From the Archives: JFK was 'cautious, conservative' says UVA political scientist Larry Sabato

Publisher's note: Today would have been the 100th birthday of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. 

This article is drawn from my Examiner.com archives. It was originally published on Examiner.com on October 15, 2013. 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.

JFK was 'cautious, conservative' says UVA political scientist Larry Sabato
October 15, 2013 1:37 AM MST

On the eve of a press conference announcing new scientific evidence related to John F. Kennedy's assassination, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia moderated a panel discussion about November 22, 1963, featuring three witnesses to the event and two authors of books on the topic.

The UVA Center for Politics hosted “The Kennedy Half Century” in the Newcomb Hall Ballroom on October 14, and Sabato hinted that the revelation the next morning at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., will be related to the acoustic evidence of the gunshots in Dealey Plaza.

The panelists were Wesley Buell Frazier, a co-worker of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Texas Book Depository; Sid Davis, a journalist for Westinghouse Broadcasting at the time who rode in the presidential motorcade's press bus; James C. Bowles, then a communications supervisor for the Dallas Police Department and later sheriff of Dallas County; former Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley, author of Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA and publisher of the web site JFKFacts.org; and Henry Hurt, author of Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy.

'Life after death'

After the two-hour discussion, Sabato spoke with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about his new book, The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy, which is scheduled to be published on October 15.

The book, he said, “has been a five-year project,” which he undertook in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's murder.

Although people are quite interested in the assassination and its theories and counter-theories, Sabato emphasized that “two-thirds of the book is about President Kennedy's life, presidency, and then his legacy through nine successors.”

He defined “legacy” as “a kind of life after death. Kennedy's words and deeds were so powerful that his successors of both parties have used him to accomplish their own agendas, and some of them very cleverly.”

The best, he said, was Ronald Reagan, who “used Kennedy even better than Lyndon Johnson did. Johnson distorted the Kennedy legacy, certainly by the middle of his full term.”

Sabato said his aim in the book was “to focus more on President Kennedy's life than on his death” but he recognizes that “you can't understand the legacy until you understand the assassination because it created so much of the Kennedy myth.”

Lincoln's legacy

By way of illustration, he recounted an anecdote he discovered that “stunned” him when he came across it.

One day, Kennedy had invited a Lincoln scholar to the White House to give a lecture. He asked the historian, after the speech, whether Lincoln would be so highly regarded had he not been assassinated.

“The historian immediately answered, 'of course not' because he would have had to deal with the nitty-gritty of Reconstruction, he wouldn't have had the martyrdom conferred by assassination, and several other reasons,” Sabato explained, reporting that “Kennedy said, 'Exactly what I thought' and apparently made a comment to Jackie later on, 'well, if I'm going to die, this would be a good time.' That was shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis.”

The same principle that affected Lincoln's legacy “applies to Kennedy,” said Sabato.

'So many women'

“Had he actually faced the challenges of the sixties, had he lived through two full terms, for one thing, his marital infidelity could have come out. There were so many women, it's amazing that it didn't come out during his short presidency. All kinds of things could have happened.”

By Sabato's estimation, Kennedy would not “be nearly as highly regarded,” in part because “presidencies tend to deteriorate in the last two or three years of an eight-year term.” Kennedy, he said, “never had to face that and he died at a peak moment of American power, economically and militarily.”

Kennedy also would not have achieved as much of the domestic agenda that was completed by Lyndon Johnson, he said.

Although Kennedy would have beaten Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election, Sabato surmised it would have been by a narrower margin than Johnson's eventual victory – “55-45 instead of 61-38.”

The difference, he pointed out, was that “Kennedy was much more cautious than Johnson by nature. He would have stopped at the Civil Rights Act. I don't think he really would have pushed for the Voting Rights Act or the Open Housing Act unless he were forced to” do so.

'Budget hawk'

As Sabato did research for his book, including interviews with people who worked in Kennedy's administration, what struck him was “just how cautious he was. He was fiscally cautious. The only reason he was worried about his across-the-board tax cut was because it would increase the deficit. He was a budget hawk in a lot of ways.”

On foreign policy, too, he was “a hawk.”

That was why Reagan cited Kennedy so often, Sabato said: “Because he could adapt that rhetoric to his fight against the Evil Empire.”

He recalled that JFK had criticized the Eisenhower administration for a “missile gap” between the United States and the Soviet Union that turned out to be non-existent, “which he later admitted after the election. He was the hawk” in comparison to 1960 rival Richard Nixon.

John F. Kennedy, Sabato concluded, “was a very different kind of Democrat. People have forgotten it. They've mixed him up with Bobby in the later years and then Teddy's career. Jack Kennedy was the moderate, or moderate-conservative, in the family.”

In the same interview, Larry Sabato commented on the current gubernatorial race in Virginia and candidates Ken Cuccinelli (R), Terry McAuliffe (D), and Libertarian Robert Sarvis.

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

Virginia's 'Sprawling' Eighth District?

Get well wishes are due Delegate Patrick Hope (D-Arlington), who injured himself -- breaking a rib and fracturing other bones -- while campaigning for the Democratic party's congressional nomination in Virginia's Eighth District.

Or should I say Virginia's "sprawling" Eighth District, as that is the unlikely adjective used by the Washington Post's Patricia Sullivan in a squib appearing in Monday's print edition.

