This is the fourth and final part of a multi-part interview with Mark Ellmore, candidate in the GOP primary, where he’s facing Amit Singh (also interviewed at Blacknell.net). The winner of the June 10th primary will face long time incumbent Rep. Jim Moran (D) this fall. Part I is here , Part II is here, and Part III is here.

(I’m including part of an answer that has been previously published, to give context to the follow up question).

ME (Mark Ellmore): [ . . .  ]Now you’ve got to take extreme measures, unfortunately. Id like to be able to go to the airport like I used to in the old days and just show my drivers license and I walked in there with whatever. Those days are done based on these people who have created a situation for us, and the goal, the responsibility of the United States government is to keep you safe. That’s goal number one, at all costs.

MB: Actually, isn’t “goal number one” to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States?

ME: Absolutely, which is . . .

MB: Which may not be the same thing as keeping me safe . . .

ME: Hold on . . . [he starts pulling out a paper copy of the Constitution]

MB: I’ve got one of those, too, in my bag. [I do, about a foot away.]

ME: Alright, so, but again, you’re right. Again, from the standpoint, that is. But in the bigger picture, their responsibility is to keep us all safe.

MB: No, because [I think] there is a tension – I mean, the next question I want to ask you, obviously, is the place of government in surveillance. Now, theoretically – I don’t believe this myself – if you had a government listener listening in on every single conversation we had, on all callers in the United States – we might actually be safer, physically. But that’s not a country I want to live in.

ME: You’re right.

MB: That’s not a country that’s represented by that Constitution in your pocket.

ME: You’re right.

MB: So, there’s a tension between the two [i.e., keeping us safe and upholding the Constitution].

ME: Right.

MB: So, against that background, let me put up another thing – nobody believes the President, right now, when he [says that],“We’re respecting the Constitution, while . . .”

ME: Hold on. “Nobody”, or “some people do not”?

MB: Next to nobody.

ME: Oh, hold on. Whoa whoa. Because there’s going to be a lot of people that do. I’m not saying I do, but . .

MB: Okay. I would say “very few people believe”, and we’ll leave it at that.

ME: Alright.

MB: Very few people believe the President when he says that, “We’re respecting the Constitution while we’re conducting surveillance.” Now, one of the things that [would make] it easier to believe him when he says that is if you have a strong Congress that was there saying that “You know what, we can’t tell you the details, but you need to believe him when he says that.”

ME: Absolutely.

MB: Checks on each other.

ME: Checks and balances.

ME: What’s the role of Congress? We’ve had an Administration that’s taken this and said, “Look, Congress doesn’t play a role. The judiciary doesn’t really play a role. Trust us.”

ME: I don’t support that. And I think – again, what you said – I don’t support that, I don’t think every human being, going through and phone calls, living in a a . . .

MB: A police state.

ME: Yes. No, I don’t support that at all. What I believe, and again , I’m not the President, I don’t know everything that‘s in that particular. . .

MB: Sure.

ME: . . . I’m not an elected official. They’ve got access to information I don’t have. I just think that what they’re trying to communicate is is when they’re talking to people overseas – they’re not talking about listening locally, I don’t support that – that aspect of it I think we need to leave alone. I think though, that when we’re talking about people – and a lot of people that they’ve apprehended come from some of these phone calls, and – I don’t know. We’re only getting bits and pieces of it.

MB: Sure.

ME: We just get the extreme left version of it, or the extreme right version.

MB: But most of the pieces we’ve gotten never measure up to what [the Administration] says it was in the beginning.

ME: Sure, exactly. And it’s all extrapolated. All I’m saying is that I do want to take strong consideration of that. But for me to sit here and say I have a thorough knowledge of every aspect of that . . . again, I’d be one of these phonies sitting before you lying. So we can talk in principle. I stand on the side of individual liberties, but again, given the turmoil and the time that we’re in right now, we have to draw a fine line. And I don’t know, I don’t know what’s protecting us. You, John Q. Citizen, don’t. As a Congressman, you’d have a better idea. And I wish that the Congress would do what you’re saying. Just step up and say “Hey guys, these are people who are trying to kill us, give us information so we know more about what’s going on. Don’t leave out in the cold with everything. So we know. That doesn’t mean tell us every time . . . “

MB: Step up and say that to the Executive, you mean?

ME: No, to the people. So we know what’s going on in the country.

MB: So how can they say that if they haven’t gotten that from the Executive?

