From the Archives: Former state legislator Terri McCormick asks ‘What Sex Is a Republican?’

Former state legislator Terri McCormick asks ‘What Sex Is a Republican?’
December 20, 2011 7:52 PM MST

A former state legislator from Wisconsin, Terri McCormick is the author of a memoir called What Sex Is a Republican? Stories from the Front Lines of American Politics.

One reviewer, the author noted, called it “the first Tea Party book” because of what McCormick identifies as its themes.

“It’s all about integrity of leadership,” she told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner in an interview early in 2011, while she was attending the national convention of the Republican Liberty Caucus in Arlington, Virginia.

‘Founding principles’

“All the themes are centered around the Constitution, the founding principles, and what we need to do to be a better republic.”

The reason she published the book, McCormick explained, was that she had been asked to write about her experiences as a member of the Wisconsin Assembly, where she served three two-year terms beginning in 2000. She later twice ran for Congress, seeking the Republican nomination in Wisconsin’s Eighth District in 2006 and 2010.

It was while she was serving in the legislature, representing about 60,000 constituents in and around the cities of Appleton and Oshkosh, that McCormick discovered she was a libertarian.

“I didn’t even know that I was a libertarian Republican,” she explained, “until somebody had actually watched my work and said, ‘You know what? You believe in the constitution and free market.”

‘Core values’

To McCormick, that seemed just like common sense.

“I had a set of core values. I readily knew what they were: opportunities, free market systems, and I actually believed the constitution should apply to everybody.”

When it was pointed out that her statements and the legislation she sponsored manifested libertarian values and ideas, she “thought, ‘So that’s where I fit!’” Up to that point, she admitted, that she “didn’t quite know” what a libertarian was, or that she was one herself.

Running for Congress after her self-imposed term limits ended her time in the legislature “was interesting,” McCormick said, noting an odd paradox:

“When I ran for the state house, I was recognized as having ideas and [people] wanted me. When I ran for the U.S. House, I was recognized as an individual with ideas and therefore people didn’t want me.”

Legislative achievements

Prior to her first election to the Wisconsin Assembly, McCormick had worked with various civic groups and drafted the state’s first charter schools law. She helped form a group that lobbied for the law’s passage.

Once elected to office, she chaired the economic development committee, which became her platform for regulatory reform efforts.

Challenging entrenched interests in Madison, McCormick said she “took on the [state’s] capital investment company. In order to have more capital investment readily available, I wrote the small business regulation reform act.”

Her achievements, she added modestly, came about “just by listening to others and working with them.”


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on December 20, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Repost: Jeff Flake, Donald Trump, and Edmund Burke

Last week Tuesday, at a fundraising reception for his reelection campaign, Jeff Flake and I briefly reminisced about our – well, his – early days in Washington a quarter century ago, when we were both policy wonks working on African issues.

Rick Sincere & Jeff Flake

Those were simpler times. George H.W. Bush was President. The Cold War had just come to an end, and the West and its liberal values had won. We were riding a tide of prosperity buoyed by the Reagan administration’s economic policies and the 1986 tax reforms. Jeff had not yet run for public office but I had tested the political waters in a special election for the Virginia House of Delegates.

Jeff Flake went on to bigger and better things: president of the Goldwater Institute in Arizona, Member of Congress, U.S. Senator and chairman of the Africa subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Earlier this year, he wrote Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle, borrowing a title from Barry Goldwater's 1960 book.

Today he stunned us with his announcement that he would retire from the Senate because of the debasement of the Republican Party and government institutions by their putative “leader,” Donald J. Trump.

He explained his decision not to seek reelection to the Arizona Republic by saying “there may not be a place for a Republican like me in the current Republican climate or the current Republican Party."

In an eloquent and hard-hitting speech on the floor of the Senate – which became the lead story on today’s edition of All Things Considered on NPR and no doubt flooded the headlines and airwaves of Arizona news outlets – Flake laid out his reasons for retiring and made it clear that Trump is a cancer eating away at the body politic. If anyone deserves blame for the destruction of the Republican party and its values, it is Trump.