Sullivan writes:

Hope has been trying to visit every precinct in the sprawling district, which covers Alexandria, Falls Church, Arlington County and part of Fairfax County. He will have to abandon that effort, Tribbett said, and will now have to wear a rib belt, take painkillers and rest. Hope is one of seven Democrats vying to win the June 10 primary in a bid to succeed U.S. Rep. James P. Moran (D).

"Sprawling" is an odd word to use to describe this congressional district, which is geographically the smallest and arguably the most compact of Virginia's eleven districts. "Sprawling" more accurately describes the Fifth District, represented by Robert Hurt (R-Chatham). The Fifth stretches from the North Carolina border to the outer Northern Virginia suburbs of Fauquier County. It is often noted that the Fifth District is about the size of New Jersey.

As to the Eighth? It's no wonder that Delegate Hope has been doing door-to-door retail campaigning. He's running in just about the only congressional district in Virginia where that makes sense to do.

It's no wonder that Sullivan (or her editors) has omitted the word "sprawling" from a longer version of the story on the Post's web site.

Will Fifth District Democrats refuse to challenge Robert Hurt in 2014?

Robert Hurt in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda

It appears there is a good chance that Fifth District U.S. Representative Robert Hurt will not face a Democratic challenger in the 2014 general election.

About two months ago, Bearing Drift broke the news that Ben Hudson of Fluvanna County, a retired U.S. Army officer, was seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Hurt. Hudson had run for the same office in 2012 as a write-in candidate, getting 388 scattered votes.

Subsequently, another candidate emerged. Last month, the Daily Progress reported that television and film actor Lawrence Gaughan of Albemarle County had thrown his hat in the ring.

Both candidates submitted their candidacy papers properly by the April 1st filing deadline. They will both be on the ballot at a convention of Fifth District Democrats to be held at Fluvanna County High School on Saturday, May 31.

A funny thing happened on the way to the nomination, however.

Fifth District Democratic leaders are unimpressed, and in some cases displeased, by the choices they have before them.

Hudson, for instance, despite the tepid results of his write-in candidacy in 2012, had actively opposed Democratic nominee John Douglass. One local Democratic activist told me that he was puzzled over the fact that Hudson had expressed views at odds with Democratic policy positions on about five key issues, positions that he has now reversed without explanation.

For his part, Gaughan -- who has lived outside the district for about five years, until recently -- tried to run against incumbent Virgil Goode and challenger and future congressman Tom Perriello in 2008 as a candidate for the Green Party, but the party's central committee refused to nominate him.

Neither Gaughan nor Hudson has reported any campaign receipts or expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. (During the reporting period ending March 31, Congressman Hurt's campaign received $643,625 in contributions with $378,679 cash on hand and no debts.)

It appears Fifth District Democrats are looking for a way to avoid fielding a weak candidate against Hurt, in the belief that no candidate is better than one who may bring disrepute upon the party.

In fact, "no candidate" is one of the choices that will be on the ballot at the May 31 convention in Fluvanna.

During the delegate selection process, which will take place in the form of "assembled caucuses" in each of the district's cities and counties, according to the convention call,

After caucus participants have been certified as eligible to participate, all participants will be asked to assemble into caucuses, with one caucus for each filed Congressional candidate, a “No Candidate” caucus, and an “uncommitted” caucus.

and this:

A delegate candidate or alternate candidate may indicate a preference for a filed Congressional candidate on his or her filing form, or he or she may file as a “No Candidate” delegate or alternate or as an “Uncommitted” delegate or alternate. If a delegate or alternate candidate fails to indicate a preference on the filing form, the committee shall list such persons as “uncommitted”.

Most pertinent, the convention call exercises an option offered in Section 12.5 of the Democratic Party Plan implemented in September 2013 -- essentially "none of the above" as an alternative to selecting a candidate:

The Temporary Rules Committee shall prepare the pre-printed ballot, which shall be on white paper and which shall contain the names of all filed candidates for Congress as well as the option of selecting "No Candidate".

While Fifth District Democratic party leaders cannot prudently advocate in the open for the "no candidate" option, they are hoping that its prominent inclusion will nudge delegates in that direction. Like their counterparts in the Seventh Congressional District, who are running nobody against House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, they are calculating that having no candidate to run against an incumbent Republican is better for Fifth District Democrats in the long run than having a candidate who will embarrass the party.

The question that remains is this: Will the Libertarian Party or the Independent Green or Green parties take advantage of this potential vacuum to run a challenge against Hurt, who is seeking his third term? Stay tuned -- there may be more news to come.

This article has been cross-posted from Bearing Drift.

@rick_sincere | facebook.com/ricksincere

Does political affiliation affect our views of product and service brands?

How does political affiliation affect our perceptions of various brand-name products and services? Does ideology change the way we view brands? Or does it make no difference at all?

This is one of the questions explored by the market research firm YouGov in its annual Brand Index for 2013, which surveys consumers about their attitudes toward a wide range of brand names from Aflac and Amazon.com to V8 and Victoria's Secret.

Explaining the overall rankings, Lucia Moses wrote in Adweek:

Buoyed by strong sales of its e-readers and expansion of its free-shipping service, Amazon topped the list of best-perceived brands of 2013, as measured by YouGov's BrandIndex. Rounding out the top 5 were Ford, Subway, History Channel and Lowe's. Last year also was a good one for financial institutions, which began to earn consumers' forgiveness for their role in the economic meltdown: Four of the five best-improved brands in 2013 were banks.

In addition to its overall rankings, YouGov provides a breakdown of results by industry (e.g., airlines, hotels, and insurance) and by several demographic groups (LGBT, parents, Millennials, minorities).