ME: Well that’s what I’m saying. That’s where the communication is supposed to be. See, you’re supposed to have a flow of information back and forth. I don’t support the presidential branch of government hoarding everything, and running it from there. Just like when you go to war – the Constitution tells me that Congress should be the guys that [declare war]. We’re fighting a wacky ideological situation here. There’s not a country involved. And I think, unfortunately, with these extreme circumstances, it calls on us to do some extreme things. But again, we knee jerk one way, and it mellows down. We knee jerk another, and it mellows down. We knee jerk over the economy, and it mellows down. We knee jerk over this, and it mellows down. So I’m a meet-me-in-the-middle kinda guy.

I just want to make common sense decisions. I want you to be able to call me and say “Hey, Mark, can we get a cup of coffee and talk about this?” That’s what a Congressman is supposed to do. Not isolate yourself . You’re supposed to serve all the people. And be involved in the community. You don’t take up residence [on Capitol Hill].

MB: Well, to get to that point, you’re not just going to have to beat Jim Moran, you’re going to have to beat Amit Singh.

ME: Yes.

MB: Differentiate yourself a little bit from Mr. Singh.

ME: Well . . .

MB: He’s done pretty well in the fundraising, and

ME: Well that’s fine, and again, I just believe that the difference would be, one, that I have the level of maturity needed to challenge Jim Moran. I think that my track record for service in the community – which is what people, when you get in the general election, are going to be looking at – I’ve owned a home here since I was 25 years old. I’ve worked in the community for 32 years – that’s almost as old as he is – I’ve got a proven track record of service in the community. Working with children with disabilities. Working with the poor. Working with the needy. Working with organizations of all different ethnicities. Working with people from the Middle Eastern community. Serving people in the community – there are thousands of people that I have helped through fiscal responsibility, in the home lending and financial management piece.

I’ve put two kids into college. I’ve got a child who is actively serving in the United States military. So you know, when they say,”Hey, Mr. Congressman Wannabe, how do you have a stake in this?” I’ve got my flesh and blood – the most important thing to me in my life, a kid – who’s on the North Korean border at Osan [a military base], who’s working 12 hour shifts, every day , serving the country AND going to the University of Maryland. I’ve got a daughter who’s at Marymount University.

I’ve done all the things [as a small business operator]. I understand what it’s like to be as a homeowner, to meet a mortgage payment. I understand what it’s like to lose a father when I was four years old, to be the man of the family, of the household, as a boy. And to start working when I was 14. I understand what it’s like to have a mother who’s got Alzheimers in an assisted living facility, and to take care of her. I understand what it’s like to have a father who was a firefighter, who [suffered from his service, dying from work-related inhalation of carcinogens at 45 years old]. I can relate to those folks. I’ve got a brother who served for over 30 years in the United States government, honorably, and is retiring soon. I understand the needs of our civil service workers, I understand the needs of the people. And it’s more than saying, “Oh, by the way, I read the Ronald Reagan website and now I’ve got a platform.” I’ve been doing it for 20 months, we’ve got a grassroots campaign in place – you saw those women over there. I can connect with people. I don’t read off the webpage and say, “Oh, by the way, here I am, I’m the next Ronald Reagan. Oh, let me check page 32.” I am who I am.

And I’ve got that connectivity in the community[.] You know what? When the rubber meets the road and Jim Moran gets up there, you better be able to articulate your message. And I think I can do that. And I think I can earn the trust of the people here in the 8th District. I can meet these people and get them to say “Okay, this isn’t some whackjob that read a manual. This is a guy that literally loves where he lives and wants to serve.” That’s it. I’m not in it for me. When I was in my thirties, I spent that time serving myself. I’m ready to serve others now.

MB: Good. One more specific issue question and then a final wrap up and we’ll be done. I think it was 68% of the people [in Arlington] that voted against the [anti-gay marriage Marshall-Newman Amendment to the Virginia Constitution].

ME: Right.

MB: I think you’re on record as saying you support DOMA [the federal Defense of Marriage Act]. I want to make sure that I’m clear on that.

ME: I supported – do you want me to go ahead and give you the answer to this now?

MB: Sure.

ME: Here’s my point on this – we have so many people of all different backgrounds in this state. Where I stand on that is traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. Number two – I respect anybody who is above the age of 18 to be love with, to be in a relationship with, to form a civil union with – at the state level – to do whatever they want. I think that the Federal government should absolutely stay away from that and make it a state’s rights issue. But I supported the same amendment because I like what Elton John said –

MB: [I start laughing]

ME: Elton John! Who is one of my favorite musicians – Elton John just came out and said “Guys, it’s not a marriage. It’s a civil union between two individuals who are in love!”

MB: So you supported the Virginia amendment?

ME: Yes.

MB: But didn’t that take away all the rights of civil unions? All the possibility of a civil union?

ME: [pauses] I don’t believe that that is . . .

MB: It took away any of the rights that you could get to through marriage from any couple [that isn’t married].

ME: Yeah.