What was once the party of Goldwater, Ford, and Reagan has become listless, boneheaded, and petulant.

But those are my words, not Flake’s. Here is what he had to say to his colleagues in the Senate today:

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics. Regret because of the indecency of our discourse. Regret because of the coarseness of our leadership.

Regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our, I mean all of our complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end. In this century, a new phrase to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order, that phrase being the new normal. That we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue with the tone set up at the top. We must never regard as normal the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals, we must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country. The personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms and institution the flagrant disregard for truth and decency.

And more:

Without fear of the consequences and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal. Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as telling it like it is when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified.

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit and weakness. It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up? What are we going to say?

Mr. President, I rise today to say: enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes the normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it.

Read the whole thing here, with its citations of James Madison and Theodore Roosevelt. Watch it here.

Make no mistake – talented, wise legislators like Jeff Flake depart the Senate and political life because a blowhard in the White House has no sense of propriety, or empathy, or humility, and no understanding of the Constitution or the rule of law or the limits of his own authority. This bodes ill for the Republic.

As I write this, I am still shaking in anger and sadness. Edmund Burke wrote that the “only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” When sinister forces like Steve Bannon and his orange-rind puppet gleefully sideline good men like Jeff Flake, evil triumphs.

This has been reposted and slightly adapted from an article on Bearing Drift published October 24, 2017.

Who Are You Voting for Today? It's Not Who You Think It Is

As noted not long ago, elsewhere in these pages, when voters go to the polls today to cast their ballots for President and Vice President, they are not actually voting for Donald Trump or Gary Johnson or Hillary Clinton. Those candidates receive votes only indirectly.

Voters cast their ballots, instead, for slates of electors selected by the political parties (or, in the case of independent candidates, by the campaign organization).

In Virginia, each party selects two at-large electors and one from each of the eleven congressional districts. The Republican Party (and, I would guess, the Democratic Party) selected its slate of electors at the state party convention (for at-large slots) and at congressional district conventions.

The executive committee of the Libertarian Party selected its slate late in 2015 because all 13 names had to be included on the ballot access petitions that were circulated for the purpose of collecting a sufficient number of signatures to qualify the LP’s candidates for the ballot. The ballot petition included "stand-in" candidates for president and vice president, because Gary Johnson and William Weld were not nominated until nearly six months after the petitioning process began; their names were substituted after the petitions were turned in to the State Board of Elections. Presumably the Green Party followed a similar process.

Evan McMullin’s elector selection process was more opaque; even his running mate listed on the ballot, Nathan Johnson, is not McMullin’s actual running mate (Mindy Finn), although it’s unlikely that will matter by Wednesday morning.

Names of electors this year may be more relevant than in past years because of the possibility that one or more of them may go rogue and cast a ballot for candidates other than those who win the popular vote in their states. Two Washington state electors, who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries, have already announced that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins in the Evergreen State.

For the sake of full transparency in the electoral process, and to document this election thoroughly for future historians, here are the names of the 65 individuals who have agreed to serve as electors if their favored candidate wins the popular vote in Virginia on November 8. (Names are followed by “city of record,” as noted by the State Board of Elections.)

Green Party electors: Audrey R. Clement, Arlington; Becker Sidney Smith, Pamplin; Clifford Barry Anderson, Radford; Daniel A. Metraux, Staunton; Edmund E. Dowe II, Virginia Beach; Gerald L. Anderson, Fredericksburg; Jana Lee Cutlip, Charlottesville; Jeffrey B. Staples, Chesapeake; Kirit Mookerjee, Washington, DC; Patrick O. Hopkins, Herndon; Richard D. Johnston, Louisa; Ryan R. Ruff, Portsmouth; William Michael Lupinacci, Oakton

Notice that the “city of record” of one Green Party elector, Kirit Mookerjee, is listed as “Washington, DC.” Is this legal?

