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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's RTD: Should presidential electors exercise independent judgment?

In the commentary section of today's Richmond Times-Dispatch, I argue that presidential electors can, and should, exercise independent judgment when they cast their states electoral votes in December.

In "Electors should vote their consciences," I begin by telling the story of Roger MacBride, a Virginia elector in 1972 who was pledged to vote for incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon. MacBride chose, instead, to cast his ballots for the Libertarian ticket of John Hospers and Tonie Nathan.

The Libertarian Party had been founded barely a year earlier, and its presidential ticket appeared on the ballots of only four states. (Nixon, you may recall, thumped George McGovern that year, winning every state but Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. He went on to resign in disgrace two years later.) The notoriety MacBride achieved by this brazen act catapulted him, four years later, to become the LP's second presidential nominee.

While "faithless electors" may break the law in some states, what few court decisions that have addressed the matter indicate that presidential electors may vote their consciences:

State laws (like Virginia’s) that bind electors to particular candidates have rarely, if ever, been tested. An Oklahoma elector in 1960 who voted for Virginia Sen. Harry F. Byrd rather than Richard Nixon did so even though he was threatened with a $1,000 fine. “I am not worried about $1,000,” he said, and the only penalty imposed on him was a refusal to pay his travel expenses to Oklahoma City.

Few court decisions have addressed the independence of presidential electors. An 1896 Kansas court decision said that electors were under “no legal obligation” to support any particular candidate and were “authorized to use their own judgment as to the proper eligible persons to fill these high offices.” In 1948, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that all electors were free to vote as they pleased, because it was “only by force of a moral obligation, not a legal one, that the presidential electors pledged to certain candidacies fulfill their pledges after election.”

Each elector can make up his or her mind about whether to follow the election returns or to vote independently, but this year's decision making process carries unusual moral and ethical weight. Both of the two largest parties have nominated flawed presidential candidates. While Democratic electors are, for the most part, satisfied with Hillary Clinton (if not enthusiastic about her) as their party's candidate, Republican electors are, like Republicans at large, conflicted about Donald J. Trump.

So, I argue:

The electors’ right to independent judgment may be most pertinent this year, when GOP presidential electors are expected to vote for a nominee who has brought shame to their party. The vulgar and impolitic Trump has expressed contempt for the Constitution, undermined confidence in the integrity of the electoral system, dismissed any interest in the legislative process, and been at loggerheads with time-tested conservative, Republican values.

A Republican “faithless elector” in 2016 will bravely and astutely avoid the future taint of association with Trump, the most unfit character ever to seek the presidency, simply by casting his ballot for Gary Johnson (my choice, and the choice of this newspaper) or another suitable person.

If either Democratic or Republican electors, in Virginia or elsewhere, choose to vote their consciences on December 19, I'll give them full credit for having moral courage. It would be nice to think my op/ed piece influenced their choices -- and perhaps some of them will have seen it, since (if the metrics app is believable) more than 3,700 readers have recommended the article to their friends on Facebook.

Gary Johnson on Donald Trump's contempt for democratic transitions: 'Unbelievable'

Last night, in the third and final Democratic-Republican presidential debate, GOP candidate Donald J. Trump suggested that he may not accept the results of the election on November 8, continuing his theme of asserting that massive electoral fraud will take place and that is the only reason he will lose to Hillary Clinton.

Today, Trump doubled down on his refusal to accept the central tenet of American democracy, that when a person or party loses an election, they become the loyal opposition and wait for another opportunity to win public office.

According to the Associated Press:

Trump kicked off a rally Thursday in Delaware, Ohio, by saying that he "would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supports and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election."

But he added: "If I win."

In response to Trump's bizarre break with tradition, the Libertarian Party's nominee for President, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, issued this statement:

Gary Johnson

“As a former Governor, who was elected and served as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, I have to say that Donald Trump’s refusal to say he will accept the outcome of an election is just one more straw too many. It’s offensive to the thousands of election officials across the nation, and it’s offensive to a nation for which the integrity of elections is what sets us apart from much of the world.

“Peaceful transition of power, which depends entirely upon honoring the results of elections, is as fundamental to our greatness and Constitution as anything else we do in America, and Donald Trump can’t even accept that fundamental without hedging.

“Unbelievable.”

Johnson and his running mate, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, have achieved ballot access in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia -- the first third-party presidential ticket to do so since Libertarian Harry Browne and his running mate, Jo Jorgensen, did it in 1996.

Guest Post: Vote Against Both Evils, by Will Hammer

This November 8th, if you decide to vote, you have a huge choice to make. You can either vote for a corrupt crony politician, or you can vote for a vulgar corrupt crony reality TV star. Because of the media, the partisan Commission on Presidential Debates, and the two major parties who have a vested interest in only having two parties, you would think those are your only choices.

