No, Gov. Northam Shouldn't Resign Because of 1984 Blackface/KKK Photo

A 60-year-old is far removed from the 25-year-old he once was.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

[UPDATE: For more, including the analogy some have drawn to the Kavanaugh allegations, see this follow-up post.]

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jack Wilson, and others have called on Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam to resign because of his 1984 medical school yearbook photo, in which he and a classmate are shown in blackface and in KKK garb. (It's not clear who is in which costume.) That doesn't make much sense to me. It's 2019, 35 years later; what Northam thought was in good taste when he was 25 says next to nothing, I think, about his beliefs and actions today, when he is 60.

I don't think the photo actually endorses the KKK; it seems like a stupid joke more than a political statement. Nor does it seem to endorse hostility to blacks; some blackface displays do, others don't, and it's not clear that this one was understood that way. Some believe that all blackface is offensive; but even if that's so, that just tells you that Northam, when he was 25, did something offensive. How relevant is that today?

People will doubtless ask me: What if this were something offensive to the group I belong to? Very well, if I saw a medical school yearbook picture of someone in 1984 of someone wearing a Nazi uniform, alongside someone dressed as a religious Jew with fake curls and a hooked nose, I'd say: Yes, 35 years ago, this person did something in bad taste, which many people understandably find offensive. So?

Indeed, even if Northam had actually expressed hostility to blacks back then, I don't think that says much about him today. People change their views, and their actions, a lot over three and a half decades. Judge the man on what he is doing now, now on what costume he wore and what yearbook photo he chose—or even what he may have believed about race—in 1984.

NEXT: Cory Booker Understands Restrictive Zoning Codes Are a Problem. How Much Will That Matter for His Presidential Run?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Didn’t Norham do something a bit more recently which got in the news?

    1. A year ago, Northam tarred his Republican opponent as a racist. Now it turns out that Northam is just another KKK-supporting Democrat.

      1. Anything more recently than that?

        1. Last week he said the doctors and mothers could take a few minutes post birth to decide if they wanted to kill a baby. Might be what you’re thinking of.

          1. Yeah, he’s a real piece of shit. I’m ok with destroying him. Dirty baby killing progtard KKK piece of shit democrat that he is.

          2. “Might be what you’re thinking of.”

            Sounds about right. But come on, if the umbilical cord’s still attached, it’s still technically part of the woman’s body, right?

            1. The question the progtards never answer is this: if the woman has the band RE over in the third trimester, when they are al sot certainly viable under normal circumstances, how is it any different to deliver the child versus killing it and removing it?

              Other than maybe inconvenience? But then women are allowed to abandon their children legally, so I fail to see a problem. More likely is democrats just like to kill babies. Tony appears to display a certain amount of ghoulish glee towards abortion.

          3. Yeah, that’s what I thought he said. But not everyone agrees that that is what his comments meant. Another interpretation is that, if a baby is born with severe, life-threatening deformities, they could take a few minutes to decide whether they want to aggressively treat them, or refrain from doing so and let the baby die from its condition.

            1. Not sure why you think that’s mitigating. “Should we treat this sick person or just let him die?”

              1. It isn’t as if it’s a new question in dealing with people suffering conditions that mean they cannot live long or without constant pain, or one that is handled lightly by anyone, unless it’s as a political football. Mind you, I’m old enough to remember when even the merest mention of end-of-life-care gave us the immortal hysteria of Death Panels.

                1. Rationed care IS death panels. They just don’t call it that. Have you read Ezekiel Emmanuel’s Complete Lives System upon which Obamacare is modeled?

                  Death panels.

        2. Anything more recently than that?

          Well, a non-existent sexual assault in high school was enough to disqualify a SCOTUS nominee in the eyes of this governor’s party.

        3. In 2013 he refused to shake the hand of his black opponent. However I don’t know whether he refuses to shake hands with any of his opponents and if that’s just normal asshole behavior from him.

          1. I know this talking point has suddenly made the rounds of right wing online media over the past two days, but the “refusal” actually just looks like obliviousness. The host of the debate is still talking, and he’s paying attention to the host, not to the guy next to him.

            1. Let’s treat Northam like the left would if it were a republican and assume it’s racism.

              He should reap the whirlwind.

    2. If would be hard to figure out a better way to piss off the entire spectrum if you were trying.

      1. …maybe if both people in the photo were urinating on a photo of Jesus Christ? But, baring that–nope, hard to imagine a worse set of political bookends.

        1. …while displaying an image of Mohammed.

        2. Liberals would celebrate piss jesus just like they did a decade ago. Now if it was piss Mohamad…

          1. Imagine if he had been pissing on a picture of Ronald Reagan. Commenters here would have lost their minds.

          2. Obvious solution for maximal anger is to take a picture of Jesus and Mohammed hanging out, and the piss on that.

  2. It’s obvious what should be done with Northam. Keep him comfortable, resuscitate him if necessary, and let the adults discuss whether to kill him.

    1. Daaaaaaamn. Well played.

  3. Harris doesn’t want to be held accountable for things she said and did as a prosecutor just a year or two ago but thinks it’s entirely appropriate to crucify someone else for things that happened over three decades ago.

    1. Ignorant sluts don’t like to be held accountable. #Notmywhore.

      1. See, you can tell this is the fake Kirkland because he said this about Kamala Harris instead of Ann Coulter.

        1. Fake Costco uses a lower case l for the middle initial.

    2. Harris is simply protecting herself – she doesn’t want to be criticized for giving him a pass, when everyone knows a Republican “guilty” of the same thing would be crucified.

      Shoot, there are Dems still insisting the Covington kids should be crucified.

      1. Its just about time for a civil war. Democrats should learn how fortunate they are to be tolerated at all

        1. What, you don’t like free stuff?

          1. No, he wants a pretext to murder his political opponents, can’t you read?

            1. I want to see the slavers go away. They are not just ‘political opponents. Anyone working to oppress the US population and install a Marxist regime, destroying individual rights should have to surrender and leave, or be destroyed.

              The lawless opposition to Trump has shown us that elections no longer mean anything.

              1. See? He demonises his political opponents with crazed rhetoric to justify violence! Classic.

                1. Everything I said is 100% true. And if it’s true, how can it be ‘crazed’?

                  And I am reasonable. Hence the options to abandon all their treasonous beliefs, or just walk away.

