Back in Business

Well, I’m pleased to announce that we’re up and running again. Although I lost a lot of my data with the death of my hard drive, I was able to recover a good chunk of it thanks to the fine folks at Apple. I’m sorry to say that the article I wanted to post tonight is gone, but many more will replace it.

Here we again.


Temporarily Out of Commission

Well, my computer is dead. While using it today, Microsoft Word refused to open. After that, no programs would close without the use of force quit. Now when I turn on my computer all I get is a clicking sound and a blank screen with a flashing question mark. Those people who know something about computers tell me my hard drive is gone. So…looks like I’ll be getting a new one. Good thing it’s still until warranty. I really, really, really hope that they can save all my stored data. Until that time, however, I’ll be without my personal computer.

Updates will return when the problem is fixed or when I’m able to borrow another computer (like for this post). Thanks for sticking with me. In the meantime, feel free to leave a comment on any of my writings.


None of the Above

Well it is time for me to give my thoughts on the Presidential Race. As you know, I have been an avid supporter of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. As you might also know, a couple of days ago Ron Paul gave a speech arguing that the public should not support either Republican John McCain nor Democrat Barack Obama. He is right (well…sort of). Conservatives, like myself, have been, at best, lukewarm about the candidacy of Senator McCain. Few, if any of us honestly believe that he is a conservative. Instead he embraces many big government solutions, which are unacceptable philosophically or constitutionally. When endorsing John McCain RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick called him a maverick. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman? I don’t want a maverick, I don’t want a liberal, and I don’t want a moderate! I want a constitutional conservative. A number of local conservatives have recently thrown their support to McCain as a result of his choice for vice-president, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. For example, at our local city/county GOP gathering, the county chairman stated that although he knew that many of us did not care for McCain, we should vote for him in 2008 so that we can vote for Palin in 2012 or 2016. It is a sad reflection that more people are excited about Palin than McCain. I have never voted for a presidential candidate based solely upon his vice presidential choice. From what I’ve learned thus far, although I think Palin would be an acceptable conservative, John McCain is not. Also, McCain is running for president, Palin is not. The vice presidency is worth very little. Therefore, as a principled conservative, I must reject the McCain/Palin ticket. I highly recommend listening to Jack Hunter’s commentary on the subject of McCain/Palin found here.

But Joshua, you might say, John McCain is a conservative. He is solidly pro-life and is against pork barrel spending. Although both are conservative stances, those viewpoints alone do not make him a conservative. Need proof? Consider his position on illegal immigration and his support for amnesty. How about his support for big government solutions in “solving” global warming? Then there is the whole McCain/Feingold issue. Do you honestly believe that this bill does not violate the 1st Amendment? Remember that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts and supports the death tax. He also advocates a very interventionist foreign policy. It amazes me greatly that so many so called conservatives derided Bill Clinton’s efforts to be the world policeman and nation builder but so readily embraced the exact same policies under our current Republican administration. You should expect more war and nation building under a McCain presidency. Oh goody! For these reasons and others, one can see that McCain does have conservative tendencies, but is far from a conservative.

When it comes to comparing John McCain to Obama, some conservatives argue that we should vote for John McCain because he is the lesser of two evils. If you buy this line, you must accept the fatal flaw in this line of thinking, which is that voting for McCain is still evil, just not as much. I’ll choose no evil, thank you very much. Others say that we should vote for Obama in order to teach the GOP the lesson that they cannot nominate non-conservatives and hope to win. Although I don’t want liberal Republicans, I cannot support liberal Democrats either. Liberal under either party is still liberal. Another option is to stay home and not vote, but I believe that to not vote is a failure of one’s civic duty. What’s a conservative to do?

As for myself, I plan to vote for a third party candidate. Naysayers will claim that voting third party is throwing your vote away, but it is far better to support a cause with which you agree even though it will almost certainly lose than to support a winning cause you despise. No doubt some fellow Republicans will brand me a traitor, but principles are far more important than party. After all, without principles what is the point of the party? My line of thinking is far closer to the stated goals of the Republican Party than Senator McCain’s. Besides, with two prior exceptions, I have always voted Republican. These two variations occurred when Republican candidates betrayed or forgot about their conservative constituents, the 2002 Senate Race (Warner) and the 2004 Presidential race (Bush). In both cases I did not so much vote for another candidate, but rather against the Republican one. I should mention that I did not vote for either of the two Democrats (Warner or Kerry), as I felt they were not worthy of my vote. Maybe one day I’ll find a conservative Democrat running against a liberal Republican. Like they have in some states, if they offered a “none of the above” option, it would get my support.

