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: LP presidential hopeful Gary Johnson calls two-party debates a 'waste of time'

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 21, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

LP presidential hopeful Gary Johnson calls two-party debates a 'waste of time'

With the third and final Democrat-Republican presidential debate approaching, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee, said in an interview that such debates are “a waste of time,” also offering his thoughts about U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa. He also indicated that he may win a large percentage of votes in his native New Mexico.

Johnson, author of the new book, Seven Principles of Good Government, spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner during a recent campaign stop in Washington, D.C.

Although a social gathering at The Board Room on Connecticut Avenue was meant for Johnson to engage with his supporters and campaign volunteers, he spent the greater part of the evening answering journalists' questions on a wide range of policy issues.

Asked about the value to voters of the debates between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Johnson said they are “just a big waste of time” and that the two participants are like the Lewis Carroll characters “Tweedledee, Tweedledum.”

'State of war'

The former New Mexico governor offered this prediction: If “either one of them get elected, we're going to have a heightened police state. We're going to find ourselves in a continued state of war. Military interventions are not going to stop, and spending and debt [are] going to continue to be unsustainable. At some point,” he concluded, if Obama or Romney is elected, the economy “will collapse.”

In response to a question about radio and television advertising for his campaign, Johnson said he will soon be airing TV commercials “in areas we might actually win, or potentially taking second place” although “probably not” in Washington, D.C., despite that city's small number of Republican voters.

Johnson also predicted his vote totals will be relatively high in some Western states and one Midwestern swing state.

“I think there's opportunity in Nevada,” he said, noting that “something that really has gone unpublicized is in Ohio last week, I was polling at 11 percent.”

That is “probably an aberration,” Johnson conceded, “but nonetheless, all these polling numbers are going up. They're not going down.”

The first-time presidential candidate said he believes it is possible he could win more than 10 percent of the vote in New Mexico, where he served two terms as a Republican governor in a majority-Democrat state.

“I really believe that, I really do,” he said, “and we're not focusing anything on New Mexico. The notion is that we're trying to treat everything equally and see how that pans out but I would have to think that, [given] my experience in New Mexico, I'm really looked at favorably. I really am.”

Libya question

In the foreign policy debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, on October 22, the question of U.S. policy in Libya and reactions to the September 11 murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans will be in the forefront of the discussion, just as it was in the town hall debate at Hofstra University on October 16. Johnson has some strong views on what U.S. policy in that region should be.

“I would pull all of our diplomats out of our embassies” there, he said. “I would not set us up as being targets.”

In the “long term,” the United States and other countries should “take part in what I would hope would be mutual benefit but when I hear that” American diplomats in the region are supposed to be “protecting vital American interests, I just ask rhetorically, out loud, What are vital American interests? Are they propping up the new dictatorship that we deem better than the old dictatorship?”

In response to a question about whether American influence is better projected using soft power than military power, Johnson explained, “that's right. It's walk softly and carry a big stick. That's what [George W.] Bush said but none of that none of that was reality. None of it.”

Suggested Links

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson assesses Romney, Stein, and Goode
Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson on health care, marriage, and Colbert
Libertarian author Brian Doherty compares Ron Paul and Gary Johnson
Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode talks politics on Labor Day
Libertarian VP nominee Jim Gray reflects on electing judges, Gary Johnson

From the Archives: Former NM Governor Gary Johnson talks about shutdown, surveillance, and Sarvis

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 25, 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.

Former NM Governor Gary Johnson talks about shutdown, surveillance, and Sarvis

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson will be one of the primary speakers on Saturday, October 26, at a rally at the foot of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., to protest the expanding surveillance state.

Known as “Stop Watching Us,” the rally at the Capitol Reflecting Pool will also feature such speakers as Michigan Congressman Justin Amash, gay-rights advocate Dan Choi, NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, national security analyst and author Bruce Schneier, and social critic Naomi Wolf. A video in support of the rally features celebrities John Cusack, Phil Donahue, Daniel Ellsberg, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Oliver Stone, and Wil Wheaton.

Protesters are gathering from around the country, with buses carrying them from far-flung places like New York City, Philadelphia, and Charlottesville, Virginia.

'Outrageous'

Two nights before the rally, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner spoke to Gary Johnson (who was also the 2012 Libertarian nominee for U.S. President) at a fundraising event for his non-profit organization, Our America Initiative.

In the course of the interview, Johnson expressed his outrage at the growth of government surveillance of American citizens and violations of privacy and constitutional protections.

“It's outrageous,” Johnson said, “that 125 billion cell phone conversations have been recorded or are authorized” to be archived for future probes.

“When you find out that a federal judge has said that it's OK for the [National Security Agency] to gather information from 113 million Verizon users,” he complained, “to me that is not the Fourth Amendment, to me that is not due process.”

Instead, it is “some sort of blanket 'government-knows-best'” policy that leads to the government “search[ing] your personal archives” and doing whatever they like with it, without constraints.

“This has got to stop,” Johnson said. “This really has to stop.”

'Chill out'
On another topic of recent concern, the temporary shutdown of the federal government that may recur in the near future, the 2012 presidential candidate explained what he would have said to the nation under those circumstances, if he were president.

“Here is what would have been coming out of my mouth,” Johnson said:

“'Chill out, citizens of the United States. I'm the executive. We're going to pay the bills. There's revenue coming in. We're going to pay the interest on our debt. Social Security checks are going to go out. I'm going to prioritize what's important in government and get it the funding and we'll manage our way through this.'”