YouGov explains its methodology like this:

These brands were rated using YouGov BrandIndex’s Buzz score which asks respondents, "If you've heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative?"

The Buzz Rankings chart shows the brands with the highest average Buzz scores between January and December 2013. Scores are representative of this segment.

All Buzz scores listed have been rounded to a single decimal place, however, we have used additional precision to assign ranks.

In answering that primary question, for instance, the top brand for LGBT survey respondents was YouTube -- perhaps unduly weighted by followers of Tyler Oakley and  Davey Wavey.  For both African-Americans and Hispanic respondents, the top brand was Walgreen's. Parents' top brand was the same as the country as a whole, Amazon.com, while for Millennials the top choice was Google.

YouGov's Brand Index divides Americans up into three political affiliation categories: Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

Intriguingly, the three groups only have one brand in common among their top five rankings: Subway, which was the 2012 overall winner in consumer perceptions.

Here are the top five for each of the three political categories:

Source:  BrandIndex.com

It's noteworthy that the Republicans' scoring of Fox News at 42.1 blows away any competitors in any categories. (Top-ranked Amazon.com had an overall score of 30.6.)  At the same time, Fox News doesn't even show up in the top five of the "networks" category, where the History Channel tops out the category at 26.4. (Neither CNN nor MSNBC shows up in the national top five, for what it's worth.)  Republicans and independents also like the History Channel, at 31.9 and 27.8, respectively, although that network is not included in the Democrats' top five.

Republicans also like Chick-Fil-A, giving it a score of 31.8 and a rank of 5.  The same quick service restaurant (QSR) is ranked fifth overall in that category, but with a nationwide score of only 11.9,

Democrats and independents both like Amazon.com, ranking it first, but the online retailer does not turn up in the Republicans' top five.

Similarly, Republicans and independents like Ford, both ranking it second, but the car manufacturer fails to show up in the Democrats' top five.

There is no separate breakdown for Libertarians' top brands.  Perhaps the sample size was too small.  It would be interesting to learn whether libertarian views of providers of products and services differs from those of conservatives and liberals.

How did Charlottesville untie its June 11 primary election?

(This article appeared originally on Virginia Politics on Demand on June 17, 2013.)

While last [June]'s primary elections were ho-hum throughout most of the Commonwealth of Virginia -- only 144,435 voters cast ballots in the Democratic contest for lieutenant governor, or 2.6 percent of possible registered voters -- the situation was different in Charlottesville, which had the most crowded ballot among Virginia's 134 counties and cities.

While a handful of localities had primary contests for the House of Delegates, Charlottesville was the only city with several local offices on the ballot. In addition to the top-of-the-ticket choices for lieutenant governor and attorney general, Charlottesville's Democratic voters also chose among candidates for commonwealth's attorney, commissioner of the revenue, and city council. (There were no Republican candidates on the ballot. The local GOP nominated two candidates for City Council, Mike Farruggio and Buddy Weber, in a late-April mass meeting.)

Charlottesville City Council candidate Wes Bellamy speaks to news media after his defeat

 Incumbent Commonwealth's Attorney Dave Chapman beat former Commonwealth's Attorney Steve Deaton in a landslide. (Chapman was first elected in 1993, when he defeated Deaton narrowly in a Democratic caucus. He has never faced a general-election opponent.)

Newcomer Todd Divers more narrowly defeated fellow newcomer Jonathan Stevens for the party nod for Commissioner of the Revenue. (They were both seeking to succeed retiring Lee Richards, another incumbent Democrat who never had a general election opponent.)

Chapman will again be unopposed in November but Divers will have two independent candidates running against him, Taneia Dowell and John Gunter.

The real fireworks came in the City Council race, which was not decided until Friday afternoon because of an exact tie between two candidates on election night.

There were five candidates seeking two nominations by the Democratic party. One was incumbent Kristin Szakos, who took first place handily.

When the results for Charlottesville's nine physical precincts were tabulated, it looked like the second-place finisher would be Bob Fenwick, who had 1,025 votes while third place was held by Wes Bellamy, with 1,006 votes.

City Council candidate Bob Fenwick speaks to news media after his narrow win was announced

All that was left to tally were the 201 ballots cast in the Central Absentee Precinct. Of those, 178 voters had cast their ballots in person on the eSlate electronic system and 24 paper ballots had been returned by mail. (One of those paper ballots was disqualified, so only 23 were counted.)

As the memory card with the machine totals was inserted into the tally computer, we knew the race would be close between Fenwick, who had twice before run as an independent candidate for City Council, and Bellamy, a first-time candidate. Little did we know how close it would be.

After the electronic absentee votes were added to the total, the count was Fenwick, 1,081, and Bellamy, 1,080. If nothing else, we knew a recount was a distinct possibility.

All that was left were the hand-counted paper absentee ballots. I watched over the shoulder of one of the election officials as she read the numbers off the statement of results so they could be added to the spreadsheet of all the other votes. Reading ahead, I exclaimed aloud, "Oh my god! There's going to be a tie."

Indeed, Fenwick received another 7 votes and Bellamy another 8 votes, so that they were tied: 1,088 to 1,088. What would happen next?

Well, there were still provisional ballots to be counted. There were five from Walker Precinct that we were fairly sure would qualify because they had been cast when there was a malfunction of the electronic pollbook early in the morning of election day. There were three others that we knew about, plus one or two "provisional ID" ballots that were issued because the voter failed to bring an acceptable identification document to the polls pursuant to the new voter ID law that took effect in 2012.