If you saw the interview yesterday, Ron Paul mentioned that Americans should vote for a candidate who supports four key principles. These principles are ending interventionism and militarism in foreign policy, restoring privacy in part through getting rid of the Patriot Act, eliminating the national debt, and abolishing the Federal Reserve. Therefore, he could realistically encourage voters to vote for Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution), Cynthia McKinney (Green), or Ralph Nader (Independent). Ron Paul is only partially right here. Although they all apparently endorse these principles, I could not in good conscious support either McKinney or Nader. Until and unless these two embrace the ideals of the 10th Amendment and a limited federal government, they are as unacceptable as McCain and Obama. Instead, they support proposals like reparations and national health insurance. Therefore, the true choice for conservatives is between Barr and Baldwin.

I wish that I could support the Republican ticket this year, I really do. To stand in opposition puts me at odds with a number of friends and associates. You see those McCain signs that say “country first”, but it misses the greater issue. Without putting principles first, neither country nor party holds nearly the same worth. I am a conservative first and also a Republican as long as they hold the same values that I cherish. Let us hope that the party nominates a solid conservative in 2012. When they do, I’ll be the first to sing the praises. Until that day, we must not allow ourselves to be taken for granted any longer.

That Special Time of Year

Well, the time is upon us once again. What time you might ask? True, it is football season, but also important is the official start of the election season here in Harrisonburg and Rockingham County. Although we have our annual booth at the fair (if you’ve never experienced it, you really should), the true start to the season begins with the opening of the city/county Republican Party Headquarters.

On Friday, after the usual gathering at the Wood Grill Buffet, we met at our new headquarters. This year, like many in the past, it is located in the same shopping center as Heavenly Ham behind the Valley Mall. It is a good location I think. Although I do enjoy the charm offered by a downtown setting, the parking and proximity to many places of business make it more accessible. Though to be honest, as long as we aren’t in the former tattoo parlor on route 11 as we were in 2006, I think we are doing pretty well.

Our own Congressman Bob Goodlatte was there to open the HQ, which was a nice touch. I wish our State Senator and Delegate could have made it too, but as for Senator Obenshain, I was told he had to attend to his attorney duties at that time. It was certainly understandable. It looks as it we will have a goodly number of people in the building at most hours of the day as one desk appeared to be set aside for an RPV staffer and the McCain campaign has sent one or two employees to work out of the location. It is a smart move I think. Certainly this area is fertile ground for likely Republican voters and John McCain would likely need strong majorities in this region to counteract northern Virginia.

But, what would this post be without pictures? Enjoy!

Front of Headquarters
Front of Headquarters

The Crowd Gathers (1)
The Crowd Gathers (1)

A View of the Crowd (2)
A View of the Crowd (2)

Making Signs
Making Signs

The very hard working Chairman, Mike Meredith
The very hard working Chairman, Mike Meredith

Our Representative, Bob Goodlatte
Our Representative, Bob Goodlatte

The Crowd Again
The Crowd Again

Back to Sign Making
Back to Sign Making

Oh, the Scandal!

Last year, before I worked for the Ron Paul campaign, I spoke to Virginia candidate about his upcoming race. He was searching for a campaign manager and thought I might be a good choice. As part of the interview process, he asked me for a writing sample. I wracked my brain, but I couldn’t think of anything I wanted to send him. At the time, I was working primarily on fiction and didn’t want to send him my work. After all, if I couldn’t convince an agent to publish the work, how could I impress him with the same material? Alas, much of my political writings were outdated, a remnant from college. Therefore, I decided to create something new…something that highlighted a very important topic to me, U.S. foreign policy.

I labored for a handful of hours on the piece and then submitted it to the candidate. After he was finished reading it, he asked if I had ever had this work, or something on the same topic, published. I told him that I hadn’t but, intrigued, I asked him why he wanted to know. His reply was quite blunt. He told me that if I had, he would certainly not consider me for the position. It was not so much how it was written (although I think I can improve upon it), but rather the beliefs that I held. Nevertheless, he later offered me the position assuming I agreed to not discuss this issue further, but I declined to accept.