                  1. Threatening like the terrorist you are.

        2. More likely, it is time for more liberal-libertarian progress. Conservatives can whine, bluster, and mutter about it all they want . . . so long as they comply obediently with the preferences of their betters.

          I wonder whether the Volokh Conspiracy Board of Censorship will ever provide a FIRE-approved level of due process in explaining why Artie Ray was banned while Right-Wing Mini-Me, the guy who regularly calls for killing liberals, and the Man Of Many Names are still welcome here.

          Perhaps that is why Prof. Volokh is so permissive in the context of Gov. Northam — he doesn’t want to be held to the censorship standards he embraced a few years ago with respect to comments of a different partisan flavor.

          1. “the guy who regularly calls for killing liberals,”

            What’s the big deal? I’m sure he advocates that they be kept comfortable while we decide whether or not they’re liberals.

            1. Is he talking about me? If he’s expecting mini me, he’s in for one whopper of a surprise.

              I do certainly advocate for taking whatever measures necessary to deal with Arty and his fellow travelers. Although I’m perfectly happy with them abandoning all their beliefs, or just leaving America forever.

              1. Also, who the fuck is ‘Artie Ray’? To my knowledge, the only person who has gotten the bad hammer around here is Hihn. And that hasn’t stopped him.

                Did they ban someone else?

                1. “Artie Ray” is a parody AK used to do when the VC was self-hosted. EV asked AK to no longer post as Artie Ray.

                  1. Thank you. I was unaware of that backstory.

                    1. It was standard-issue conservative censorship and hypocrisy.

                2. Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland.

                  He was asked to depart these premises for being too authentically conservative.

                  His voice is probably more powerful consequent to the censorship, however.

                  1. Whatever bitch.

  4. I disagree with some (but not all) of his current political views; a yearbook photo from 35 years ago that is now taken out of context has absolutely no bearing upon my opinion. Thankfully Facebook didn’t exist when I was in high school.

    1. “Thankfully Facebook didn’t exist when I was in high school.”

      Yup.

      And I agree, the picture is pretty much irrelevant to the present day.

      1. Fuck him. It’s about time de ocrats were made to suffer for this bullshit too.

        I have no mercy for their kind, just as they have no mercy for any of us.

        1. Funniest thing is non-Democrats don’t even have to do anything.

          The Lefties will crucify him and force him from office.

          The Democratic Party is the Party of slavery and always has been. Party members are just changing the Party so racist white men are kicked out and racists of other races are welcomed in.

          Black Americans are leaving the Democratic Party because the Party is not even a place for them.

          1. Blacks should quit the democrats. They’ve done nothing but shit on them and then bullshit them into giving them their votes. Ironically, the first black president really put that dynamic into overdrive.

            Even more ironic, the ‘racist’ president has created better job market than blacks have had in decades, maybe ever.

            1. According to you, EVERYONE should quit the Democrats or you will murder them.

              1. No. They can be democrats all they want. Just not in America, where their efforts to destroy our constitutional republic are flat out treason.

                But you love Marxism, don’t you? You want to tell me how to live, what to thin, what I’m allowed to say, and how much you’re going to take off of me.

                That cannot be. The only reasonable response to people like you is to make you go away. So you can ride out of town on your horse, or slung over the back of it. Your choice.

                1. Sorry for telling you how to do stuff, guy who threatens to murder people for having different political opinions.

        2. I’m a better person than they are.

          1. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee from Starbucks…well, if you can get past all the protesters, anyway.

            1. Not being a piece of shit, and knowing that I’m not a piece of shit, is worth much more than a cup of coffee from Starbucks, or even someplace that makes good coffee.

  5. There is also a video from the campaign where he refused to shake the hand of his black opponent and the deleting of his black LT Gov running mate from campaign literature. I don’t think this is the person who deserves the benefit of the doubt.

  6. I’d agree with you in principle, but if you live by the SJW sword, you die by the SJW sword.

    1. It is odd that right-wingers would take that position after observing how conservatives have fared in America’s culture war. Or after observing how the American electorate is changing with respect to being rural, religious, white, backward, or intolerant.

      Have Republicans decided that they’re just going to lose no matter what?

      1. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Broken record. Poor bitter commie.

      2. “It is odd that right-wingers would take that position after observing how conservatives have fared in America’s culture war.”

        Kirkland strikes me as a guy that talks a big game about the culture war, but if a girl took her dick out after a date, he wouldn’t suck it.

        1. I have long said that when gay marriage becomes compulsory, I’m off the bus.

          Until then, though, I’m with the decent people and against the bigots.

          I blame my liberarianism.

          1. “I have long said that when gay marriage becomes compulsory…”

            You think a guy dating a girl with a dick has anything to do with being gay???

            Decent people know that that is quite bigoted.

          2. Arty, you ARE a bigot.

      3. Democrats are banning books, censoring speech, and telling people that sex is bad. Looks like early 90s Republicans crushed the culture war.

      4. The progs have imposed Rule 4 on us.

        They will have to live with Rule 4.

  7. While a “statute of limitations” for “stupid things done decades ago” should exist, Dems have made it clear – see, e.g., Kavanaugh – they don’t believe in such things when it is politically expedient.

    Given they aren’t about to ‘be reasonable” when it comes to such things when their political enemies are involved, it’s really hard to feel sorry for them when it happens to them.

    1. Some on the left have even written articles lamenting how the right has learned to “weaponize” their own tactics against them.

      The best example was Hannity’s apoplexy about how dare Colbert use the phrase “cockholster”, as if to suggest a gay act had something derogatory about it.

    2. “While a “statute of limitations” for “stupid things done decades ago” should exist, Dems have made it clear – see, e.g., Kavanaugh – they don’t believe in such things when it is politically expedient.”

      The fact that many Dems have called for Northam to resign would seem to argue against your opinion. I would expect conservatives who defended Justice Kavanaugh would be willing to give Northam a pass over this. Unless conservatives are just as hypocritical as everyone else.

      1. It’s a photograph of him on his med school yearbook page vs. the testimony of some leftist who is well educated in how to manipulate people and who offered no details that would allow the accused to refute her account. Massive difference.

    3. While a “statute of limitations” for “stupid things done decades ago” should exist, Dems have made it clear – see, e.g., Kavanaugh – they don’t believe in such things when it is politically expedient.

      Kavanaugh was accused of attempted rape, not merely “stupid things.” One could hope you would see the difference.