We learned at the canvass the next day that there were a total of 12 provisional ballots.

In the meantime, we were exploring the possibilities for what would happen if the election turned out to be an exact tie. It turns out Virginia election law is quite clear about this, which comes as a surprise because so much else about the code is rather muddy.
§ 24.2-674 says:

If two or more persons have an equal number of votes for any county, city, town, or district office, and a higher number than any other person, the electoral board shall proceed publicly to determine by lot which of the candidates shall be declared elected.

The term "by lot" is not specifically defined, but it is generally meant to be any game of chance, usually a coin toss but the category also includes drawing straws, a roll of dice, a hand of poker or blackjack, or even rock-paper-scissors.

When the canvass met on Wednesday morning, we had to move from our usual location in a small conference room in the voter registration office to a much larger room in the basement of City Hall. Observers from the Democratic party -- including local chair Jim Nix -- and both the Fenwick and Bellamy campaigns were there. The local news media were there in force: both TV stations, three local newspapers, and at least one radio station sent reporters and photographers.

They all had to sit through the tedium of the canvass -- which I described to Ed Sykes of NBC29 as akin to "watching paint dry" -- as we checked the paperwork from all the precincts. In the process, we found two discrepancies that had not been recorded on election night that had not affected the outcome of any race. It was not until 11:00 a.m. that we opened the main event, the provisional vote precinct. That is what everyone -- candidates, party officials, and journalists -- was waiting for.

In the event, we found seven regular provisional ballots and disqualified one of them because the voter was registered in Albemarle County. Six of them were accepted as valid and we counted the votes. Bob Fenwick picked up three more votes and Wes Bellamy received none. The count now stood at Fenwick, 1,091; Bellamy, 1,088.

At that point, it became necessary to discuss what we would do with the remaining four provisional ballots, which had been cast because the voters, whose names were properly on the pollbook, had shown up at their precincts on Tuesday without appropriate identification.

The law says that those voters have until noon on the Friday following the election to present their IDs to the electoral board. They can do so in person, by fax, by U.S. Postal Service, or by commercial delivery service but not by having it delivered by a third person (such as a family member.)

Wanting to speed up the process as much as possible, the Electoral Board readily agreed to the suggestion that the four voters be contacted by telephone or email to remind them that they had the opportunity to bring their IDs to the office.

Later in the day, a local talk-radio host complained that this was "coddling" the voters and that making those telephone calls might even be illegal, and wondered what the State Board of Elections would have to say about the Electoral Board's action.

The propriety of the Electoral Board's directing the general registrar to make these phone calls is unquestionable. There is a section of the administrative code of Virginia, 1VAC20-60-60, which states plainly:

The electoral board or general registrar may attempt to contact an individual who has voted a provisional ballot when required by § 24.2-643 of the Code of Virginia and remind the individual that he is permitted to provide a copy of a form of identification as specified in subsection B of § 24.2-643 of the Code of Virginia to arrive no later than noon on the Friday after election day. However, there shall be no requirement that the electoral board or general registrar contact such individual.

The statutory authority for this provision is found in § 24.2-103 of the Code of Virginia.

That said, it should be pointed out that this is all new territory for election officials. The voter ID law took effect on July 1, 2012. (A new one will supersede it on January 1, 2014.) There was never a need prior to the November 2012 election to even consider telephoning voters about their missing IDs. The form each voter fills out on the envelope containing a provisional ballot, however, includes a space for a telephone number, so even without the clear guidance set out in the administrative code, the implication by the design of the form is that the State Board of Elections intended that the phone number be available for use by Electoral Boards and registrars.

Even so, callers to that radio program were complaining as late as Monday afternoon about the "dubious" practice of the Electoral Board to request that phone calls be made to expedite the completion of the canvass and election process.

When the board reconvened on Friday afternoon at 1:30 p.m., the crowd of observers was slightly thinner than it had been on Wednesday, but there were still more people present than at a "normal" canvass. Three of the four voters had provided an ID, so their votes would be counted.

In the end, Bob Fenwick received two more votes while his nearly-equal opponent, Wes Bellamy, received none from the provisional precinct. Fenwick ended up the winner by five votes, 1,093 to 1,088, and Bellamy graciously conceded and said he would not seek a recount, which would be within his rights as a losing candidate when the difference between the two was less than 0.5 percent of the total. He explained that, having observed the Electoral Board's canvass, he trusted the accuracy of the results.

All in all, the 2013 Democratic primary election in Charlottesville brought a lot more tension and excitement than had ever been anticipated or wanted. (The election official's prayer: "Dear Lord, we don't care who wins, as long as it's by a big margin.") Still, having seen a precise tie on election night, observing the rare occasion of an election decided "by lot" would have been an unforgettable event, one that is unlikely to happen again in Charlottesville for a long, long time.

As for the rest of the Commonwealth, a tie is still a mathematical possibility. So watch out.

NOTE: Virginia Politics on Demand contributor Rick Sincere has served on the Electoral Board for the City of Charlottesville since March 2004.

Charlottesville City Council Candidates Appear at JATP Forum

Last Thursday evening, the four candidates seeking election to the Charlottesville City Council this year appeared together at a forum sponsored by the Jefferson Area Tea Party (JATP). The event was held in Lane Auditorium at the Albemarle County office building.

