining the treasonous option of state secession, or they’re bitching about government stimulus money one minute, then posing with giant stimulus checks the next minute.

And now there’s Haley Barbour, who said this week about the $20 billion escrow fund to compensate victims of the oil spill:

It bothers me to talk about causing an escrow to be made, uh, which will, which makes it less likely that they’ll make the income that they need to pay us.

Let’s ignore the Palin-ish phrase “causing an escrow fund to be made” and focus on the substance. Paraphrasing Jon Stewart’s analysis: Governor Barbour appears to be suggesting here that if BP sets aside $20 billion to be paid to victims of the oil spill, it won’t have enough money to… pay out to victims of the oil spill. In other words, Barbour is against compensating victims because he supports compensating victims.

Perhaps next time, Barbour should consult with his smarter sidekicks Roscoe and Enos before speaking about complicated topics like “causing an escrow fund.” (Jon Chait gets full credit for the Boss Hogg comparison.)

Of course, this isn’t the first and it surely won’t be last blast of stupid from Barbour during the ongoing oil spill disaster. He’s a study in colloquial southern language and exaggerated accents, a real life character from an unproduced Coen Brothers movie, and it seems that whenever Barbour opens his mouth for something other than pie, stupid things gush out.

For many weeks, Barbour has been downplaying the toxicity and danger of the oil. Back in mid-May, Barbour said the oil spill will have “minimal impact,” rivaling Tony Hayward’s infamous remarks about how environmental damage will be “very, very modest.”

He’s also coined some of the finest “the oil is just like delicious food and therefore harmless” metaphors during the whole disaster.

Who can forget the classic description of the oil as “weathered, emulsified, caramel-colored mousse, like the food mousse.” Yum. The caramel colored food mousse. If you’re like me, you can’t wait to sample some delightful Gulf seafood that’s been marinating in the food mousse.

And the good news is, according to Barbour, “Once it gets to this stage, it’s not poisonous.” Oh boy!

Seriously, if that’s the case, I’d like to see Barbour strap on a pair of inflatable arm floaties and dive into a big old slick of the food mousse and flail around in it for a while. See if he can eat his way out. Maybe the Mississippi tourist bureau could videotape it for their next advertising campaign. You know, because the food mousse is both delicious and not poisonous.

Yet, at the same time, Barbour said, “But if a small animal got coated enough with it, it could smother it. But if you got enough toothpaste on you, you couldn’t breathe.” This made me wonder if Barbour has had one or two mishaps with a gigantic tube of toothpaste. “Dagnabbit! I’ve accidentally caused toothpaste to be made all over myself again! Can’t… breathe! Glug! Glug!” Aides rush into Barbour’s bathroom to find the governor coated from head to toe in toothpaste like a real life version of the Shmoo.

But, as with many Republicans carved from the George W. Bush cloth, the doofish behavior tends to overshadow Barbour’s more sinister underbelly.

According to Newsweek, Barbour is quite a fan of the Confederacy and all of its trimmins’:

The Republican governor of Mississippi keeps a large portrait of the University Greys, the Confederate rifle company that suffered 100 percent casualties at Gettysburg, on a wall not far from a Stars and Bars Confederate flag signed by Jefferson Davis.

When Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia fumbled his way through “Confederate History Month,” Haley Barbour rushed to his defense, declaring that there was no need to mention slavery in the process. Everyone knows about slavery, Barbour reasoned, so why bother to mention it? Barbour, here, played up the debunked Lost Cause mythology — deemphasizing slavery as a means of ennobling the South’s instigation of the Civil War. Barbour said of the slavery controversy in Virginia, “It’s trying to make a big deal out of something doesn’t amount to diddly.”

Newsweek also reported:

Barbour was embarrassed by an aide’s nasty remarks about “coons” at campaign rallies. But in reprimanding the aide, he only made things worse. As The New York Times recounted it, Barbour warned the aide that if he “persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.”

Right. Everyone knows you don’t speak the truth out loud. You keep your racist remarks to yourself. However, Confederate flags signed by Jefferson Davis are fine and dandy. And if you’re Haley Barbour, it’s also okay to appear at a Blackhawk fundraiser hosted by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a paleoconservative white nationalist organization that, among other things, proudly advances the positions of the old Confederacy.

