Category: Virginia Page 20 of 34

This story in The Hill reports that there’s a group of 14 GOP Senators and Representatives that have refused to endorse Sen. McCain’s presidential ambitions. When I first saw the headline, I was imagining that it consisted mostly of Republican reps in otherwise Democratic districts that didn’t want to antagonize their constituency. But then I looked at the list:

Republican members who have not endorsed or publicly backed McCain include Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Jones, Peterson, John Doolittle (Calif.), Randy Forbes (Va.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), Virgil Goode (Va.), Tim Murphy (Pa.), Ron Paul (Texas), Ted Poe (Texas), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Dave Weldon (Fla.) and Frank Wolf (Va.).

The story doesn’t explain Virgil Goode’s lack of support, but I can only imagine that it has something to do with McCain not calling for the deportation of every Muslim in the country. Wonder what McCain did to Wolf and Forbes, though.

Tomorrow brings us a primary to determine the Democratic and Republican nominees in the 8th Congressional District of Virginia. This seat has been held by Rep. Jim Moran (D) for 17 years, and he’s looking for another term. He’s being challenged by first-time candidate Matthew Famiglietti. We in the 8th CD are all well aware of Rep. Moran’s record, good and bad. He is a reliable voice for many of the important issues of today, though he does have a tendency to undermine this generally excellent public record with poor personal judgments from time to time (which he himself acknowledges, saying in response to a question about the usually-wide margins of his general election victories over the years that sometimes he “goes to extraordinary lengths to make these races competitive.”). Mr. Famiglietti, who is running with a message of more vigorous protection of the Constitution and a firmer stand against the Iraq War, doesn’t appear to have been able to resonate with voters in the 8th CD. While I personally welcome – and agree with – his views on these two points, anyone who hopes to successfully carry such a message in a general election must have a stronger voice. I hope and expect that Mr. Famiglietti will stay involved with these issues past Tuesday. Rep. Jim Moran gets my nod and I expect to be voting for him in November.

~

On the Republican side, we have candidates Mark Ellmore and Amit Singh. As readers of Blacknell.net know, I took an (unexpected) interest in this primary back in March. After interviewing both candidates at length, following their campaigns, and meeting with them several times in the process, I had been looking forward to giving my outsider’s view of the choice this past Friday. Unfortunately for all involved, my coverage of the campaign became part of the the campaign when Ellmore sent out a mailer using Blacknell.net as a source for a charge that turned out to be false and that’s what I spent my available time dealing with, instead. I have little-to-no interest in spending any more time on it other than to say that, prior to this, I would have told you that I had no reason to question the honesty of the Ellmore campaign. Now, well . . . it’s a question of dishonesty or incompetence. And that’s a shame for both campaigns, as there are real and substantive differences on the issues over which they can compete for votes.

When I first met Mark Ellmore, he immediately struck me as someone who’s done this before – and indeed he had, having lost the nomination in 2006 to the ultimately unsuccessful Tom O’Donoghue. He seemed to have learned from that loss, and Ellmore’s campaign started laying the foundation for a second run not too long after his loss. And that looked to be a good strategy for a cruise to the nomination until Amit Singh, unhappy with the policy positions of any of the declared 8th CD candidates, decided to run earlier this year. In doing so, Singh helped create a primary that is as much about the direction that the GOP wants to go as it is about the candidates themselves. Ellmore is fully an establishment Republican, with all the good and bad (and which is which depends on your perspective) that such an appellation implies. He has clearly worked for – and received – the backing of the 8th CD’s Republican structure, and can claim a long list of endorsements. From an electoral perspective, this doesn’t mean much in a district where the last Republican success is a distant memory. However, it does go to show that Ellmore is a clear team player on the Republican side, which may be a plus in the minds of many primary voters. Further, Ellmore has an initial ease with people on the campaign trail that can leave a positive impression in the minds of the voters he meets, an important trait in a district that is generally skeptical about Republicans.

On the issues, Ellmore can check pretty much every box on the George W. Bush Era Republican Principles List. Pro-gun, anti-tax, against embryonic stem cell research, voted for anti-gay marriage amendments, and supports the war in Iraq. To his credit, he seems to be able to do this without the malice that has come to characterize Republican politics. It may be this instinct towards basic decency that has caused him some trouble in the primary, where his entirely decent proposal to give Medicare recipients more latitude – not more dollars – in the health care they receive brought on calls of “socialist!” from the kids in the GOP peanut gallery. In other areas, Ellmore’s instinct collides with the Fortress America wing of his party, resulting in compromises that open him to attacks from all sides. The best example of this is his support for a building a fence – but not a wall – along the US border with Mexico. This, apparently, amounts to apostasy in some quarters of the Republican party (quarters where primary voters reside, I suspect), and opened him up to mockery. The American political conversation has never really had a place for nuance. Despite this, Ellmore has managed to garner significant support amongst local party officials, and can thus be said to represent the establishment consensus.