Incumbent Democrat Kristen Szakos, her running mate Bob Fenwick, and Republican challengers Mike Farruggio and Charles "Buddy" Weber all participated in a fast-paced, hour-long question-and-answer session moderated by JATP member Terry Cooper.

Here is video of the event, beginning with the four candidates' opening statements:

The centerpiece of the evening was the Q&A, which lasted about half an hour:

The forum ended with each candidate presenting a closing statement:

After the exchange of views ended, the candidates posed together for a friendly photograph.

Buddy Weber, Bob Fenwick, Mike Farruggio, and Kristen Szakos on September 26.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 
See my articles on Examiner.com! - See more at: http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/#sthash.GlcEe9Ke.dpuf

If It's Labor Day, It Must Be Buena Vista

Jamie Radtke and Tim Donner

Yesterday was Labor Day, and that means the launch of the political season in Virginia at the annual Buena Vista LaborFest, which features an old-fashion community parade and stump speeches by political leaders and candidates.  Like the Wakefield Shad Planking each spring, the Buena Vista event began as a Democrats-only political gathering but has become bipartisan (even multipartisan) in recent years.

I captured most of the speeches on video (see below) but, first, to give you a flavor of the day, here are a couple of scenes from the parade as recorded by Steven Latimer.

The first is the lead-off musical group, a pipe band from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) preceded by a Boy Scout honor guard bearing the colors and the second is the marching band from the local Buena Vista local secondary school, Parry McLuer High School.  ("Parry McLuer" is also the namesake of the local middle school.  Is that odd?)

I actually missed the parade, even though I was there. Just before the parade began, I realized I had lost my cellphone. And I mean really lost it, not just misplaced it. One minute I had it -- I checked into Foursquare upon arriving at Glen Maury Park -- and a few minutes later, it was gone. So if anyone in Buena Vista found a Samsung Galaxy S along the parade route on Monday, please send me an email. (I had the phone remotely disabled by Sprint and arranged for a replacement to be sent to me, but it looks like I'm stuck in the 1980s for the next couple of days.)

After retracing my steps three or four times, I gave up and headed to the pavilion to interview some politicians and watch the speeches. Over the next couple of days, look on Examiner.com for my interviews with Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Delegate Ben Cline, U.S. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke, and Sixth District GOP congressional candidate Karen Kwiatkowski.

I videotaped speeches by all those people plus U.S. Senate candidate Tim Donner, State Senator Creigh Deeds (D-SD25), and Deeds' challenger TJ Aldous.

Bob Goodlatte:

Creigh Deeds:

(Shaun Kenney points out over at Bearing Drift that at the one minute mark, Deeds implies that he may be thinking about running for governor again in 2013.)

TJ Aldous:

Ben Cline:

Jamie Radtke:

Tim Donner:

Karen Kwiatkowski:

You can also see previous reports from Buena Vista's Labor Day festivities, from 2008 and 2009.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Interviews with U.S. Senate Candidates

George Allen and Tim Kaine in Crozet on July 2

Almost a year remains before Virginia Republican voters will choose their U.S. Senate candidate in a statewide primary.  (Traditionally, Virginia has primary elections on the second Tuesday in June.  This year, because of post-census redistricting, primary elections for state and local offices will be on August 23.)  Former Governor and Senator George F. Allen is widely seen as the favorite to win the GOP nomination, although he has several rivals who are contesting the 2012 primary.

It is fairly certain that former Governor Tim Kaine will be the Democratic nominee, although there remains a possibility that Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA3) will enter the race.  Scott had previously said that he would reveal his intentions by July 1, but on that day, he said he was delaying his decision about whether to run.

Since April, I have had several opportunities to interview the various candidates for the U.S. Senate from Virginia.  They are seeking the seat being vacated by Senator Jim Webb (D), who chose to retire after one term.

Among the Republicans, I have not yet been able to interview Northern Virginia businessman Tim Donner or Bishop E. W. Jackson.  At least one of those lacunae will be filled soon, however, because I am scheduled to meet with Mr. Donner in Charlottesville on July 19, and I may also have an opportunity to talk to him in Richmond this coming week.

Last weekend in Crozet, I was able to talk to both former Senator George Allen and former Governor Tim Kaine.  The two rivals were there to march in the annual Independence Day parade sponsored by the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department.  In Allen's case, he didn't so much march in the parade as ride in it -- he was on horseback throughout the route.

In remarks to the crowd at Claudius Crozet Park -- which, I might note, is a private park, not a government-owned park, something I find admirable -- both candidates acknowledged that they are "competitors and friends."  It was clear from their interaction that Allen and Kaine genuinely like each other, even if they disagree on policy issues and are likely to be engaged in a mudslinging, highly-competitive Senate race next year, one that is widely acknowledged by political analysts to be the most closely-contested campaign in the country and consequently one of the most expensive, too.

Before speaking, Allen and Kaine led the revelers in patriotic songs.  (Kaine's voice, especially, is clearly heard over the PA system in the video below.)  They sang one verse each of "America (My Country 'Tis of Thee)," "America the Beautiful," and "The Star Spangled Banner."  The songs are introduced by WCHV radio host Joe Thomas, who acted as emcee.

In a flurry of restraint atypical of political candidates, Allen and Kaine -- introduced alphabetically -- limited their remarks to about two minutes each, focusing on the values celebrated by Americans during the Fourth of July holiday weekend. (Video follows.)