Will Hammer, left, with Robert Sarvis in Buena Vista, Virginia

Well, you actually do have a choice at the ballot box this November. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, is on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. He is an honest and a great man, not your typical crony politician or a bigoted, morally corrupt, gaudy salesman. Do I agree with Johnson on everything? No, but he is leaps and bounds better than Clinton or Trump and represents real change from the business as usual in Washington that has gotten us here. Is Gary Johnson perfect? No, but he actually admits that and it’s refreshing when a politician admits their humanity. Will you agree with him on everything? Probably not, but at least you know he does not have an agenda and he’s not speaking out of both sides of his mouth, or other orifice.

The biggest smear the media can come up with for Johnson is his ‘Aleppo moment’, in which he didn’t know what Aleppo was when randomly asked during a live interview. Should he have been able to answer that question? Of course, he’s running for President, but it’s definitely not a disqualifier. I’d rather have someone whose foreign policy won’t cause Syrian and other middle eastern strife, than someone who would know, but only because she was part of the administration that caused the major humanitarian crisis. He had another moment where he couldn’t name a foreign leader he respected. A week later, he still can’t. The media would have you believe that he couldn’t name ANY foreign leader, but that’s untrue. He cannot name a current foreign leader he admires and he explained that he doesn’t want to defend them against things that he’s not even aware of. Again, this was an unscripted, live question. The other candidates NEVER have unscripted questions. They are screened, planted, and given well beforehand to prepare.

So those are Gary Johnson’s big ‘scandals.’ Now, let’s compare those to Trump and Clinton. If I were to include all of them, this article would take up the whole newspaper, not 1600 words. Trump and Clinton are different sides of the same corrupt, crony coin. One sells her political power and influence and the other buys it. Trump is definitely no outsider, and Clinton is no progressive politician putting people before profits.

Trump has a horrible temperament and would be a disaster diplomatically, saying whatever came to his head on a whim in public, completely alienating us and quite frankly being a national embarrassment. He has spoken about media organizations such as the Washington Post having issues if he becomes President because of stories they have written about him. He has spoken about companies such as Amazon (both owned by Jeff Bezos) getting taxed essentially out of business. His careless speech may even incite violence, with him making suggestions about gun owners taking care of Clinton and many other situations. Trump has exploited horrible eminent domain laws to obtain private land to build his developments. He scammed people with Trump University, used bankruptcy to screw people and contractors over while walking away with millions, and the list goes on. He’s a bigot, demonizing Mexicans and others. And he’s a misogynist, saying crude and horrible things to and about various women. That’s bad enough, but we have just found out that he sexually assaults women and brags about it in private. This latest revelation was caught via a hot mic. Some are defending him, saying that it’s ‘locker room’ talk. Of course men do that, just as women do the same. But, there is a HUGE difference between what Trump said and ‘locker room’ talk. Trump actually talked about how being famous and a star allows him to sexually assault women and get away with it. I could care less about the “lewd language”, I care about the actions he described and he gets away with. This is DISGUSTING. This is it, this is your moment of truth. Are you going to defend and vote for this loathsome egomaniac?

Gary Johnson and William Weld at Libertarian Party Convention, May 2016

Clinton is definitely no saint either. Clinton is about as hawkish as they come. She voted for the Iraq War, costing thousands of US lives, an estimated 250-500k Iraqi lives, instability, and nearly $2 TRILLION. She was Secretary of State while the Obama administration bombed at least 8 countries, thousands upon thousands of innocent lives. She was part of regime change that created more and more instability, which led to the rise of ISIS. Simply put, she is one of the biggest advocates for and participants in our horrible foreign policy that has cost us US lives, innocent foreign lives, trillions of dollars, created more terrorists and allowed for ISIS to fill the void, and so on. War is a racket and Clinton is no peace candidate. The Clinton Foundation and pay to play with foreign governments/leaders. Recently she has also had some scandals involving emails. A leak revealed the DNC conspired to make sure Bernie Sanders did not receive nomination and that Clinton would. As a Ron Paul supporter in 2007 and 2012, I feel your pain and disgust Sander supporters.There is also the private email server that was in a bathroom that Clinton used instead of secure servers provided by the government for classified and official business while Secretary of the State. The FBI decided not to pursue charges against Clinton, but made it clear that she was extremely careless and frankly inept at handling classified information. But, why the double standard? Others have been charged with mishandling classified information, not intentionally. 30,000 emails deleted with BleachBit, 30 new emails recovered by FBI recently related to Benghazi, Clinton IT specialist asking Reddit how to alter ‘very VIP’ emails, and the list goes on. And now, the same day that Trump’s sexual groping audio comes to light, Wikileaks has released emails from Clinton’s campaign manager, revealing excerpts from Clinton’s Goldman Sach and other speeches, where she has earned more than $22 million, such as “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