      A more valid complaint is the lack of evidence against Kavanaugh, and Democrats’ willingness to forego things like due process and declare him guilty without requiring anything more than an accusation.

  8. Umm, it shows a black guy and a Klansman having a beer together. So the bigotry here comes from hysteria on both the left and right. As always.

    1. Look at Lefties trying to drag Conservatives into this.

      Dude is a racist Democrat piece of shit and always has been.

      1. CNN is referring to Northam as a Republican in their coverage.

        https://tinyurl.com/ybz76jr9

        They did the same thing when Menendez was on trial.

  9. “Look, I was wearing a white cloak like a doctor should, how is this a problem?”

    1. Alternate joke: “If you want to go after someone for dressing as a white-robed wizard, why not go after Ian McKellen?”

  10. The Florida Secretary of State was just forced to resign for the exact same thing, many years ago. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    1. Many fewer years ago. As a politician, not as a private citizen.

  11. Whats the big deal.

    What you have in the picture, is a Virginia coal miner, meeting up with his representative Robert Byrd. Nothing to see here, move along.

    (Stolen from another blogs comments)

    1. Hahaha. Ouch.

  12. But that would be reasonable. Social justice is a cult, and cults have rules.

  13. Democrats must apologize to Brett Kavanaugh. As soon as they apologize and admit they were wrong to disrupt Kavanaugh’s nomination process over alleged high school hijinx, Ralph Northam can be judged by that standard.

    Once we see dozens and dozens of heartfelt apologies, then sure: judging someone by ancient history high school hijinx is unfair.

    If we don’t see those apologies, then judging Northam by a double standard that doesn’t also apply to Brett Kavanaugh is unfair.

    1. No double standard here.

      1) Attempted sexual assault (with at least one additional credible accusation) is a lot more than a racist Halloween costume (35 years ago when it may not have been perceived as such).

      2) A lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS is much higher bar to clear than a Governor who will face re-election.

      3) Northam admitted the photo was of him and appologized. Kavanaugh committed perjury, both about the crime itself but also his drinking habits and the sexual terminology he used in his yearbook.

      1. Absolutely laughable, and it shows how deranged and partisan you lunatics are.

        1. The Senate judiciary report (read it, it’s 414 pages) and the FBI investigation completely exonerated Justice Kavanaugh. There never was a single shred of credible evidence, only the delusional fantasies of a partisan hack acting at the direction of her Soros puppet master.

        2. Virginia governors don’t face re-election.

        3. The only perjury was that committed was by your pals and your hosebeast puppet.

        1. 1. It does not “completely exonerate” Kavanaugh. They just didn’t find evidence to support the accusations, and if the reporting is to be believed they didn’t try very hard. The accusations are still pretty credible.

          2. Interesting tidbit, though it’s not that relevant.

          3. Many people have gone on the record that he lied about his drinking and about some of the sexual terminology used in his yearbook.

          1. The accusations were laughable. Only a fucking progtard tool would ever say otherwise.

            When you say stupid shit like you just did, you lose all credibility.

          2. “The accusations are still pretty credible.”

            It’s a thirty year old accusation, reported at time when the report was likely to advance the accuser’s political goals. The accusation didn’t name a time or place, and the people who the accuser said could have corroborated the accusation, failed to corroborate the accusation. Frankly, it’s hard to imagine how an accusation could be less credible without being straight-up disproved.

          3. “Many people have gone on the record that he lied about his drinking and about some of the sexual terminology used in his yearbook.”

            Cite? There have been people on the record corroborating his claim about the drinking game.

          4. Every witness Ford gave refuted her story. How fucking stupid do you have to be to claim that it is still credible? Plus the plethora of lies Ford told: fear of flying, fear of single exits, reason for second front door, never helping someone on polygraphs, etc. Then she got almost 1 million dollars in funds. Why would she do it you ask?!?! Anita hill is a millionaire from her baseless claims. Democrats treat their lying accusers well.

            1. So you really think Ford deliberately lied and risked perjury and jail time just to get rich off a false accusation?

              1. So you really think it’s implausible that someone would… lie under oath? It happens all the time, dude. Even one or two presidents have done it.

                1. I think it’s plausible of course that someone would lie under oath.
                  I think it is implausible that the entire episode was concocted as a deliberate lie just to achieve pecuinary success.

                  1. “I think it is implausible that the entire episode was concocted as a deliberate lie just to achieve pecuniary success.”

                    Yeah, I guess I agree that she probably didn’t like just to achieve pecuniary success.

              2. So you really think Ford deliberately lied and risked perjury and jail time just to get rich off a false accusation?

                Yes. She felt the risk of jail time was virtually zero (people STILL cite her as “credible” in spite of her being anything but that). So, it was an easy “risk” to take.

                1. I would find your point of view to be plausible, if I viewed her as some sort of cartoon villain.

                  1. She had a very large Go Fund Me provided by “coming forward” and, well, lying through her teeth. When the people you say will corroborate your story do the opposite, it speaks poorly of your credibility.

                    She knew she had virtually zero risk for punishment but would be a hero to the Left — which, lo and behold, she became. Shocking.

                    1. What you’re arguing, basically, is that Capt. Sully deliberately crashed his plane in the river so that he could be hailed as a hero and have a movie made about him.

                      I think you have cause and effect reversed.

                    2. What you’re arguing, basically, is that Capt. Sully deliberately crashed his plane in the river so that he could be hailed as a hero and have a movie made about him.

                      My, that is one ON POINT analogy.

                    3. And Little Jeffy wonders why he is so despised………….

                      Such shitty premises, analogies, etc..

              3. I think that Ford is a deeply disturbed individual who confabulated a narrative to explain her terrors. When Kavanaugh was nominated, she had a name to place on her fears…

              4. Yes.

              5. No, we think she deliberately lied, having been coached by lawyers on exactly how to make her allegations sufficiently vague that she would be safe from a perjury conviction.

              6. Unless congress has a time machine or she was going to admit she lied, she had zero chance of getting a perjury conviction

      2. 1) Attempted sexual assault (with at least one additional credible accusation)

        When was the credible one made? By the woman who lied about helping friends with polygraph tests, taking a joke of a polygraph test, lied about needing two doors in her room of all her houses, etc? The one who claimed to hang out at high school parties with drugged rapists while she was in college?