I spoke to Kaine just before the program began. We chatted briefly about our shared admiration of composer-lyricist Stephen Sondheim. (Both of us were in the audience about two years ago in Richmond, when Sondheim was interviewed by former New York Times drama critic Frank Rich.) Then I asked him about some policy issues, posing the question I try to ask every candidate: How will you earn the votes of libertarian voters? His response, like all of these interviews, was first published on Examiner.com.

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

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.”

For his part, George Allen had answered my libertarian voters question at Shad Planking in April (see below), so I asked him a different set of questions in Crozet.

From "In Crozet for Independence Day weekend, George Allen warns of ‘perpetual debt'":

Replying to a question from the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the pending debt-ceiling vote in Congress, Allen offered his assessment of the situation.

“What I’ve been advocating for many years,” he said, is “that is there needs to be a balanced budget requirement in the federal Constitution, [the] same as we have here in Virginia. I think the President should have line-item veto authority and there should be taxpayer protection.”

A balanced budget amendment “narrowly failed back in the 1990s by one vote,” he explained.

“Can you think of how much better our country could be if that had passed back then?” he asked.

“If I were in the U.S. Senate, I’d be advocating for spending cuts, for curtailing the amount of spending, and putting in real reforms to have ironclad reductions in reforming the way that Washington does business,” Allen said.

My other interviews with Senate candidates took place at the 63rd annual Shad Planking in Wakefield, long seen as the start of the political season in Virginia. In Wakefield, I was able to interview Republican candidates David McCormick, Jamie Radtke, and George Allen, as well as potential Democratic Senate candidate Bobby Scott and current U.S. Senator Mark Warner.

From "Virginia GOP Senate candidate David McCormick touts his business experience":

Asked how he would appeal to libertarian voters, McCormick replied in general terms.

“I’m a very good case for a libertarian or an independent or a conservative,” he said. “They’ll salute the fact that for 29 years I’ve worked with [the] middle class and working class of America. I have such strong independent roots, even though I’m a strong Republican, very conservative on fiscal policy.”

He pointed out that he has “every policy, every solution on my web site” and suggested that “libertarians would love and support my candidacy.”

First-time candidate Jamie Radtke developed a statewide reputation as a leader of the Virginia Tea Party movement. She also answered my question about libertarian voters.

From "Va. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke hopes her message resonates with libertarians":

“Our message is right in line with the libertarian vote,” Radtke said, especially “as far as the spending and the debt and getting the fiscal house in order. The PATRIOT Act is another one that really irritates the libertarian people. Infringing on civil rights is an issue with me, as well. All those things are important.”

She said that when talking about the budget, “you’ve got to look at entitlements” and, from a libertarian point of view, entitlements “should be consumer-driven. People should have skin in the game.”

Things like that, Radtke explained, “resonate with people in the Libertarian Party.”

Even defense spending should be on the table, she said.

“The priority, the absolute priority, 100 percent should be our military and our veterans,” she said, “but the size of the Defense budget is so astronomical that even the Department of Defense is talking about places where there can be savings” without adversely impacting current troops or veterans.

“All of those things,” she concluded, “are things that we have in common” with libertarian voters.

Allen also answered the same question.

From "At his 17th Shad Planking, George Allen lays claim to a ‘libertarian streak’":

Asked how he plans to earn the votes of libertarian-minded Virginians as he seeks the GOP Senate nomination, Allen called himself a “commonsense, Jeffersonian conservative” with “a good libertarian streak in me.”

“I trust free people and free enterprise,” Allen said, “and so long as someone’s not harming someone else, leave them free.”

He added: “I don’t like limits and restrictions. That’s borne out by my views on requiring a balanced budget in the Constitution” and a line-item veto to restrain the federal government.

“I like lower taxes,” Allen said, noting he has “always been one for lower taxes on business owners and individuals and families.”

While his colleague Jim Webb was not present, Virginia's junior senator, Mark Warner, was at Shad Planking this year. Warner talked about the budget and answered my question about libertarian voters.

From "At Shad Planking, Virginia Senator Mark Warner says ‘budget situation is dire’":

Warner also addressed a political question: How can Democratic candidates earn the votes of libertarian-minded voters?

“That’s a challenge,” he conceded, though “it depends on, in a certain way, how ‘libertarian’?”

That is, he continued, “if you believe that there is no role for government in virtually anything, it may be a struggle.”

Warner noted, however, “on the other hand, I think Democrats generally believe on social issues there should be less government involvement. Oftentimes Republicans believe in more government involvement on the social issues and less on the government side. I think there is a balance there.”

Pausing briefly, Warner then suggested an approach that voters could take in choosing which candidates to support.

“I actually think,” he said, “whether a libertarian or anyone else, my advice to people is try to find candidates who can (1) actually read a balance sheet and (2) who are rational.”

Finally, Congressman Bobby Scott -- still a potential (and undeclared) candidate for the Democratic Party's U.S. Senate nomination -- answered a few questions.

From "Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott weighs in on budget’s ‘tough choices’":

Democratic candidates can attract the votes of libertarian-minded voters, Scott said, “if we stand up for the principles that we usually stand up for, that is, investments in our future, education, scientific research, making sure young people can go to college, mak[ing] sure the elderly are cared for [and that] children get off on the right track so that they have opportunities.”

Scott pointed out that not only was the federal budget balanced during the Clinton administration, but the country was on track to pay off the national debt, a situation that has changed severely in the past decade.

“So what do we need to be doing to attract votes?” he asked.

