From the Archives: Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 20, 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 Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East

On Friday evening, June 20, the University of Virginia Center for Politics hosted a screening of its Emmy award-winning documentary short film, “Out of Order,” followed by a panel discussion featuring former U.S. Senator John Warner (R-Va.) and his successor, incumbent Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.). Both Warners appear in the film along with Bob Schieffer of CBS News and other current and former Members of Congress.

After the two-hour, formal program, the current Senator Warner answered questions from the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about his re-election campaign and also about foreign policy issues.

The day before the interview, President Barack Obama had spoken to the White House press corps about the administration's plans to send military advisors to Iraq in an effort to defend that country against the army of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Learning lessons in Iraq
Senator Warner said that he supported the president's deliberate approach with regard to Iraq, saying that it is important to gather all the facts on the ground before taking action.

“Of all places in the world,” he explained, “Iraq is a place [where] we should have learned the lessons that we've got to get all the facts first.”

Noting that he is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 'Warner said he believes “very strongly that we need to slow the rush of these terrorists into Iraq.”

At the same time, however, “I also believe that we need to support any Iraqi government that's going to be inclusive” rather than narrowly sectarian.

“Particularly since part of the Iraqi army melted away rather than try to defend their own country,” Warner said, the United States needs to gather and assess intelligence about who the “bad guys” are.

“Before we take action,” he explained, the U.S. government must find out whether the ISIS forces might be “in uniforms that used to be Iraqi army uniforms.”

He asked, “How do we get that intelligence?,” stating that “on this issue, I think the president is moving with the right deliberate speed in terms of getting information first before we take action.”

Corrupt regimes
Warner also commented on the nature of regimes in the region and the sacrifices made on behalf of the people there.

“If there are only corrupt, sectarian regimes in all of those countries' future, then the region and the world's future is going to have a real challenge,” the senator said.

Suggesting that the American people are disheartened by the situation, Warner asserted that “the challenge is going to be: will these countries step up” in their own defense?

He said that it “was sickening” to see Iraqi soldiers “drop and run” rather than fight, especially after “thousands of Americans lives were lost” and “trillions of dollars were spent” on behalf of Iraq by the United States, which spent “billions of dollars” on training and equipping Iraqi troops.

Senator Mark Warner's dialogue with former Senator John Warner, moderated by political scientist Larry Sabato, can be seen in its entirety on YouTube.

SUGGESTED LINKS

GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie sees 'energized, excited' party activists
'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia
Virginia Senator Mark Warner discusses budget issues, independent voters
At Shad Planking, Virginia Senator Mark Warner says ‘budget situation is dire’
GOP can regain control of Senate in 2014, says strategist Grover Norquist

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-senator-mark-warner-assesses-situation-iraq-and-the-middle-east

From the Archives: Senator Mark Warner defends his record against GOP challenger Ed Gillespie

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 21, 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.

Senator Mark Warner defends his record against GOP challenger Ed Gillespie

At a panel discussion in Charlottesville on June 20, former U.S. Senator John Warner (R-Va.) explained his choice to endorse his one-time rival, incumbent Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) over Republican nominee Ed Gillespie. The two Warners had faced off against each other in 1996, when the senior Warner won re-election to the fourth of his five terms in Congress.

During the conversation, former Senator Warner paid a compliment to the Republican candidate challenging his successor in the Senate.

'A good strong opponent'
Acknowledging that his cross-party endorsement had “stirred up a few feathers here not long ago,” John Warner pointed out that Mark Warner is “on his own This state's going to have a good Senate race. He's got a strong opponent for a change, a good strong opponent. So they'll duke it out and the best man will win. That's the way it goes."

At that point, panel moderator Larry Sabato replied, "I think Ed Gillespie could use that segment in a TV ad. We'll see whether it shows up to balance things out."

After the program ended, Mark Warner answered questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the political climate and his challenger.

Cantor and Brat
Warner commented first on the results in the GOP primary in the seventh congressional district on June 10, when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was upset by Randolph-Macon College economics professor David Brat.

Saying that the anti-incumbent sentiment displayed in that election does not concern him with regard to his own re-election prospects, the Virginia senator added that “there were special circumstances in that race” that resulted in Cantor's defeat.

He did, however, note that the loss was not good for his home state.

“I didn't agree with Eric Cantor on a lot of policy issues but I think he was important for Virginia,” Warner said. His loss, he added, along with the retirements of Frank Wolf (R-VA10) and Jim Moran (D-VA8), “hurts Virginia's position in the Congress.”

Returning to the theme of the panel discussion – comity and civility in politics – Warner stated that what he finds “around Virginia is that people actually want folks who are willing to work together and be bipartisan. He asserted that he is “happy to take my record of that to the people of Virginia this fall.”

'97 percent'
His challenger, Ed Gillespie, disagrees that Warner has a record of bipartisanship. Instead, Gillespie has emphasized a claim that Warner has voted with President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "97 percent of the time."

Warner denied this.

“If I had that kind of record,” he said, “John Warner wouldn't be endorsing me for the United States Senate. I've got a record that shows [that for] every major piece of legislation I work on, I have a Republican partner.”

Warner said that he differs with the President on issues like the Keystone pipeline, export of natural gas, and the U.S. government's reaction to Syria.”

He said that on the budget, “I had a much bolder plan than either the president or, for that matter, even the Republicans, for fixing our debt and deficit I'm more than willing to step out on those positions” as he defends his record to voters in the 2014 election campaign.

The entire discussion between John Warner and Mark Warner, moderated by Larry Sabato of the Center for Politics, is available for viewing on YouTube.

SUGGESTED LINKS
Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East
James Carr assesses David Brat's defeat of Eric Cantor, plus Jack Trammell
GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie sees 'energized, excited' party activists
Virginia Senator Mark Warner discusses budget issues, independent voters
'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-mark-warner-defends-his-record-against-gop-challenger-ed-gillespie

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: Virginia U.S. Senate candidates react to Fourth Circuit gay marriage ruling

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 29, 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 U.S. Senate candidates react to Fourth Circuit gay marriage ruling

Two of the three candidates for the U.S. Senate from Virginia released official statements in reaction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Bostic v. Rainey, affirming that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The 2-1 decision upheld a February federal district court ruling that Virginia's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Incumbent Senator Mark Warner (D-Alexandria) issued a statement from his office in the form of a news release.