        3) Northam admitted the photo was of him and appologized. Kavanaugh committed perjury, both about the crime itself but also his drinking habits and the sexual terminology he used in his yearbook.

        He said he drank. And you’re, as usual, wrong about the “sexual terminology”.

      3. Either there’s the principle of a statute of limitations for harmless youthful mistakes and Brett Kavanaugh is owed dozens of apologies, or there isn’t.

        Your partisan trolling is pathetic, but not surprising.

    2. “Democrats must apologize to Brett Kavanaugh. As soon as they apologize and admit they were wrong to disrupt Kavanaugh’s nomination process over alleged high school hijinx, Ralph Northam can be judged by that standard.”

      Paul Campos at LGM sheds some light on the distinction between Kavanaugh and Northam.

      “He will be replaced by a more liberal African American man, who will be in the unusual position of being able to run as an incumbent in 2021 (Virginia governors can only be elected once). So the “cost” here, I guess, is that we can’t just as a matter of principle or something throw politicians out the window when something bad comes up about their past. But of course all such decisions must always be case by case: how bad is the thing, who replaces the defenestrated office holder etc. There’s no general principle to uphold in other words.”

      So as Campos admits, there’s no general principle at play, and reactions to such behavior should be based on political cost/benefit to Democrats. And there certainly wasn’t any political benefit to Dems for tolerating any sort of conduct from Kav. We knew Dems would happily skewer Repubs for conduct that they would tolerate in a Dem if it were politically beneficial for them to do so, but it’s rare to see people come right out and admit it like that.

      1. I heard the same thing with respect to voting for Mendendez. “Country over party” my ass. That’s purely a weapon to be used against conservatives.

    3. Wait. You guys claim he definitively absolutely no way no how didn’t do it, so how can any sort of statute of limitations apply? Are you saying if he’d actually done it, then after a certain amount of time it’d be okay for him to sit on the Supreme Court? Surely the right’s argument is that he’s obviously innocent, not that after a few decades attempted sexual assault should just be forgiven and forgotten by everyone? Because that would be weird, and confirm way too many biases about the modern right.

      1. Because that would be weird, and confirm way too many biases about the modern right.

        Such as?

        You’ll notice that #MeToo has absolutely obliterated the Left, right?

        1. Is that what you think it would do to the right? You’re even more biased than I am.

          1. The Right doesn’t tend to get away with stuff so there tends to be fewer skeletons in the closet. Not always, but generally.

            For example, Trump was profoundly more honest and credible than his opponent in 2016.

            1. Hahahahaha oh you’re serious?

              1. Yes we are. And Trump’s dirty laundry has been public for decades. The Clintons run a politically based crime family. We all know this. Just like we all know how a mafioso is guilty of a legion of crimes, even though they get away with it.

                1. Voting for Trump knowing about his dirty laundry is pretty much a dictionary definition of him ‘getting away with stuff.’ I’m thinking the sort of [people who’d do that would have no problem making up lies about their political opponents.

        2. #metoo has made it harder for cute college chicks to get laid, and an awful lot of them are open for business. I’ll bet they’re very irritated at the whole thing.

          1. That’s a good line, it’s nice of them to let you down lightly like that.

            1. Weak, and inapplicable. I generally don’t skew that young.

              It just kills you that the ‘deplorables’dare have wills of their own, doesn’t it? Makes it a lot harder for your fellow travelers in gpvt. to subjugate everyone.

              Of course, a progtarded beta makes, such as yourself, whose only will is the that of the progressive hive mind can’t stamd the idea of any actual masculinity. Likely you’re some skinny jeans wearing wanna be hipster trash.

              1. If you keep calling me names, does it make your masculinity grow?

      2. I never claimed that. There’s nothing substantial to indicate it, but no way to prove it didn’t. Essentially, there’s not much information to draw any conclusion at all. That’s the first reason the whole thing was such a farce.

        It’s a big part of why the statute of limitations exists: there’s less and less genuine information about an alleged event as the years pass. So if you want to tell a story about something someone allegedly did 30 years ago, it’s nearly impossible to make any kind of informed judgement about it.

        1. Yeah, ok, I can see some of that, but what might count as an sol for legal prosecution might not hold sway when considering political appointments.

          1. The bad faith way it was handled ? holding the information until after the hearings were over, after attempting every trick in the book to delay the end of the hearings ? helped to decide the political question. The rest of the circus put Kavanaugh over the top.

            1. But he was already over the top.

  14. It happened too long ago.

    I concur.

    1. Oh please. Wr know Mitt Romney cant be president because he cut hair from a classmate. These things matter! Oh wait, hes a Democrat. Hes evolved. Nothing to see here.

      1. I thought it was the binders, 47% and Harry telling us he cheated on taxes.

        1. Dogs dogs

          Dogs on the Roof!

  15. “People change their views, and their actions, a lot over three and a half decades. Judge the man on what he is doing now”

    Fair enough. 25-year-old Ralph Northam had a poor sense of humor and dressed in a costume that many find offensive, while 60-year-old Ralph Northam is a ghoul who openly advocated for living, breathing infants to be killed, if their mother and physician decide to do so.

    Yeah… I don’t see how that’s better.

    1. I hope this guy is destroyed. He’s pretty evil.

      1. It appears rooting for a return to the superstition-laced days of back-alley abortions is an essential part of being a disaffected, marginalized right-wing malcontent these days.

        1. Yeah, because murdering full term babies is the enlightened thing to do.

          You should really commit suicide.

          1. Murdering your political opponents is downright constitutional!

            1. Traitors are executed sometimes. Ask the Rosenbergs about that.

              And quit calling yourself a ‘political opponent’. You’re a fucking subversive Marxist slaver.

              What do you think someone should do to those who want to enslave them?

              1. I think if you want to terrorise and threaten to murder your political opponents you’ll say all sorts of stupid shit abut them.

  16. I suspect the Democrats are looking at Lt. Gov. Fairfax, scratching their chins, and saying, Hmmmm… this may not be such a bad thing after all.

  17. This one seems bad enough to generate a rebuttable presumption that the governor should expand his employment horizons. The thought that one’s conduct at 25 is irrelevant to one’s character, reputation, or standing at age 60 seems daft.

    Everyone involved in the production or publication of that photograph deserves scorn. What educational institution figured publishing that content in a yearbook was appropriate?

    America has made great progress but still has plenty of improvement to achieve, and little to none of it would involve moving backward.