MB: And they didn’t even make it same sex. It was actually any couple living together in Virginia.

ME: Right, but you see, we had one or the other. So in that particular case, to protect marriage, because again, okay . . .

MB: So you would trample on the rights of individuals to have that relationship . . .

ME: No no . . .

MB: . . . a civil union . . .

ME: . . . no . . .

MB: to protect traditional marriage?

ME: No. What I . . . well . . . in this particular case, for the state of Virginia, that was the bill that was offered up. And I had to say yes or no to that particular amendment. So because . . .

MB: You had to pick?

ME: I had to pick because I stand for traditional marriage. On the other hand, I support peoples rights to have a civil union. And would support that.

MB: But that constitutional amendment didn’t say “You vote for this OR we’re going to have gay marriage.” It’s not like you were forced into that. You picked . . .

ME: Right. But I picked what . . . I had a choice. I had . . .

MB: . . . a choice between . . .

ME: . . . . red or blue. I had “support the amendment” or “not support the amendment.” And I – because I believe – the bigger vote for me was on – in the state of Virginia – just the definition of marriage. That’s it.

MB: So that was the way I put it. You picked preserving the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman . . .

ME: Yes

MB: . . . over the possibility – not the reality, but the possibility – of civil unions between any couples [regardless of sexuality].

ME: Right.

MB: That’s more important to you.

ME: But you see, I see them as separate and distinct issues.

MB: But you precluded one by voting for the other.

ME: Well, but again, you have to go back, and it’s the chicken before the egg. I had no choice. It’s either one or the other. When the vote came up, I had to make a choice right then. Do I support making marriage in the state of Virginia between a man and a woman? And again, maybe shame on me for not getting the entire bill in front of me and really doing my due diligence and learning more about that. So maybe shame on me that maybe if I had more information, and looked at it, but again, under the pretense that I had, I support states rights. And I believe in an individual right of any couple – of two individuals – to do whatever they chose to do.

MB: But you voted against that. That’s what I’m getting at. I don’t mean to harp on this, but . . .

ME: No, that’s fine.

MB: I mean, we’re talking about a state issue right now, not DOMA or some federal act, but the state level. You precluded – by supporting [the VA amendment] – any two individuals from entering into the relationship that they want to.

ME: But as a result of the fact that I voted on that, and you’re bringing a piece of that legislation up to me that I didn’t have completely articulated to me when the time came, okay?

MB: [I give him the look that you give someone when you don’t believe them, and I am sure he interpreted it correctly.]

ME: Then yes, I am guilty, if that’s the way you would look at it and say . . .

MB: No, I . . .

ME: Right, I’m just saying that I support traditional marriage between a man and a woman. And so is there, in that state bill, and maybe, if I read every bond referendum that we voted on, all the way through it, if I looked at every single amendment. . . I was voting on the simple fact that, in the state of Virginia, I would like it to say that a man and a woman defines marriage. I do firmly stand behind – two men, two women, whatever you have – having a civil union and that you be allowed some of those same privileges, rights, and benefits that are afforded to couples.

MB: But that’s not a possibility anymore, because that amendment passed.

ME: I can’t go back and put it in a bottle. So the answer to your question would be – we can sit here and debate all day long over why.

MB: Sure.

ME: I don’t know. I don’t have an answer. And again, I’m not a good liar. So I’m not going to sit here and BS you. I voted yes. I believe it’s a man and a woman. But I do support civil unions, and let that be a states issue, how they define a civil union and a unification of two people who love each other. And I don’t want to get into that.

MB: Okay. So, as a closing issue, assume that you pick up the nomination. What do you say to all these voters on why you’ll do a better job than Jim Moran?

ME: I feel that Jim Moran hasn’t done enough on the key issues, and he’s disconnected from the community. I think that Jim Moran’s let us down when it comes to being responsible. And I’m not saying that spending isn’t important and we don’t have needs in the community, but he’s gone from being a – do what you need to keep us safe – again, this is the way I do business here, in my view – the things to keep us safe and the things to keep the quality of life here high for everybody. I think there’s enough resources here and at the federal level, the money that has been sent to the community here to do that.

I think that Jim Moran has let us down when it comes to fiscal responsibility with his reckless earmark spending. You know, I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be a time – as Frank Wolf [used earmark money] for gang violence. I don’t support earmarks myself, in that way, because I think it puts you on a slippery slope, but because I would rather go out and stand before the members and say “Oh, by the way, guys, we need to widen 66 inside the Beltway. Guys, we don’t have rail to Dulles. Do you think you could step up and help us get that funded?”

MB: Sure. Would you vote for an earmark that would give us a tunnel to Dulles?