Johnson said that his personal philosophy – not being a social conservative while also being “arguably the most fiscally conservative governor” in U.S. history – helped him reach across the aisle and work with a Democratic legislature as a Republican governor.

“I'm going to argue that” a libertarian philosophy like that “is reflective of most Americans and in a state that's two to one Democrat, [like] New Mexico, that resonates” with voters, he said.

Advice to Robert Sarvis
He offered his own experience as advice to Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia this year.

If Sarvis is elected governor, Johnson said, he “can succeed on looking at issues first and politics last.”

That was “my promise running for governor of New Mexico, and I think I've fulfilled it,” Johnson said, emphasizing the slogan, “Politics last, issues first.”

In addition to speaking at Saturday afternoon's “Stop Watching Us” rally in Washington, Johnson and Sarvis will make a joint appearance that evening at the IOTA Club, 2832 Wilson Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m.

Suggested Links


Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson assesses Romney, Stein, and Goode
GOP lieutenant governor candidate E. W. Jackson 'certainly used marijuana'
Examiner.com exclusive: Gary Johnson reflects on his first visit to Jefferson's Monticello
Virginia LP governor candidate Robert Sarvis will push for liquor-law reform
LP presidential hopeful Gary Johnson calls two-party debates a 'waste of time'

From the Archives: Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson to speak in Charlottesville on May 3

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 25, 2010. 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.


Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson to speak in Charlottesville on May 3

Former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico will give a speech in Charlottesville on Monday, May 3, hosted by the Charlottesville Republican Committee, Albemarle County Republican Committee, and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia. Governor Johnson will speak at the Northside Library in Albemarle Square at 7:00 p.m.

A triathlete who has climbed Mount Everest, Gary Johnson was elected to two terms as New Mexico's governor after a successful career as an entrepreneur. He is currently honorary chairman of the OUR America Initiative.

CPAC Speech
When he spoke to an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February, Johnson laid out his vision of politics in 21st century America:

“Our politics have failed us in America,” Johnson said. “Our leaders on both sides of the aisle are making things worse for us every year, not better. And the proof is all around us. Take a look at our America today, take a look at the brink of economic collapse that our government has led us to, and tell me that we're busy living the dream. We're not. We're busy getting deeper into debt. We're busy losing the freedom that so many have given their lives to achieve.”

He continued:

“Thomas Jefferson said that it was our patriotic duty to stage a revolution every generation just to kick out the riff-raff. He was right. He understood politicians and politics perfectly. We do need a revolution in America in this generation, an armed rebellion. Let's arm ourselves with common sense. Let's stop spending money we don't have. Let's live within our means. This is our America. How can we justify borrowing money for our retirement and health care and hand the bill to future generations?”

Staying with that Jeffersonian theme, Johnson added:

“Our country is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let every Member of Congress and the President of the United States take an oath to take on these difficult spending issues that we face and vow that they're not going to be re-elected: understand that they won't be re-elected.”

Presidential Run?
The idea has been floated that Gary Johnson might run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, but currently he is not a candidate for any state or federal office.

According to his official biography:

“As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson was known for his common-sense business approach to governing. He eliminated New Mexico’s budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half and privatized half of the state prisons.

“Johnson also shifted state Medicaid to managed care (which led to better healthcare by creating a statewide healthcare network that previously did not exist and which saved money) and reduced state employees by over 1000, with no firings. During his term, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the state’s history.

“While in office, Governor Johnson vetoed 750 bills (which was more than all the combined vetoes of the other 49 Governors in the country at the time) and thousands of line item vetoed bills.”

Additional Information
For more information about Governor Johnson's May 3rd lecture in Charlottesville, check out the event page on Facebook. The event is free and open to the public.

From the Archives: Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode talks politics on Labor Day

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 3, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode talks politics on Labor Day

Former Virginia congressman Virgil Goode is running a populist campaign for President as the nominee of the Constitution Party, but first he has to face a hurdle in his home state, where the Republican Party is challenging the validity of the petitions Goode circulated to place his name on the ballot.

The Republican challenge will be formally presented to the State Board of Elections at the board’s regular meeting on the morning of September 4 in Richmond.

Goode spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner at the annual Buena Vista Labor Day parade and candidates forum, saying his campaign is preparing a response to the GOP’s attempt to get him off the ballot.

“We’re going to present a response to the State Board on [Tuesday], if they will accept it then,” Goode said.

‘Voters deserve a choice’
The Republican Party of Virginia, he explained, “is challenging the Libertarians and us. It’s really sad. They’re trying to stamp out persons who have differing views and giving the voters a choice. I think voters deserve to have a choice.”

Drawing an analogy, Goode pointed to “the squelching of Ron Paul at the Republican convention” as a similar tactic by the GOP establishment.

In Tampa, he said, Congressman Paul was faced with “changing the rules right when [he] got there after he had already met the rules. He should have had some role; he didn’t.”

Now, he said, “in Virginia they’re trying to get us off the ballot any way they can [but] I hope the State Board will see through what the Republican Party is doing.”

Goode affirmed that the State Board of Elections had found that his campaign did “have sufficient signatures statewide and in every district,” contrary to the assertions being made by Republican lawyers.

Differences with Greens and Libertarians
Unless the Republican challenges are successful, there will be three third-party presidential candidates on the ballot in Virginia: Goode, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

Goode said he parts company from the other two candidates.