It gets better. Barbour was also the founder of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, a DC lobbying firm with significant connections to the tobacco industry. When Barbour left the company to help run the George W. Bush campaign in 2000, the firm signed a deal with R.J. Reynolds worth more than $17,000 a month. Nothing like being steeped in lobbying and cancer money on top of everything else.

And Haley Barbour is looking like a frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2012. I ask you, though: Who better to represent the Republican Party against the first African-American presidential incumbent in the entire history of civilization? Here we have an overweight, southern-fried, tobacco-funded, lobbyist superfan of the Confederacy with a history of racially questionable ideas and connections who can barely string together a comprehensible sentence. What better way to put a face and voice to the increasingly regional, homogenized, sophophobic GOP than to nominate Haley Barbour for president.

Keep going, Republicans. You’re doing great!

The additional gas expense is well worth it. If you’ve never been to Marquee Cinemas, picture in your mind neat premises, clean screens, roomy and comfortable seats, and concession prices that aren’t through the roof.

Now, contrast this with what Carmike offers us: screens so dirty it detracts from the viewing experience, cramped and uncomfortable seats, sticky floors, overpriced snack items and absolutely filthy restrooms.

The few good words I can muster are for the employees, most of whom try to be friendly and helpful.

It’s a no-brainer… should I pay for a miserable experience, or pay just a few bucks more and have a great one?

The community deserves much better than this, Carmike. I’d bet that if your competition were closer than Beckley or Wytheville, the business you have now would probably dry up to literally nothing.

"One wonders if liberals believe there is any element of our lives that would not be better under government control. But imagine what a nightmare it will be if things devolve to the point where government chooses who can report news in a newspaper, or on radio, television or the Internet.

"Defeating this power grab depends upon the free flow of reliable information, which is a significant challenge, given the degree to which the mainstream media has abandoned its duty to produce balanced and accurate reporting to keep the citizenry well informed.

"Barack Obama believes there is too much information available to people and that they can’t tell the good from the bad. That’s insulting. The answer is more information, not less, and less information is what we’ll have with government management of the news."

Writer James "Smokey" Shott's entire column is here.

Now, as I've done probably 6 or 7 times before, after reading Smokey's latest rant I fired off a letter to the editor in response. Do you think it ever saw print? No.

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph seems to be very selective which letters to the editor they choose to print. If it's from a conservative reader, it sees publication. If it's from anyone who leans to the left, forget it.

Here is my unprinted letter to the editor, written in response to Shott's column referenced above:

Leave it to a right-wing pundit to dream up a conspiracy by the Obama administration where there is none.

So, we are apparently supposed to believe that the sinister administration is actively pursuing a plan to take over the news media, based on some pretty flimsy (actually nonexistent) evidence and a vague similarity between a title in the report in question, and a remark made by Emanuel. While we're at it, why not believe the government is responsible for the state of today's news media? It's all part of the plan, you know!

The tabloid has cred.  (Well, until now it did)  And some conservatives and anti-Obama liberals are complaining about the media’s refusal to “cover” the Enquirer’s web splashes about then-Senate candidate Obama’s alleged extramarital affair with a finance staffer, Vera Baker. The lead reads: “PRESIDENT OBAMA in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a D.C. hotel with a former campaign aide.”

 Is the media covering for Obama? Are they too afraid to ask the question, fearing ridicule from their peers?

Whatever collective motivations may be operating on this story, there is a simpler explanation for the lack of coverage: the story has no legs. It doesn’t even have thighs. It is, as Slate’s John Dickerson said, an “investigation about an alleged rumor,” but we don’t know who is doing the investigating and what precisely ought to be investigated.

Also, when this rumor came up during the campaign, mainstream news organizations did investigate, and found that there was no evidence to support the charge. There are no new developments to speak of, and the Enquirer has already revised its claim about “an alleged surveillance tape.” Says the Enquirer: “Now, the investigators are searching for a hotel surveillance videotape”.

Investigators? That implies something criminal. No, no. We learn that these investigators are “top anti-Obama operatives” who are offering a million dollars for solid evidence.

This “affair” is destined to become a white whale for right-wing haters and nutcases who have no other impulse than to bring down a president they “know” in their hearts is illegitimate. It’s the birth certificate, all over again.