Well…I’ve kept you in suspense long enough. Here is my writing, as it was sent back in 2007 (with one and only one spelling correction) in all its scandalous glory. Enjoy.

“Although I know that I differ greatly with other Republicans that I know, (and my position could cost me personally) I feel compelled to write about the important issue of the conflict in Iraq. Although I think that just about everyone agrees now that the military strategy was mishandled, the larger question we should be asking is, should we have been over there in the first place? I think the answer is no.

If the reader is to recall, after 9-11 and the conflict in Afghanistan, Americans awaited news of the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Certainly any person responsible for the horrid attacks on the world trade center and related targets must be held accountable. As the sweeps of the caves of Afghanistan proved, Osama was a difficult target to catch. It was, during this time, that strong rhetoric from the White House called for the removal of Saddam Hussein. They claimed that he was a threat to national security for he possessed weapons of mass destruction which he was intending to use on the United States, and that he aided to some extent in the 9-11 attacks. If these arguments were correct then certainly one could make the claim for an attack on Iraq. There was just one small problem. As I suspected then, and most everyone now knows, these two premises for conflict proved to be false. Once this realization was made public, the reasons for conflict supposedly changed, stating that instead we wished to free the people of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam and work to protect the free world and democracy. Although these goals sounded lofty, neither is a proper use of our military.

I believe that it is an extraordinary act for a man to lay down his life for his country as our soldiers do, and, in accordance, we should not and must not ask him or her to do so lightly. If, and only if, our people are truly in danger, should this request be made. As events planned out, it was shown that such was simply not the case in Iraq. Although perhaps sounding harsh, the life of just one American soldier is worth more than the supposed freedom of the Iraqi people. That is not to say that I do not support the freedom of the Iraqi people, because I do, but such a movement must come from within, not be delivered by a foreign power.

On another point, one can point to the Constitution rightly claiming that it is our government’s responsibility to protect the citizens of this nation from all threats. One cannot find where it is allowed the same power in regard to the citizens of another sovereign nation. I do not understand how supposed conservatives can embrace the policy of nation building when such a power, to the best of my knowledge, is not enumerated by the Constitution. Are we not strict constructionists? Do we not believe, with a couple exceptions, that the best government is that which governs least? Do we not understand that a continued policy of foreign interventionism, such as the one in Iraq, vilified the United States in the eyes of many, had the potential to create new enemies, and ultimately served the opposite goal of weakening our security? In September of 2000, before 9-11, President Bush spoke against the policy of nation building. I think he phrased it well when he said, “I just don’t think that its the role of the United States to walk into a country to say, ‘We do it this way, so should you.'” It was greatly unfortunate that, as a result of the crisis, this earlier wisdom was abandoned.

Therefore, for the precious lives of our soldiers, the moorings of the Constitution, and the desire for greater security and peace, I believe that most Republicans and all conservatives should have been against the conflict in Iraq before it even began.”

So what do you think? Shocking isn’t it? Despite the fact that a significant majority of Americans agree with my viewpoint, holding such beliefs makes one a quasi-pariah in the Republican ranks. To give you some additional information, the candidate from above mentioned that my writing was more akin to a Democrat that a Republican. Now, I can’t recall the last time that I heard a Democrat call for a limited, constitutional government, but maybe I just missed that somewhere along the way. Let us not forget that the first conflict which called for making the world “safe for democracy” was waged not by a Republican, but by a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Nevertheless, I know that a great number of Republicans, even many who consider themselves conservatives, hold a differing viewpoint that I do on the issue of foreign policy, but I think it is quite sad that they are not open to discuss this issue either openly or in private. You think not? For example, several months ago while at a Harrisonburg GOP function, Bob McDonnell stated that Republicans disagree all the time, but if we agree at least 80% of the time, we should be united and work together. He then went on to say that we must continue to support the war in Iraq. Was his discussion about unity merely empty rhetoric? Come on Attorney General…I agree with you on more that 80% of the issues, why must I be forced to sit quietly in the corner? Is this issue not up for debate? Have the neo-con hawks kicked the rest of us out of the party? Oh well. Life goes on I suppose. The fight for the party as well as the fight in Iraq goes on. We can’t let them win that easily.