“On social issues we differ significantly,” he said. “I’m pro-life and pro-traditional marriage and I don’t believe either of them are.”

On the other hand, he added, “I’m for balancing the budget now; I think Gary [Johnson] shares that with me.”

Restricting legal immigration
Goode pointed out that he is “the only candidate running for president who recognizes the need for jobs in America to go to American citizens first. I’m calling for a near-complete moratorium on green card admissions into the United States. Last year, for example, we had 1.2 million admitted green card holders. This takes jobs from U.S. citizens. A green card holder can get a job in about any state doing about anything. And those jobs should go to American citizens when unemployment is at 8.3 percent.”

In his speech at the Buena Vista LaborFest, Goode elaborated his stance on immigration, noting that he would maintain the ban on legal immigrants to the United States “until the unemployment rate is below 5 percent.”

Goode’s goals for his presidential campaign are modest and ideologically populist.

“We hope America eventually will wake up and say, ‘We don’t want either the Democrats or Republicans.’”

Both those parties, he explained, “are controlled by multibillionaire interests with the SuperPACs funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to both sides. We’re a grassroots [campaing] and 2012 may be the year that America says, ‘I’m tired of the big money controlling the Republicans and the big money controlling the Democrats [so] I’m going to vote for an ordinary, average citizen running a grassroots, shoe-leather campaign, Virgil Goode.’”

Western strategy
Although his career in politics in Virginia has spanned more than three decades, Goode expects to win more votes in other states.

“I think in some of the western states we’re going to do well. I think in Wyoming we’ll do well. We’ve got some support in Ohio, some support in Florida, so we’re going to do well in a number of states.”

He added that he is “hoping to be on the ballot in New York and get some votes there” and that he is “on the write-in ballot in Texas. I think we’ll get some votes in Texas and North Carolina” where he is also a write-in candidate.

Asked to reveal his preference in the U.S. Senate race in Virginia this year, where former Governors George Allen and Tim Kaine are facing each other, Goode demurred.

“I’ll be voting,” he smiled. “I like one candidate better than the other but my focus right now is on the presidential race and I’m going to be voting for Virgil Goode for president.”

Suggested Links

Libertarian author Brian Doherty compares Ron Paul and Gary Johnson
Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson on health care, marriage, and Colbert
Rasmussen Reports founder discusses opinion trends, future of polling methods
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans
Michael Barone comments on Virginia politics, campaigns, and elections

From the Archives: Gary Johnson reflects on his first visit to Jefferson's Monticello

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on May 5, 2010. 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.

Examiner.com exclusive: Gary Johnson reflects on his first visit to Jefferson's Monticello

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson visited Charlottesville on Monday, May 3, to give a speech sponsored by the two local Republican unit committees and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia.

Johnson, a two-term Republican who served from 1995 to 2003, is now honorary chairman of OUR America Initiative, a public-policy advocacy group. Prior to becoming governor, he was a successful entrepreneur who took a one-person handyman operation and turned it into a 1,000-employee contracting and construction company by the time he sold it.

The former governor took advantage of his time in Charlottesville, appearing by telephone on the Joe Thomas morning drive-time radio show on WCHV and on Rob Schilling’s mid-afternoon radio program on WINA-AM.

He also strolled along Charlottesville’s downtown mall, where he wrote a message about “freedom” and “liberty” on the First Amendment Monument near City Hall, and he made his first visit to Thomas Jefferson’s home at Monticello.

The Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked Governor Johnson to reflect on his tour of Monticello.

Jefferson the Architect
The word he repeated in his answer was “fascinating” in reaction to the many elements of Jefferson’s home.

“I found it fascinating,” Johnson said about Jefferson’s design, “and I found it fascinating to see the quirks, if you will, in how it was built and all the fascinating elements”: the wind-direction indicator above the front porch, for instance, and the two-faced clock that Jefferson built for his entryway, a clock that tells just the hours on the outside but minutes, hours, and days of the week on the inside.

“What I found most interesting,” Johnson said, was that Jefferson was a self-taught architect “and that he built this home and that he took 40 years to do that.”

“That’s my background,” he continued. “My background is building and just recently I took two and a half years of my own life to build the home that I’m now living in.”

Contrasting himself with Jefferson, the architect, Johnson added that he “was in the trades long enough to know that I wasn’t going to be a part of that architectural component other than just [giving] advice.”

Jefferson the Politician
Asked about his reflections on Jefferson the man, the politician, and the Founding Father, Johnson replied that he learned on the tour that “having given 50 years of his life in public service, he enjoyed his time here [at Monticello] more than any of that. Yet he did give of himself and I, just in my own small way, felt like I could relate to that also.”

From the Archives: At the 9/12 March on Washington: Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson aims 'to put a voice to the outrage'

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 14, 2010. 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.

At the 9/12 March on Washington: Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson aims 'to put a voice to the outrage'


Gary Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico and current chairman of the non-profit Our America Initiative, was the only 2012 presidential contender to speak at the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington last Sunday.

Because of his position as head of a tax-exempt group, Johnson demurs when asked if he’s planning to run for President. Nonetheless, a Facebook group called “Gary Johnson for President 2012” has 2,918 members and 47,900 Facebook members have clicked “like” on a page called “Gary Johnson – Our America" -- all potential supporters in a bid for the White House.