    1. Of course you are only saying this because you have to. You’d be circling the wagons if the LG was a Republican. Carry on bitter commie.

      1. Geez, fake Rev Kirkland, would it kill you to have some integrity? You whine when liberals don’t say what you want. And when they DO say what you want, you feel like you have to excuse it away and explain it away. Why not just say, “Wow, Arthur L and I agree about something. About time, ALK.”

        During the Sup. Ct nomination hearings, we heard a million conservatives offer the (reasonable, to me) defense of, “If it *did* happen, Brett K should not be judged by something he did decades ago.” And one can agree with that defense or disagree with it. But it is, at the very least, a logically-reasonable defense. And we heard at the same time, a million liberals saying, “No, we *should* judge Sup. Ct nominees by a ton of things we’d not use for “normal people,” due to the extraordinary power these 9 people will hold.” Again, that seems to be a perfectly logical argument (even if you disagree with it).

        A huge amount of liberals are showing their lack of hypocrisy, by condemning both Brett K and the governor. That consistency should be applauded. Eugene took the opposite view (ie, don’t judge by one’s distant past), and he also should be applauded for–at the very least–the integrity of applying the same standard.

        …[cont]…

        1. …[cont]…

          . . . I’ve seen lots of liberals who were horribly upset at Brett K and now are also horribly upset at the governor. I am dismayed (but not surprised) at how many people in conservative media were enthusiastically supporting the “kids will be kids” defense of Brett, but are out for the governor’s blood now. Arthur I K; why aren’t you whining about this Republican/conservative hypocrisy? It seems pretty blatant.

          1. Except fake rev is right. See how many Democrats are trying to reframe the al Franken assault so he can run again.

          2. The Right seemed more “There is zero evidence of anything here” in regards to Kavanaugh. Not “Well, if he raped her…well, it happened a long time ago”:. I cannot name one person who made an argument close to that,

            The Right was, and still is, correct.

            Nobody said “kids will be kids” about rape. Underage drinking? Yeah. Shit happens. Rape? No.

            We just noticed that Ford produced zero evidence.

        2. Geez, fake Rev Kirkland, would it kill you to have some integrity

          It’s a troll account. Is that a serious question? He’ll presumably have somewhat less than the real AK, if that’s possible

      2. Just pay no attention to the Omega castrated kirkland. He is nothing more then a dunce for the royal court of Nancy Grossi.

        1. Spending the entirety of your life complying with my preferences (those of the liberal-libertarian mainstream) seems to make you cranky, Jimmy the Dane.

    2. Absolutely, Arthur. If we’re going to achieve the tolerant society that we demand, we have to force people who transgress against social justice out of polite society. We can’t permit someone who has done something like this to be governor or, worse, go back to saving lives on the operating table.

      This insistence on complete conformity to all our ideals from all our allies is what makes us better that those stupid superstitious Christians and their “forgiveness” bullshit.

      1. The man is governor, you half-educated rube. I am not suggested he be sent to a rural camp or prevented from practicing medicine; I am suggesting he is not fit for service as a governor.

        Bigots have rights, too. They are not entitled to be a governor in good standing, though.

        1. Lighten up, Frances.

        2. A physician that advocates the murder of a living, breathing human should NOT be practicing medicine, in my professional opinion….I certainly don’t want to be associated with him or his lack of professional ethics.

          1. If you have evidence, even relatively flimsy evidence, of a murder, you should contact the relevant law enforcement agency.

            If you have no such evidence, you should stop spouting superstition-based nonsense while adults are attempting to engage in reasoned debate.

            1. Ok Arty, scientifically, explain how a fully developed baby is not a legal person due all legal protection under the law. Including protection from physician coordinated infanticide?

        3. “Bigots have rights, too. They are not entitled to be a governor in good standing, though.”

          How ’bout a talk-show host?

          It’s come to my attention that one of the View co-hosts participated in a similar stunt about 10 years after this photo was taken. Should she resign, or should she just not run for governor?

  18. He definitely should not resign because of the photo per se.

    But perhaps he should resign because he’s acting like a wimp. Instead of defending himself and making a proper argument perhaps along the lines of Eugene Volokh, he immediately began apologizing. A governor of a state ought to have more of a backbone than that.

    1. He should go. It’s always good to destroy a democrat.

  19. The term “lighten up, Frances” has never been more a-propos.

    But unless there is some saving context for his abortion comments, he should resign for those.

    1. Your handle reminds me of a good joke:

      A man walks into a bar for a drink. He sees a twelve inch man playing the piano and thinks it is weird, but dismisses it as he just wants a whiskey before his big meeting. After he places his order, the bartender says if this is your first time here you have to rub this old beer bottle as it is tradition and 1 out of 1000 times a genie will appear to grant you one wish. The man is a little puzzled but he does so and to his surprise a genie pops out. The man makes his wish and all the sudden the room turns smokey. When the haze clears the man appears but now with a million ducks in the room. He exclaims “hey I wished for a million BUCKS not ducks!!!” The bartender responds “the genie is hard of hearing…do you think I wished for a twelve in pianist?”

      1. Jimmy,
        We’ve all heard that joke a thousand times. Your take is, IMO, the best version I’ve heard of it.

  20. ” (It’s not clear who is in which costume)”

    Given that Gov. Northam is pretty tall (he was on the VMI basketball team), if he’s the one in the Klan outfit, the other guy must be pushing 7 feet.

  21. The difference between this guy and most white Progressives is that he has been outed.

    1. The outing doesnt matter, it’s how much you can still help other Democrats. Both Clintons, Biden, al Sharpton, Jesse jackson, harry Reid, etc have well documented racist comments but remain in good standing. The problem here is this governor doesnt have much political power to help still. He can be tossed aside with out worry.

  22. I don’t think the governor should quit. Besides the fact that this is more of the manufactured/fake outrage machine gobbling up a Dem this time (which is something I relish) I think the overall politics of it all are dangerous and stupid. Do we really want to live in a country where there is a substantial amount of political money spent on combing through every aspect of life of a public candidate to find one tidbit of “gotcha material”? Frankly I don’t.

    It’s stupid and dangerous when liberals do it to try to frame conservatives as evil, sexist, racist, etc. and also when liberals make up fake “hate crimes” and false rapes to support their narrative. Like many things it took Republicans a few years to figure out how to play the game, but once they did they love finding stuff like this. “Turnabout is fair play” is what one of my teachers would always say when a student would get back at a bully.