Rediscovering the Creed

This afternoon, while cleaning out my car, under a carpet mat in the back seat, I ran across a tattered magnet. Affixed to this magnet is an ad for Bob McDonnell as well as the Republican Creed of Virginia. Even though I’ve been involved in politics for well over a decade, I have rarely seen the creed. Therefore, I thought it best to type it out and share it with you here. Please note that these words are not my own, but copyrighted by the RPV.

“We Believe…

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice

That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society

That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government

That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations

That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense

That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation”

After reading through the list again, I ask you, what’s not to like? It reminds me of the guiding principles that drove me to become involved back in high school…fiscal restraint, limited government, social responsibility, and freedom. These are critical concepts and I believe that we must struggle everyday to promote these ideals. Unfortunately, as you know, there are politicians among us who despise these tenets and not all of them are Democrats. Lamentably, wolves exist among the Republicans, there are those who seek to destroy these very same principles, liberals who long for more power and glory for themselves, for Richmond, or for Washington. In addition, I’m sorry to say that a number of Republicans in other states do not hold to the same set of values as we do here in Virginia. As stated in my earlier piece, “Brand Loyalty”, it is always important to verify, verify, verify!

So now that you’ve read the Republican Creed of Virginia, I have to ask, what is your creed? What moves you politically?

Talkin’ ‘bout our Immigration

On August 26th, while reading the Daily News Record, my local paper, I came across an article entitled, “Mississippi Plant Raid Creates Hispanic Panic.” Although the title pretty well summarizes the events of the story, it catalogs a massive search and detention of illegal immigrants by federal officials. One question that went through my mind after reading this article was, “what makes this story newsworthy?” It stated that this was the largest raid to date, but size doesn’t necessarily imply importance. Now unlike many of the other actions of the federal government, I believe that the federal government has a moral and constitutional duty to protect and defend the borders of our country from those who try to penetrate them illegally. I think the answer to my question of newsworthiness is one of rarity. Honestly, how many times can you recall hearing of raids like this in either Mississippi, or any other state, for that matter? It’s difficult to recall them, isn’t it? Why aren’t they more common? Why don’t they defend our borders? Although certainly some blame rests with the INS and other related governmental organizations, far more should fall on the shoulders of our politicians.

If you will recall from the YouTube Republican Presidential debates back in late 2007, Rudi Giuliani was accused of running New York City as a sanctuary city during his tenure as mayor. In his defense, he argued that they rounded up and detained “every single illegal immigrant that New York City could find that either committed a crime or was suspected of a crime.” Did not Giuliani see the flaw in his own logic here? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t being in this country illegally a crime in and of itself? Why would an additional criminal act be necessary to require some sort of consequences? As a public servant, wasn’t it Giuliani’s responsibility to uphold the law? Apparently others on the stage picked up on this double standard too as Mitt Romney countered, “…and the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime, how about the fact that people who are here illegally are violating the law? They didn’t report everyone they found who was here illegally.” Although I have a number of disagreements with the former governor of Massachusetts, I believe that he hit the nail on the head with this comment. Illegal means, and is, illegal. It is neither cruel nor capricious, but a provable fact. We must enforce our immigration laws uniformly across the board to all nationalities regardless of skin color or language.

Often politicians will say that illegal immigration is a problem, but it is too difficult to remove them all. Instead we should offer amnesty to the illegals that are presently here and prevent future border violations. This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, why should people who have knowing violated U.S. law be rewarded with citizenship? Certainly there are a number of deserving immigrants who are trying to enter our nation legally. In addition, I believe that aliens will always try to enter illegally. What sort of message does amnesty send to these people? Go ahead and invade our country instead of going through the legal process. We’ll give you citizenship sooner or later. Second, we tried amnesty back in 1986. Did it work? Let’s see…do we still have an illegal immigration problem today? Of course we do. We know it didn’t work back then, so what would persuade us to give it another try? It is an easy answer for politicians because it allows them the opportunity to more or less maintain the status quo and it is inexpensive. No one has to be sent out to capture and deport these aliens. Companies that violate the law aren’t held accountable. Labor costs in certain industries are kept low. Everyone wins…except of course for the vast majority of us who don’t break the law. However, if we remain silent and inactive, we are as culpable as the lawbreakers themselves.