It seems abundantly clear that repealing and resisting healthcare reform will be the GOP’s signature issue for 2010.  The ink is not yet dry on the nation’s new Healthcare Policy and Republicans are already geared up for a grand march towards its repeal. Senator Jim DeMint has  introduced a bill to the Senate to strike the measure which, just hours after the President signed the Senate bill into law, is  festooned with a gaggle of co-sponsors including, as Eugene Kiely of USA Today informs us, “Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Robert Bennett of Utah, Kit Bond of Missouri, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, George LeMieux of Florida, James Risch of Idaho, Pat Roberts of Kansas and David Vitter of Louisiana.”

Meanwhile Mitch McConnell is pledging that the Republican slogan will be “Repeal and Replace” and, in the lower House, Michele Bachmann has taken it upon herself to introduce a short bit of legislation paralleling Senator DeMint’s.

Which brings us to the matter of civics education.  As any High School Senior can tell you, the Republicans can’t overturn this law, not in 2010 anyway.

This isn’t a political prognostication; it’s math.

Overturning a law is no different than passing any other piece of legislation.  The bill must make its way through both houses of Congress and across the President’s desk.  As Democrats learned after the Republican Revolution of 1994, however, the President’s veto is not an insurmountable obstacle; a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress can pass a bill over the objections of the White House.  Needless to say, President Obama will oppose – staunchly – the repeal of his most significant domestic policy victory.  Thus, if Republicans want to overturn healthcare reform, they will have to do so over the President’s veto and that will require two thirds of both Houses.

Two thirds of the House of Representatives is 290 votes; to reach that number Republicans will have to defend their existing 177 seats and win an addition 113 more, mostly from Democratic incumbents.  Such an electoral victory is improbable but not impossible.  Chalk one up for the audacity of obstructionism.

Two thirds of the Senate, however, is 67 votes.  The election of Senator Scott Brown put the GOP at 41 seats in the United States’ Senate which means that the GOP must win an additional 26 seats from the Democrats in the 2010 race.  This is not just improbable; it is impossible: only 18 Democratic seats are up for grabs in the 2010 race.  Even assuming a complete electoral sweep, the Republicans can – at most – hope to hold 59 seats in the 112th Congress’ Senate.

Yet, after a year of doomsaying and predictions of veritable apocalypse should Health Care Reform pass, the Republicans can not simply abandon the issue on the campaign trail and they certainly can’t stump on a message of impotent incompetence.  Increasingly desperate attempts to look at all relevant in the political arena have lead nearly more than a dozen Republican state-attorneys general  to bring suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill and pledges of resistance from several more.  Zach Wamp, a candidate for Governor in Tennessee, promised to meet the federal government “at the state line,” while Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell signed legislation declaring that Virginians are not required to purchase health insurance.

Clearly civics education is lacking at the state level as well.

The lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of Health Care Reform focus on the law’s mandate which requires Americans to hold a health insurance policy or face a tax penalty.  Critics charge that such a measure is outside the bounds of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, the section of Article I that gives the Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states.  “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce,” Cuccinelli said, “and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”  Legal scholars are divided on what the Court’s likely decision will be but even should the Court strike down the mandate provision that is all it can do; the rest of the law – unchallenged by any lawsuit – will stand and the result could destroy the health insurance market.

Pledges to resist the law at the state level are no better informed.  State laws which directly contradict the recently passed Federal one are overruled by it per centuries old Supreme Court precedent set in McCulloch v Maryland and pledges of less legislative resistance like that alluded to by Zach Wamp have historically ended badly; don’t take my word for it, ask Jefferson Davis how that worked out for him.

All of this is more than a little absurd, childish, and petulant yet the Republicans really have no choice in the matter.  The GOP bet the house, as former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote, on “hysterical accusations and pseudo-information” and as a result of that they have convinced their base that Health Care Reform is the gravest danger facing America today.  Conservative radio host Neil Bortz even went so far as to charge that “[health care reform] will do more damage than 9/11.”  The resulting ideological meltdown suffered by the GOP in the wake of Health Care Reform lead Frum to conclude that “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox… [the] balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party.”

"I don't know. I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica."

You hear that, guys? Health-care reform will not only cover 30 million Americans and reduce the deficit, but it'll also get rid of Rush Limbaugh! This is, like, the best bill ever!

Unfortunately, it turns out that Rush was merely referring to seeking medical care outside the U.S. Which is still pretty funny, since the country he chose, Costa Rica, has a universal health care system… you know, the kind he doesn't want to see in this country.

In a January 5, 2010 letter to the Corps of Engineers Huntington office, the EPA declared that it would not object to issuance of a permit for Hobet Mining’s Surface Mine No. 45 in West Virginia, one of the projects had subjected to enhanced review. The review process produced a negotiated agreement in which Hobet agreed to cut the impacts to headwater streams in half (from burying six linear miles to only three).