Democrats must “do what we traditionally did,” Scott answered. “We’re fiscally responsible, we want to invest in education and the future of America, and, hopefully, people will respond to that message.”

As a point of information, excerpts of my interview with Senator Jim Webb at Piedmont Virginia Community College earlier this year can be seen at "Jim Webb Visits PVCC" on this blog.

UPDATE, July 20:  I conducted an interview with GOP candidate Tim Donner in Richmond on July 12.  This resulted in two articles for Examiner.com:  "Virginia GOP Senate candidate Tim Donner claims ‘deep’ libertarian roots," published on July 18, and "Va. GOP Senate candidate Tim Donner discusses the debt ceiling and tax reform," published on July 20.

In the first, Donner said that he had a long libertarian pedigree:

“My libertarian roots go pretty deep,” Donner said, “back to when my father was heavily involved in the founding of National Review magazine.”

Joseph Donner, he explained, was “a good friend of William F. Buckley and I grew up around William F. Buckley and his family. Buckley often called himself a libertarian, even though he’s known more as a conservative.” (The title of one of Buckley’s books is Happy Days Were Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist.)

“As the years go by,” Donner continued, “I’ve become more and more libertarian.”

In the second article, Donner discussed some policy issues, including the impending debt-ceiling vote in Congress (with a Damoclean deadline of August 2) and a comparison of the flat tax and the Fair Tax:

Donner also weighed the pros and cons of two popular proposals for federal tax reform, the Flat Tax (the centerpiece of Steve Forbes’ 1996 presidential campaign) and the Fair Tax (popularized by radio talk-show host Neal Boortz).

“The pros of a Flat Tax,” he explained, “are that it will simplify an overly complex tax system. It will broaden the tax base because more people will pay income tax. More people will therefore have ‘skin in the game,’ so to speak.”

These new taxpayers, he said, will “have a stake in the system and therefore be more interested and involved in what their government is doing -- and more informed and educated citizens is always a good thing.”

I expect to have more opportunities over the next year or so as these candidates hit the campaign trail and make public appearances as they hustle for votes and money.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Tom Perriello and Barack Obama

It's not news -- at least not anymore -- that President Barack Obama attracted a crowd of more than 7,000 people when he came to Charlottesville on Friday to speak at a rally on behalf of incumbent Congressman Tom Perriello (D-Ivy).

The event was carried live on local television stations, from the landing of Air Force One at CHO through following the motorcade down a deserted Route 29 through the speech itself to the lift off of the President's airplane barely two hours later.

The question remains, however, as to why the President came to Charlottesville in the first place.  The appearance was, it seems, the only one at which Mr. Obama offered his campaign support to an individual Member of the House of Representatives.  (In other campaign appearances around the country, the President spoke on behalf of candidates -- some incumbents, some not -- for the U.S. Senate and for governor, but not for House Members.)

Here's my interpretation of the events of these past days, which must have been pretty heady for local Democrats.  People who live in Washington, D.C., can be cynical about presidential motorcade sitings, but such things are rare in Central Virginia.  (In the past 100 years or so, there have been scattered visits by Franklin Roosevelt, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton [as president-elect], and George W. Bush.  Charlottesville is long past the days when three presidents called it home.)

So why did Obama come?  And why did Perriello accept his visit, considering that the Fifth Congressional District is far more conservative than Perriello himself is, or claims to be?

It might not be risky for Perriello to be seen (figuratively) bumping fists with Obama at Charlottesville's downtown pavilion, in a city where Democrats show a routine 4-to-1 advantage in election returns.  But down toward Farmville and Bedford and Danville, associating with the highly unpopular president days before the election is quite risky.  It might make Charlottesville and Albemarle voters more enthusiastic about their candidate -- who they were going to cast a ballot for, anyway -- but it might also incite fence-sitting or complacent conservative voters farther south.

So, my take on all this:  Regardless of whether Perriello wins or loses next Tuesday, the new Democratic establishment is setting him up to be a favored candidate for statewide office in 2013.

Face it, after the Republican sweep of 2009, the Democrats don't have much of a bench of eager potential candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, or attorney general.  Terry McAuliffe may be up for a repeat run for the Democratic nomination for the top spot, but few others seem to want to go through the (political and personal) pain that plagued Creigh Deeds last year.

Democratic powerbrokers see Tom Perriello as a rising star within their party, an opinion shared by many in the party's grass roots.  He voted for Obamacare, cap-and-trade, and the failed stimulus package but kept his distance on the administration's budget, banking "reform," and other controversial issues. He has a great resume:  two degrees from Yale, experience as a humanitarian in combat zones overseas, and at least two years as a Member of Congress.  He's proven himself to be a hard worker and indefatigable campaigner. (It helps that he's unmarried and childless.)

My prediction is that, win or lose on November 2, Tom Perriello will be a candidate for Virginia Attorney General in 2013.  I also predict that the Democratic Party will give him a clear path to the nomination.  (Sorry, Senator McEachin!  You had your chance.)

I can't wait to talk to Ken Cuccinelli to ask him what he thinks of his re-election opponent.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

 

Perriello's Perplexing 'Populist' Self-Identification

On more than one occasion, U.S. Representative Tom Perriello (D-VA5) has spoken of himself as a "populist."  He seems to think that is a good thing.

For example, in an article by Ray Reed for WSLS-TV in Roanoke, we find this:

Perriello said the Hurt campaign seeks to “falsely portray me as a liberal when I am a populist.”