In the past few months, Johnson has visited 27 states and spoken before at least 100 groups. He has appeared on radio talk shows and TV talking heads programs.

Just prior to Sunday’s march, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner took Governor Johnson aside to ask him privately about pressing issues of the day and the mood of voters in 2010.

‘A voice to the outrage’
“When I started this out,” he said, “I was trying to put a voice to the outrage that people are feeling when it comes to spending being out of control and the fact that taxes are going up across the board, the fact that America is broke, that we’re bankrupt. What I’ve found is that, yes, this really is a concern. There’s an awareness today that’s never existed before.”

Despite the foul mood of the country, Johnson identified what he called an “optimistic side.”

He said that “there’s an opportunity here to right the financial ship in this country and return to what we’ve always been about, which is liberty and freedom and personal responsibility that goes along with that.”

Johnson called the Tea Party movement “terrific” and noted that at a South Carolina Tea Party rally he had attended, “they were handing out circulars [saying] ‘here are the ten things the Tea Partiers stand for,’ [and] all ten had to do with spending and taxes and real pocketbook issues. On that basis,” he concluded, “I think that’s reflective of what all America’s feeling right now.”

De-emphasize social issues
The former New Mexico governor said he agreed with the assessment of the current governors of Indiana and Mississippi (Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour, respectively), who have suggested that Republicans should de-emphasize divisive social issues and focus on economic matters.

“If Republicans don’t return to the religion of the checkbook, I don’t see Republicans hanging around,” Johnson said.

He explained that he sees “sentiment right now that anybody who’s in office belongs out of office. As a result of that sentiment, I see Republicans picking up seats, simply because they’re the minority.”

In the 2010 election, he said, “Republicans are going to gain in a big way simply on the basis [that] incumbents belong out of office. That’s the sentiment right now.”

Cause of our ills
It’s not the case, he said, that voters see “Republicans being the saviors, but” rather that the “status quo [is] the cause of all our ills.”

Anticipating the remarks he was going to make on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol, Johnson said he would “talk about my experience as governor of New Mexico and the fact that everything I did was a cost-benefit analysis. Everything that we look at today needs to be from a cost-benefit analysis.”

He said the question that must be asked is, “What are we spending and what are we getting?”

If action to “right this financial ship” is not taken immediately, Johnson said, “I think we could be on the verge of economic collapse.”

These issues, he said, “need to be addressed now. Now. Today.”

After the march on Washington, Governor Johnson was scheduled to travel to Cleveland, San Francisco, Texas, and New Hampshire. He conceded that he would not have a chance to be home in New Mexico for at least three weeks.

Update: Governor Gary Johnson will appear in Charlottesville on Friday, September 17. He will be speaking in Jefferson Hall on the West Range at the University of Virginia at the invitation of the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society. His speech begins promptly at 7:29 p.m.

From the Archives: Civil liberties lawyer John Whitehead recalls Beatles' social, political impact

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 13, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Civil liberties lawyer John Whitehead recalls Beatles' social, political impact

Sunday, February 9, will mark the 50th anniversary of the Beatles' first appearance on American television. That evening in 1964, the Fab Four – John, Paul, George, and Ringo – were guests on The Ed Sullivan Show. In the studio audience were hundreds of screaming teenagers but across the country, 73 million viewers tuned in, almost twice as many as had previously watched a single television broadcast.

Charlottesville civil liberties attorney John Whitehead reminisced on February 7 about that night and what followed that decade in an interview on WCHV-FM's “Inside Charlottesville.” On Friday afternoon's program, host Coy Barefoot asked him to recall the beginnings of Beatlemania and its subsequent impact on society.

Taken by surprise
Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, began by noting that, according to their photographer, when the Beatles landed in New York on February 7, 1964, “and they heard all this yelling and stuff, they thought the President had landed, or some dignitary. They didn't realize [until] they went down the ramp that all those 5,000 teenagers” who crowded the runway “were there for them. They were taken totally by surprise.”

They should not have been so surprised, however, because the Beatles' popularity had preceded them to America.

“They had the top five tunes in the Top 40” in February 1964, Whitehead explained. “No one's ever duplicated that, which is amazing. I think that seven out of the top 10 songs were Beatles songs when they landed in the country.”

So many people were indoors that Sunday to watch the band on Ed Sullivan, he said, the country experienced its lowest crime rate in something like ten years. George Harrison later quipped that “even the Kremlin was tuned in,” Whitehead recalled. “It was amazing.”

The Sixties begin
Reflecting on the Beatles' later impact on politics and society, he suggested that “the Sixties, in my opinion, started that night on The Ed Sullivan Show.”

That performance began “all that upheaval” that continued with the worldwide broadcast over the BBC of “All You Need Is Love” (with 400 million viewers) and culminated with “the summer of love” and Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967.

The Beatles, he said, “captivated the world with peace, harmony, and love, which was their great message.”

He added that John Lennon “took off on his own and started his worldwide campaign for peace, and anti-war.” In reaction to that, he said, “the FBI went after him, collected 400 pages” of intelligence on Lennon's activities “and tried to intimidate him and get him deported. Richard Nixon considered John Lennon his number one enemy at that time. It was really weird.”

Horrified parents
Asked by Barefoot where he was that night 50 years ago, Whitehead recalled that he “watched the show” and his “parents were horrified.”

Years later, he continued, shortly before his mother passed away, “I asked her, what was the worst thing that ever happened to America? She looked at me and said 'The Beatles.'”

