From the Archives: GOP Senate candidate Chuck Moss emphasizes technology issues, outsider status

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 Chuck Moss emphasizes technology issues, outsider status

Virginia Republicans will meet in Roanoke on Saturday, June 7, to pick a candidate for the U.S. Senate to run in the November election against incumbent Democrat Mark Warner.

Four men are seeking the GOP nomination: Tony DeTora, Ed Gillespie, Shak Hill, and Chuck Moss.

Moss is a Northern Virginia small business owner and engineer. He spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner on the sidelines of the Fifth Congressional District Republican convention at Hampden-Sydney College last month.

Moss said he was motivated to run for the U.S. Senate nomination because he saw a lack of skills and perspectives on Capitol Hill. Specifically, he explained, there need to be more people in Congress who “understand the technology that's becoming more of an issue within national security, the economy, privacy, things like that.”

DMCA, SOPA, PIPA
He noted that technology issues are underestimated and underreported, deserving more attention from policymakers.

“In terms of technology, we need to understand what we're doing and make sure we're not undermining our large industries at the behest of special interests such as Hollywood,” Moss said.

Among legislation “that's frustrated me over the years,” Moss singled out the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and noted that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) “had a big uproar,” yet problems in those bills recur within other pieces of legislation.

For example, he said, “right now we're looking at the Trans Pacific Partnership that's being negotiated in secret, ostensibly because of national security concerns. They're trying to fast-track that legislation and a lot of those issues that have been beaten down in the past keep coming back up in various ways. We need to keep an eye on that and not cede the control of Congress to an up-or-down vote on fast-tracking.”

Warner's Vulnerabilities
In terms of the vulnerabilities of his potential opponent, Mark Warner, Moss said that “Obamacare gives us a strong tailwind but I think we need to have a positive message as well.”

Warner, he said, is burdened by having had “a career in Washington both before and after running for office. I think we can make the argument very successfully that we need something different, that the challenges we're facing within the country are too big and too urgent to leave it to career politicians and Washington insiders.”

In terms of appealing to libertarian-minded voters, Moss said “I try not to pigeonhole myself too much, but I have described myself as a fiscal conservative with a libertarian slant. If you look at the Republican Creed and we focus on – and make clear that we support – fiscal responsibility and personal liberty, that has broad appeal that transcends party.”

In Virginia, he explained, the electorate is “very closely, evenly divided” among Republicans, Democrats, and “unaffiliated independents.”

Republican candidates, he said, “need to be able to talk to those people, the swing voters, and make sure our message of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, if presented well, resonates and transcends party. We need to reach out to people with that consistent message and make the case that we will not only talk about it when running but stand for it when elected.”

A podcast of this interview with GOP Senate candidate Chuck Moss can be heard on Bearing Drift's “The Score.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

GOP Senate candidate Shak Hill thinks government is 'overreaching'
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
Morgan Griffith, Robert Hurt vote against Rohrabacher amendment on medicinal pot

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-senate-candidate-chuck-moss-emphasizes-technology-issues-outsider-status

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: Author Craig Shirley considers whether Ronald Reagan was a libertarian

Author Craig Shirley considers whether Ronald Reagan was a libertarian

Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the death of President Ronald Reagan. He died on June 5, 2004, the eve of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion and the 20th anniversary of his speech at Normandy remembering “the boys of Pointe du Hoc.”

Earlier this year, Craig Shirley, author of Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All and of Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America, came to Charlottesville to speak at the Virginia Festival of the Book.

In an interview that weekend with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, Shirley noted how Reagan viewed libertarianism as intrinsic to conservatism and often defined himself as a libertarian.

'Heart and soul'
Reagan, he explained, gave an interview to Reason magazine in 1975, in which “he said that libertarianism is the fundamental basis for American conservatism.”

That interview, conducted by Reason's founding editor Manuel Klausner, appeared in the magazine's July 1975 issue. In it, Reagan said that “if you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

Shirley pointed out that, “for a time, [Reagan] referred to himself publicly as a 'libertarian conservative.' I have interviews with him on CBS in which he referred to himself as a 'libertarian conservative.'”

Reagan, Shirley explained, “was not libertine but he was very much of the opinion, following Locke, Paine, and Jefferson, that [limited government] was about the individual and the privacy and the rights and the dignity of the individual. He said that many, many times in his political career.”

Anti-gay Briggs Amendment
As an example of Reagan's libertarianism, Shirley recalled the then-future president's opposition to the Briggs Amendment in California, a 1978 voter initiative that would have banned gay men and lesbians from teaching in government schools.

John Briggs, he explained, was a California state senator in California. Briggs “had seen the political success that Anita Bryant had done in Dade County” with her campaign to end the local anti-discrimination ordinance that protected gay workers. “Her political star began to rise as she was taking on the gay rights movement,” he said, noting that “Briggs had higher aspirations; he wanted to run for governor of California.”

Briggs, he explained, “came up with an idea that would prohibit either those who championed a homosexual lifestyle or those who were gay and were out from being public school teachers. This deeply offended Ronald Reagan. You could say it was because of his libertarianism, or because of his upbringing, because of his mother's [influence] about allowing people to live and let live, or because of his cosmopolitan lifestyle that he was aware of during his days in Hollywood. He may have been informed by all three experiences but he was against it and he campaigned against it.”

The November 1978 referendum was defeated by a 14-point margin and afterwards, Shirley recalled, Briggs had a press conference where he “was asked by a reporter, why did it lose?”

Briggs replied: “Ronald Reagan. Reagan campaigned against it, and that was it.”

Confirmation
Shirley's recollections are confirmed in an article by James Duke Mason on June 5 in The Advocate, an LGBT magazine.

