Conservatives Against Allen?

A few moments ago, I received an invite to a new Facebook group.  Normally, I just ignore such requests as my inbox is flooded with all sorts of nonsensical junk, but this particular appeal caught my eye.  The name of this group is “Republicans Against a George Allen comeback” and bears the following picture.

Although I cannot tell how fast, or if, the Facebook group is growing, or can I see the entire list of supporters, it currently boasts 93 members.   Believe it or not, anti-Allen rhetoric in Republican circles is not a new trend.  Many years ago, during a political rally some group passed around fliers questioning his pro-life position.  Besides the abortion issue, this Facebook group questions his record on gun rights, property rights, and homosexual rights.

Now that contenders are starting to appear for the 2012 Senate Race, former Senator and Governor Allen is named as a possible candidate.  According to the information I have gleaned, there are currently three likely candidates:  George Allen, Bob Marshall, and Corey Stewart.  As a result, over at Virginia Virtucon, they are conducting a straw poll of readers and George Allen is running second behind Delegate and 2008 Senate hopeful, Bob Marshall.

So is this group a natural outgrowth of these camps starting to form or is there a significant number of conservatives who, like the picture states want “anybody but George Allen”?  Does this group represent the fringe or the mainstream?  I suppose it may be a little early to tell, but I’ll continue to monitor the situation to check to see how the numbers fluctuate and what other issues they raise.  But what do you think?  Is Allen’s star once again on the rise or is he merely yesterday’s news?  As a follow-up, are you pro- or anti-George Allen?

Marshall Endorses Goad

Early in my inbox this morning (and I do mean early), I received an email from our conservative friends in Botetourt County.  In it, Delegate Marshall (R-13) offers his opinion about the race for the 6th District Chairman.   To follow are his comments:

Can you take four to five minutes from your busy day to think about a decision that will have effects on you, your family and Virginia for years to come?

I am talking about the Sixth District Republican Convention race where you and other fellow conservatives will set a course for our Virginia Republican Party.

The decision is yours to make, not mine, although I do have a preference for the Sixth District.

I would just like to first share with you the benefit of my experience of my more than 32 years in Republican politics, 19 years as an elected official, and 6 years as a Congressional staff aide.

Clearly, the most successful American politician of the last part of the 20th Century was President Ronald Reagan.  He called himself a conservative, and did not apologize.  He ran as a Republican.  He said he was 100% pro life because it was a moral issue.  He opposed high taxes because he thought it weakened American families.  He called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire because it was.  He would not compromise any moral principle for political gain.  He won the presidency twice after serving as Governor of California.

In 1975 Ronald Reagan criticized the spending policies of Republican President Gerald Ford for adopting the deficit spending and debt increasing habits of the Democratic controlled Congress.  Sad to say, the current crop of debt-loving liberal Democrats in Congress can point to the debt increases approved by congressional Republicans who voted to grow the debt on our children when George Bush was president.  Unfortunately, the record shows the Democrat critics are correct!

If we depart from our own principles “just a little bit,” we are not in a good position to criticize Democrats when they do it with gusto.

By voting for Danny Goad for Sixth Republican Chair on May 22 at 10:00AM in Lynchberg at the Towns Alumni Center, Liberty University, we can bring back that successful Reagan formula of combining conservative social and economic principles to win elections.

Danny Goad, father of six, is a Mechanical Engineer with an MBA.  Danny has been involved in conservative Republican efforts and elections for 18 years.  He has been vice-chairman or chairman of three local Republican units.  If ever our nation needed principled individuals willing to lead it is now.  Danny Goad is a committed conservative and is willing to serve as Sixth District Republican Chair.

Ronald Reagan did not win victories in Virginia and across America by himself.  He had the support of a Republican Political Party structure, people like you and me, who were largely conservative.

We, you and I together, can do that again for Virginia with a vote for conservative Republican Danny Goad on May 22.

Thank you for all you do to preserve our Republic and our Liberties.  If you have any questions, call me on my cell phone at 703-853-4213.
Hopefully,

Bob Marshall

Delegate Bob Marshall, R – 13th District of Virginia

P.S.  I have included excerpts from Ronald Reagan’s 1975 and 1977 speeches to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with a few comments of my own so you can see for yourself how Ronald Reagan combined practical experience with conservative principles to revive and rebuild a conservative Republican Party.