I recommend voting against both evils and voting for Gary Johnson. He is a two term Republican governor from a heavily Democratic state, as is his running mate Bill Weld. They will bring sanity and non-partisanship to the office, reaching across the aisle and working with coalitions of all parties. They are fiscally responsible and socially accepting, like the majority of Americans. They do not want to continue our failed foreign policy of drone strikes, invasions, backing various rebel groups, and overthrowing governments. They want to balance our budget and stop the growing $20 trillion deficit, which has doubled under Bush and then again under Obama. Reject both of the two major party Presidential candidates, the most hated in US history. The Democrats and Republicans believe they own your vote. They do not, you own your own vote. A vote for anyone is not a vote for someone else, like the narrative they are trying to play right now. Gary Johnson is polling roughly 10% nationally. But these are polls that do not include people under 40 (which actually favor Johnson) and/or have only Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the top line, head to head. In reality, they are not going head to head. This is at least a 3 way race in all 50 states, and a 4 way race in most states with Jill Stein. Johnson is polling over 19% in five states, over 15% in 15 states, and over 10% in 42 states. He currently is actually polling within margin or error to Trump in New Mexico. If Gary Johnson does get 10% in Virginia, then the Libertarian Party would get major party status and be able to run candidates within obtaining the ridiculous amount of signatures required currently. There are many other states where Johnson’s success would create more choice on the ballot as well. If he was allowed on the debate stage, run by the Commission on Presidential Debates which was founded by former Democrat and Republican national chairs, then I have no doubt that he would be even higher, and possibly overtake both candidates. But thanks to Ross Perot’s success, who was polling lower than Johnson and was allowed to debate, the CPD raised the arbitrary percentage to be in the debates. It’s a scam and even the League of Women Voters, who used to run the Presidential debates, dropped their sponsorship because they did not want to help “perpetuate a fraud on the American people.” Even dozens of major newspapers and publications are calling for Gary Johnson’s inclusion into the debate, with over 60% of polled Americans wishing for Johnson to be included. Gary Johnson has even received six major newspaper endorsements, to Trump’s zero.

Will Hammer is a Libertarian who ran in 2014 for U.S. Congress and 2015 for Virginia House of Delegates. Hammer was the sole recipient of the Libertarian Party’s Patrick Henry award in 2016, which recognizes a very effective campaign for public office at the state or federal level, while communicating Libertarian ideas, principles, and values.

Guest Post by James Copeland: 'How I Would Coach Donald Trump for the Next Debate'

Publisher's Note: This guest post was written by James Copeland, executive director, emeritus, of the National Speech and Debate Association. He was a member of the Associated Press Presidential Debate Evaluation Panel, 1976-2000. He is the author of Cross Examination in Debate (1983) and has advised gubernatorial and congressional candidates about campaign debates.

Donald Trump, like Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan, is a leader, not a man of study.  Men of study like Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore were good with briefing books and detail.  But briefing books and practice debates are not the best way for Mr. Trump to prepare.

Preparation for the next debate must be based upon Trump's considerable skills. His greatest skill was exhibited on “The Apprentice”, where Trump evaluated and judged the arguments of others. Trump is a counter puncher and this skill can be honed to create retorts to opposition arguments.

The retort is the most effective and dramatic argument that can be posed in a debate: It takes the PREMISE of the opponent's attack and turns it back against the accuser.

Example #1: [Premise: Transparency]
Secretary Clinton insists I release my tax returns.

I insist she release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms, which paid her thousands of dollars in speaking fees. How do we know what she promised them? She demands I provide transparency, yet she provides none.

Example #2: [Premise: Honesty]
Secretary Clinton accuses me of not being truthful when I say I did not support the Iraq war.

My opinion was that of a private citizen. I accuse Secretary Clinton of not being truthful about the Benghazi attack. Publicly she blamed the attack on an anti-Muslim video. Privately she tweeted her daughter, Chelsea, that it was a terrorist attack! She demands honesty from private citizens, yet refuses to provide it as a public official.

(NOTE: A retort is NOT a pivot. A pivot tries to dodge an argument, not turn it back on the accuser.)

If I had the honor to coach Mr. Trump I would follow this plan:

1] Mr. Trump should be seated in an executive chair behind a table, like “The Apprentice”
2] Facing Mr. Trump about ten feet away should be two side by side podiums.
3] At one podium is the Clinton surrogate; at the other a Trump surrogate.
4] Staff will have prepared a list of Clinton personal attacks on Trump and a retort for each.
5] Staff will have prepared a list of Trump issues, Clinton's rebuttal and Trump's retort.
6] Each surrogate will be scripted with the material prepared by staff.
7] The surrogates will act out one attack or issue at a time. THEN
8] MR. TRUMP WILL REFINE EACH RETORT ON CONTENT AND WORDING .
9] MR. TRUMP MAY DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WOULD SPEAK THE RETORT.
10] Roger Ailes should attend each session and privately offer his critique to Mr. Trump.
11] Each session will not last more than one hour (15 minutes for each issue).