    But for the love of God and all things holy can’t we just stop the entire charade for good?

  23. Nobody should be forced to resign over something this stupid, this long ago.

    But until the Democrats agree on that point, they should absolutely be judged by the standards they demand others be judged by.
    He has to be destroyed, or else the left has no reason to rethink their tactics.

    1. So, “destroy” a man that even you think shouldn’t be destroyed, if it means advancing the collective goal of destroying the left. Is that right?

      1. No. Force the people who have been destroying lives for years to live by their own self-professed standards. If a few progs must suffer, c’est la vie. Next time…do not demand a pound of flesh from all opponents.

        1. Two things:
          1. You aren’t applying the “same” standard, you are applying a different, stricter standard, at least when compared to Kavanaugh.
          2. What exactly is the end game here? Force Democrat politicians to resign over stupid stuff like yearbook photos, until…. Democrats stop doing the same to your tribe (at least insofar as you perceive it)? Do you really think it will stop there? Why would Team Red give up a winning tactic for them? Why would Team Blue do the same, for that matter? That is the ultimate problem with tit-for-tat strategies. The end result is NOT a truce, but mutual destruction. At some point someone has to be the adult and say “this is all ridiculous, let’s base our disagreements on ideas and principles, and not stupid shit like racist photos or fuzzy memories from 30 years ago”.

          1. So you know what? Keep on doing what you’re doing, portraying your fake outrage over some racist photo only because you know it advances your tribal cause, not really because you find the photo outrageous (as Brett admitted above). It only makes both tribes seem petty and foolish and dumb. All the better to see both of them wither away and die as more and more people reject this silliness.

          2. 1. You aren’t applying the “same” standard, you are applying a different, stricter standard, at least when compared to Kavanaugh.

            One did what they were accused of. The other did not.

            2. What exactly is the end game here? Force Democrat politicians to resign over stupid stuff like yearbook photos, until…. Democrats stop doing the same to your tribe (at least insofar as you perceive it)?

            Sure. Allowing them to do it unscathed seems like an exceedingly idiotic policy.

            Why would Team Red give up a winning tactic for them?

            Because Team Red, historically, has not done this. It took several cases of Team Blue using this tactic for the Right to fight back some.

            That is the ultimate problem with tit-for-tat strategies. The end result is NOT a truce, but mutual destruction. At some point someone has to be the adult and say “this is all ridiculous, let’s base our disagreements on ideas and principles, and not stupid shit like racist photos or fuzzy memories from 30 years ago”.

            And it’s time that the Right not be the adult this time. We aren’t the ones referring to all of our opponents as racists and misogynists.

            1. Jeffy is such an idiot.

        2. But what are your standards and when do you intend to apply them and to whom? I think he should resign, but if you think he did nothing wrong according to some deeply held principle or belief that you think is commonly held by people of your political persuasion, but what is the principle and when do you plan to apply it? Obviously the answer is that these principles are not dearly held to the extent that they apply even to people you disagree with, which is to say they are principles entirely of convenience.

          1. I am not the one who demanded these rules. My “Tribe” didn’t demand these rules. We had them forced upon by the same people whining that they are being held to the rules they demanded to be held to.

            1. I’m not talking about other people’s rules, I’m talking about your principles, if any. What do you stand for and where does it figure in this, if at all? ‘Turnabout is fair play’ is all well and good, it isn’t as if I begrudge anyone the political schadenfreude, but there seems to be no clear principle which you would apply if it was up to you.

        3. Thats right.

          Rule 4, baby! RULE 4!

  24. Good heavens. Pretty much no one is arguing in good faith on this matter.

    With regards to the abortion stuff, it is ALREADY LEGAL in Virginia for a woman to get an abortion right up until the moment of birth. It was legal before 2018, it is still legal now. The only change that Tran’s bill would make is to loosen the restrictions on obtaining a third-trimester abortion. Argue against that all you want, but her bill would NOT legalize abortion up until the moment of birth, because it’s ALREADY legal to do so.

    With regards to Northam’s abortion comments, he chose his words very poorly, and yes they can be construed as endorsing infanticide, but if you look at the content of his comments, he is quite clear that it is only in the case of extremely deformed infants. It is not fair at all to claim that his comments signal support for killing healthy infants based on the whims of the mother. And the entire topic of euthanasia itself is a very difficult topic, and ought to be considered with some degree of moral seriousness. But we can’t have that in this country anymore, it seems, instead it’s just full of partisans screaming at each other about how evil the other side is.

    1. With regards to the yearbook, the controversy is entirely silly. And no it is not analogous to the situation with Kavanaugh, because in Kavanaugh’s case, the accusation was that he committed an act of aggression against another person. Posing for an offensive and stupid yearbook photo is not an act of aggression against anyone. An analogous situation might be if Northam was running around in KKK garb burning crosses as some sort of sick highschool “prank”.

      The entire thing is just so silly. When do we actually discuss issues anymore?

      1. And your rationalization puts the final nail in he coffin for the idea that you’re a libertarian and not a Democrat.

        1. Huh. So because I don’t go along with the sloppy reasoning of the right-wing tribalists, that makes me a Democrat? No, that makes me a rational person.

          The objections to Kavanaugh based on his past, were rooted in his alleged act of aggression, not merely because he did stupid shit in high school. No one opposed him solely because he was a frat boy who drank beer.

          You know this, and you just want any reason whatsoever to find some thin reed upon which to draw equivalence, so as to rationalize your own lack of principles on the matter.

          At least Brett is honest enough to admit that he wants Northam destroyed purely out of tribal vengeance, and the yearbook photo is just the pretext for that.

          1. The objections to Kavanaugh based on his past, were rooted in his alleged act of aggression, not merely because he did stupid shit in high school. No one opposed him solely because he was a frat boy who drank beer.

            Kavanaugh was younger, has denied the accusation, and literally nobody has corroborated the accusation.

            Northam has admitted he did exactly what he is being accused of here.

            There is zero comparability here.

            …and quite a few claim that he should be impeached for perjury for denying he drank…which, mind you, Kavanaugh never denied doing in the first place.

            1. Correction — Northam AFTER saying he was in the photo, says he isn’t sure it was him and wants facial recognition used. One of the people is in a hood, mind you.