“I am so happy that yet another federal court agrees that Virginia’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional,” said Warner, who is seeking a second term in 2014. “Allowing people to marry who they love is the right thing to do, and it also strengthens our families and our communities. Virginia should be a welcoming place for all, and I am very pleased at the rapid progress toward marriage equality that we’re seeing in Virginia and around the country.”

Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian Party nominee who is challenging Warner this fall, also distributed a press release. Sarvis had made marriage equality a priority issue in his 2013 campaign for governor, when he won 6.5 percent of the vote in a three-way race against Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

Public opinion shift
“Marriage freedom is a deeply important issue to me,” said Sarvis, “which is why I made it a centerpiece of my campaign for governor last year.” He noted that it was a Virginia case, Loving v. Virginia, that led to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that prohibitions on mixed-race marriages are unconstitutional -- a ruling that made Sarvis' own marriage legal in Virginia.

“Public opinion in Virginia has shifted dramatically since the Marshall-Newman Amendment was enacted in 2006. In fact,” Sarvis pointed out, “polls now show that a majority of Virginians support marriage equality.”

Sarvis explained that while he preferred that Virginia change its marriage laws “through the democratic process,” it was judicial action that made it possible to see “same-sex couples in Virginia celebrating their marriages and enjoying equal treatment under the law.”

The LP candidate ended his statement with a warning that “this decision would not have been possible if the U.S. Constitution had been amended to ban same-sex marriage, as my Republican opponent Ed Gillespie advocated when he was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.”

A request from the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner for a reaction to the appeals court's ruling from GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie resulted in a brief reply from a campaign spokesman, who said only that, “as Ed said in the [Virginia Bar Association] debate, marriage is properly the jurisdiction of the states,” with no further explanation or clarification.

SUGGESTED LINKS

'Republicans have learned a lesson' says GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie
Senator Mark Warner defends his record against GOP challenger Ed Gillespie
'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia
Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case
Author Brian Doherty explains Ron Paul’s ambivalence on gay issues

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-u-s-senate-candidates-react-to-fourth-circuit-gay-marriage-ruling

From the Archives: Senate candidate Robert Sarvis reacts to Ferguson events in radio interview

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 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.

Senate candidate Robert Sarvis reacts to Ferguson events in radio interview

On August 15, U.S. Senate candidate Robert Sarvis was a guest on “Inside Charlottesville,” hosted by Coy Barefoot on WCHV-FM. Their conversation focused on recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, and Sarvis' reaction to them.

“There's a lot of reasons to be unhappy” about the situation in Ferguson, said Sarvis, who is the Libertarian Party nominee running against incumbent Democrat Mark Warner and Republican nominee Ed Gillespie. “I think everyone was shocked looking at their TVs and seeing what's going on” there.

All of this, he continued, “is seriously problematic. The event that started it all was the tragic death of an unarmed young black man,” adding that “from beginning to end, it's been a serious problem and a question of what's happened to our civil liberties: freedom of the press, private property, freedom to assemble to protest. We should all be standing up and saying something's wrong here.”

'Militarization'
Sarvis identified “the heart of the matter” as “the militarization of the police, the loss of civil liberties, and the changing relationship between police and citizens.”

The real issue, he continued, “is the drug war,” which has led to the militarization of local police forces. He noted, however, that with legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington state, and polls showing support for more widespread legalization, “we're moving forward on it as a country.”

Barefoot asked whether there is a contradiction when conservatives argue that government is too big but then support laws that limit individual freedoms.

“When people ask the difference between a libertarian and a conservative,” Sarvis replied, “I jump at the chance to point out that I'm consistent on individual freedom. Republicans care a lot about law and order; I do too. Being a policeman is a hard job but that doesn't mean we should give up our civil liberties.”

The federal government, he pointed out, sells – and often gives outright – military equipment to local police forces, including armored vehicles and high-powered weapons.

Sarvis noted that although these events are happening in Missouri, “it still affects Virginia.” He brought up the example of last year's controversy when ABC agents arrested a University of Virginia student who was buying sparkling water, which the plainclothes agents mistook for beer before surrounding her vehicle and drawing their weapons on her.

“How could that have turned out differently,” Sarvis asked, “if it was a young black man rather than a young white woman?”

Too many laws
One of the issues that concerns Sarvis, he said, “is this mentality that we have to extirpate everything we don't like in society. We have too many criminal laws.”

He pointed to a study, highlighted in Harvey Silverglate's book Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, which "shows individuals commit three felonies a day – not because they're criminals but because we have too many laws.”

American citizens, he said, “need autonomy in their own lives. We can't be micromanaged” by the government.

Despite all that's happening – not just in Ferguson but also with regard to NSA spying, the continuing drug war, and attempts by the government to insinuate itself into the private lives of citizens – Sarvis maintained that he is “optimistic.”

He explained that, “if you look at technological changes that are undermining government's ability to control our lives, it's a good thing for freedom.”

In addition, he said, “the growing interest in third party and independent candidates is a good thing. I think we all ought to take advantage of opportunities like this year's Senate election to register a huge protest vote,” which could result in expanding the number of parties recognized as political parties in Virginia. (If Sarvis manages to earn 10 percent of the vote or more, the Libertarian Party will qualify under Virginia law as the equal of the Republican and Democratic parties with regard to ballot access and other rules.)

“This discussion is healthy,” Sarvis said. In this election, “critical issues like immigration and legalization of marijuana [are] really important. People call it the 'libertarian moment.'”

Our future, he concluded, “can go in different directions. Elections are about choosing our future.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia
'Republicans have learned a lesson' says GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie
Robert Sarvis visits Charlottesville, talks about shutdown, health care, polls
Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East
LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-candidate-robert-sarvis-reacts-to-ferguson-events-radio-interview

From the Archives: Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 14, 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 Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals

After offering opening remarks to the participants at the third annual Charlottesville Gay Pride Festival in Lee Park on September 13, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring spoke to reporters about the same-sex marriage cases that may be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in its coming term.