Democratic Party electors: Bethany J. Rowland, Chesapeake; Debra Stevens Fitzgearld, Harrisonburg; James Harold Allen Boyd, Culpeper; Jasper L. Hendricks, III, Pamplin; Jeanette C. Sarver, Dublin; K. James O'Connor, Jr., Manassas; Kathy Stewart Shupe, Sterling; Keith A. Scarborough, Woodbridge; Lashrecse D. Aird, Petersburg; Susan Johnson Rowland, Chesapeake; Terry C. Frye, Bristol; Virginia L. Peters, Alexandria; Vivian J. Paige, Norfolk

Here’s an oddity: Both the Democratic Party slate and the Green Party slate include an elector whose city of record is Pamplin, a postal designation in Virginia that I’ve previously never encountered. Is that coincidence?

Republican Party electors: Alan John Cobb, Falls Church; Anne Taetzsch Fitzgerald, Staunton; Cynthia Marie Miller (Byler), Virginia Beach; Donald L. Boswell, Glen Allen; Erich D. Reimer, Charlottesville; George William Thomas, Jr., Richmond; Henry Michael Ziegenfuss, Norfolk; James G. Huber, Leesburg; John V. Rainero, Bristol; Laurie K. Tryfiates, Fredericksburg; Lynn A. Tucker, Richmond; Samuel A. Howe, Lynchburg; Sean M. Spicer, Alexandria

That last name listed for the GOP, Sean Spicer, is principal spokesman for the Republican National Committee. He’ll probably be too busy today to campaign for himself outside his home precinct in Alexandria.

Libertarian Party electors: Alvin Scott Bandy, Charlottesville; Brian A. Hiner, Roanoke; Constance Hannigan-Franck, Broadlands; David W. Saum, Falls Church; Donna L. Grebas, Chesterfield; Gregory Ivan Lloyd, North Chesterfield; James J. St. John, Norfolk; James W. Lark, III, Free Union; Juanita A. Walton Billings, Fredericksburg; M. Anne Panella, Pembroke; Robert F. Shuford, Jr., Hampton; Sanford Brotman, Fairfax; William B. Redpath, Leesburg

The Libertarian Party slate includes two former national party chairmen, Jim Lark and Bill Redpath. (Full disclosure: I was on the LP elector slate in 1992 and again in 1996, but the GOP electors were chosen by the voters those years.)

Evan McMullin/Nathan Johnson electors: Andrew Hemby, Henrico; Annie H. Pratt, Gainesville; Bruce M. Andrew, Fredericksburg; Daniel Martin Eaton, Charlottesville; Deborah Kathryn Strader, Newport News; Jonathan C. Morris, Norfolk; Joseph R. Mayes, Chester; Kelsey C. Carreon, Clifton; Matthew Phillip LaPointe, Falls Church; Monica G. Shafer, Smithfield; Nanette M. Gagnon, Woodstock; Steven D. Bridges, Marion; Wilson R. Dodge, Jr., Burke

The McMullin/Johnson slate contains nothing noteworthy, from what I can see – but if it does, please tell us in the comments section, below.

Whichever slate of electors is elected by voters tomorrow, the lucky thirteen will meet on Wednesday, December 19, at 12 o'clock noon in the Senate Chamber at the Virginia State Capitol. A limited number of tickets are available for members of the public to watch the balloting ceremony.

From the Archives: GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie sees 'energized, excited' party activists

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 5, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie sees 'energized, excited' party activists

Former national and state Republican chairman Ed Gillespie is one of four candidates seeking the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate from Virginia at a state party convention in Roanoke on Saturday, June 7.

The winner of the nomination contest – either Gillespie, Tony DeTora, Shak Hill, or Chuck Moss – will go on to face incumbent Senator Mark Warner (D-Alexandria) in November. Libertarian nominee Robert Sarvis may also be on the ballot, pending his meeting the petition requirements by the filing deadline of Tuesday, June 10.

Gillespie spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner on the sidelines of the Fifth Congressional District GOP convention at Hampden-Sydney College on May 17. He expressed his views about health care reform, Warner's vulnerabilities, his appeal to libertarian-leaning voters, and whether he will debate any ballot-qualified candidate during the election campaign.

Party unity
Although the party canvass and convention process so far in 2014 has been fractious, Gillespie believes that “unity is possible.”