For James Copeland's assessment of the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, see this post on Bearing Drift:  "Champion Debate Coach Assesses Trump-Clinton Performances."

From the Archives: Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine ponders appeal to third-party voters

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 4, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  With the impending nomination of Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) as the vice presidential running mate of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 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 candidate Tim Kaine ponders appeal to third-party voters

Although former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine was scheduled to address the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Tuesday, where he pointed out that “a few years ago, few imagined that Virginia would be a battleground state,” on Monday he was at Buena Vista's Labor Day celebration, campaigning for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by fellow Democrat Jim Webb.

Because Virginia has gone “from red to purple,” as Kaine put it in his convention speech, polls show the state’s presidential contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is neck-and-neck, and the Senate contest between Kaine and former Senator George Allen is tracking very close to that, a dead heat.

On September 4, the State Board of Elections confirmed that there will be three third-party presidential candidates on the ballot in Virginia, in addition to Obama and Romney: Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

‘Same questions’

Given that some voters will cast their ballots for neither Obama nor Romney on November 6 but rather for one of those three independent candidates, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked Governor Kaine in Buena Vista how he would appeal to those third-party voters to garner their support for his Senate bid.

Tim Kaine

“I bet they have the same questions that other Virginians do,” Kaine replied. Those voters want to know “how to fix the economy, how to balance the budget, how to find common ground.”

Kaine said that he has “a better plan than my opponent in all three of those areas, so I’m making my case to them based on the record but also based on what we need to do on the national level.”

A lot of third party voters, he added, “are interested in the spending issues. I’m the only governor of Virginia who left office with a smaller general fund budget than when I started.”

Kaine explained that that situation may have been due to the fact that he was governor during the onset of a severe recession, but even so, he added, “I had to make a lot of painful cuts.”

Making those kinds of cuts, he pointed out, is something that “very few people in the Senate have had to do.”

George Allen, he said, “didn’t have to do it when he was in the Senate -- but I know how to do it.”

Suggested Links

Tim Kaine argues for balancing individual liberties, communal responsibilities
Senator Jim Webb talks about U.S.-Korea free trade and stability in Asia
In Crozet for Independence Day weekend, George Allen warns of ‘perpetual debt'
Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode talks politics on Labor Day
Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson on health care, marriage, and Colbert

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

From the Archives: Tim Kaine argues for balancing individual liberties, communal responsibilities

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 3, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  With the impending nomination of Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) as the vice presidential running mate of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 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.

Tim Kaine argues for balancing individual liberties, communal responsibilities

Former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who is also the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is currently a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Jim Webb.

On July 2, Kaine came to Crozet, in western Albemarle County, to celebrate Independence Day two days early: marching in a parade and speaking at a festival at Claudius Crozet Park sponsored by the local volunteer fire department. Kaine’s likely Republican opponent in the 2012 election, former Governor and Senator George Allen, was also present, and the two men described each other as “competitors and friends.”

Just before the formal program began, Kaine spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about current issues, including the impending congressional vote on raising the national debt ceiling, and what he hopes to bring from Virginia to the national stage.

Debt ceiling limit

“My assessment of the situation” with regard to the debt ceiling vote, Kaine said, “is I can’t believe they let it get as close as they have. You shouldn’t be playing brinksmanship with things like threatened government shutdowns or threatened default on debt payments.”

Even so, he added, “we’ve got to find a resolution. I think the resolution is one where we increase the debt ceiling limitation but in exchange we have to do a combination of significant cuts [and] finding more revenues.”

To get more revenues, he explained, will require “closing loopholes on certain businesses and individuals that don’t need them.”

That should be followed by making “more investments in transportation and education to grow the economy. That’s the best anti-deficit strategy of all.”

Getting libertarian votes

Asked how he would appeal to libertarian-minded voters in the coming election campaign, Kaine said that he would talk about his record.

“I am very much a supporter of individual liberties,” he explained, adding that “yet we’re in this mixture, where we have individual liberties -- and that’s the great thing about our country -- but we also have communal responsibilities. Just trying to find that right balance is important.”

Kaine noted that “we do pretty well on that in Virginia. My basic campaign message is, ‘America has challenges, Virginia has answers,’ so I’ll be talking about the way we do it here in Virginia.”

From Virginia to D.C.

The former governor gave three specific ways that he plans to take lessons learned in Virginia to the national level.

George Allen and Tim Kaine, July 2, 2011

First, with regard to the “challenged economy,” he said, the way Virginia “went from low income to high income [was] by going from low education to high education. Education innovation is the best economic development and jobs strategy.”