His mother was not alone. He also remembered attending a conference in “1983 or 1984” when a prominent minister took the stage and said to the audience of 10,000, “I want to tell you what has really destroyed America: The Beatles.”

Whitehead looked around at the young people around him and they all had the same puzzled looks on their faces. The minister “never explained what he meant” but he was probably referring to “the youth rebellion” of the 1960s.

That rebellion, Whitehead went on, “was focused.” It “brought down a crooked president” and the protesters “stopped the Vietnam War.”

Youth in rebellion
He expressed his admiration for the youth rebellion of that era.

“I'd like to see all that again, folks. I've often said, if you've got a picket sign and you're out there active, I don't care what you believe. I may not like what you're saying, [but] I'll go to my death to defend it," Whitehead said. "I just like activism."

John Lennon, he pointed out, “epitomized” the spirit of youthful rebellion and was even vilified by some on the Left for his idealism.

When Lennon released the song “Revolution” (on The White Album) and said “if you want destruction, count me out,” Whitehead remembered, “The Village Voice actually criticized him for being too peaceful.” Lennon's response was along the lines of, “What do you want to do, kill people? Why would we destroy anyone if we want peace?”

It's that kind of idealism that Whitehead would “like to see all that again but I don't see a lot of it.”

Expressing some frustration, he added: “Here's the thing. A guy like Lennon, the other Beatles -- they took their fame and tried to advance an agenda, a very positive agenda, but I'm looking around for entertainers today like that. Justin Bieber? I don't know.”

John Whitehead, author of A Government of Wolves, has also published an essay, “50 Years After the Beatles: Isn’t It Time for Another Political & Cultural Revolution?,” on the Rutherford Institute's web site.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Charlottesville civil liberties lawyer assesses 2012-13 Supreme Court term
Rutherford Institute asks local lawmakers to speak out against drones
Charlottesville lawyers compile rules against ‘politically correct’ Xmas
Rutherford Institute endorses Charlottesville marijuana resolution
Attorney General Cuccinelli calls Charlottesville ABC sting operation 'overkill'

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/civil-liberties-lawyer-john-whitehead-recalls-beatles-social-political-impact

From the Archives: Federal court strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban but stays order

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 13, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Federal court strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban but stays order

In a case that involves a confusing mix of plaintiffs, defendants, and ex-defendants who have taken the side of the plaintiffs, a federal judge late on the eve of Valentine's Day struck down both Virginia's statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage and a state constitutional amendment that does the same

“The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry,” wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in a 41-page opinion. “Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.”

In the case of Bostic v. Rainey, Wright Allen (nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2011) granted the plaintiffs request for summary judgment and found that “Va. Const. Art. I, § 15-A, Va. Code §§ 20-45.2, 20-45.3, and any other Virginia law that bars same-sex marriage or prohibits Virginia's recognition of lawful same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional. These laws deny Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

At the same time, Wright Allen stayed her order pending review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond.

In strong language, Wright Allen stated that the Commonwealth of Virginia's defense of its same-sex marriage bans failed to meet even the very low legal hurdle of rational-basis analysis

“Virginia's Marriage Laws fail to display a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose,” she wrote, “and so must be viewed as constitutionally infirm under even the least onerous level of scrutiny. Accordingly, this Court need not address Plaintiffs' compelling arguments that the Laws should be subjected to heightened scrutiny."

If there are any “legitimate purposes” behind the same-sex marriage bans, she argued, they “share no rational link with Virginia Marriage Laws being challenged. The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life. These results occur without furthering any legitimate state purpose.”

Wright Allen's ruling follows similar federal court decisions in Utah and Oklahoma (which are cited in her opinion) and, most recently, Kentucky.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, who made national headlines in January when he refused to defend the marriage laws and instead presented a brief on behalf of the gay couples seeking to overturn the ban, issued a short statement in advance of holding a press conference on Friday morning:

In a press release, Herring said that the district court's decision "is a victory for the Constitution and for treating everyone equally under the law. It is the latest step in a journey towards equality for all Virginians, no matter who they are or whom they love.”

Acknowledging the court's stay of its order, Herring noted that the legal process “will continue to play out in the months to come, but this decision shows that Virginia, like America, is coming to a better place in recognizing that every Virginian deserves to be treated equally and fairly.”

Herring's news conference will take place at 11:45 a.m. on Friday, February 14, in the auditorium of the Pocahontas Building at 900 E. Main Street in Richmond.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring will challenge anti-gay marriage laws
Obama’s announcement prompts question, Is gay marriage a ‘new right’?
LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia
Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-court-strikes-down-virginia-same-sex-marriage-ban-but-stays-order

From the Archives: Charlottesville entrepreneur Paul Jones sells non-lethal self-defense products

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 18, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Charlottesville entrepreneur Paul Jones sells non-lethal self-defense products

Two decades ago, when Charlottesville business owner Paul Jones ran a shipping company near the University of Virginia, he heard from his part-time employees – mostly female students – that they had apprehensions about walking around town and across the UVA Grounds late at night.

After doing some research, Jones found a supplier of pepper spray and began to stock it in his store. Through word of mouth, pepper spray became a more popular product than any of the other items he sold in his store.

“I was selling thousands of pepper sprays,” he told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner in a recent interview. “I was the only outlet in Charlottesville at the time.”

Starting The Belvedere Company
Fast-forward to 2014, when Jones was looking for a new enterprise he could pursue in retirement.