Amit Singh, on the other hand, is not an establishment Republican. While he identifies as a lifelong Republican (hard to be anything else, I think, when you’re raised in Colonial Heights, Virginia), he hasn’t been active in party politics for very long. Like many other Republicans that I’ve talked to in the past couple of years, Singh has become dissatisfied with his party’s departure from what he sees as core Republican values – limited government, respect for the Constitution, and fiscal conservatism. Further, like most of the country, he has also come to believe that it’s well past time for the United States to get out of Iraq. Taking these positions in private conversation with fellow Republicans is one thing – to run on them is quite another. While it is true that national Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul have made it not entirely unheard of for a Republican to oppose the continued American occupation of Iraq, it is still a position that invites swift and strong attacks from fellow Republicans (and unusually personal attacks, at that). That Singh has not only stood by – but vigorously defended – this position is admirable. If the Hear No Withdrawal, See No Withdrawal, Speak No Withdrawal wing of the Republican Party keeps control (and they seem to be on track for that, in nominating McCain), the gap between the American public and Republican Party will widen significantly.

Republicans have a serious problem on their hands, and it’s one of their own creation. While mouthing the long time conservative claim of being for limited government, respecting the Constitution, and hewing to fiscal conservatism, the modern Republican party – when in control of all the levers of government – seems to have been on a special mission to expand government into our personal lives, completely disregard the Constitution, and run up public debt with an extraordinary spending spree. While it took some time for many Americans to see this, the plainness of it is approaching a point where even the most blinkered and partisan among the party faithful are coming to acknowledge that something is seriously wrong. However, that acknowledgment is almost always still done in private, and has thus far had little impact in changing the direction of the Republican party. Unlike most Republicans, Singh has taken his own dissatisfaction public. He has campaigned on a platform based almost exclusively on the principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, even when they’ve resulted in positions that don’t fit the usual GOP candidate checklist. He will soon find out whether enough of his fellow Republicans are willing to take a public step with him, and make him the nominee for the 8th Congressional District.

While I’m an unabashed Democrat – so you can take this recommendation for what you think it’s worth – I’m also a Democrat who believes that it’s better for everyone when the parties need to worry about strong and principled competition from each other. If 8th CD Republicans would like to see their party become one that can do that, they’d do well to start with Amit Singh.

Yesterday marked the final installment of my interview with Mark Ellmore, a candidate in this year’s 8th Congressional District Republican primary, where he’s facing Amit Singh. The winner of the June 10th primary will face long time incumbent Rep. Jim Moran (D) this fall. The posted transcripts were the product of more than an hour of conversation with each candidate. Given that this project started a good bit ago, I thought I’d link all of the pieces in one place for those who are doing their research and trying to make up their mind in advance of next Tuesday’s primary.

The Ellmore Interview

• Part I is here – covering his motivation for running again, and on being a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic district
• Part II is here – discussing the role of the Federal government in health care, the financial industry, and science research
• Part III is here – continuing the immigration discussion, and examining his views on the REAL ID Act and the “Security State”
• Part IV is here – on whether there is tension between keeping the public safe and respecting the Constitution, and the role of the state and federal governments in marriage and civil unions

The Singh Interview

• Part I is here– introducing himself and his reasons for running, and his political influences
• Part II is here – expressing his views on Federal spending, the Tyson tunnel debate, and finding energy solutions
• Part III is here – on Federal disaster relief, privacy rights, government surveillance, immigration, and facing Jim Moran

One thing I’d like to note – when preparing and posting the first piece in this series, I decided to go with a transcription approach to publishing each interview. Not only did I want to give the reader a clear sense of *exactly* how the candidates conveyed their messages, I also wanted to make sure that no one could reasonably say that I – a partisan Democrat – was misstating the views of these Republican candidates in summary form. And really, I think I achieved those goals. What I didn’t take into account at the time, however, was that this approach would be 1) incredibly time consuming, resulting in it taking a lot longer to get out than expected, and 2) occasionally making the candidate sound a little inarticulate. The first issue is my own lesson learned. But I feel a little bad about the second – while a candidate may well not have done the best job of explaining his reasoning for a given position, neither candidate is even close to inarticulate. Both are well spoken and quite capable of delivering their messages in public. Readers may find it worthwhile to check out these two Bearing Drift podcasts, with recorded interviews of Mark Ellmore and Amit Singh, to get a better sense of each candidate’s style.

Update: Please see this post concerning a recent mailer from the Ellmore campaign.