Answering questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, Herring, a Democrat who served in the state Senate before his 2013 election as attorney general, explained how his mind has been changed about gay marriage.

As a senator, Herring had voted in favor of the so-called Marshall-Newman amendment, which added a prohibition on same-sex marriage and civil unions to the bill of rights section of the Virginia Constitution. As attorney general, he refused to defend the amendment and statutes banning gay marriage when they were challenged by same-sex couples seeking legal recognition of their marriages.

After his 2006 vote supporting the constitutional ban, Herring explained, “I saw how it hurt a lot of people. That made me continue to question whether that was the right decision.”

'See things differently'
In the intervening years, he said, “I talked to a lot of people – people at work, constituents, my family -- and I see things very differently now.”

At the time of the marriage amendment vote, Herring said, he was “working to end discrimination but I stopped short of full marriage equality. I came to see that that was wrong, and a lot of people were hurt by it.”

Equality, he continued, “is a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence. Nobody deserves to be discriminated against. Our Constitution guarantees not only gay and lesbian couples equality, it guarantees all Americans equality.”

During its upcoming September 29 conference, the U.S. Supreme Court will be looking at certiorari petitions from various states where anti-same-sex-marriage laws have been challenged. Virginia's case is among them.

“The Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia cases are all now before the Supreme Court on petitions for appeal,” Herring explained.

“Those petitions have been fully briefed as to whether the cases should be taken by the Court. Whether it's Virginia's case or whether it's one of the others or a group of them, it's difficult to predict.” Nonetheless, Herring added, “I feel confident that the court will consider whether to take one, or some, or all of these cases.”

Virginia's case involves two couples, one a male couple from Norfolk who sought a local marriage license and were denied it. The other is a female couple who were legally married in California and adopted a child, but whose marriage goes unrecognized by Virginia, leading to complications regarding the custody status of the adopted child.

Herring explained that “Virginia's case would address all of those legal issues,” adding that “it would be good for Virginia. Not only do I feel we have a really strong legal team but the Commonwealth, I know and we know, has moved forward since the key landmark civil rights decisions over the last 50 years where Virginia was on the wrong side.”

Brown and Loving
Herring noted that the famous 1954 decision that ended racial segregation of government schools, Brown v. Board of Education, included a case from Prince Edward County, Virginia, but “Virginia and its attorney general argued against school desegregation and on the wrong side.”

In the 1967 case that overturned miscegenation laws, Loving v. Virginia, he said, “a couple from Caroline County was denied a marriage license because they were of different races. And again, Virginia argued on the wrong side of that key, landmark decision.”

Herring said he hopes that, “when we look at this issue in the future, people all around the country and our children will know that Virginia was on the right side of history and on the right side of law.”

By deciding not to defend Virginia's laws in these cases, he said, “as Attorney General, I was going to make sure that the injustices in those other landmark civil rights cases would not be repeated this time.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

Author Charles Murray argues same-sex marriage is ‘not a big deal’
Virginia U.S. Senate candidates react to Fourth Circuit gay marriage ruling
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans
Senate candidate E.W. Jackson defends anti-gay stance as ‘fundamental’
‘Flagrant Conduct’ author Dale Carpenter discusses how sodomy laws ended

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-attorney-general-mark-herring-discusses-federal-gay-marriage-appeals

From the Archives: Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring highlights opposition to drug-law reform

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 14, 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 Attorney General Mark Herring highlights opposition to drug-law reform

After welcoming participants to the third annual Charlottesville gay pride celebration in Lee Park on Saturday, September 13, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring answered questions from reporters.

In addition to discussing his views on same-sex marriage and sexual orientation discrimination, Herring addressed concerns about drug abuse and proposed reforms to drug laws.

Earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes among its members former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, as well as the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, recommended to the United Nations that currently illicit drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana should be decriminalized and that the abuse of these drugs should be treated as a health problem not as a criminal matter.

'Deaths and fatalities'
Acknowledging that he has not read the UN commission's report, Herring, a Democrat elected in 2013, said that “as attorney general, one of the first things I did in coming to office is go on a public safety tour all across the Commonwealth. I talked to over 60 different jurisdictions – the law enforcement, commonwealth's attorneys, local elected officials – because I wanted to hear directly from them about the public safety threats that they were facing.

“Over and over in those meetings, one of the things I heard was the problems associated with opiate addiction, prescription drug addiction, and the spike in heroin overdoses and deaths and fatalities.”

Herring said that, based upon what he learned from local officials, “I want to go after those who would put that kind of poison, [such as] potent, deadly heroin, out on the streets. I'm going to aggressively prosecute that and work with local prosecutors to do it. We're going to step up our prevention and education efforts and we're going to partner with local jurisdictions and the U.S. Attorney's office to combat the problem of drug abuse.”

'Not trying to be evasive'
Asked specifically if he opposes drug-law reform efforts, Herring said flatly: “I don't support legalizing all of those dangerous drugs like heroin and opiates that are killing and claiming so many lives of young people.”

With regard to marijuana legalization, Herring hesitated and added, “I'm not trying to be evasive. I know a couple of states have begun to take those steps and before Virginia takes those steps I think we ought to see what [are] the experiences in the other states and then assess it.”

That position is almost identical to that of Herring's predecessor as attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

In February 2013, when he was running for governor, Cuccinelli explained to an audience of Albemarle County Republicans that “having data from a couple of states, whole states, that go down this path may not be good news but it will be interesting and it will be something we can learn from,"

Cuccinelli added that legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington state is “a peculiar subject but I do think it's important that states try some things they think are appropriate and whether the federal government approves or not, the rest of us watch and learn.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

Ken Cuccinelli clarifies remarks on marijuana legalization as federalism issue
GOP lieutenant governor candidate E. W. Jackson 'certainly used marijuana'
Justin Bieber, Gary Becker, and the future of marijuana prohibition
Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith clarifies aim of his medical marijuana bill
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-attorney-general-mark-herring-highlights-opposition-to-drug-law-reform

From the Archives: Congressman Scott Rigell on the challenge of reaching independent voters

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on March 28, 2012. 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.