The second lesson is “fiscal responsibility,” he said, explaining that “I had to make more cuts than anybody who’s ever been governor -- but there’s a right way and wrong way to do it. No across-the-boards, don’t shred the safety net, and don’t do the kind of gimmicks like default on the debt payment stuff. Just make hard decisions.”

The third thing he offered is that, in Virginia, “we have some balance and civility. We still listen to each other instead of just trying to out talk each other, and that’s what I want to take” to Washington.

Kaine may still face a primary challenge for the Democratic Senate nomination from Third District Representative Bobby Scott, who announced on July 1 that he is delaying his decision on whether to get into the race. Former Governor Allen also has several challengers for the GOP nomination, including Tim Donner, David McCormick, and Jamie Radtke.

Do you like this article? Do you want to see more like it? Be sure to click on the "subscribe" button at the top of the page.

If you would like to become an Examiner on Examiner.com, click here or on the "write for us" button on the upper right corner of this page.

Suggested Links

At his 17th Shad Planking, George Allen lays claim to a ‘libertarian streak’
Va. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke hopes her message resonates with libertarians
Virginia GOP Senate candidate David McCormick touts his business experience
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

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

From the Archives: Former Senator Rick Santorum says homosexuals deserve protection

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on March 8, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Former Senator Rick Santorum says homosexuals deserve protection

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), who was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and a likely candidate for the same job in 2016, placed sixth in the annual CPAC straw poll last month, behind Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Santorum also garnered sixth place in the 2014 CPAC straw poll.

Despite his poor poll showing, Santorum's still-unofficial presidential campaign had a visible presence at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference), which took place in suburban Washington, D.C., and attracted more than 11,000 participants.

On February 27, after hosting a townhall-style meeting for about 250 supporters and potential supporters, Santorum spoke briefly with members of the news media. During the press gaggle, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner posed two questions to the former senator, both on foreign policy issues.

'Obligation to protect all people'

First, Santorum, who is well known for his socially conservative positions with regard to gay rights, was asked whether it is appropriate for the U.S. Department of State to defend the rights of homosexuals in foreign countries where their lives might be threatened by anti-gay governments.

“We have to defend human rights everywhere,” Santorum replied. “If someone's life is threatened because of race, sexual orientation, or other [reasons], I think we have an obligation to stand up and defend that human right. I don't have a problem at all, if people's lives are in jeopardy, then we have an obligation to protect all people and their freedoms.”

'A different threat'
Second, the former Pennsylvania senator was asked whether Middle Eastern or Islamic terrorism poses a greater threat to the United States today than the Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

“I think it's a different threat,” Santorum said.

Islamic terrorism, he explained, is “a threat that is in some respects is more difficult to understand and to respond to.”

Rick Santorum at CPAC 2015

In contrast, “the Soviet Union was in many respects a predictable animal. Remember, we had policies like Mutual Assured Destruction, and we did it because we knew how they would behave, how they would act.”

“In fact,” he added, the Soviets “were very predictable. That doesn't mean they weren't evil, that doesn't mean they weren't oppressive, that doesn't mean they weren't everything that Reagan and others said about them.”

Today, he explained, “the complexity of dealing with radical Islam – and the fact that there are 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – makes this a much more difficult issue and one that, if you look historically, [is] a more intransigent problem for the West than the 50 years of the Cold War.”

The “other war” against Islamic terrorism, he concluded, almost as an afterthought, has lasted “a thousand years.”

Video of this press gaggle with likely GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum is available on YouTube.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Lamar Alexander honored for his work promoting civics, history education
Conservative icon Stan Evans dies at 80; remembered as 'present at the creation'
GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia talks about CPAC and gay conservatives
CPAC bars GOProud; presidential candidate Gary Johnson presciently weighs in
Gary Johnson wins RLC straw poll, places third in CPAC poll

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/former-senator-rick-santorum-says-homosexuals-deserve-protection

From the Archives: Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stumps for support in Charlottesville

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

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stumps for support in Charlottesville

White House hopeful Bernie Sanders spoke to an enthusiastic audience in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Monday, May 11, laying out his policy vision and contrasting it directly with that of the Republican Congress and indirectly to that of his opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sanders delivered his remarks to an overflow crowd at Trinity Episcopal Church, whose sanctuary has chairs for just 100 people. Another 175 or so squeezed into a basement room and the narthex.

The event, which was billed as a town hall meeting on the federal budget, had been announced in April, before Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats on Capitol Hill, had declared his intention to seek the Democratic party's nomination for president.

In what is likely to become his standard stump speech, self-defined Socialist Sanders addressed a range of issues that were only related to the budget in the sense that they are items the government spends money on, such as free college tuition for students in public institutions and a multi-trillion dollar program to improve transportation infrastructure. He decried the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and proposed public financing for federal election campaigns.