So what can we as citizens of the commonwealth do about this issue? I highly recommend writing or calling your legislators. These people have been sent to Richmond and Washington to represent you and your concerns and it is high time we hold them to account. I say that if a politician does not uphold his or her constitutional responsibility to defend and protect our borders, then he or she does not represent us. That person is not worthy to represent either the Shenandoah Valley, or the great state of Virginia. A good number of our leaders and candidates stand with us, but others deceive us with their rhetoric and their inaction. Do your research, contact your leaders, and make your will known, not just at the ballot box in November of this year, but next year too, and every year until the problem is finally solved.

A Death in the Family

For those who have been keeping up with this blog you know that I have been trying to find out why VCAP’s website and phone number have gone AWOL for the past several weeks.  Well folks, I’ve finally discovered the fate of VCAP.  Yesterday, got an email from the director of VCAP, RobinDeJarnette, which read, ” I’ve moved out the country for a five month project and will be closing the PAC.”  Although this comes as disappointing news to many conservatives in the state, I know full well that political groups, like people, are born, grow, decline, and die.  However, like a youth killed in a tragic car accident, I cannot help but feel as if VCAP died before its time.  Although I was only nominally involved, I had great hopes for this PAC.  Now perhaps the death of VCAP will herald the rise of some greater organization or movement.  Although I would not consider myself an optimist, ideally, we all like to think that even death can give birth the some good.  As it no longer serves any purpose, I have removed the VCAP link from this site.

In respect, let us observe a moment of silence.

Half of a Debate on Preemptive War

Good morning readers.

Recently I had the opportunity to contribute to a publication, the Freeman-Standard operated on the campus of my alma mater, The College of William and Mary. They asked me to participate in a point/counterpoint discussion. The topic concerns the subject of a preemptive strike/war. I was given the task of writing argument against preemptive war. Below is the article I have submitted. If you wish to read the opposing viewpoint, pick up a copy of the Freeman-Standard once it becomes available. I know that I will. I hope you enjoy it.

The Folly of Preemptive War

When considering the defense of our people and our soil, one school of thought proclaims that no options should be left off the table. They even go so far as to attempt to legitimize attacking our enemies (or our potential enemies) before they do us harm. Although it is true that by striking our foes first, we may be able to wipe out some portion of their offensive capabilities before they can be used against us, the prospect of preemptive war presents many troubling realities. First of all, we could enter into a scenario as offered in the movie The Minority Report. In this action-filled story of a futuristic police state, citizens are arrested and charged, but it is not for crimes they have committed, but rather crimes they are predicted to commit in the future. The moral dilemma in the film, as with preemptive war, is how can one be sure that these predictions will come to pass? All people and all states are capable of heinous deeds and thoughts, but not all players will choose to act upon them. Repeatedly using the doctrine of preemptive war, we will no doubt punish many guilty states, but what happens when we decimate an innocent one due to faulty intelligence or incorrect assumptions?

Secondly, if the government was allowed to use preemptive war as a justification for conflict, could not unscrupulous politicians use the pretext for personal or political gain? As Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter on Feb. 15, 1848:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us;” but he will say to you, “be silent: I see it, if you don’t”.
Even though I hate to advocate it, without an actual attack by an enemy how can we reliably prove that our politicians are not motivated by something other than national security and defense?