This piece became particularly relevant today as Virginia Congressman Scott Rigell (R-Virginia Beach) became the first sitting Member of Congress to endorse Libertarian Gary Johnson for President.

Congressman Scott Rigell on the challenge of reaching independent voters

When Congressman Robert Hurt (R-VA5) hosted a meeting for online journalists in the U.S. Capitol on March 27, he provided an opportunity for them to discuss policy issues and politics with members of the Virginia congressional delegation, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA7).

During the lunchtime conversation, which was cut short by a call to vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, three Members of Congress from Virginia – Rob Wittman (R-VA1), Scott Rigell (R-VA2), and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA6) – answered a question posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about how Republicans can reach out to libertarian-leaning individuals to earn their votes on Election Day.

Wittman replied first, followed by Rigell, who wondered whether libertarians were a significant component of the voting population in Virginia’s Second Congressional District, which he has represented since 2011.

Second District libertarians

“In the Second District,” he began, “I would not put the percentage of the electorate who self-describes as libertarian” as very high, though he averred that “maybe it’s broader than I believe.”

Rigell said that he “certainly” respects the views of libertarians and that he has “always said that I’m a conservative with a libertarian streak. It comes out every now and then, I suppose, in things that I say.”

He pointed out that the alternative that libertarian voters have to the GOP “would be the Democratic Party” but that “we’re the ones [who] are just absolutely committed to keeping government at its smallest possible state.”

‘Where’s the delta?’

Rigell suggested that “it might be helpful” to have a discussion about the differences in thinking between libertarians and Republicans. As he put it, “Where is the delta between a libertarian and a Republican?”

The way the two groups approach “better roads, better schools, national defense spending,” and other issues might, he said, be “worth exploring, just a little bit.”

For Rigell, the “real challenge,” he explained, “is the competition for the hearts, the minds, the trust, and eventually the vote of the independent voter.”

He added that he would “love to to talk a bit about that,” emphasizing that a discussion about independent voters is “not to diminish the role and influence of the libertarian voters.”

Still, he concluded, “that independent voter’s going to determine where we go” in future elections.

Up next: What Congressman Bob Goodlatte thinks about the “common ground” of libertarians and Republicans.

Suggested Links

Virginia Congressman Rob Wittman mulls GOP outreach to libertarians
Bob Goodlatte remembers 9/11, suggests TSA resources are misallocated
Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott weighs in on budget’s ‘tough choices’
Senator Jim Webb talks about U.S.-Korea free trade and stability in Asia
Highlighting free-speech worries, Virginia politicians disagree on SOPA

With the demise of Examiner.com, the original URL for this article is no longer available.

From the Archives: Virginia political leaders react to Supreme Court marriage decision

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 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.

Virginia political leaders react to Supreme Court marriage decision

Because the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear any of the appeals from states seeking to maintain their bans on same-sex marriage -- including an appeal from the Fourth Circuit, which includes Virginia -- gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed in Virginia beginning today at 1:00 p.m.

The office of Attorney General Mark Herring issued a press release on the morning on October 6 stating:

"Today, the Supreme Court rejected all petitions for certiorari related to Virginia's marriage equality litigation, thereby letting stand the Fourth Circuit's decision that same-sex couples in the Commonwealth are entitled to all the rights and privileges of marriage. The Fourth Circuit is expected to issue its mandate at 1 p.m., meaning marriage licenses for same-sex couples can be issued at that time and the Commonwealth will recognize all marriages that were lawfully performed in other states. Local clerks are receiving guidance and forms necessary to begin performing marriages today, and the Attorney General's Office is working with the Governor's Office and state agencies to implement any needed changes in light of this action."

Herring added:

"This is a tremendous moment in Virginia history. We will continue to fight discrimination wherever we find it, but today, we celebrate a moment when we move closer to fulfilling the promise of equality ignited centuries ago in Virginia, and so central to the American experience."

U.S. Senator Mark Warner, a former governor of Virginia, also issued a statement in reaction to the Supreme Court decision, saying that “allowing people to marry who they love is the fundamentally right thing to do, and it strengthens our families and communities. This is a remarkable and memorable day in Virginia’s march toward equality."

Warner is running for re-election this year. His Libertarian opponent, Robert Sarvis, said in a press release:

"In 1967, a Virginia couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, fought to overturn marriages between people of different races. If it weren't for the courage of the Lovings, I might not have been able to marry the woman I love.

"Public opinion in Virginia has shifted dramatically since the Marshall-Newman Amendment was enacted in 2006. In fact, polls now show that a majority of Virginians support marriage freedom.

"I wanted Virginia to achieve marriage freedom through the democratic process, but as with interracial marriage, it is court action that has seen it through. I look forward to seeing same-sex couples in Virginia celebrating their marriages and enjoying equal treatment under the law."

Republican Senate candidate Ed Gillespie told an interviewer on WSLS-TV this morning: "I'm curious to learn, to the extent that you can, what the thinking was. The court generally doesn't say what they were thinking when they decline to take something up. But obviously it's a decision with considerable impact."

Gillespie added that he has "always felt that this is a matter for the states to determine. I don't believe that the federal government should set policy relative to marriage. I think the states should. And, obviously, given the court's ruling, it is the law of the land today."

William Howell, Speaker of the House of Delegates, also issued a reaction statement, saying in part:

“I am disappointed that the United States Supreme Court declined to hear these cases. The debate over Virginia's constitutional amendment defining marriage needs a clear and decisive resolution from the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision today leaves Virginians without an affirmative answer on this issue, unnecessarily prolonging the political debate and creating long-term uncertainty regarding the status of same-sex marriages in Virginia depending on the outcome of litigation in other parts of the country."

Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam said in a news release: “This is a great day for all Virginians. I want to thank everyone who has worked so hard, over so many years, so that the Commonwealth might arrive at this historic moment. Now all Virginians can enjoy the rights and freedoms to marry whom they love. Finally, Virginia is for all lovers.”

James Parrish, executive director of the lobbying group Equality Virginia, said in an email to the organization's supporters: "I am overwhelmed with joy for the more than 14,000 couples who can now marry the person they love in the place they call home. And, the relationships of couples who were married in other states are now affirmed by the commonwealth."

Further reactions to the new legal status of same-sex couples in Virginia are expected over the next hours and days.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals
Va. House Speaker Bill Howell proposes ‘Repeal Amendment’ to Constitution
Virginia U.S. Senate candidates react to Fourth Circuit gay marriage ruling
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans
Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-marriage-decision

From the Archives: Va. Film Festival to feature politicians from Goldwater & LBJ to Nixon & Bush

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 7, 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.

Va. Film Festival to feature politicians from Goldwater & LBJ to Nixon & Bush

Actors Jenna Elfman, Jasmine Guy, Hal Holbrook, Frank Langella, Richard Roundtree, and Patrick Wilson; novelists David Baldacci and Adriana Trigiani; directors Victor Levin, Barry Levinson, and Scott Teems; producers Katie Couric, Julie Lynn, and Paul Junger Witt; and political figures Andrew Card, Marlin Fitzwater, Barry Goldwater, Jr., and Skip Humphrey – these are among the filmmakers and celebrities who will appear at the 2014 Virginia Film Festival in Charlottesville to discuss their works and careers.

Festival director Jody Kielbasa announced this year's program at an October 7 press conference held at the historic Jefferson Theater. After the formal announcement, he spoke with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about documentaries and other films that will be screened during the weekend of November 6-9 at a variety of venues in downtown Charlottesville and on the grounds of the University of Virginia.

Holbrook/Twain
Among the documentaries, Kielbasa singled out “Holbrook/Twain: An American Odyssey, which I think is an incredible documentary.” Hal Holbrook, who has been performing as Mark Twain for 60 years, will offer a special performance of his award-winning one-man show, Mark Twain Tonight, and also offer comments about the documentary film.

Kielbasa also mentioned that “41 on 41 is coming in as part of the Berlin Wall series in association with the Miller Center.” That film, he said, looks at “41 different people who comment on our 41st president, George H.W. Bush. Obviously,” he added, “some of that discussion will wrap around the Berlin Wall, as well.”

The Berlin Wall series – marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Empire – includes five films, a mix of fiction and non-fiction. The five are Dr. Strangelove, a 1964 Academy Award nominee directed by Stanley Kubrick; Red Army, a documentary about Soviet ice hockey players; Walesa: Man of Hope, Polish director Andrzej Wajda’s biopic about Nobel laureate Lech Wałęsa; German director Wim Wenders' fanciful Wings of Desire; as well as 41 on 41.

“For people out there who are not aware,” Kielbasa explained, “this year the University of Virginia was loaned four original panels of the Berlin Wall. They're encased in glass in front of the Alderman Library. I'm also responsible for a series of programs over an eight-day period leading up to the 25th anniversary” of the wall's destruction, “which actually happens on November 9, the last day of the Virginia Film Festival.”

Presidents and Elections
In conjunction with the UVA Center for Politics, the festival will present the premiere of Bombs Away: LBJ, Goldwater and the 1964 Campaign That Changed It All, followed by a panel discussion featuring former California Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr., and former Minnesota Attorney General Skip Humphrey. The film, Kielbasa said, takes “a fascinating look at Goldwater and LBJ and that incredible election and everything that was going on leading up to 1964.”

The Miller Center for Public Affairs is sponsoring a screening of Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard's film of the award-winning play about the interviews of Richard Nixon conducted by British TV host David Frost. Afterward, Frank Langella, who played Nixon in the film, will talk about his experience with historian Ken Hughes.

Kielbasa, now in his sixth year as festival director, also pointed to two major films made in Virginia that will be shown at the festival.

Big Stone Gap
“Our world premiere, the opening night film,” he said, is “Big Stone Gap, which was filmed entirely on location in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, and is about that community.” That screening will include a panel discussion with writer/director Adriana Trigiani as well as several of the stars of the film.

The other high-profile made-in-Virginia film, he added, “is Wish You Well, based on the novel by David Baldacci.” Baldacci will be on hand to discuss the film, which is a coming-of-age story set in 1940s Virginia.

Kielbasa is also excited that director Barry Levinson will be at the Festival to discuss his latest film, The Humbling (starring Al Pacino) as well as his 1989 film, The Natural (starring Robert Redford).

“I know that film gets played a lot,” he explained, “but to able to listen to Barry Levinson talk about the making of that film should be extraordinary and, quite frankly, people consider it one of the best sports movies ever made.”

The 27th annual Virginia Film Festival will also screen a number of likely Oscar contenders, including The Imitation Game, Foxcatcher, Wild, and Mr. Turner.

“These are incredibly high-profile films,” Kielbasa said, “and in most cases we'll be screening them anywhere from two weeks to two months in advance of their general release.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

Porn king Larry Flynt defends free speech in Charlottesville
Library of Congress collects pornographic films, violent video games
Filmmaker Stanley Nelson on ‘Freedom Riders,’ the news media, and civil rights
Virginia Film Festival to include documentaries on Kennedy, Nixon, Santorum
Jody Kielbasa previews political movies in 2012's Virginia Film Festival

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/va-film-festival-to-feature-politicians-from-goldwater-lbj-to-nixon-bush

From the Archives: Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt discusses U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 8, 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 Robert Hurt discusses U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq

Just before a campaign rally at Republican party headquarters in Albemarle Square on October 8, U.S. Representative Robert Hurt (R-VA5) spoke to Charlottesville area news media about a range of issues, from health care and education to job growth and presidential usurpation of congressional authority.

In an exclusive interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, Congressman Hurt answered questions about foreign policy issues, starting with the use of military force in Iraq and Syria.

Last month, Hurt voted against an amendment to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide arms to certain Syrian rebel groups, as part of the Obama administration's strategy to fight the so-called Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL). Hurt was in the minority, as the amendment passed on a vote of 273-156.