Republicans, he said, are “energized, they're excited.”

Gillespie pointed to “massive turnout at our district conventions and people getting energized and excited and coming into the process” as being “a good thing for us.”

With regard to the disputatious nature of the convention process, he said that “a little friction, a little tension here and there, that's a sign of a growing party. I would rather have the growing pains of a growing party than no pains of a shrinking party.”

Libertarian voters
Asked how he can earn the votes of libertarian-leaning Virginians in November, Gillespie asserted that “we have a lot of common ground with our libertarian-leaning members of our party and libertarian-leaning members of the electorate obviously. We are in favor of less government intrusion in our lives, we're in favor of lower taxes, we're in favor of stopping reckless spending, we want to get Obamacare out of making decisions about what our health insurance can be and who our doctors can be.”

He noted his view that, “if you believe in our constitutional principles of limited government and personal freedom, then anyone with a strong libertarian leaning needs to vote for our nominee come November.”

Gillespie would not, however, commit to debating any ballot-qualified candidate during the campaign. “I'd debate Mark Warner happily,” he said, but with regard to Robert Sarvis or any other possible Senate candidate, he demurred.

“I don't know. We'd have to look at that. Obviously, my focus is on Mark Warner,” Gillespie said.

Job killer
Warner's vulnerabilities include “his job-killing policies, his voting with President Obama and Harry Reid 97 percent of the time,” the GOP hopeful said.

Warner, he continued, “didn't just vote for Obamacare, which kills jobs. He voted against an amendment to repeal the medical device tax --165,000 jobs right there. He's for cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. A cap-and-trade regime would cost Virginians alone 66,000 jobs. He has voted job killing policy after job-killing policy. The fact is, his policies have resulted in lost jobs, lower take-home pay, skyrocketing health-care costs, and higher energy prices.”

In contrast, he asserted, Republican policies, “based on free markets and free people, would result in more job creation and higher take-home pay, and lower health-care costs, and bringing down energy prices.”

Gillespie also summarized his views on how to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare.

Repeal and replace
“We need to repeal it because it's designed to get us to a single-payer system over time. We've got to repeal it and replace it with market-oriented reforms,” he said.

“I'm looking at a positive alternative to put forward for the people of Virginia. Some of the things I've been talking to people about are allowing for insurers to market across state lines. There's an artificial barrier there that doesn't exist in the auto market or the life insurance market. It shouldn't exist in the health insurance market.”

Gillespie also suggested a policy that would give “equal tax treatment for the employer or the employee, giving the employee more power in that regard. That would also help, so when you change jobs you wouldn't be at risk of losing insurance for a pre-existing condition.”

He pointed out the need for reform of medical malpractice laws, “which are driving up health care costs by virtue of defensive medicine practices or exorbitant awards. People need to be protected in our judicial process in the event of hospital error or doctor's error but we can do that without driving up the cost of health care.”

Gillespie also noted that medical savings accounts “hve been gutted by this administration” but should be “beefed up” instead.

He concluded his discussion of health-care policies by saying that he is “looking forward to talking about a positive alternative [to] replace Obamacare. People want to know what we're for as well as what we're against.”

He also expressed confidence about his chances of winning the nomination in Roanoke.

“I am very excited about the convention. I believe we're going to have a unifying convention in Roanoke; I think we can bring our party together. I'm very optimistic about how that's going and like our delegate count a lot.”

Saying he will support the eventual nominee “110 percent,” but adding that “ I'm hoping it's going to be me,” Gillespie concluded that “we have real momentum and a chance to unify our party for a big win in November.”

An audio version of this interview with Senate candidate Ed Gillespie is available on Bearing Drift's podcast, “The Score.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

GOP Senate candidate Chuck Moss emphasizes technology issues, outsider status
GOP Senate hopeful Tony DeTora favors marijuana law reform, opposes Mark Warner
'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia
Virginia Senator Mark Warner discusses budget issues, independent voters
GOP Senate candidate Shak Hill thinks government is 'overreaching'

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-senate-candidate-ed-gillespie-sees-energized-excited-party-activists

From the Archives: Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith clarifies aim of his medical marijuana bill

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 11, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.


Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith clarifies aim of his medical marijuana bill

Although he voted against a budget amendment designed to circumscribe federal interference in the production and distribution of medical marijuana in states that have legalized it, U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA9) has introduced his own legislation to address implications for federalism and individual liberty by reforming the nation's drug laws.

Griffith's bill, the “Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marijuana Act” or the “LUMMA,” would allow physicians to prescribe marijuana for various ailments and provide for experimentation and research by universities and pharmaceutical companies. Prescription of cannabis is currently prohibited under federal law and research is severely limited.

Congressman Griffith explained the aims of his bill in an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner on the sidelines of the Republican Party of Virginia's state convention in Roanoke on June 7.

Most of the states that have legalized medicinal marijuana “haven't adopted a policy that I would advocate,” Griffith said. “That is a policy that says that you have doctors involved with a prescription, not just a note that says it might be good for you but a prescription so that we can actually see what we're doing.”

Griffith's bill “would also allow for universities and pharmaceutical companies and whomever to start doing experiments with the levels of the THC,” he explained, “because one of the problems you have is, even where people want to use it for medical reasons, whether it be epilepsy or glaucoma and cancer, we don't really know what the right mix of THC and cannabinoid oils are to make the [use of it] most effective for particular patients.”

Currently, he continued, “because it's a Schedule One drug and the DEA won't reduce it to Schedule Two, you really can't get the research that you need to use it for real medicinal purposes.”

Griffith was critical of the way medical marijuana is regulated in those states where it's already legal.

“A lot of the states have a loosey-goosey plan,” he said.

'A serious medication'
“What we need is to have marijuana treated like any other serious drug, like we treat hydrocodone, like we treat barbiturates, like we treat morphine – treat it seriously, [because] it's a serious medication.”

Once the law treats it that way, he said, then the federal government should “step back and let the states decide whether their doctors can make the prescription. Right now they can't because it's against the federal law and you lose your DEA license to prescribe any drug if you do it.”

Now there are “22 states where the federal government looks the other way and doesn't enforce the law [while] we have a federal law that actually makes it a felony for a hospital or a doctor to actually use it in any kind of an efficacious way.”

Under the terms of Griffith's bill, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) would reschedule marijuana from Schedule One to Schedule Two. “Some would argue it ought to be Schedule Three, or maybe even lower, but Schedule Two gets us the research and allows doctors to use it,” he explained.

While Dana Rohrabacher's amendment to a budget bill last month would have ended DEA and Department of Justice interference in states with legal medical marijuana, that approach does not go far enough for Griffith.

'Patchwork set of laws'
“I think a lot of folks feel that voting for these budget amendments is solving the problem,” he said, adding that it “actually makes the problem more complex because then you have a patchwork set of rules across the nation and it's still a violation of federal law.”

As a result, “whenever a new president comes in, they say to the DEA, 'Go get those people, they're in violation of federal law.' I don't want to do that. I want there to be a respect for the law but let's get the law right.”

The right way to reform the law, he explained, is to “have our doctors, our trained medical professionals, prescribing it, and have our universities and our pharmaceutical companies testing it to get the dosage right.”

Griffith's bill, designated HR 4498, currently has two cosponsors: Rep. James Moran (D-VA8) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA47). It has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Michigan Republican Fred Upton, where it awaits action.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Morgan Griffith, Robert Hurt vote against Rohrabacher amendment on medicinal pot
Virginia Republican Congressmen Respond to 2014 State of the Union Message
GOP Senate hopeful Tony DeTora favors marijuana law reform, opposes Mark Warner
Ken Cuccinelli clarifies remarks on marijuana legalization as federalism issue
Justin Bieber, Gary Becker, and the future of marijuana prohibition

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-congressman-morgan-griffith-clarifies-aim-of-his-medical-marijuana-bill

From the Archives: 'Republicans have learned a lesson' says GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 6, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

'Republicans have learned a lesson' says GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie

In an interview following the annual Independence Day parade in Crozet in western Albemarle County on July 5, U.S. Senate candidate Ed Gillespie said that “Republicans have learned a lesson” after presiding over unprecedented growth in the size and scope of government from 2001 to 2007, when the party controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.