ME: It wouldn’t be an earmark. You need to be bold enough to go stand before the other Members of the United States House of Representatives – like it was meant to be, before these shady earmarks came along – and unless they are for national security purposes, right, that says oh by the way this particular undercover organization, or this . . . that’s a whole different story. But when you stand before – and you need to say, “Oh, by the way . . “ They didn’t have any problem going to get the money for the Wilson Bridge project.

MB: Would you support a bill for the [Metro to Tyson’s] tunnel?

ME: Absolutely. You’ve got to get that done. We had it! I support federal support – a portion, the state of Virginia a portion, and privatize. Let it get in the hands of the private sector and get all the people to do fair and open bidding. [Ellmore would say to Congress, ]“But guys, you gotta understand, we don’t have the Tyson’s tunnel done. Twenty years from now, the cost will be nothing in retrospect. Why don’t we have the Tyson’s tunnel? Why don’t we have the rail to Dulles, so we can get people off the road? Why isn’t 66 done inside the Beltway?” Moran has stood and watched.

I came out to say “Hey, let the people speak!” And the people of Arlington said , “Hey, get it done.” The people of the 8th said, “Get it done.” Jim Moran hasn’t done enough. The little things. I meet the people on the street that say he hasn’t done enough. And when they’re talking to people, they just want a guy who comes with a clean heart. I don’t have a political agenda. I have a service agenda. I want [you] to sit down with me and say “Congressman Ellmore, this is really jacked up. Do you mind if I get five minutes of your time to tell you what a wreck this is? Will you please not patronize me and send me some stupid letter? Will you actually take a few minutes – or a member of your staff reach out to me?” That’s the difference. I worked 30 years loving and caring for and serving people in my profession. That’s all I do. Is serve people. And I’m ready to kick it to the next level.

And I believe in term limits. Three terms, maybe four, get out. It’s not a lifetime appointment.

MB: Is that your pledge, today? Serve four terms, get out?

ME: Absolutely. You’re not supposed to take up residence over there. That’s what keeps you from doing your job. Cause you vote to stay elected. Jim Moran signed off on CAFTA. Is that a good liberal issue?

MB: Do you support CAFTA?

ME: Absolutely. You gotta support CAFTA.

MB: How can you jump off on Jim Moran [for it] if you support CAFTA?

ME: Well, because, again, I’m for free trade. But what I want, and where I’m at . . . Jim Moran’s a Democrat! He let down the whole Democratic Party. He was the Whip. Do you understand what I’m saying? Jim Moran stood before everybody and said, “Oh, by the way, I’m the poster child for this.” So I support free trade. But what I do support, that Jim Moran won’t come out and tell you, is that I say, for every ship that comes into the United States with your bag of stuff on it, I want the same weight, right out the door. That’s the way we keep it balanced and free trade. What comes in, I want the same boat filled going out.

MB: What if it doesn’t?

ME: Well what if it doesn’t, well, you have to . . .

MB: Do we have tariffs? Do we . . .

ME: No, you have to work – that’s just part of the agreement when you set that up. Whether it’s dealing with the Colombians . . . Jim actually authored legislation and offered up with a Sri Lankan free trade agreement.

MB: Okay.

ME: I don’t know. I don’t see these agreements. I think the Constitution says that Congress is the only one that can set up a trade agreement, if I read it correctly.

MB: Yeah, it’s a little tricky these days . . .

ME: It is tricky. But again, it’s like anything else. The horse has left the barn on a lot of this stuff. I just want to make common sense decisions. I want [you] and other members of this community, when we sit down together to talk about how to go forward and serve the community, that we do it evenhandedly. That yes, I’m a conservative guy, and this is what you’re going to get , but I want to serve everybody. Not just the handful of people who say “Oh, by the way, why don’t you go be a hater one way or the other.” You have to be willing to meet people in the middle. And that doesn’t mean water down my message. It doesn’t take away from who I am. But there are a lot of people in this district that are very very different-minded than I am. And I have respect for them. And I want to listen to them. And I want to serve. And I don’t want to come out and say, “Oh, by the way, hang on, let me go to my Ronald Reagan manual, oh it says here, bang! I got an answer!”

MB: So what you’re saying is that you’re a Ronald Reagan hater?

ME: No!

MB: Just kidding.

ME: I’m just saying I love Ronald Reagan, but I’m an independent thinker that knows what we’ve got on our hands here. I want [you] to come to me someday and say, “Man, you know what? You’re the best customer service representative we’ve had, here. You love the people of the community. And you listen to me. You care about what’s on my mind. You care about what’s in my heart. Your staff solved my issue. You keep me safe. And you keep the quality of life here high for me. And you respect my individual liberties.” That’s it.

[That concludes the interview with Mark Ellmore.  My reflections on this, as well as the interview with Amit Singh, will be posted in a separate piece.]