Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) declared on Tuesday that his commonwealth had “outgrown” institutional racism and no longer needed to be subject to the Voting Rights Act’s redistricting requirements. Speaking to a group of reporters in Richmond, Cuccinelli argued that Congress ought to remove Virginia from a group of nine southern and western states who must get their redistricting maps pre-approved by the Department of Justice in order to prevent discrimination against minority voters:

Cuccinelli also addressed the issue of redistricting, saying he thought it was time for Virginia to be released from its federally mandated oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Under that law, Virginia’s redistricting plan every 10 years must be “pre-cleared” by the Justice Department, which is meant to ensure that Southern states are not discriminating against racial minorities with their new political boundaries.

Cuccinelli, however, said Virginia has “outgrown” that requirement, as the state — which he acknowledged originated Massive Resistance — is no longer marked by institutionalized bigotry.

“I think as a state, as a commonwealth, we have outgrown that,” he said. “We have grown as a commonwealth a great deal in my lifetime.”

Despite Cuccinelli’s insistence that the Voting Rights Act is antiquated and dispensable in Virginia, discrimination remains an unfortunate but major aspect of our society. Over the past 30 years, hundreds of new state schemes to discriminate against minority voters have been blocked by the Department of Justice. Recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) came under immense criticism for for attempting to undermine a candidate preferred by Hispanics by scheduling the special election during a Mexican religious festival.

Cuccinelli’s comments are not idle banter. They are part of an orchestrated conservative effort to undermine the Voting Rights Act and remove federal protection for minority voters. Last year, conservatives took aim at Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court case NAMUDNO v. Holder. The Court upheld the legislation in an 8-1 vote – conservative Justice Thomas was the lone dissent – but as the Wonk Room’s Ian Millhiser notes, the Roberts-led Court may be threatening to “invalidate the statute” if Congress doesn’t alter the Voting Rights Act soon.

Still, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has played a key role in protecting minority voters in Virginia. Following the 1990 census, Virginia was ordered by the Department of Justice to draw a protected majority-minority district in order to prevent voters in southeast Virginia from being disenfranchised. If Cuccinelli were to get his way, the 3rd congressional district would no longer be protected and legislators in the state would be able to gerrymander congressional districts to their heart’s content.

Cuccinelli’s belief that the commonwealth has “outgrown” institutional racism is an unfortunate echo of Stephen Colbert’s sarcastic refrain that in the era of Obama, “racism is over.“

Given the overwhelming military, foreign policy, and public support for the new START treaty, one would think Senate ratification would be a foregone conclusion. Numerous high-profile Republicans including Henry Kissinger, Gen. Colin Powell, and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have urged the Senate Republicans to fall in line and support it. However, Republicans led by the obstinate Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) continue to move the goal posts on their demands to avoid delivering one of Obama’s top foreign policy priorities. Setting “outrageous new benchmarks for bipartisanship,” the ever-slippery Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said she’d consider voting for START “if President [George H.W.] Bush would come out for the treaty” because “that would be so powerful and definitely help.” Today, the senior President Bush did just that, issuing a clear statement of support:

Bush joined a chorus of former GOP secretaries of State to support ratification of the nuclear arms treaty signed earlier this year by President Obama.

“I urge the United States Senate to ratify the START treaty,” Bush said in a one-sentence statement first reported by CNN’s Ed Henry.

Bush’s statement lends “the highest-profile Republican support to date” for START. While the practically ubiquitous support for the treaty should make any further Republican wavering unlikely, Kyl insisted again today that there is no time for ratification. Support for START in the senate now looks strong, but if Kyl’s stubborn myopia somehow succeeds in sinking the treaty, former Sen. John C. Danforth’s (R-MI) rebuke will stand true: “We have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Today, a right-wing organization called Judicial Watch hosted a panel discussion on the “current and upcoming fights over immigration enforcement” featuring Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce (R). Pearce, the author of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, railed against the Obama administration for “siding with a foreign government” against the state of Arizona. However, looking on the bright side, Pearce joked that Obama may not want to come to Arizona as they will require him to show his papers:

A little levity is okay, I hope cause I like to [inaudible] at most things. But I can tell you that the best thing about [SB]-1070 is that Obama may not be visiting Arizona because we actually require papers now.

Watch it:

Pearce may have been joking, but it’s not the first time he has indicated that Obama isn’t fit for office. Back in November, Pearce accused Obama of waging jihad against the state of Arizona and stated that it was an impeachable offense. “When you talk about jihad, that is exactly what Obama has against America,” said Pearce. “It’s outrageous and it’s impeachable.” At a tea party rally in August, Pearce similarly stated, “I think it’s treasonous, in my opinion.”

Shortly after SB-1070 was approved by the Arizona legislature, the state House of Representatives approved a so-called “birther bill,” which would require the Arizona Secretary of State to verify the citizenship of U.S. presidential candidates. However, it didn’t have enough Republican support in the state senate to pass a vote. “I can’t imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories,” White House spokesman Bill Burton responded.

During the panel discussion, Pearce also suggested that Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) should run for “presidente” of Mexico.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is one of a growing number of Republican lawmakers who are unhappy with the recent tax deal struck between the White House and the GOP, because, in their mind, the compromise contains too few tax cuts and too much money spent to help unemployed Americans. But discussing her stance on Fox News yesterday with host Megyn Kelly, Bachmann also took issue with the inclusion of President Obama’s cuts in payroll taxes for the middle class, complaining that they will increase the deficit. Employing an egregious double standard, however, Bachmann simultaneously denied that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will increase the deficit:

BACHMANN:[W]e’re pleased to see that we’re looking at a two percent reduction in the payroll tax, what we normally call the Social Security tax for employees. … What this will mean is a decrease in revenue for the Social Security Trust Fund. That will, again, add to the deficit going forward. So both of these measures that President Obama is proposing will actually have a cost towards increasing the deficit.

KELLY: Is it worth it to you though, to give the president the things that he’s asked for, like the extension of unemployment benefits, in order to preserve tax cuts for all Americans? [...]

BACHMANN: It’s curious to me that they say there’s a cost involved when people are allowed to keep their own money. And they’re talking about Americans being able to keep $700 billion of their own money. The cost is to the Treasury, but really it’s a cost out of the American peopeles’ pockets. So that’s a definition of terms.

The real cost will be in the outlay of unemployment benefits and in the reduction to the treasury in the Social Security taxes.

Watch it:

Of course, both the Obama payroll tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts will increase the deficit, but why does Bachmann only acknowledge this reality when it comes the middle-class cuts? Bachmann says “it’s curious” to suggest the Bush cuts cost money because they merely let people “keep their own money.” But this is exactly what the Obama payroll tax cuts do as well. Bachmann, who was for a practicing tax attorney for years, litigating “hundreds of civil and criminal cases,” should know better (and likely does).

Last night, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) offered the same double speak to Fox News host Greta Van Susteren. “The idea of cutting the payroll tax temporarily has been a Republican idea, as well as a Democratic idea. The problem is it costs money.” Nowhere in the interview did Alexander worry that the Bush cut for the wealthy also “costs money.”

And on Monday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) resorted to same cynical tactic on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show, distorting the payroll tax cut as government “spending,” while ignoring the cost of the Bush cuts.

Tax cuts are a core component of conservatives’ governing agenda, and they have spent the last six months constructing a fantasy world in which cutting taxes does not increase the deficit. But it appears that when those tax cuts are for the middle class, and not the wealthy, those cuts suddenly become vilified as “spending,” and as costing too much money.