A news article from 2009 was also seemingly missed by the Telegraph:

On August 10 of that year, the EPA gave the nod for the federal Army Corps of Engineers to issue a Clean Water Act permit for CONSOL Energy Inc.'s Peg Fork Surface Mine near Chattaroy in Mingo County.

So much for the myth the Obama Administration is anti-coal… and these are only two stories, found in about 60 seconds using Google.

Isn't it far better to submit these permits to careful scrutiny, then take action after working diligently with the coal companies to resolve environmental issues, rather than continue to let them indiscriminately befoul our state's drinking water, decimate hundreds of miles of streams, and turn our natural beauty into barren moonscapes?

I emailed this to the paper but doubt it will see publication, for the simple fact that it doesn't fit into the editorial staff's blatantly right-wing agenda. In its zeal to condemn anything and everything Obama, the Telegraph is doing its readers a disservice by missing, whether by accident or intentionally, coal-related news stories that prove the administration is willing to reach compromises with our state's coal operations.

Nearly every editorial published in the online edition shows a marked right-wing bias. From my time there, I know the paper used to run opinion columns that offered a more liberal view, to balance out columns that were of a more conservative bent. I wrote one for about a year, and the paper would run syndicated columns from other writers who, like me, leaned somewhat to the left.

This was fair and balanced delivery of the opinions of the day, from writers who came from all parts of the political spectrum. Sadly, this seems to be a thing of the past at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph.

I first thought this might be an issue with online reprint rights to the syndicated columns. Even taking the financial aspect of this into consideration, it is the job of the paper to provide a forum for political discussion that encompasses everyone. As it stands, when you read the online edition, you get one world view shoved into your face – the conservative one.

The late Tom Colley, a conservative, and executive editor of the paper, believed in providing such fair and balanced coverage. On the basis of my frequent contributions to the Letters to the Editor section, he, along with then-publisher Gary Adkisson,  encouraged me to write a weekly column, even though 95% of the time he disagreed with what I wrote.

Taking the syndication issues out of the equation, there are surely more than a few qualified writers in the area, of the liberal persuasion, who would be able to contribute their thoughts on a regular basis. The conservative writers, obviously, have every right to speak their mind. Is this option being offered to prospective contributors who "lean to the left?"

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph does its readers a huge disservice by not offering the other side of the story when it comes to the political issues of the day. It's their job to do so, and they are failing miserably.

How long did it take George Bush (whom the opinion writer has professed in the past to admire) to make a public statement on shoe bomber Richard Reid? Six days. Did the writer complain back then? For some reason I believe probably not.

He intimates Obama doesn't take terrorism seriously without offering any real evidence of this other than to regurgitate the standard right-wing talking points, including the accusation the president won't even use the words "terrorist" or "terrorist attack". This is an outright lie.

During Obama's radio address on the attempted Christmas Day bombing, he used the word "terrorist" or a variation at least six times. It seems strange to me that Obama's detractors would make such a baseless and actually silly claim, so easily refuted, about such a serious matter. The writer should have at least troubled himself to look at the actual transcript of the speech instead of just recycling what other right-wing pundits have been saying. I guess it's easier to write a column if you don't bother to fact-check while writing it.

He wrote, " He didn’t grasp the seriousness of the situation, and he sped through a weak public statement that left too much unsaid so he could get back out on the golf course." Now, whether the president's statement was weak or strong is a matter of opinion. But the writer's implication that Obama was only interested in resuming his vacation is amusing, since he staunchly supported George W. Bush, who was infamous for taking regular (and lengthy) vacations even very early on in his presidency Oh, the hypocrisy.

He even accuses the president of giving the war on terror "back seat" status so he can focus on his "radical" domestic agenda. Again, we have an accusation being made with absolutely nothing to back it up. This seems to be his writing style – sling lots of mud and hope something sticks – reminiscent of other right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

I will defend to the death this opinion writer's right to criticize whomever he wants to criticize. Unfortunately, when a writer is blinded by his or her own bias, it's all too easy to put words to paper without doing a thorough check of the actual facts of the topic at hand. This columnist is a somewhat competent writer, and it's a shame he chooses to throw around half-truths and misstatements of fact in his zeal to attack anything and everything Obama has done (or hasn't done).