“I was looking to start a company that would deal mostly on-line but the big struggle was finding a product that I really liked, that I really believed in, and could use [myself],” he explained.

He looked at and dismissed “pills and lotions and potions for weight loss and virility and those types of things,” when he remembered “how I used to sell pepper spray, lots of pepper spray.”

That was when he considered non-lethal self-defense products and started The Belvedere Company, an on-line retailer that sells not only pepper sprays but burgler alarms, whistles, surveillance equipment, safes for storing valuables, and other self-protection items.

“That's what I want to sell,” Jones said. “It helps people. It makes people safe. Since I believe in it, it's easier for me to sell.”

These are the same products he uses himself and gives to his own children and stepchildren for their own self-protection.

Easy to use
“I like everybody to be safe,” he explained. “I can make money helping people to be safe. To me, it was a no-brainer.”

The non-lethal self-protection products The Belvedere Company sells are easy to use, Jones noted. “You don't have to be physically strong or fast or nimble, but you have to be willing to use it and you have to be alert and aware of your surroundings all the time.”

Even though he hopes to make a profit selling self-defense products, Jones cautions that “the number one way to defend yourself is to avoid problems. Don't go into a dangerous situation.”

The best way to stay safe, he says, is not “to put yourself into a position that's like walking down a dark alley at night in a strange city. There's no sense doing it if you can avoid it.”

However, he adds, “if you have to be out alone – and you can be in a safe place and still be attacked – the big thing is you have to have your weapon with you. If it's at home, it's not going to help you.”

Alternative alarms
For those who are wary of using something like pepper spray, which might blow back after being used against an attacker, Jones offers alternatives like whistles and alarms on The Belvedere Company's web site.

“We've got 'screech alarms,'” he pointed out, which “emit high-decibel sounds that sometimes scare away an attacker and other times just draw attention to you, which an attacker doesn't want. He doesn't want attention drawn to him if he's assaulting someone.”

In addition to self-defense products, Jones also sells instruction manuals, such as The Facts About Defense Sprays and How to Use Them to Bring Criminals to Their Knees, which he calls “a long title for a short book.”

That book, Jones said, “will give you the self-confidence to use any of our self-defense products, whether you are going to use a pepper spray or not.”

The Belvedere Company, which Jones calls a “one-stop shop for personal security products,” sells to customers in the Charlottesville area, elsewhere in Virginia, and – with a few minor exceptions – in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Federal court strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban but stays order
Civil liberties lawyer John Whitehead recalls Beatles' social, political impact
'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia
Privileges, immunities, gun rights: Charlottesville lawyer Buddy Weber discusses the 14th Amendment
Podcaster Adam Kokesh talks about NSA spying, gay marriage, and Justin Bieber

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/charlottesville-entrepreneur-paul-jones-sells-non-lethal-self-defense-products

From the Archives: Attorney Bruce Fein discusses NSA lawsuit, DHS spying, and FCC intrusions

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 21, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Attorney Bruce Fein discusses NSA lawsuit, DHS spying, and FCC intrusions

Constitutional attorney and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein spoke in Charlottesville on Thursday, February 20, about his book, Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, at a forum sponsored by the Rutherford Institute and hosted by the Barnes & Noble at Barracks Road Shopping Center.

In an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner just before his presentation, Fein said he would also comment on events since the book's 2009 publication, events that illustrate how “violations of the constitution have become so chronic that they numb the public and even elected officials to the danger we encounter as we move toward what I call 'one branch tyranny' – secret government, [with] everything subordinated to a risk-free existence and absolute executive power.”

Since writing the book, he said, “ we've inched even further along that perilous path.”

NSA spying
One example came with the revelations that the National Security Agency has been engaged in domestic spying against American citizens. In response, Fein has been working with U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) on a law suit against President Barack Obama filed as a class action “on behalf of every single American who's made a phone call in the last five years.”

He explained that “the NSA since 2006 has been collecting, without any suspicion of wrongdoing, the telephony metadata on every single American's phone calls. That means they get the number you dialed, your own number, the duration of the call, and perhaps where the location is.”

The NSA collects this information, he said, even though the agency has “no suspicion at all that you're engaged in any kind of wrongdoing, that what you're doing has anything to do with foreign intelligence.”

The agency justifies its spying with the belief that, “by collecting this data, at some future point, they may be able to connect your phone number with a foreign phone number that has some possible connection with international terrorism.”

'Dragnet surveillance'
This, Fein said, “is a dragnet surveillance of staggering proportions” yet in the eight years since the program was initiated, “there have been no uses of the program that have resolved a single terrorism investigation.”

The argument of the lawsuit is that the NSA's metadata collection “violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures,” he said. “You have a right to keep your metadata free from government surveillance and the fact that your phone company has it doesn't mean that you've expected the government to have it. The government can put you in prison; the phone company cannot.”

The resolution sought by the lawsuit is “to get a judicial order requiring the NSA to expunge from their database, which is perhaps the largest database in the history of the world, all of this telephony metadata, and forbid it from being collected in the future.”

If the lawsuit succeeds, he explained, “it would expunge all of the information that now hangs over everybody's head like a sword of Damocles.”

Collecting license plate data
Fein also commented on a recent news story that the Department of Homeland Security had put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to track the location of every vehicle's license plate in the United States. (The RFP was later withdrawn in the face of public opposition.)