Health care and free trade
Sanders proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and creating a single-payer health care insurance program to replace the Affordable Care Act (so-called Obamacare), or what he called “universal Medicare.”

Sanders also took aim at the Obama administration's support for free trade agreements in the Pacific Rim, pointing out that the minimum wage in Vietnam is about 50 cents an hour.

“All of us, I know, want to see poor people around the world do better. We all do, but there are ways that we can do that without engaging in a race to the bottom in this country,” he said. “Our job is to uplift the poor people around the world, not sink the working people of this country.”

Sanders said he voted against NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement), and permanent normal trade relations with China, “because these were all trade agreements that were pushed by corporate America, the big monied interest, and I intend to play an active role in defeating the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Asked later by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner whether he supports renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which expires in September 2015, Sanders offered no position, saying: “You know what? To be very honest, I've been focusing more on the TPP than that.”

'Perpetual warfare'
In a question and answer session following his prepared remarks, Sanders contrasted himself most explicitly with Clinton (without ever mentioning her name) in his discussion of foreign policy.

On foreign policy, he noted that when he was first elected to Congress back in 1991, one of his first votes was against the first Gulf War. His wife predicted that vote would earn him a short congressional career, a remark met with laughter from the audience.

With regard to the war in Iraq that started in 2003, “I had serious doubts about what [President George W.] Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were saying and I had serious concerns about the kind of destabilization that would take place and, sadly, much of what I feared has in fact taken place. I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the opposition to it and, unfortunately, we were not successful.” (Hillary Clinton, then a senator from New York, voted in favor of the Iraq War.)

“Where we are right now is in a very difficult world and I wish I could tell you otherwise but as all of you know, there are terrorists out there who want to do us harm,” he said, adding “we've got to be vigilant in protecting this country against them.”

Sanders continued: “What I would also tell you is that, while some of my colleagues apparently have no idea of what the war in Afghanistan has meant, what the war in Iraq has meant. Some of these guys seem to be itching for another war. I fear very much that, if we don't stand up, we could be in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.”

Referring to the so-called Islamic State (sometimes called ISIS or ISIL), the Vermont senator said that group should be opposed. “Here, I think, is the main point: the United States and Western countries should be very, very supportive but at the end of the day, the only way, in my view, that the war against ISIS is won, is when the Muslim countries stand up themselves and lead that fight.”

Senator Sanders' budget town hall in Charlottesville was the third and last in a series. The other two took place in Maryland and Washington, D.C.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Former Senator Rick Santorum says homosexuals deserve protection
Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode talks politics on Labor Day
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson assesses Romney, Stein, and Goode
Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East
Poultry industry is trade-talk pawn of South African government, says analyst

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders-stumps-for-support-charlottesville

From the Archives: Former Senator George Allen 'stunned' by Donald Trump's popularity in GOP

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 12, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site is scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Former Senator George Allen 'stunned' by Donald Trump's popularity in GOP

Arriving at the Doubletree Hotel in Charlottesville for the monthly Albemarle County GOP breakfast on September 12, former Virginia governor and U.S. senator George F. Allen offered some comments on real estate mogul Donald Trump's bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

In 2006, Allen's re-election campaign was derailed by an off-hand remark to a Democratic party video tracker, using the then-unknown word “macaca,” which to some people sounded like a pejorative term used in North Africa, where Allen's mother grew up. Allen – then not only heavily favored for re-election but widely touted as a likely leading 2008 presidential candidate – lost narrowly to Democrat Jim Webb, and lost again in 2012 in an attempted comeback against former governor Tim Kaine.

In light of that, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked how Donald Trump's daily offensive, misogynistic, racist, and xenophobic statements did not hobble his campaign but rather led to rising poll numbers.

'Stunned'
“Anybody who has run for office is just stunned” by Trump's performance so far, Allen replied. “He'll say something [offensive] in a debate” or an interview “and he'll go up in the polls.”

Reaching for an explanation for Trump's popularity in the face of such offensiveness, Allen suggested that “people are so frustrated with the lack of attention to anything that matters [to them from] folks in Washington.”

Voters like “the fact that he is not a politician,” the former governor said, even though “they may think that some of the things he says are not diplomatic or impolitic.”

While some of the people involved in Trump's campaign are long-time Republican activists, Allen said, Trump is also drawing in “a lot of new people who have gotten active and who just say, 'You know, yeah, he may not know everything but gosh darn, I just want to send a message up to them in Washington.'”

He said that “while the things Trump says, I think, are harmful, and he doesn't need to be making some of those statements, people do want to send a message.”

Allen noted that “Donald Trump is a longtime family friend, believe it or not, from the days of the USFL – the United States Football League. My father had the Chicago Blitz and Arizona Wranglers and Donald had the New Jersey Generals.”