'Grotesque organization'
Hurt explained that he thinks that “the President has made the case – and I'm convinced based on all the briefings that I've attended – that we really do face an existential threat from ISIL, certainly as it relates to our allies in the Middle East, as it relates to our American interests in the Middle East, and then, finally, ultimately, here, if this grotesque organization is not destroyed.”

The Fifth District congressman added for emphasis: “We need to destroy them.”

The reason he voted against the so-called McKeon amendment, he said, was “in large measure due to the fact that the President has not asked for congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq and Syria.”

President Obama, he explained, “claims that he has the power to do it under the 2002 and 2001 military authorizations; I just simply disagree: Different time, different conflict, different parties.”

The President, Hurt said, “needs to recognize that he has a constitutional obligation to come” to Congress, where “we'd have an honest and candid debate about what is going to be required of the American taxpayer [and] most of all, what's going to be required of the American men and women in uniform.”

Moreover, he added, the President has to explain what victory will look like.

Hurt said he does not believe that the President has “laid out that case, so I think it's something that needs to be debated in Congress.”

Asked whether the U.S. military can effectively end a conflict in the Middle East that has been going on for 1,300 years, Hurt replied: “It's a very hard question.”

'Secure in our homes'
He said that “it's unlikely that we can solve these problems. The best that we can do is destroy the immediate threat [ISIL] and degrade the long-term threat and, hopefully, get to a place where we can at least be secure in our homes here on our soil and certainly provide for safe passage for those Americans who are traveling across the world in different countries, [and for] business that's being done internationally. Those are all important things.”

Admitting some uncertainty, Hurt added: “I don't know that we'll ever be able to solve those problems. Like you said, it's been going on a pretty long time, and I think it's unlikely that we can do that but I do think that we need to destroy the immediate threat as soon as we can.”

Robert Hurt is running for re-election to a third term in the House of Representatives. He has three opponents: Democrat Lawrence Gaughan, Independent Green Kenneth Hildebrandt, and Libertarian Paul Jones. The election takes place on November 4.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Congressman Robert Hurt expresses 'grave concerns' over potential Syria war
Congressman Bob Goodlatte 'skeptical' about U.S. military intervention in Syria
GOP congressional nominee Robert Hurt discusses constitutional principles
Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt reacts to federal unemployment report
U.S. Representative Robert Hurt discusses eminent domain and redistricting

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-congressman-robert-hurt-discusses-u-s-policy-syria-and-iraq

From the Archives: Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt discusses Africa policy, Ebola threat, and AGOA

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 10, 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 Robert Hurt discusses Africa policy, Ebola threat, and AGOA

At a campaign stop in Charlottesville on October 8, U.S. Representative Robert Hurt talked to reporters about a wide range of political topics and policy issues.

He answered questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about foreign policy matters. In an exclusive interview, he explained his position on U.S. military assistance to Syrian rebel groups and the Obama administration's strategy to defeat the Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS).

In reply to other questions, Hurt talked about U.S. policy toward Africa, with reference to the threat of Ebola and also with regard to trade and investment under the umbrella of AGOA (the African Growth and Opportunity Act), which comes up for reauthorization by Congress in 2015.

'Public health threat'
“The Ebola epidemic definitely poses a public health threat to the United States,” Hurt said, noting the death of Liberian Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan in Dallas a few hours earlier that day.

“We need to be able to know exactly who's coming into this country,” he explained, adding that the Ebola problem “highlights the need for border security, not just for terrorism but obviously for public health issues.”

With regard to the U.S. government's decision to send several hundred American troops to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone to help manage the Ebola epidemic in those West African countries, Hurt warned that “we have to be very careful in deploying our military for humanitarian reasons. I know we do it from time to time but I think there has to be a demonstrable, justifiable use of our military for that purpose.”

The reasons for caution, he said, include that “it's a huge risk to the members of the military but” also that “the United States can't be the world policeman. We can't be all things to all people.”

Asked whether he planned to vote to reauthorize AGOA next year, Hurt said, “I need to look at it. We'll obviously have some time to look at that.”

AGOA and free trade
He explained that, “whenever you're talking about any kind of trade agreements, I think that we have to look for what's in the best interests of the United States.”

Hurt said that “we've seen instances where trade agreements have hurt us, and they've hurt very deeply people in places like Virginia's Fifth District, where you look at what's happened in the southern part of our district, in Martinsville and Danville and those sorts of places.”

Each trade agreement “is different,” he explained, so “you have to take it on a case by case basis and try to figure out what's the best deal.”

Congressman Hurt added, however, that he views free trade in a positive light. “Free trade – generally speaking – I'm all in favor of it.”

He favors free trade, he said, “because it does open up markets for our producers and for our manufacturers, so we want to open those markets – but we have to do so in a careful way.”

Referring to the situation on the ground in his own congressional district, Hurt illustrated his point by describing what Central Virginia farmers grow on their land.

“We were just coming down Route 29 and looking at the soybeans. A lot of the soybeans that are going to be harvested in Virginia [will] go down to Hampton Roads, [and] get on a ship” carrying them to China.

That, he concluded, is “a good thing for our producers, so where we can find those advantages, we want to pursue them” in appropriate trade agreements.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt discusses U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq
Omidyar Network's Karol Boudreaux offers optimistic view of African economies
Scholar reflects on why Africa was absent from final presidential debate
South African author Greg Mills offers solutions to African poverty
Virginia political leaders react to Supreme Court marriage decision

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-congressman-robert-hurt-discusses-africa-policy-ebola-threat-and-agoa

From the Archives: Economist Adam Smith looks at the 'Bootleggers & Baptists' phenomenon

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 14, 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.

Economist Adam Smith looks at the 'Bootleggers & Baptists' phenomenon

Just over three decades ago, economist Bruce Yandle, then working for the Federal Trade Commission, published an article in the journal Regulation headlined “Bootleggers & Baptists: The Education of a Regulatory Economist,” which noted how groups presumably at odds with each other often collaborate, wittingly or unwittingly.