              And, there is that small issue of the students CHOSE the photos on their yearbook page.

              Somebody might want to tell him that “You know, I’m not SURE it’s me” hours after admitting that it was you doesn’t look very good.

              1. His VMI nickname of “Coonman” might be tough to explain as well.

        2. He can’t be a libertarian because he applies libertarian principles to Democrats? Be sure to say hello to yourself when you meet yourself coming back the other way.

        3. And your rationalization puts the final nail in he coffin for the idea that you’re a libertarian and not a Democrat.

          Members of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management are my favorite faux libertarians, except perhaps for members of Libertarians for Tariffs.

          Or Libertarians For Bigoted, Cruel, Authoritarian Immigration Policies.

          Then there are Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clincis.

          And Libertarians For Denying Marriage Certificates To Homos (Because Jesus Said).

          Also, Libertarians Against Transgender Rights.

          Oh, and Libertarians For Torture And Endless Detention Without Trial.

          So many faux libertarians, so little principle.

      2. It’s not analogous because the photo unambiguously is real, while there’s no evidence at all the allegations against Kavanaugh are accurate.

        So in Northam’s case we’re discussing the implications of something stupid but harmless that is known to have happened, while in Kavanaugh’s case it’s evidence free accusations of something which would be serious if it had happened, but we have no reason to think it did.

      3. “Posing for an offensive and stupid yearbook photo is not an act of aggression against anyone.”

        Any blacks at the party? I think they make have felt it was an act of aggression towards them.

        1. Knowing only what I see, and based on my half-century of life . . . I rather doubt that there were blacks at this party. Any asshole who feels comfortable enough to wear blackface and/or a KKK outfit is probably not hanging around with any actual black people. More’s the pity. . . hanging around with blacks is sort of like straight people hanging around with gays. You quickly realize, “Wow, they turn out to be, well, ‘normal.’ Why on earth was I so afraid of them up-till-now???”

          1. Now you know why conservatives don’t want to associate with with gays, or transgendered people, or Muslims . . . they might get squishy, and their friends and pastors would not approve.

          2. Yeah, not many blacks at the party, or in the med school, and the school felt it was ok for the yearbook to print pictures like this. But people think it represents something silly and trivial. The whites on the right are ever-so-forgiving about this sort of thing.

    2. That’s a bit like saying that killing people was already legal, the only difference is that the law changed it from needing to be self defense to allowing it in any instance that doesn’t occur on Tuesday.

      1. Pretty much. There’s a huge difference between “legal under rare conditions of medical necessity ” and “legal on a whim.”

        This is the sort of thing abortion advocates, (I think we can call them that, now.) would have claimed was a wild smear only a few years ago.

        I now feel safe in saying that they’re going to be trying to legalize unambiguous infanticide within just a few years. They no longer think they need to hide their evil, that the public has become numb to it.

    3. “Tran’s bill would make is to loosen the restrictions on obtaining a third-trimester abortion. Argue against that all you want, but her bill would NOT legalize abortion up until the moment of birth, because it’s ALREADY legal to do so.”

      Some are already legal but others are not. “loosen the restrictions” means more third trimester abortions because it will increase the legal ones.

  25. Whoops, guys, false alarm! It turns out it wasn’t him in the yearbook after all!

    1. He say that now.

      Of course, he already said it was him.

      Was he lying then? Or is he lying now? Is it not true then, that he is an open and notorious LIAR?

      1. Hey, the guy’s so woke that he apologized for something he didn’t even do! How can you run a guy like that out of politics?

        1. On a rail, after liberal application of hot tar and feathers?

          1. Damn. Where’s the like button when you need it?

  26. This is CURRENT LAW right now in Virginia:
    http://codes.findlaw.com/va/ti…..-2-74.html

    Notwithstanding any of the provisions of ??18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of ???18.2-72 and 18.2-73 , it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester provided the following conditions are met:

    (a)?Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

    (b)?The physician and two consulting physicians certify and so enter in the hospital record of the woman, that in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

    (c)?Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.

    1. So Tran’s bill would remove many of the restrictions, and the response from the right-wing press was “Bill Would Legalize Third Trimester Abortion In Virginia”. That is just a bloody lie. But of course useful idiots like Jesse above happily believe it while at the same time lambasting “fake news” from CNN and NYTimes.

      1. Can you cite the “right wing media” that said that the bill would legalize abortion in the third trimester instead of simply removing basically all legal impediments to it?

        I didn’t notice it, but you seem to have this type of info.

      2. “…Tran’s bill would remove many of the restrictions”

        Here is part of the legislative summary:

        “The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.”

        http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bi…..sum+HB2491

        So the bill would have made third-trimester abortions a good deal easier.

        1. Specifically, if you can find a doctor to certify that carrying the pregnancy to term would impair your mental health, even if it wouldn’t be a substantial or irremediable harm, then you could legally get the third-trimester abortion – under the terms of Tran’s bill, which for some reason didn’t pass.

          How difficult would it be to find a “prochoice” physician to make such a certification?

          1. It sounds like even under current law a woman can, during labor, elect to kill a healthy baby rather than undergo a normal-risk c-section. That seems a little extreme.

            1. I’m not saying the current law is OK, but that the bill would have made it a good deal worse.

            2. It’s basically been that way since the Supreme Court decided Doe v Bolton a few hours after Roe v Wade. They just keep making it easier for the doctor; Originally he had to claim a live birth would drive you so crazy you’d have to be institutionalized. Now he just has to claim it would cause you mild anxiety.

              But it was Doe v Bolton that established he couldn’t be sanctioned for lying about it.

          2. I’m sure that Planned Parenthood has the Zonderkommando lined up…

          3. Kermit Gosnell comes to mind.

          4. My cousin, who is an attorney in practice for nearly thirty years is a big progressive. She sees zero problem killing a baby entirely at the whim of the. Other right up until the trip down the birth canal. Because it’s a ‘woman’s choice’.

            Just another reason we need McCarthyism back. These people have no souls and are at least borderline sociopaths.

        2. They should have callit the ‘Gosnell Provision’.

          1. I think they’re saving that for the level of health care poor people will get under right-wing governments.

      3. So your saying the bill would make a very large number of otherwise illegal third-trimester abortions into legal ones?

        If only we had a word for making legal something that had been illegal…

    2. Clown, I understand that you are reading impaired, but why don’t you take a look at what changes were proposed.

      Under the current statute, a physician would have to find at least two other physicians to sign off on the murder, and they would have to certify a likelihood of death or substantial and irremediable impairment of her mental or physical health.