The USFL team owners, he explained, all worked together in signing players to the new league, such as Jim Kelly, who joined the Houston Gamblers, Steve Young of the LA Express, and Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker, who joined Trump's team, the New Jersey Generals.

'That's the Donald'
Allen smiled as he related an anecdote about asking Trump for a campaign contribution fifteen years ago.

“One time I called him up – this is when I was running for the Senate in 2000, and the contribution limit then was $2,000 – so we're doing some sort of reception/fundraiser up in New York City and I called up Donald Trump and we reminisced over the USFL days and I asked, 'Can you contribute $2,000 to me?' and he said, 'Oh yeah, sure, I'll do that.' I asked, 'Can you come to the reception?' And he said, 'If you want me at the reception, I'll give you $1,000.' He says, 'What do you want, one thousand or two thousand?' I said, 'I'll take the two thousand, you don't need to come to the reception.'”

“That's the Donald,” said Allen.

While Allen has not yet decided which of the several Republican presidential hopefuls he will endorse, he does have a list of criteria that the best candidate must meet.

“I'm looking for someone who has a positive, constructive agenda to create more opportunities in our country – in specifics, not a bunch of superlatives and so forth,” he said.

'Distrust, dismay, and anger'
Among the topics it is important for the right candidate to talk about, Allen explained, are “tax policy; reining in these unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies; [and] unleashing our energy resources, to make our country more competitive internationally.

“Americans want to be the best. We ought to have a government that allows them, with the right policies, to be at their best,” he said.

A second point, Allen added, is that he wants “to see if they respect the rights and prerogatives of the people, of the states, [and] that all decisions don't need to be in Washington. Generally,” he said in an aside, “a lot of times, government at no level should be involved, but government closest to the people is the Jeffersonian principle.”

The final question Allen asks about a potential nominee is, “does their past record evince an integrity that they'll actually keep their word once they're in office?”

That last point is important, he said, since voters “are looking for integrity because there's a lot of distrust, dismay, and anger with the way government operates.”

Allen went on to talk about these themes in remarks to the Albemarle County Republican Committee. About 60 people were in the audience, several of whom engaged the former governor in questions about how Washington works and what can be done to bring more conservative ideas into the policymaking process.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Senate candidate George Allen aims appeal at the ’99 percent’
At his 17th Shad Planking, George Allen lays claim to a ‘libertarian streak’
Senate candidate George Allen responds to Tim Kaine's campaign TV ad
House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte is 'sympathetic' to Kim Davis
DC-area expatriates rally to provide assistance to storm-damaged Dominica

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/former-senator-george-allen-stunned-by-donald-trump-s-popularity-gop-1

From the Archives: Gary Johnson presidential campaign racks up endorsements

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on May 26, 2016, during the Libertarian Party's national convention in Orlando, Florida.  The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued Friday, July 1, 2016, and its web site is scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Gary Johnson presidential campaign racks up endorsements

In a bare-bones press release distributed on May 25, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson's campaign for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination unveiled a list of endorsements by celebrities, political activists, and Libertarian notables.

The list includes Nirvana bass guitarist Krist Novaselic, magician and TV personality Teller, professional football player Rudy Carpenter, podcaster Ben Kissel, and former CIA analyst John Kiriakou.

Other endorsers are 1980 Libertarian presidential nominee Ed Clark, Cato Institute founder and former president Ed Crane, 2014 Florida gubernatorial candidate Adrian Wyllie, 2012 Michigan congressional candidate Emily Salvette, and former Harris County (Texas) LP chairman Guy McLendon.

Duke University political scientist Mike Munger is also on the endorsement list, as is Tom Palmer, author of Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice.

From Virginia, Robert Sarvis, who in 2013 earned more votes in his campaign for governor (against Ken Cuccinelli and Terry McAuliffe) than any other statewide Libertarian candidate, endorsed Johnson, as did former LP national chairman and 2008 Virginia U.S. Senate candidate Bill Redpath.

In his endorsement statement, Sarvis said:

"Only Gary Johnson has the resume, the experience, and the credibility to combine with our party’s inspiring message of peace, prosperity, and freedom."

Johnson, he continued, "has a fundamentally libertarian outlook and a track record of furthering libertarian goals in office. He has a realistic and likeable approach to politics that attracts open-minded voters to a libertarian message. And he has the kind of credibility that cannot be bought or faked, that can only be earned through admirable personal and professional achievements."

Redpath, who has also served as chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, said in endorsing Johnson:

"2016 presents the greatest opportunity nationally for the Libertarian Party in many years. For us to seize this opportunity, it is essential that our presidential candidate be credible, serious and a widely-recognized champion of small government and greater freedom. We are fortunate to have such a candidate in Governor Johnson. I am proud to support him, and look forward to working with him toward historic success in November."