Consider another example. Imagine a typical elementary playground. Suppose that one child has a deep fear of getting roughed up by the bully or bullies in the class. What should be his response? Relying upon the notion of preemptive war, one quickly resorts to a sort of Hobbesian state of nature where the child either takes the initiative and attacks the brute before he has a chance to attack him or, if he lacks the physical prowess necessary, recruits others to assist him in subduing this threat. For the sake of argument, let us assume that this attack is entirely successful and the bully no longer presents any future threat. Does the child now rest easy? Perhaps, but what happens if a new bully arises? Assume again that this thug is dispatched in the same manner. Unfortunately using this power of aggressive deterrence, although it solves some problems, it will likely give rise to new ones. With an inflated sense of power and importance, it is likely that the child will assert his newfound influence to seek out new and more powerful bullies or instead seek to mold the playground to best serve his interest or worldview. Suppose a kid is on the swings too long, or one is hogging the slide. What can be done? Won’t our empowered child seek to correct these imbalances, likely using the same proven tactics employed against the first ruffian? Alas, the use of preemptive force in these situations, although the child will likely assert their necessity till he is blue in the face, is simply unwarranted. The bullied victim becomes the new bully himself. Sooner or later the other children, witnessing our child’s gross abuse of power will act to punish him for his actions. Therefore he will become an outcast or be pounded into meek submission. Either way, he will likely be far worse off than he was when he lived with the mere threat of being harassed. Although using the guise of children, I believe that this example is quite apropos to the relation between nation states.

While the debate over preemptive war is a complex and wordy issue that could take pages and books to argue fully, I believe that these reasons stand as several valid complaints one could level against the practice. First, couldn’t the intelligence concerning capability or intention be in error? Second, isn’t it possible for some politician or group to seek brute force in order to achieve their own selfish gains rather than the safety and security of the people and their state? Third, wouldn’t the use of preemptive war lead to becoming embroiled militarily in trivial matters or arousing hatred, more enemies, and more frequent and uglier conflicts? I am certain that as Americans, we all seek ways to preserve and protect our lives and land from external threats, unfortunately the tempting tree of preemptive war offers little in the way of the fruit of long-term security, but is heavy laden with the seeds of future conflict and disaster.

Is John McCain a Conservative?

Author’s note: This post was written on March 30, 2008 and originally posted as is on the VCAP blog. Please see “What Happened to VCAP?” regarding its reposting.

This morning while reading the paper, I came across a letter to the editor from a Mr. Corbo. Presuming that this is the same Mr. Corbo that I know (and please pardon me if it is not), he wrote how he, as a conservative, would not be supporting or voting for John McCain in the general election. Now the Mr. Corbo that I know is a good man and put in many volunteer hours on behalf of Senator Allen’s reelection attempt in 2006, so that is why the name popped out at me when I saw it.

Let me start out by saying that I am fairly certain that as conservatives, Senator McCain was likely not our first, second, or even third, choice for the Republican nomination early in the process. Perhaps it was Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, or Duncan Hunter, or for a select few of us, Ron Paul, but not John McCain. But, leaving history in the past, here we are with John McCain as the Republican nominee and either Hillary or Barack on the Democratic side. As a result, some conservatives have embraced McCain, while others (like Mr. Corbo) have rejected him.

When it comes to voting, you should bear in mind that there are several different types of conservatives. First, we have the single-issue conservative. This conservative values one or two issues as key and will not vote for a candidate who does not agree on that particular policy. Second is the grocery list conservative who considers a handful of issues to be important and if a candidate agrees with most of these positions, he or she will get that voter’s support. Third, we have the strict Republican conservative who will always (or almost always) vote for the Republican candidate regardless of any specific issue positions.

Unfortunately in Mr. Corbo’s letter he does not address the specific issue or issues that make him unable to support Senator McCain. Should he happen to read this post, I would greatly encourage him to write back and express his particular grievances, not because I wish to debate him, but rather to seek understanding. There are several legitimate reservations I think some conservatives could make about John McCain, such as illegal immigration and campaign finance reform, and therefore it would be very helpful to know his particular reasoning.

Lastly, if you are a conservative who supports Senator McCain, feel free to comment as to why you support him, or if you are a conservative who opposes him, reply with reasoning likewise. If conservatives who think like Mr. Corbo make up a small percentage of the vote, then the Senator and his campaign would take little note, and I would project the election will go relatively well for him. However, if many are planning to dump the Senator, then it will be very tough for him to win, especially here in the Commonwealth. So if you are a fan for Senator McCain, or you despise him, respond here on VCAP’s blog this blog and let your voice be heard.

Update #1: The Mr. Corbo in question was the same person as the George Allen volunteer.

Update #2: Last weekend I attended a conference in Front Royal with about twenty-five other political activists. At one point, we were asked in a secret ballot, “Is John McCain a Conservative?” The result was a unanimous no.

Update #3: Despite my renewed efforts, still no word as to what happened to VCAP.