Perriello told columnist E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post:

"First and foremost, I'm a populist."

In an article in The New Yorker, George Packer explains the origins of the term "populist" in American political discourse and applies it to Perriello:

Perriello is less a Progressive than a Populist. The Populists were agrarians, and when Perriello told an audience at a grant-giving ceremony in Martinsville, Virginia, that farm jobs could be the jobs of the future, he was sounding a very old chord in American discourse. In his language and sympathies, his frequent use of the word “elite,” his vilification of Wall Street bankers, Perriello is carrying the banner of the laid-off seamstress, the struggling truck-stop owner, the hard-pressed tobacco farmer. These were the constituents of the original Populists. They looked with anger upward rather than with sympathy downward. They didn’t come from the professional middle class, though some of their champions did, and they didn’t put their faith in the training and education of experts. If anything, expertise was suspect as a cover for the interests of the powerful. Hofstadter described the “dominant themes in Populist ideology” as “the idea of a golden age…the dualistic version of social struggles; the conspiracy theory of history; and the doctrine of the primacy of money.”

I was incredulous when I first heard Perriello use the word "populist" to describe himself. Did he not understand the history of the term? Did he not know who else in American politics is, or was, a "populist"?

For example, Huey "Kingfish" Long, the corrupt head of Louisiana's political machine, was proudly "populist." Social Security Online -- a U.S. government web site! -- describes Long as

A nominal Democrat, Huey Long was a radical populist, of a sort we are unfamiliar with in our day. As Governor, he sponsored many reforms that endeared him to the rural poor...

The Kingfish wanted the government to confiscate the wealth of the nation's rich and privileged. He called his program Share Our Wealth. It called upon the federal government to guarantee every family in the nation an annual income of $5,000, so they could have the necessities of life, including a home, a job, a radio and an automobile. He also proposed limiting private fortunes to $50 million, legacies to $5 million, and annual incomes to $1 million. Everyone over age 60 would receive an old-age pension. His slogan was "Every Man A King."

Alabama Governor George Wallace, the segregationist who ran for President in 1968 and 1972, was so much identified with populism that the subtitle of a made-for-TV biopic about him was "the rise & fall of an American populist." And journalist Stephan Lesher's book about him is titled George Wallace: American Populist.

The Encyclopedia of Alabama begins its entry on Wallace like this:

He was elected governor for an unprecedented four terms in 1962, 1970, 1974, and 1982, and was de facto governor during the administration of his first wife, Lurleen Burns Wallace, from 1967 to 1968. Wallace also launched four unsuccessful bids for the presidency on platforms that opposed the expansion of federal power and appealed to white populist sentiments. During each election cycle, he modified his racial views to suit the times. Despite his support for road construction, education, and industrial development, Wallace is widely known for his resistance to civil rights, limited economic vision, failure to reform the tax code, and total focus on campaigning, at the expense of running the state.

Then there's David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, racist, and anti-semite who ran for president on the Populist Party's ticket in 1988.

Perriello certainly has a lot in common with Pat Buchanan, the pundit and failed presidential candidate described by Alexander Cockburn as a "populist outsider" in the same category as Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown. Jonathan Alter called Buchanan a "Beltway populist" in a 1996 Newsweek cover story. Like Buchanan, Perriello opposes free trade with potential purchasers of American products overseas.

Whether these sordid associations are what Perriello seeks when he calls himself a "populist" is somewhat beside the point, because populism is, at its core, opposed to individual liberty and personal responsibility.

When I used to man libertarian booths at county fairs and gay pride celebrations, we used the World's Smallest Political Quiz and the Nolan Chart to explain how people really think about politics. The Nolan Chart turns the inadequate, one-dimensional left/right political spectrum into a two-dimensional grid that is better for identifying how people think.

Basically, the chart (using the quiz) measures how people view economic and personal liberty. People who score high on the economic liberty scale tend to be conservatives; people who score high on the personal liberty scale tend to be liberals.

People who score high on both scales tend to be libertarians.

People who score low on both scales, however, tend to be authoritarians or populists.

A commenter on an article called "Notes Toward a New Political Taxonomy" on The American Scene explained it similarly:

The Nolan chart is the simplest/most precise way to show this. It is a two dimensional chart, that thus has four corners.

The two dimensions are: Economic, Social.

Economic means the role of government in economic policy in taxes, spending on social programs, education, health care, etc. regulation.

Social means role of government in drugs, homosexuality, abortion, the draft, etc.

Those who favor social freedom but not economic are left/liberal

Those who favor economic freedom but not social are right/conservative

Those who favor all freedom, libertarian

Those who favor none, populist/authoritarian

Based on this taxonomy, a "populist" is someone who wants the government to intervene in people's economic decisions and also wants it to intervene in their social and personal decisions.

Put another way, if a "libertarian" is someone who wants to keep government "out of the bedroom and out of the boardroom," a "populist" is someone who wants to make sure government stays in the boardroom and stays in the bedroom.

Giving Tom Perriello the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he thinks "populist" is a synonym for "popular" or means simply that he wants to do things "for the people."

Even so, does he really want to be associated with the likes of Huey Long, George Wallace, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan? If not, why does he use the same word to describe himself when that word is applied so commonly to these figures from the dark side of American politics?

Either Perriello is ignorant of the nomenclature and ignorant of history or he's conscientiously linking himself to an anti-freedom political philosophy.

That's both odd and disturbing for a politician who thinks he has libertarian leanings.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 
See my articles on Examiner.com!