“The difference between Republicans and Democrats,” he told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner at Claudius Crozet Park, “is, I think, Republicans have learned a lesson.”

Continuing, he noted that “the fact is, I agree that when Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the White House that we spent too much money.”

That experience from the first decade of the 21st century, he added, “pales in comparison to what the Democrats did when they got control of all three – the House, the Senate, and the White House – but that's not enough.”

'Size and scope'
Republicans, he said, “understand that, if we're given the opportunity to govern again, and we get majorities in the House and the Senate and then, certainly, the White House, we need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and get it in its proper size and scope.”

Gillespie said that “there are a number of functions that the federal government performs that would better be performed by individuals in the private sector and by the states. I think the federal government over the past five years, in particular, has encroached on state prerogatives.”

When asked to name three federal programs that he would like to see eliminated, however, the GOP Senate candidate would name only one, the Export-Import Bank, which is due to be reauthorized in September.

“One that I have said already that I believe should not be reauthorized and doesn't deserve to be continued in funding is the ExIm Bank,” Gillespie said, “but we'll roll out more details later as we go along.”

Gillespie, who served in the George W. Bush administration and has been chairman of both the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Virginia, explained that his victory over incumbent Democrat Mark Warner in November will be a harbinger of a GOP majority in the U.S. Senate.

“Not only would Mark Warner become the former Senator from Virginia,” he said, “but Harry Reid will become the former Senate majority leader. That would have a major impact on the future of the country: an immediate, beneficial, positive impact on the direction of the United States.”

Reid (D-Nev.), he said, “has bottled up legislation not just bills that have come from the House which deserve a fair hearing in the Senate.”

'Vigorous agenda'
With a Republican majority in the Senate, Gillespie explained, “you will see a much more vigorous agenda” in the upper chamber “and we'd be able to work with a Republican House to get legislation to the President's desk.”

Asked whether a Republican-controlled Congress would repeal Bush-era laws that expanded the federal government, such as No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, Gillespie expressed uncertainty.

“I don't know yet,” he said, “how much support there would be for that.”

Crozet's holiday parade was the fifth Gillespie had marched in so far this weekend. He said he was next heading to Virginia Beach to participate in festivities there.

SUGGESTED LINKS

GOP can regain control of Senate in 2014, says strategist Grover Norquist
GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie sees 'energized, excited' party activists
Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East
'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia
Senator Mark Warner defends his record against GOP challenger Ed Gillespie

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-have-learned-a-lesson-says-gop-senate-candidate-ed-gillespie

From the Archives: Barry Goldwater's 1964 'extremism' speech still defines conservatism 50 years on

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 15, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Barry Goldwater's 1964 'extremism' speech still defines conservatism 50 years on

Fifty years ago this week, Barry Goldwater accepted the Republican party's nomination for president at the GOP convention in San Francisco. Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign is almost universally credited with launching both the modern conservative and the modern libertarian movements.

In an acceptance speech most famous for its much misunderstood but biggest applause line – “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” – Goldwater laid out a definition for political conservatism without once using the word “conservative.”

Something of a précis of his 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative, Goldwater's convention speech endeavored to explain conservatism – or what he called “Republicanism” on that occasion – to listeners who had not yet learned much about it.

In the same speech, Goldwater displayed a certain amount of prescience regarding the course of human history and offered advice to his fellow Republicans who, then as now, often found themselves among bickering factions.

In one, brief paragraph, the Arizona Senator summarized the conservative view of individual liberty and the proper role of government.

Private property and diversity
Conservatives, he said, “see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.”

Goldwater also drew a contrast explicitly to the communist, totalitarian vision and, implicitly, to big-government liberalism then in vogue.

“Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good,” Goldwater asserted, “are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”

In a line that would be welcomed equally by the Tea Party and by the Occupy movement, Goldwater said that conservatives must “resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people.”