Even though the program was suspended, he said, “we can anticipate there'll be efforts to use surveillance drones to capture where Americans are 24 hours a day, if they step outside their home.”

This is, he explained, “all part of what I call the psychology of a risk-free existence. That's the bane of any republic because liberty can't persist without some risk.”

The DHS example shows how “the government feels that they should try to gather all information at all times about everything we do because it at some future time it might be connected with an international terrorist investigation, which again turns the whole idea of liberty on its head,” Fein explained.

“We have an inherent right to be let alone, just because we're human beings,” he said, “and that right can be disturbed only if the government can advance a compelling reason to think you're engaged in some kind of wrongdoing or have information relevant to some wrongdoing or antisocial behavior.”

Americans are not required to explain to the government “why we want to be let alone,” Fein explained, because “it's just inherent of being an American, and that has been turned on its head. The government now assumes that they have the right to get every [bit of] information they can conceive about you.”

FCC in TV newsrooms
Fein also commented on a program proposed by the Federal Communications Commission – also withdrawn in the face of public opposition – that would embed investigators in every television newsroom to determine how reporters decide what stories to feature on their broadcasts.

That kind of activity by the FCC, he said, “It is an outrage. We would expect that in Russia or China or maybe in Belarus.”

The FCC's proposal, he said, violates the understanding that “the government never has a right to impair anyone's privacy -- to look at anything that Americans are doing – unless they have, at the outset, some plausible basis to think wrongdoing is underway.”

In a republic, Fein said, “the people censure the government; the government does not censure the people.”

He concluded the interview by quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said: “When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.”

Unfortunately, Fein asserted, “we are approaching the latter, unless we change that trajectory very quickly.”

Bruce Fein also appeared on WCHV-FM's “Inside Charlottesville” with Coy Barefoot on the same evening he spoke at Barnes & Noble.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Rutherford Institute asks local lawmakers to speak out against drones
Rutherford Institute endorses Charlottesville marijuana resolution
Charlottesville lawyers compile rules against ‘politically correct’ Xmas
Charlottesville civil liberties lawyer assesses 2012-13 Supreme Court term
Charlottesville entrepreneur Paul Jones sells non-lethal self-defense products

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/attorney-bruce-fein-discusses-nsa-lawsuit-dhs-spying-and-fcc-intrusions

From the Archives: Immigration laws may make United States poorer, says economist Daniel Lin

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 22, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Immigration laws may make United States poorer, says economist Daniel Lin

America is, “on average, poorer” because immigration laws limit the number of willing workers who can come to the United States and offer their services to willing employers.

That was one of the points made by economist Daniel Lin during an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner after he delivered a lecture at the University of Virginia on the topic, "Who Wins? Who Loses? The Economic Effects of Immigration."

Educated at UCLA and George Mason University, Lin teaches economics at American University, where his research interests include the industrial organization of entertainment industries, the theory of the firm, and the antitrust implications of various theories of competition. His lecture at UVA was sponsored by Young Americans for Liberty and the Institute for Humane Studies.

“Most of the discussion about whether we should allow more immigrants” into the United States, Lin said in the interview, focuses on the question, “Is the increase in well-being that we see for the immigrants, is that enough to justify the fact that Americans suffer?”

'Foreigners benefit us'
Even if you don't “say that foreigners are worth just as much as Americans,” he continued, “you can say that we should focus on Americans first.”

Still, Lin added, “what this discussion is missing is: Do we really know what's happening to Americans? And are we really paying attention to how much foreigners benefit us when they come here?”

The purpose of his lecture, he said, was to point out how “we're not really sure about either of those things. It turns out the effects on Americans, when we allow more foreigners, are not conclusively negative.”

Some “respectable economists,” he explained, argue that “when we allow more foreigners in, it allows more Americans to specialize in higher-wage jobs, to do more,” and the wages of Americans “go up.”

Complementing Americans
Part of the reason for this is complementarity, meaning that immigrants do jobs that free up Americans to do other jobs, often jobs that pay higher wages and are more productive.

“When we see workers coming in,” Lin explained, “we often think that they directly compete with all Americans, but that's not quite correct. When new workers come into this country, they are also complements to American workers.”

He offered the example of someone who is a programmer or a scientist.

“If you have that person mow his own lawn, or cook his own food, or make his own clothes, he's going to have to take time away from being a scientist [or] being a programmer,” he said.

If, instead, someone else performs those tasks, the American “can focus more time on being a scientist, being a programmer, and do more work, be more productive,” Lin explained. “The helper is not a direct competitor to the scientist or the programmer or the teacher or researcher, whatever.”

The immigrant is instead “a complement, who makes that person [the American] better off. That is why you don't see people who are hiring nannies or gardeners recoiling when they do that. They're not forced to do those things. They want to do those things. It's the laws that are trying to prevent those things from happening.”

The people “who are doing the hiring and the people who are doing the working,” Lin pointed out “both benefit when they are allowed to contract with each other.”

Making Americans poorer
Having laws that impede immigration into the United States makes everybody poorer, he explained.

“The current laws allow foreigners to come in but it is a trickle compared to the number of people who want to come in and the number of people who Americans want to hire,” Lin said.

“If you look at the waiting list for visas” for people who want to work in the United States, which are often multiple-years long, Lin said, “we certainly can conclude that America is, on average, poorer because we block these types of contracts from happening – these exchanges from happening.”