Redpath also added that he is "grateful for Governor Johnson’s work, often behind-the-scenes, to help ensure that Libertarian candidates are not unfairly denied ballot access. The fight against those who try to keep us off the ballot never ends, and Governor Johnson has been and continues to be a great supporter of our efforts."

In an interview with The Libertarian Vindicator, Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, pointed out that a Johnson presidential candidacy would enhance the Libertarian Party's efforts at gaining ballot status in several states. "With 2%, we could be a qualified party for the first time in Iowa and Kentucky," Winger said, "and with 1% in Connecticut (but for president only for the 2020 election). We have never done that in any of those 3 states." (Winger had put himself on record as endorsing the Johnson campaign.)

With Gary Johnson's naming of former Massachusetts Governor William Weld as his running mate last week, the campaign has won unprecedented attention from the mainstream media, with interviews on CNN, ABC News, and MSNBC, and stories in POLITICO, The Hill, The Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, and other news outlets.

(Full disclosure: Writing in a personal capacity, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner also endorsed Gary Johnson for President.)

Suggested Links

Examiner.com exclusive: Gary Johnson reflects on his first visit to Jefferson's Monticello
LP presidential hopeful Gary Johnson calls two-party debates a 'waste of time'
Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson on health care, marriage, and Colbert
Libertarian author Brian Doherty compares Ron Paul and Gary Johnson
LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-presidential-campaign-racks-up-endorsements

From the Archives: Libertarian Party chair Nicholas Sarwark predicts ‘epic’ national convention

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on May 26, 2016, during the Libertarian Party's national convention in Orlando, Florida.  The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued Friday, July 1, and its web site is scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Libertarian Party chair Nicholas Sarwark predicts ‘epic’ national convention

In an interview on the eve of the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominating convention in Orlando, Florida, today, the party’s national chairman, Nicholas Sarwark, predicted that the weekend is “going to be epic.”

Sarwark told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner in an exclusive interview at the Rosen Centre Hotel that “this may be the biggest Libertarian national convention that we’ve ever had. There are a couple, like 1979 in Los Angeles, that may be similar in size.”

Considering the space in the convention hall, he said, “we will be close to our theoretical maximum for delegates. For observers, we’re probably pushing 500.” The number of delegates, he said, will be more than 950 and possibly as many as 1,000.

As a result of the gathering – which has delegations from every state except Oregon, where the affiliate chose not to send delegates to the national convention – “ Orlando is the center of the American political landscape,” said Sarwark. “This is the eye of the storm. This is the biggest thing happening in politics right now, so I expect it’s going to be very exciting.”

‘Toughest and best choice’
Referring to the presidential contest, which includes former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, software entrepreneur John McAfee, and former Fox News producer Austin Petersen as well as about a dozen others – Sarwark said that the field includes “some of the best candidates that I’ve ever seen vie for our nomination and these delegates have probably the toughest and best choice in my memory.”

The Libertarian Party is also attracting a lot of attention from the news media, he said.

“I have not been off the phone with reporters for the last three weeks. Ever since Cruz dropped out after Indiana,” Sarwark explained, “it has been non-stop. I’ve talked to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hill, POLITICO, Reason.” He said he had an interview scheduled with C-SPAN and another with CNN later in the day.

“Every minute of my time at this convention that’s not at a business session is basically booked with interviews,” he added.

The attention is well-earned, he noted.

‘Our time to shine’
“It’s been 45 years that we’ve been waiting for this opportunity, doing the hard work of building the state parties, getting ballot access in all fifty states, and this is our time to shine.”

The party aims to have at least 1,000 candidates on the ballot across the United States in 2016, “including president, senate, congress, governor, state house, state senate, dog catcher.”

The LP, Sarwark said, has been trying “to fill the ballot every state, every election, all the time, because every American deserves to have a Libertarian option on their ballot.”

The “wasted vote” that some people warn about, is “when a person wakes up and says, ‘You know, I’m not going to vote for the two old parties anymore. I’m just done with it. I’m tired of them lying to me. I’m tired of the bullying, I’m tired of the fear tactics, I’m going to vote Libertarian’” but when they get into the voting booth and “there’s not a libertarian on their ballot – that’s a wasted vote. Those are the wasted votes that I want to catch.”

The Libertarian Party convention continues through Memorial Day. The presidential and vice presidential nominations will take place on Sunday morning, May 29, following a nationally televised debate on C-SPAN Saturday evening, May 28.

Suggested Links

Gary Johnson presidential campaign racks up endorsements
Charlottesville write-in voters honor former candidates, South Park characters
Former Senator George Allen 'stunned' by Donald Trump's popularity in GOP
Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt speaks out for free trade in Charlottesville
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stumps for support in Charlottesville

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/libertarian-party-chair-nicholas-sarwark-predicts-epic-national-convention