A vision of the future
And as if envisioning the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire a quarter-century later, Goldwater made remarkably accurate predictions in this paragraph:

“I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world.”

Toward the end of his speech, just before the famous line about “extremism,” Goldwater pointed out the factionalism in the Republican party was not new, but also was not necessarily bad.

Discord and hostility
The GOP, he said, is “a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists.”

Then he quoted Abraham Lincoln in 1858 “because he probably could have said it during the last week or so: "[The Republican Party] was composed of strained, discordant, and even hostile elements.'”

As if he were anticipating the divide between the Tea Party and “establishment” branches of the conservative movement in the 21st century, Goldwater then admonished: “Let our Republicanism, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.”

He explained that “the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution. Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world.”

It was in that context – between “stupid labels” and the beauty of the American system – that Goldwater added:

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

He concluded with the modest thought that conservatives have “a very human cause for very humane goals.”

Barry Goldwater's nomination acceptance speech of July 16, 1964, can be viewed in its entirety on the C-SPAN web site.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Present at the creation: YAF co-founder Carol Dawson remembers the 1960 Sharon Conference
Amity Shlaes discusses significance of Calvin Coolidge at Heritage Foundation
Veteran journalist Evan Thomas draws contrast between Obama and Eisenhower
JFK was 'cautious, conservative' says UVA political scientist Larry Sabato
Current politics has Nixons but no Eisenhowers, says biographer Jeffrey Frank

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/barry-goldwater-s-1964-extremism-speech-still-defines-conservatism-50-years-on

From the Archives: 'Open-minded, pragmatic' Republican Anson Parker enters race for City Council

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on May 30, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

'Open-minded, pragmatic' Republican Anson Parker enters race for City Council

Anson Parker, a 37-year-old web developer who has lived in Charlottesville for two decades, was nominated by the local Republican Party on Saturday, May 30, to be a candidate for City Council in the November election.

Acknowledging that it is a “reasonable statement” to describe his approach as more technocratic than ideological, Parker told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner in an interview following his nomination that “I want to be open-minded in a lot of ways. I want to be pragmatic.”

Only one Republican has been elected to Charlottesville's city council in the past 30 years, suggesting that GOP candidates face a difficult challenge. Parker brushed aside concerns that running as a Republican is an obstacle to his election.

“I think it's an opportunity because when I tell people I'm running as a Republican," he said, "it blows their minds."

Not national but local
People told him that he should run as a Democrat because of the city's voting record but “I say, no, my goals are conservative.” When they ask what kind of conservative he is and whether he's running on issues like abortion or gay rights, he says, with emphasis, “It's no, no, no. This is about local issues.”

Gay rights and abortion, he explained, “are not even local issues. Those are state and federal issues.”

For Parker, the campaign “is about what we do in Charlottesville and fiscal conservatism in Charlottesville is broadly accepted,” he said.

“There are a multitude of people who are liberal at a national level who don't like to see their money wasted locally.”

As a result, he noted, “I've actually found that being Republican to be a great talking point. I'm conservative locally and this has nothing to do with a national audience. This is Charlottesville.”

Infrastructure gaps
Parker explained that he was motivated to run for City Council because “there are a lot of gaps in the technical infrastructure, and since I'm a web developer I felt I could bring something to the table to help.”

He said that technology can improve government transparency and, in turn, improve citizens' views of city government workers.

He gave the example of a cell phone app that helps identify potholes needing repairs: It can both nudge the repair process forward and provide a way to acknowledge the hard work of the city employee who fixes it.

“I want to look at this as an opportunity for the city to show off what good work it does,” Parker said, “because 99 percent of the time that's what's going on [but] people aren't really appreciated. It's the one percent of the time when people aren't doing good work that gets a lot of press. I'm hoping that by making a more transparent system we can improve city relations” with residents.

The Democratic Party will nominate its general election candidates for City Council in a primary on Tuesday, June 9. There are five candidates seeking three slots: Wes J. Bellamy, Kathleen M. Galvin, Lena M. Seville, A. Michael Signer, and Dede L. Smith. Incumbent Mayor Satyendra Huja chose not to seek re-election.