Ronald Reagan 1975 Speech to CPAC — Excerpts

“Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election.  (November, 1974) It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.  …

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means. … Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? …

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don’t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”–when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people? Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt. …

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine. …

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.” …

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view.  And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”

Ronald Reagan 1977 speech to CPAC–Excerpts

The percent of Americans now calling themselves “conservative” vs. “liberal” was higher at the end of 2009 than in 1976 when Reagan was addressing CPAC below.  A recent Gallup survey found the following breakdown:  conservatives 40%; liberal 21% and moderate 36%.  Additional Gallup breakdowns show that 71% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 21% of democrats call themselves “conservative.”

Reagan recognized that there were varieties of conservative, which he identified as social and economic.   No Republican president since Reagan has been able or been willing to replicate the Reagan union of social, economic and defense of foreign affairs conservatives.  Reagan said:

“Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.  A Harris poll released September 7, 1975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 percent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality, those polled by Harris said they would “prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one.”

You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues—law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems—are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues—inflation, deficit spending and big government—are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

… In short, isn’t it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?  I believe the answer is: Yes … This will mean compromise.  But not a compromise of basic principle.” …

“And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply “making room” for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.” …

My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created.

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk.

Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.”

Although unfortunately I still haven’t spoken with Mr. Goad, Delegate Marshall offers many strong words of praise, going so far as to compare him to President Reagan.  Given his stances, I do hope to meet Mr. Goad sooner or later.   On a related note, it is interesting to see as more and more of my Facebook friends line up on one side of the aisle or the other.   With the election a mere three days away, the camps are clearly forming.

In retrospect, I wish I were attending the convention down in Lynchburg this Saturday.  Nevertheless, I expect that both of the candidates, Danny Goad and Trixie Averill, will serve the Republicans of the 6th district well.  It should be exciting to see who wins!

Virginia vs. Obamacare

Of course you’ve heard the news by now.  House of Representatives narrowly pass Obamacare.  “Pro-life” Democrats abandon principles for the sake of party.  Americans will soon be forced to buy health insurance, etc.  Needless to say, I not pleased by this vast increase in federal government power.  Unfortunately, with each passing administration we surrender more and more of our rights and liberty to the government.  When will it all end?  How much more power do they need?  Will we suddenly wake up one day, stripped of all our liberty and personal responsibility, and wonder how we got in such a mess?  How much more unconstitutional abuse can we endure?

Although this latest affront known as Obamacare worries me greatly, it makes me very glad that I live here in the state of Virginia.  You see, unlike some parts of the country, our legislators in Richmond don’t simply throw up their hands and surrender to the overreaching authority of Washington.  This year, Senators Steve Martin, Fred Quayle, and Jill Vogel, as well as Delegate Bob Marshall have all introduced similar or identical bills in the General Assembly, which exempt Virginians from Obamacare.  As a result of their efforts, Virginians are protected from this federal mandate.  It is a modern day example of nullification; the theory that states can ignore or overturn any federal law that they believe violates the constitution.  In addition, our Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli is preparing to sue the feds over this issue.  Even though other states are planning similar actions, Virginia is taking the lead for federalism and the 10th Amendment.  I do feel sorry for those citizens who live in states whose legislators are either too liberal or too cowardly to take a stand against this “reform”.

Here is a clip from March 17, 2010 on Fox News.

Ultimately, it is very likely that this issue will reach the Supreme Court.  Will the court find Obamacare constitutional?  And if so, will nullification efforts like Virginia’s be upheld?

I encourage you to head over to Crystal Clear Conservative who has a couple of good clips from Attorney General Cuccinelli on the matter, as well as Bearing Drift who have an important interview with Representative Wittman and AG Cuccinelli.

Oh Bob…

Earlier today, a story began circulating concerning Delegate Bob Marshall.  I first read about it in the News Leader, a publication based in the Shenandoah Valley, under the provocative headline, “Disabled Kids are God’s Punishment”.  On Thursday of last week, while advocating defunding Planned Parenthood, Delegate Marshall stated, “The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.  In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”  As a result of this article, a number of bloggers and activists have been questioning his words and motives such as Bearing Drift and The Right-Wing Liberal.  In addition, some folks (661 as of this post) have signed a petition asking Delegate Marshall to both apologize and resign.