In 1999, in another piece for Regulation, Yandle described more fully the phenomenon after an additional 16 years of observation:

“Durable social regulation,” he said, “evolves when it is demanded by both of two distinctly different groups.” Those groups are the “Baptists,” a shorthand term for those who make a moral or ethical case for legislation or regulations, and the “bootleggers,” a term that applies to economic interests who benefit financially from legislation or regulations. (A synonym for “bootlegger” might be “rent-seeker.”)

“'Baptists' point to the moral high ground and give vital and vocal endorsement of laudable public benefits promised by a desired regulation,” wrote Yandle, while “'Bootleggers' are much less visible but no less vital. Bootleggers, who expect to profit from the very regulatory restrictions desired by Baptists … are simply in it for the money.”

What Yandle did was to apply public-choice economic theory to regulatory politics and, in the process, create a colorful concept that has been cited thousands of times since 1983 in attempts to explain how government makes rules.

Fast-forward to 2014, when Yandle, now a retired dean at Clemson University, has collaborated with his grandson, economist Adam Smith of Johnson & Wales University, on an updated look at the Baptist/bootlegger dynamic. Their new book is called Bootleggers & Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics. The two authors spoke about it at a forum hosted by the Cato Institute in Washington on October 9.

'Aligned interests'
After the forum, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked co-author Adam Smith a few questions about the book and his research.

Smith explained that the term “bootleggers and Baptists” originated during alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, when “you had bootleggers and Baptists with aligned interests” even if they did not realize it.

Baptists, he explained, proclaimed “Down with legalized distribution of alcohol!” because they saw drinking as morally detrimental. Bootleggers, too, proclaimed “Down with legalized distribution of alcohol!” because Prohibition raised the price of illegal liquor and fed more profits to the bootleggers.

“It was a boon to the bootleggers,” Smith explained, “and the Baptists were kind of oblivious to that situation.”

Broadening the concept to include other kinds of regulations, Smith said, “what we see today in our modern political economy [are] many, many manifestations of the same kinds of strange bedfellows.”

More and more, he said, “we're seeing that those bedfellows are recognizing one another and coming together to form even more powerful would-be bootlegger/Baptist coalitions.”

There is also a noteworthy relationship between “bootleggers and Baptists” and “crony capitalism,” when government grants preferential treatment to certain, well-connected businesses.

Smith said that, in the book “we call it 'bootlegger/Baptist' capitalism instead of crony capitalism.”

He added that “what I hope the book shows is that cronyism is more than just a bootlegger. That's the only thing that's usually recognized: There's just some special interest group.”

Yet, he explained, “a special interest group cannot move forward without moral cover, or at least can't get much out of the political domain without the Baptist” providing a beneficent reason for legislation, “and so we have to call attention the bad work Baptists are doing in creating opportunities for cronyism.”

Avenues for research
Both Smith and Yandle acknowledge that their book, while expanding upon the original thesis Yandle put forth in 1983, opens up new opportunities for further research by other economists and social scientists.

“There's obviously a lot of empirical work to be done,” Smith explained.

He pointed to “all these social regulations that people aren't looking at in terms of econometric work in the same way that they are [looking at] economic regulations, because we just don't think of it that way. We don't think of environmental policies and health-and-safety standards as giving money to anybody.”

Instead, he said, people “think of those as in the public interest. In other words, the Baptists have succeeded in convincing us of that fact but that's just not true. There are a lot of groups that benefit from that legislation and we need to put them under the microscope. We have to put those regulations under the microscope in the same way that we do economic regulations.”

Smith added that “this is a useful framework for recognizing groups” that may have self-serving (but hidden) economic interests in promoting new regulations.

“Never count a good bootlegger down,” he quipped.

“A lot of times when we can't see the bootlegger, it doesn't mean they're not there," Smith explained. "Seeing the Baptists can call attention to the fact that maybe there's a bootlegger standing in the shadows” during a debate about imposing new rules or restrictions on human action.

Bootleggers & Baptists by Adam Smith and Bruce Yandle was published by the Cato Institute on September 7, 2014.

SUGGESTED LINKS

British academic Mark Pennington argues for ‘Robust Political Economy’
Historian Jesse Walker discusses birtherism, trutherism, and AIDS conspiracies
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans
The ‘next big thing’ in economics, Part 1: George Mason's Garett Jones
Georgetown philosophy professor Jason Brennan explores ethics of voting

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/economist-adam-smith-looks-at-the-bootleggers-baptists-phenomenon

From the Archives: Monique Luiz, 'Daisy Girl' from controversial 1964 campaign ad, speaks at UVA

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 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.

Monique Luiz, 'Daisy Girl' from controversial 1964 campaign ad, speaks at UVA

On September 7, 1964, Lyndon Johnson's presidential campaign bought time during NBC's “Monday Night at the Movies” for a 60-second ad that showed a little girl plucking the petals off a flower, followed by a nuclear mushroom cloud and an excerpt from one of Johnson's speeches.

Long known as the “Daisy Girl” ad (although the flower was a dandelion, not a daisy), the spot – for which NBC charged $24,000 – was produced by the Madison Avenue firm of Doyle Dane Bernbach (DDB), which had not previously done political ad-making. It was tremendously controversial and, along with other DDB ads that aired in 1964, changed the style and substance of campaign advertising.

The little girl in the ad was 3-year-old Monique Corzilius, who had earlier appeared in print ads but had not acted on film. (She later went on to perform in commercials for products like Kool Pops and SpaghettiOs.)

Now known as Monique Luiz, the “Daisy Girl” participated in a panel discussion hosted by the University of Virginia Center for Politics on October 15, along with Robert Mann, author of Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds: LBJ, Barry Goldwater, and the Ad That Changed American Politics, and veteran journalist Sid Davis, who was a White House correspondent in the early 1960s, covered the 1964 campaign, and was present at President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.

Red hair stands out
After the panel, Luiz answered a few questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about her role as the “Daisy Girl” and the reactions to it.