Independent candidates who want their names on the November ballot must file their paperwork, including petitions with a minimum of 125 signatures, by June 9 at 7:00 p.m., the same time the polls close in the primary election.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Charlottesville Republicans present two City Council candidates for 2013
Rutherford Institute endorses Charlottesville marijuana resolution
Charlottesville write-ins reveal voters’ allegiance, impishness
Drug-law reformer Lennice Werth reacts to Charlottesville marijuana vote
City Council candidate Bob Fenwick challenges ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘trickery’

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/open-minded-pragmatic-republican-anson-parker-enters-race-for-city-council

From the Archives: 'They won and we blinked' says former Sen. George Allen on Iran deal

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 13, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site is scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

'They won and we blinked' says former Sen. George Allen on Iran deal

Former Virginia Governor and U.S. Senator George Allen spoke in Charlottesville on Saturday, September 12, at the monthly breakfast of the Albemarle County Republican Committee. His message to the gathered activists was one of inclusion, saying that political parties win elections by addition, not subtraction.

Before he delivered his remarks, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked him about some foreign policy matters that are in the news. Allen said that, if he were still in the Senate, he would vote against the proposed deal with Iran on nuclear technology. He also said that the best solution to the refugee crisis in the Middle East is to build a “safe haven” in Syria rather than encourage migrants to come to Europe or the United States.

'Sanctions worked'
One aspect of the agreement with Iran that bothers Allen is the unfreezing of assets.

“One of the things I worked on when I was in the Senate,” he explained, was the issue of people who had been held hostage, injured, and killed by Iran over the years.

Going back to the Carter administration, he said, there were court judgments in favor of those injured parties that could be paid out of frozen Iranian assets in the United States and elsewhere.

“We have all these assets,” Allen said, “and they ought to be able to get their judgments paid out of those assets. Those assets are being released back to [Iran], going back to a regime that's going to use that money to support Hamas and Hezbollah and all sorts of terrorist organizations around the Middle East.”

On the nuclear aspect of the agreement, he said, “People will argue over the verification and so forth of that, and you can argue endlessly. But here's the other point: they are a state sponsor of terror and in five years the arms embargo is off. Then in seven or eight years the ballistic missile sanctions are removed.”

Iran, he said, is “a dangerous force and they can be even more dangerous after this when they can get more arms and they can get more missile technology.”

Acknowledging that the agreement will go forward, Allen said “I hope that I'm wrong but I see no evidence to evince any sort of confidence that this theocracy will change its ways and will only be stronger. In fact,” he added, from Iran's perspective, “they won and we blinked.”

Stated flatly, he concluded: “Sanctions worked. What we ought to do is keep the sanctions on but these other countries” that are party to the agreement “are all capitulating because they want to go [into Iran] to make a little money.”

'Safe haven'
On the matter of the refugee crisis in the Middle East – over four million refugees from Syria are now in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan but the United States has promised to take in just 10,000 – Allen was reluctant to suggest that the United States should commit to receiving more asylum seekers.

“I think the best solution to all of this is to create an area, a safe area, in Syria, maybe along the Jordanian border,” he said, “and just create a safe-haven city so that the folks from Syria don't have to leave their country on risky boats going to Greece.”

That solution, he said, “would be a whole lot less expensive to our government, to the governments of Europe and the world, to create that sort of a situation rather than having them so desperate to live and get food they have to make these risky trips. To me, that's the solution to it rather than creating this diaspora from” Syria in the United States and Europe.

Noting that he understands asylum laws and how they affect refugees from conflict zones, Allen concluded that “to me the solution would have been, and should be, and in fact, can still be, to create a safe haven for them in Syria.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

Former Senator George Allen 'stunned' by Donald Trump's popularity in GOP
House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte is 'sympathetic' to Kim Davis
DC-area expatriates rally to provide assistance to storm-damaged Dominica
Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Robert Hurt comment on WDBJ-TV killings
Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt speaks out for free trade in Charlottesville

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/they-won-and-we-blinked-says-former-sen-george-allen-on-iran-deal