So here are my thoughts on the matter.  First, after reading a bit more, I think the headline should have read, “Disabled Kids are sometimes God’s Punishment”.  The quote doesn’t say that all disabled kids are punishment from God, but the disability maybe as a result of sin.  Semantics I know, but I feel for the sake of accuracy the point should be made.  Nevertheless, a comment like the one Delegate Marshall still raises a boatload of questions and is still grotesquely offensive at worst and poorly worded at best.  Now I don’t know if the chance of birth defects increases as a result of a previous abortion, but even if so, the comment seems callous and vindictive.  More troubling still in my mind is the attempt to pronounce God’s will.  Even though we in the pro-life community believe abortion to be a sin, I would never call a birth defect as a “punishment from God”.  For a more personal example, when my grandmother (a God-fearing woman) was struck with Alzheimer’s was it as a result of genetics or was it God’s wrath?

In response to this story, Delegate Marshall offered the following statement:

A story by Capital News Service regarding my remarks at a recent press conference opposing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood conveyed the impression that I believe disabled children are a punishment for prior abortions. No one who knows me or my record would imagine that I believe or intended to communicate such an offensive notion. I have devoted a generation of work to defending disabled and unwanted children, and have always maintained that they are special blessings to their parents. Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families.

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall
State Delegate, 13th District
Prince William County, Loudoun County

I don’t think that one should rule out the possibly that Delegate Marshall’s comments were taken out of context.  After all, as Bob Holsworth points out (courtesy of Jason Kenney at Bearing Drift) no one fights harder for children with autism than Bob Marshall.  If he viewed such a condition as “punishment from God”, I doubt he would care too much about the topic.  In addition, if these comments were made on Thursday, why, with all of our instant communication, did it take several days for this comment to be made public?  As you well know, I greatly appreciate many of Delegate Marshall’s efforts in the General Assembly on key issues like abortion, states rights, and health care freedom and therefore so badly want to believe the best in this situation.  Nevertheless, assuming he was misunderstood, I fear that his comments have given great encouragement to those who oppose him and his politics.  Either way, it makes my heart heavy.  Delegate Marshall, you know I admire your principles and your courage.  This can’t be the real you.  And if this comment is just a misunderstanding, don’t let it destroy your good works.

Bad Medicine

With each passing day, America slips further and further into the grip of socialism.  I expect that both the House of Representatives and Senate will soon reach an agreement on the latest attack on our liberty, national health care.  Although I’d like to think that Senator Webb and Warner would uphold their vows to our Constitution and vote against the bill, in the end, it is highly likely that both will toe the Democratic Party line.  Sigh.  I suppose that at some point our government must have been pretty decent.  Then again, the Supreme Court finding a supposed right to privacy that allows you to kill your own children through abortion but doesn’t protect you from the intrusion of the government through the excesses of the Patriot Act makes just about as much sense in today’s society.  It’s amazing what you can get away with when you interpret the phrase “general welfare” as liberally as possible while ignoring the 10th Amendment.

I have a confession to make.  Like millions of Americans, I don’t have health insurance.  Why don’t I, you may ask?  The answer is simple.  I cannot afford it.  Although I have had health insurance in the past and will likely do so again in the future, my budget doesn’t allow it at the present.  Well then, should I look to the government for assistance?  Should I insist that the government take money out of your pocket and give it to me so that I too can enjoy the benefits of health insurance?  Is that scheme unfortunately becoming the new “American way”?  While we are on the subject, I have to wonder why we need health insurance for routine doctor visits.  My understanding is that originally health insurance was used for major things like surgery, hospital stays, and the like.  Using insurance for any health related issue under the sun makes about as much sense as requiring auto insurance for oil changes.  As a result, this increased reliance on insurance has greatly spiked the health care costs in this country.  Take it from me; to now seek medical assistance without it is tantamount to financial suicide.  And when this legislation passes, if you choose to go without insurance, then the federal government can fine you?  I’m starting to wonder, which side won the Cold War, liberty or statism?  To borrow a phrase from Yakov Smirnoff, in Soviet Russia, insurance chooses you!

Now we can scream foul at the top of our lungs, but will our elected representatives hear our cry?  Sure, some statesmen like Delegate Bob Marshall, Senator Mark Obenshain, and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli are actively fighting for your rights, but the vast majority of politicians simply don’t care.  After all, Washington insiders know what’s best for you and are more than happy to dictate policy.  You agree, yes?  Remember, Napoleon Obama is always right.  Anyone who supports federalized insurance must be voted out of office and I encourage you to read Senator Obenshain’s recent article on the subject found in the Washington Times.  Not only does socialism promote bad medicine through expanded bureaucracy and inflated costs, it also spawns bad governance.

Rally Against the Real ID

Just a short update here folks.  In case you haven’t heard, next week legislators and conservative activists from across the state will be gathering at the capital in an attempt to halt Virginia implementation of the federally mandated Real ID program.  Several other states have rejected this plan and it is high time Virginia does so as well.