      Under the proposed Statute, the abortionist (alone without any need for two others to certify) just says the murder of the child is needed to prevent ANY impairment of the woman’s mental health.

      Removing the 2 physician requirement and the “substantial and irremediable” impairment requirement legalizes abortion to the moment of birth in a way that is not present now.

      Mom says, “oops, going through with this will cause anxiety.” Planned parenthood murderer says, “Sure, it will. I certify it, give me 300.00 and I’ll cut up the kid for you.”

      You can’t do that under current law.

      1. Hey, you are right! Tran’s bill would make third trimester abortion a lot easier!

        But it wouldn’t “legalize” abortion in the third trimester, because there is no need – it’s already legal.

        It would make it *easier*, yes. I don’t think anyone has argued to the contrary.

        The dispute is about the misleading narrative that Tran is taking some radical step to legalize third trimester abortion when it wasn’t already legal.

        1. You are attempting to reason with people who believe fairy tales are true and that public policy should be based on bigoted fiction..

        2. But it wouldn’t “legalize” abortion in the third trimester, because there is no need – it’s already legal.

          This is stupid semantics.

          A law says that it’s legal for a first responder responding to an emergency to drive on the left side of a two-way road if he has his lights and sirens on. Then someone proposes a law to make it legal for anyone to drive on the left side of a two-way road if he is in a hurry to get somewhere.

          Normal person: “This law makes it legal to drive on the left side of a two-way road.”
          Bad faith arguer: “No, it’s already legal to drive on the left side of a two-way road. This just makes it a little easier.”

  27. A senior in medical school should not be acting like some half-wit college student. And if this was considered acceptable enough behavior to be included in the school’s yearbook, what kind of behavior occurred, but was considered too extreme to include?

    If I had engaged in a stunt like that while I was in med school (same time, but a school with far higher standards) I would have been expelled, I think. I certainly didn’t ever have any desire to find out.

    The dems don’t like living by the rules they have imposed, do they?

    1. No reason for you to lie about this. It’s difficult for you to claim that Dems don’t like living by the rules they have imposed, when all the evidence shows us that Dems are being just as ruthless here as they were with Brett K.

      Is it possible that you mean to criticize Republicans, for their own refusal to act consistently, but you reflexively typed “Dems” instead? Your post would make sense if that happened.

    2. If I had engaged in a stunt like that while I was in med school (same time, but a school with far higher standards) I would have been expelled, I think.

      Strong evidence you did not attend a southern school.

  28. A senior in medical school should not be acting like some half-wit college student. And if this was considered acceptable enough behavior to be included in the school’s yearbook, what kind of behavior occurred, but was considered too extreme to include?

    If I had engaged in a stunt like that while I was in med school (same time, but a school with far higher standards) I would have been expelled, I think. I certainly didn’t ever have any desire to find out.

    The dems don’t like living by the rules they have imposed, do they?

  29. This is payback for Lefties going after Kavanaugh.

    It would have been better to drop the news before the election, since the Lt. Governor is also a Democrat.

    1. I doubt most Lefties give a shit about Ralph Northam. And as for his career, this photo will probably increase his popularity in Virginia. Why should he care what Kamala Harris or Cory Booker think?

      1. this photo will probably increase his popularity in Virginia

        Nope. Even in the reddest parts of the state, the photo would be considered racist, and not enough to make up for Northam’s gun-grabbing tendencies.

  30. Hey, does anyone happen to know or care what black Virginians think about this?

    1. I won’t speak for them….will you?

      1. Didn’t ask you, or offer, to speak for anyone. I asked if anyone had bothered to see if they had opinions on this.

        1. Well, the black guy in the photo seems think that Northam should be forgiven.

          1. Yes, that would be the only black person whose opinion you’d notice.

    2. “Hey, does anyone happen to know or care what black Virginians think about this?”

      The black legislative caucus called for him to resign.

      1. Well all righty, then.

  31. I disagree with Northam’s politics, and wouldn’t vote for him. Buuuut…

    We mistake the role of politicians. When I hire a governor, mayor, factory manager, or plumber, I’m not looking to hire a saint. I don’t hold any of those people to the standards I would expect of a friend. I want someone who can fix the doggone leaky valve, or run the factory or city or state government efficiently. They are the hired help, not the love of my life.

    Instead, we seem to view politicians as spiritual prophets or something. That backfires when they stop paying attention to optimizing the running of the executive branch, and start pretending they are our father figures.

    When I hire a plumber, I care about whether he can fix plumbing, not whether he was a jerk years ago.

    (That said … it surprises me a yearbook would publish that in 1984. I was living in Virginia at the time, and it wasn’t 1954 anymore.)

    1. When I hire a plumber, I care about whether he can fix plumbing, not whether he was a jerk years ago.

      Buuut-governors make decisions that impact the lives of all people living in that state, so certainly whether he/she harbored racist views as an adult in the not-so-distant past is relevant. I did not vote for him, and don’t really have an opinion of him-fortunately Va governors are pretty weak-but think the photo is rather disturbing.

      1. Not-so-distant past? I mean, as a Gen-Xer it horrifies me to realize this, but 1984 was 35 years ago.

    2. “When I hire a plumber, I care about whether he can fix plumbing,…”

      Yeah, and alot of people won’t admit this. I suspect that most people on the left would rather have a child molester for President if he would keep abortion legal and institution MfA, than a good guy who would overturn Roe. And just the opposite for people on the right. But people don’t want to admit this.

  32. When I first heard about Northam this morning, my thought was why didn’t this come out earlier when he ran for state senate and Lt governor. Then I remembered, in Virginia, Democraps don’t care much about character in their candidates so much as they do about winning and holding on to power. Perhaps if the progtards in NoVa weren’t so afflicted with TDS and had a boner for Ralphie’s abortion fetish, somebody would have noticed this photo earlier-its not like it was stashed away in his attic.

  33. No, he should resign because he endorses murder.

    1. Unfortunately his replacement worked for PlannedParenthhod.

      So, its like replacing Goebbels with Himmler.

  34. Haha! Well, I agree with this. But for today’s Democrat party and their moralizing inquisitions, it is virtually inconceivable that such logic and reason could be adopted.

  35. Hugo Black.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.