“Believe it or not,” Mason wrote, “Reagan was one of the first major politicians in history to come out for gay rights. Just a year before he announced his candidacy for president, he came out forcefully” against the Briggs Amendment.

Not only did Reagan “have no political incentive to do it, but it could’ve been a huge catastrophe. In speaking out against the initiative, Reagan used language that was way ahead of its time; he argued that 'prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.' Some dismiss his support as too last-minute to have made a difference. But as his biographer Lou Cannon once put it, Reagan knew the risks but 'chose to state his convictions.'”

Briggs himself blamed Reagan for his amendment's defeat. Could he have equally blamed Reagan's core libertarianism?

SUGGESTED LINKS

Craig Shirley recalls events at the start of World War II in 'December 1941'
Virginia Senate candidates remember Ronald Reagan on his 100th birthday
Historian Paul Kengor on Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the USSR - Part I
Historian Paul Kengor on Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the USSR - Part II
Amity Shlaes discusses significance of Calvin Coolidge at Heritage Foundation

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/author-craig-shirley-considers-whether-ronald-reagan-was-a-libertarian

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

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: James Carr assesses David Brat's defeat of Eric Cantor, plus Jack Trammell

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 16, 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.

James Carr assesses David Brat's defeat of Eric Cantor, plus Jack Trammell

James Carr is the Libertarian Party's nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in Virginia's Seventh Congressional District, where House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was upset in a June 10 Republican primary by relatively unknown economics professor David Brat.

Carr came to Charlottesville on June 14, where in an exclusive interview on the sidelines of a meeting of the Libertarian Party of Virginia's State Central Committee held at the West Main restaurant, he answered questions about his potential and actual opponents.

The LPVA candidate for Congress was not surprised by Brat's defeat of Cantor in the GOP primary.

Not a surprise
“If you'd been talking to voters in the district, it really wasn't that much of a surprise,” Carr said. “As a matter of fact, my team and I had been planning for this outcome. We split our time equally between both outcomes – that Cantor wins, and that Brat does.”

Brat's unexpected victory was due to “a lot of factors,” he explained, and the story is one that “most of the media is getting incorrect.” The media have been “focusing on one issue and saying that that was the reason for the win. It really wasn't. It is the voters' dissatisfaction and the complete ineptitude in Washington right now.”

For voters in Virginia's seventh district, he said, “the idea of the permanent professional politician, living in Washington, being disconnected from those whom they're supposed to represent, no longer listening to those that they represent, no longer holding town hall meetings” is unpalatable.

Instead, they want someone who connects with voters. “They clearly didn't have that with Mr. Cantor,” Carr asserted, and they wanted “to get rid of him.”

The Libertarian candidate said that “many people that I've talked to over the last several months, when I've been out knocking on doors, going to farmers' markets, setting up events at brew fests” told him that they were going to vote in the Republican primary just to get Cantor out of the race, and then wait until the general election campaign to assess the other candidates.

Many of those voters, he said, “are very open to the Libertarian platform.”

'Points of frustration'
While Carr has not yet met his new opponent, David Brat, he has done some research on the Randolph-Macon faculty member.

“I've tried to learn as much about David Brat as I could from his web site,” which outlines some of his policy positions “but most of it is at a high level and you're going to have to interpret quite a bit.”

In talking with voters about Brat, he said, “I find that to be one of their points of frustration” although they were “very clear” they would “rather vote for someone who's not Cantor in the primary and then find out what the issues are later.”

While the news media had focused on Brat's position on immigration, Carr explained, “that wasn't as important to most of the people that I've talked to, among the thousands of people who we had interactions with over the past several months.”

Carr also believes that Brat has been misidentified as a libertarian, in part “because his campaign manager is a libertarian.”

From Carr's perspective, “Dave Brat can be considered more of a slightly-libertarian-leaning Republican on some issues but on many not. On the social issues, he's pretty well Republican.”

“I don't think anyone who looks into his web site or listens to some of his speeches would argue that Dave Brat is a libertarian. Is he more libertarian than, say, Cantor? Probably. But I would not make the mistake of calling Dave Brat a libertarian.”

Trammell 'a question mark'
The Democratic party's nominee, Randolph-Macon sociologist Jack Trammell, remains something of a mystery to Carr, who has not yet “had a chance to meet him” or find “anything other than some of his academic work that gives me any indication of his stances on the issues.

Trammell, he said, has not yet posted a campaign web site, “so we're at a point where that Mr. Trammell's kind of a question mark. He came into the race very late. We didn't have any indication that that was going to happen. We're now trying to figure out, who is this person?"

Carr's task now is to show how his views are different from both Brat's and Trammell's.

Unless Jack Trammell is “actually a libertarian running as a Democrat, we're going to have some very different stances in certain areas. I'd like to be able to address that to the voters very clearly, to give them an accurate picture.”

Carr expressed confidence, based upon what he's seen about David Brat and Jack Trammell, “that this is going to be a very new race for the voters,” who are going to receive “positive messages. They're not going to have negative campaigning from here to November.”

Although Carr had turned in well over the minimum 1,000 signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot by the filing deadline of June 10, as this article went to press, the State Board of Elections had not yet certified his ballot status for November.

The complete one-on-one interview with James Carr can be viewed on YouTube.

SUGGESTED LINKS

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor explains GOP's appeal to libertarian voters
Virginia Republican Congressmen Respond to 2014 State of the Union Message
Eric Cantor’s challenger admires Calvin Coolidge, wants end to drug war
Cultural critic Paul Cantor assesses the politics of the new TV season
Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith clarifies aim of his medical marijuana bill

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/james-carr-assesses-david-brat-s-defeat-of-eric-cantor-plus-jack-trammell

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