The details:

When:  1:00 PM Jan. 21
Where: Virginia Capital Bell Tower
910 Capital Street
Richmond

Both Del. Marshall and Sen. Cuccinelli will be there as well as numerous others.  Wish I could join you, but unfortunately I have to work.

For liberty!

The Curious Case of the 2008 Senate Race

When examining the present Senate race here in Virginia, there are two factors that one should keep in mind:  the events leading up to and including the Republican convention, and results since that time.  For those who attended the convention or keep up with party politics, most of this information will be redundant for you, but I hope to bring others who have not followed as closely up to speed.

In the end, the fight over the Republican nomination was very heated and very close.  Initially, it was shaping up to be a showdown between Rep. Tom Davis of Fairfax vs. Former Gov. Gilmore of Henrico County.  Davis was the liberal candidate and Gilmore was the conservative.  While Davis advocated a primary, Gilmore supported a convention.  When the state party voted to hold a convention, Davis withdrew from the race.  The reasoning was simple; conventions typically favor the more conservative candidate.  With Davis gone, Gilmore officially announced his intent on Nov. 19th of 2007.  For a little more than a month, Gilmore stood as the only Republican candidate.  Then, on Jan 7th of 2008, Del. Bob Marshall of Prince William County entered the fray.  Marshall’s challenge stood as a serious problem for Gilmore as he is more conservative on a number of issues.  One issue in particular was the issue of abortion.  While Gilmore supports allowing abortion in the first eight weeks, Marshall opposes abortion from minute one.  Time and time again a number of the party activists hammered Gilmore on this issue.  The question for Gilmore was, given that a more conservative challenger had arisen, and the nominee was going to be selected by a convention, how could he win?  The answer his campaign settled on was relevancy.  As Gilmore was a former governor, he had far more name recognition that a delegate (which is, of course, very true).  Until the last several days he approached the campaign as if he was already the nominee, hardly ever mentioning his opponent, instead choosing to contrast himself with Mark Warner.  He had already won they said, all that was needed was the vote to make it official.  Although, of course, I supported Marshall, as a delegate to the convention I was insulted by the insinuation that my vote didn’t matter, that it was more of a coronation than an election.  I understand that if Gilmore got everyone to believe that his win was inevitable then no one would oppose him, but it produced the opposite effect in me.  In the last several days, the fight got quite ugly as accusations and names were thrown around.  In the end, although the vote was extremely close, Gilmore won by about sixty-five votes out of the over ten thousand cast. Borrowing someone else’s terminology, David nearly slew Goliath, but fell painfully short.

Now that Jim Gilmore is the GOP nominee, he finds himself in a similar position in which he placed Bob Marshall, fending off the supposed coronation of Mark Warner.  Prior to the convention many delegates supported Gilmore, not because of his political positions, but because they claimed he had a better chance of Mark Warner.  Now, although I could find no polling data pitting Marshall and Warner, the data of Gilmore vs. Warner was grim.  Prior to the convention, Rasmussen Reports charted the match up from Oct. 30, 2007 to May 5, 2008.  During that time frame, Gilmore was favored by 37% to 39% of likely voters, while 53% to 57% supported Warner.  If Gilmore was indeed our best hope as those delegates claimed, our hope was very small indeed.  In fact Rasmussen estimated Gilmore had a 15% chance of victory.  15%!  Who can be happy with those odds?  Even worse was the fact that 42% of those polled had a negative opinion of Gilmore.  The news gets ever worse.  In the latest poll of June 16th, Warner now leads Gilmore 60% to 33%.  We are headed in the wrong direction!  They now say that Warner has a 90% chance to win.

How did we get in this situation?  The answer has several parts.  The first is our President, George W. Bush.  Regardless if you like him or hate him, you should recognize his approval rating hovers at about 30%.  Two key issues here are the war and the economy.  Most voters now feel the war in Iraq was a mistake and that our economy is either in a recession or headed in that direction.  Fair or unfair, these opinions reflect poorly on Bush and thus reflect poorly on the party of Bush, the Republicans.  To the best of my knowledge, former Governor Gilmore has not distanced himself much from the President and thus will be viewed as a continuation of many of Bush’s policies, which means that a number of voters’ dislike is based simply on association.  Second, it is a proven fact that a party who controls the White House usually loses seats in Congress (must be that whole divided government ideal thing).  Third is the public perception of Gilmore and Warner.  Although very incorrect and unfair in my mind, many voters blame Gilmore for the financial turmoil suffered in the Commonwealth during his later days in office and the early days of Mark Warner.  One can see a similar parallel between Hoover and FDR.  People blamed the depression on Hoover and credited the recovery to Roosevelt even though facts of the matter spoke otherwise.  Fourth, as a result of his “brilliant leadership” as governor, Mark Warner enjoys the highest popularity of any Democrat in the state.  Fifth, to the best of my knowledge, after winning the GOP nomination in late May, Gilmore has made no efforts to reach out to Marshall supporters to tie the base back together.  He needs each and every vote possible to have a chance against Warner.  Sixth, although money isn’t everything, so far Mark Warner has raised far and away more money than Gilmore.  Unless Gilmore closes this gap quickly, we will see fewer ads, less signs, and an overall weaker campaign.