When people who want to work in the United States “are being prevented from coming here and the Americans who would benefit from having these extra workers are not allowed to have those benefits,” he argued, “we certainly do see Americans on the whole being poorer than otherwise they would be.”

The stereotype that immigrants are hard-working and ambitious is “rooted in truth,” Lin said, because of “selection bias” that comes from people who are “willing to overcome the cultural differences, the language differences, moving apart from [their] home town [and] family,” in order to come here to work, as well as who are “willing to put up with a lot of bureaucracy” to get that “golden ticket” permitting them to work in the United States.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Charlottesville entrepreneur Paul Jones sells non-lethal self-defense products
What is the DREAM Act, and why is it important? A conversation with Claire Gastañaga
Omidyar Network's Karol Boudreaux offers optimistic view of African economies
Economist Peter Boettke deflates candidates’ concept of ‘energy independence’
James Robinson discusses 'why nations fail' at George Mason University

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/immigration-laws-may-make-united-states-poorer-says-economist-daniel-lin

From the Archives: GOP can regain control of Senate in 2014, says strategist Grover Norquist

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on March 9, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

GOP can regain control of Senate in 2014, says strategist Grover Norquist

Republicans can regain a majority in the U.S. Senate in the 2014 general election and even Virginia Democrat Mark Warner is vulnerable, said strategist Grover Norquist in an interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which ended its three-day run on March 8 in suburban Washington, D.C.

Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of Leave Us Alone: America's New Governing Majority, told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner that he was encouraged by the CPAC turnout of more than 11,000 participants, including “a majority of people under 25,” which he characterized as “extremely, extremely healthy.”

'Dull roar'
In contrast to past years, he said, “the whining is down to a dull roar.” In terms of content – speeches and panel discussions – “we've really covered a whole host of broad center-right issues.”

Overall, Norquist said, "I'm pleased, I'm happy. It's going well. People are excited. We've got all these Senate races and the candidates are being highlighted, so it's good stuff.”

With regard to the prospects of the Republican Party taking control of the U.S. Senate this year, Norquist is optimistic.

Gaining a GOP majority is “more likely than not,” he said.

Republicans “need to pick up six for control. There are seven that look very, very good.”

The likely pick-ups are in “overwhelmingly Republican states with weak” Democrats holding those Senate seats, and there are “competent Republicans running."

Seven probable pick-ups
Norquist ticked off the names of the seven states: “Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas.”

In each of those seven, he said, there is “a fine candidate who's been nominated or will be nominated” and in “each of them, the Democrat is not as strong as they might like.”

All those states, he added, were won by Mitt Romney in 2012 with a margin of more than ten percent, and they have all been trending Republican “where our guys are pulling ahead.”

In addition to those likely seven pickups, Norquist continued, “you have a series of states like Michigan, where all polls have the Republican candidate ahead.”

He also mentioned New Hampshire, “where the Republicans have a real shot” and Iowa, “where you have to decide who the Republican [nominee] is but they all poll OK against” the Democrats' candidate.

In Iowa, he averred, “I suppose it's possible to nominate the guy who could lose” but in Colorado, “we have a weak Democrat and a [Republican] congressman who wasn't going to get in” has now entered the race, “clearing the field – so Colorado is in play with every reason to think we could win that one.”

Worrisome Georgia and Kentucky
There are two Republican-held seats to worry about, however.

First is Georgia, “because if you nominate the wrong guy, you could lose that, but there's a runoff, so I don't think they will nominate the wrong guy.”

The other is Kentucky, “where some people think [Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell should have passed a bunch of laws with 45 Republicans because they haven't learned to count.”

Instead, “they think it's because he's a liberal that he hasn't been able to beat the guy [Majority Leader Harry Reid] with 55 votes with [McConnell's] 45 votes. There are many things, perhaps, to criticize Mitch McConnell on. Not being able to win votes in the U.S. Senate with 45 [Republicans] is not one of those things you can fairly whine about.”

Still, Norquist cautioned, McConnell has “been damaged by his challenger in the primary. I'd keep an eye on that seat but I think Republicans should be able to take the Senate.”

Virginia's vulnerable Warner
Even in Virginia, where popular former Governor Mark Warner is seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate this year, Norquist sees reason for Republicans to be hopeful.

Warner is vulnerable, he said, basing his assessment on having spoken with the incumbent Senator at a recent event in Washington.

“I ran into Mark Warner at a party the other day and, he said, [he] wasn't in Davos” for the annual global economics conference because Republican challenger Ed Gillespie is running for office.

“'So I'm here,'” Norquist quoted Senator Warner.

Gillespie, who has three rivals for the GOP nomination (Tony DeTora, Shak Hill, and Chuck Moss) “is a competent candidate,” he explained. “He can raise money. He's uniting the party.”

Norquist concluded that, “with any sort of a good Republican year,” Virginia has “a Senate seat that Gillespie could win and Mark Warner could lose.”

Warner will face Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis in the November election, as well as the eventual Republican nominee, who will be chosen at a convention in Roanoke on June 7.

The full audio interview with Grover Norquist will be available soon on Bearing Drift radio, The Score.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Grover Norquist surveys the 2012 political and legislative landscape
Grover Norquist discusses congressional government and GOP candidates
LNC executive director Wes Benedict takes Libertarian message to CPAC
GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia talks about CPAC and gay conservatives
'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-can-regain-control-of-senate-2014-says-strategist-grover-norquist