For more than four decades, Luiz did not acknowledge that she was the girl in the ad. In 2009, however, she discovered that another woman was claiming to be her and was trying to capitalize on the TV spot's notoriety. Luiz came forward with documentation that she was the authentic “Daisy Girl” and subsequently was interviewed by Mann for his book, which is how she came to appear at UVA this week.

When she auditioned for the part, neither she nor her parents knew that DDB was making a political ad. She stood out among the many little girls who tried out because of her red hair, and also because her father was persistent.

“I think it was my father who sold them” on the idea “that I could do it,” she recalled. “He pretty much said, 'I can't guarantee anything but she'll try.'”

Listening closely to her in the commercial, one can hear exasperation in little Monique's voice. That was, in part, because the final cut was taken from the 27th take in a long day of filming.

Surprise
Even after filming, Monique's parents did not know how the footage would be used. They found out by seeing the ad on TV.

Their reaction, as she remembered it, was: “'Oh my gosh, it's Monique! She's in a political ad!'”

After the ad appeared on TV for the first time, and it was repeated on news shows in the days that followed, there was a negative reaction, coming from the general public, causing her grandmother, in particular, to become “very concerned about it.”

As she was growing up, Luiz chose not to reveal her association with the ad, and she ended her modeling career at age 7 or 8, preferring to focus on school and normal girlhood.

“I knew about [the controversy] and I just avoided it. I remember my grandmother saying, 'Don't say you're the Daisy Girl! Don't say you're in that ad!' So I grew up not wanting to talk about it.”

For all the publicity that surrounded the “Daisy Girl” ad, Monique Corzilius was paid just one hundred dollars for appearing in it – which seemed pretty substantial in 1964.

As Luiz recalls now, with a smile, “I remember my parents saying, 'Wow! You made a lot of money.'”

The “Daisy Girl” ad is available in several forms on YouTube. Here is a link to one of them.

SUGGESTED LINKS

UVA Center for Politics commemorates 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates
Larry Sabato discusses Cuccinelli, McAuliffe, Sarvis in 2013 election
Lee Harvey Oswald colleague recalls aftermath of Kennedy assassination
Witness to 1963 Kennedy assassination speaks at Virginia Film Festival
JFK was 'cautious, conservative' says UVA political scientist Larry Sabato

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/monique-luiz-daisy-girl-from-controversial-1964-campaign-ad-speaks-at-uva

From the Archives: Virginia Senate hopeful Robert Sarvis talks about U.S. policy toward Africa

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on November 1, 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 Senate hopeful Robert Sarvis talks about U.S. policy toward Africa

The United States should “engage more with Africa,” says U.S. Senate candidate Robert Sarvis, because “there's a lot of human potential there.”

Sarvis is the Libertarian Party of Virginia's nominee challenging incumbent Democrat Mark Warner and Republican Party nominee Ed Gillespie in the election that takes place on Tuesday, November 4.

An economist and lawyer, Sarvis is the author of various policy papers, including "Understanding Public Pension Debt: A State-by-State Comparison" (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2014) and "The Fiscal Health of the States" (Mercatus Center at George Mason University, coauthored with Jeffrey Miron, 2012).

Wealth creation and prosperity
The LP Senate candidate spoke about U.S. policy toward Africa in an exclusive, one-on-one interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner.

Africa, he said, “needs to move towards a policy that is going to enable wealth creation and prospering societies. [Americans] know how to do that. We know how to have growing economies through property rights and the rule of law, contract rights and things like that.”

He added that, however, there is currently “too much corruption over there, there's too much violence.” To counterbalance those conditions, “everything we can do to help public policy there is a good thing.”

Sarvis emphasized that he does not think “propping up governments through foreign aid is the right way to do it.” Instead, “free trade is the best thing that we can do to help Africa and to help countries around the world,” where workers “just want to compete on the global marketplace through wages and through working hard. Our trade barriers,” he said, “are one of the contributors to global poverty.”

Reauthorizing AGOA
His support for free trade, Sarvis said, inclines him to support the reauthorization of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) when it comes up for a vote in Congress in 2015.

“I would certainly prefer a broader policy of just reducing or removing tariffs, period, full stop. I think that's the right thing to do,” he stated.

“All people around the world should have the ability to compete on the global marketplace, and our consumers -- the American people – benefit from reducing tariffs. That's my ideal policy,” he explained, adding that “we'll see how amenable the Senate and the House of Representatives are to that kind of proposal.”

Asked about the expanding military presence of the United States in Africa through AFRICOM and the growing threats of terrorist groups like Boko Haram and al-Shabaab, Sarvis suggested that U.S. policy should be more circumspect.

Governments in Africa “know what they're dealing with and they don't want the terrorist groups to metastasize” any more than the United States does.

“But the problem,” he pointed out, “is that we have created a security umbrella and made implicit promises that mean that [those governments] are not doing enough to maintain their own security.”

What that means, he explained, is that “we're always, generation after generation, having to go in and provide for the security for them. This is something that has to end unless we want to be paying trillions of dollars over the next generation.”

Drugs in Africa
The role of African countries as transit ports in the international illicit drug trade is something that also concerns Sarvis, and he has a solution for it.

“Our drug war has undermined the rule of law and civil society in Latin America,” he noted. “That's also happening in Africa. It's also undermined our efforts in Afghanistan over the past decade.”

Whether in Africa or elsewhere, he explained, “the problem is our war on drugs and anything that we can do to move away from our prohibitionist mentality is going to undermine the violent gangs and organized criminal enterprises that we created” through current drug policy dating back several decades.

Sarvis said that legalizing marijuana in just two states, Colorado and Washington, has already had an adverse effect on drug cartels operating in Mexico.

“We can have beneficial effects around the world by changing our policy at home on drugs,” he asserted.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia U.S. Senate candidates react to Fourth Circuit gay marriage ruling
GOP can regain control of Senate in 2014, says strategist Grover Norquist
Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East
Virginia Senator Mark Warner discusses budget issues, independent voters
'Republicans have learned a lesson' says GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-senate-hopeful-robert-sarvis-talks-about-u-s-policy-toward-africa