So, I suppose the question is, after fending off a spirited assault from the Marshall supporters, does Jim Gilmore have the ability to beat Mark Warner?  I certainly hope that he does, but every day that passes further fills me with concern.  Unless Gov. Gilmore and his campaign quickly and effectively address the numerous issues I mention above, the chance of success looks bleak.  Although the road ahead is very difficult, we can and must win.  We need to all work together.  To those who supported Gilmore at the convention, where are you now?  You said then that he had the best chance at victory.  So now you, above all others, must back up your claims and help the former Governor win!  We cannot afford another Democratic senator (and one far more liberal than Senator Webb).  Go Jim Gilmore!  Beat Mark Warner!

Pictures from the Convention

Most of my photos didn’t come out well, but here are a few for those who missed the convention.  Enjoy!

 

Del. Marshall with supporters

Del. Marshall with supporters

More Marshall supporters gather

More Del. Marshall supporters gather.

-)

Those darn Ron Paul supporters. 🙂

If only we could do away with outdated concepts like liberty, maybe they would go away…

If you were from Richmond, VA Beach, or other important places, you get to sit up front.  If you are from the 6th district, to the back of the hall with you.

If you look closely, I think you can just make out a Marshall supporter or two.

If you look closely, I think you can make out a Marshall supporter or two.

The ever popular former Sen. Allen

The ever popular former Senator Allen.

Our new Chairman, Del. Jeff Frederick

Our new Chairman, Del. Jeff Frederick

The Convention

I hope you all had an opportunity to attend the state Republican convention in Richmond this weekend.  Overall I think it went quite well and here are my thoughts on what happened.

First of all, I should mention that I supported Bob Marshall for U.S. Senate and Jeff Frederick for Party Chairman.  I strongly believe that these were the two candidates who best represented my conservative values.  Of course, the results were a mixed bag.  

The U.S. Senate

Bob Marshall lost by only the slimmest of margins, losing by about 60 votes out of over 1,000 cast.  For those like me, who greatly wanted to see Del. Marshall elected, it was a heartbreaking loss.  In my hometown, Harrisonburg, I was the lone vote for Del. Marshall.  One out of nine.  Needless to say, I felt a bit out of place waving my Marshall sign among the Gilmore supporters, but I’m used to being the lone voice in the crowd from time to time.  As a mixed blessing, we were seated in front of the city of Lynchburg, and while they had a number of vocal Marshall supporters, I sincerely wish they had shown about a bit more respect to the former Governor.  I felt their booing gave the rest of us a bad name.  The 6th district as a whole went for Gilmore, but only by a little over 20 votes.  It was amazing that most congressional districts supported one candidate very heavily with 2 to 1 and 3 to 2 margins being common.  In the end, we came up just a little short.  I suppose the hardest losses are the ones that could have been won.

The RPV Chairman

Del. Frederick easily won election to the post though official results were not given to the mass public.  For the Harrisonburg delegates the vote was 7 to 2 in favor of Frederick.  Not only that, but in the 6th district Jeff Fredrick won every single county and city with the exception of Roanoke City where it was tied.  I suspect the result was somewhere between 60 to 70 percent in his favor.  I do confess that I feel a little bad for former Chairman Hager, losing decisively as he did, but we needed desperately needed a change.  I felt that the RPV has ignored the western part of the state for too long and the losses in the General Assembly were avoidable.  Let us hope that both situations will be reversed soon.

It was great to meet so many Republicans across the state.  The hospitality suites were a perfect way to get in contact with the candidates, their supporters, and other related groups.  In fact, if not for the fine people at thejeffersoniad.com, I would not be writing here now.  Special thanks.

Well, that’s all for now.  Talk to you again soon.

Joshua