Although I cannot recall when it began, First Friday has been a regular political event in Harrisonburg for quite a while. Over the years, it has hosted a variety of candidates, politicians, and leaders of various groups. It has served not only as a monthly gathering for local activists but also as a way to reach a wider audience of folks from Shenandoah, Rockingham, Augusta, Rockbridge, and sometimes Greene Counties.
First Friday is not a local Republican unit, but it typically hosts Republican speakers. They’ve had Corey Stewart recently, and had a bit of a dust-up when Cynthia Dunbar ran for Republican National Committeewoman last year. Suzanne Obenshain, who also sought the committeewoman position and was the longtime leader of First Friday, also spoke to the group last year. Although he attended when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2014, Ed Gillespie has been a no-show this election cycle. When I ran for local office in 2014 as an independent candidate, I was allowed to attend but not to address the crowd. Nevertheless, the event was valuable; after my Republican opponents addressed the group, one attendee declared they were both socialists and wrote a check to my campaign. Donna Moser, the former head of the Rockingham County Republican Party leads the gathering.
However, things have been a bit rocky for First Friday these last several months. Several months ago Ms. Moser broke a bone while visiting relatives out of state and thus was unable to attend the May meeting. Nevertheless, First Friday still took place with Senator Bryce Reeves, who is running in the Republican primary for lieutenant governor, as the speaker. Ms. Moser had the leader of the local tea party hold First Friday in her absence. But, the meeting was very sparsely attended. In fact, I cannot recall a First Friday with such a low turnout. Usually, two factions attend; the conservative grassroots folks and the so-called establishment Republicans. But, almost none of the establishment people were in the audience. I asked the senator about this absence and he pointed out that although he is arguably the most conservative candidate running for the position, many of the establishment had endorsed his opponents and thus did not attend.
Shortly before the June meeting of First Friday, I’m told that Ms. Moser received a phone call from the chairman of the Harrisonburg Republican Party letting her know that the party had selected a replacement to host First Friday in her stead. However, as she had returned to the area, she stated she was able to resume her duties in this capacity. Delegate Ben Cline was the speaker, but, as with the previous month, the establishment Republicans boycotted the event.
After most folks left, Greg Coffman, the Harrisonburg GOP Chairman, sat at a table with Donna Moser. Afterward, I asked her about the conversation and she said that the three local chairmen (Harrisonburg, Rockingham, and Republican Women), had decided among themselves that Ms. Moser would no longer be leading First Friday. As none of these chairmen had elected her to her position, nor did any of these chairmen attend First Friday on a regular basis, my opinion was that none either individually or as a group would have the power to make such a decree. However, the story does not end there.
Late last night, the Harrisonburg Republican Party sent out an email declaring that future First Friday lunches have been cancelled. As the message states:
Consequently, the Committees’ leadership has decided to terminate the First Friday Luncheons program. The goal is to examine other venues that can provide more relevant opportunities for our members, community leaders, and political leaders to interact. This was the original intention in starting the First Friday Luncheon program, but we’ve seen a continuous decline in participation and support to the extent that the program is no longer fulfilling its purpose.
Due to the upcoming election season and the demands on everyone’s time, no decision on alternatives to First Friday will be made until after the election. Therefore, the County and City Committees are no longer endorsing, sponsoring, or supporting activities similar to or calling themselves “First Friday” until further notice.
To the best of my knowledge, there was no vote or discussion among the attendees of First Friday or even the local Republican committees of such a course of action (according to those who attend these meetings), but rather a dictatorial decree from the local party chairman. Perhaps this authoritarian push shouldn’t be all that surprising given that the Harrisonburg Chairman will not allow individuals to make any announcements at the city GOP meetings unless they have been submitted in writing at least five days prior to the meeting.
After speaking with Donna Moser, she has stated that First Friday will continue, whether the GOP chairmen support the idea or not. Given my experiences in local politics, the Republican Party strives for strict control of political events and guards who have access to their candidates and elected officials. Given this attitude and several other factors, it shouldn’t be surprising that every candidate except for one who has run under the Republican banner in the last seven years has lost to a Democrat in Harrisonburg.
I would expect that local activists will continue to gather at the Woodgrill Buffet in Harrisonburg for First Friday with or without the blessing of the local GOP chairmen. True, it will be a smaller affair as most of the establishment Republican crowd likely won’t attend, but perhaps First Friday will become a gathering for conservative activists and candidates of all stripes, not only those who bind themselves with the increasingly rigid rules of the Republican Party. If so, the local chairmen’s declaration of disavowing First Friday is a blessing in disguise for the citizens of the central Shenandoah Valley.
Today, Rita Dunaway was the featured speaker at the First Friday gathering in Harrisonburg, Virginia. She spoke in favor of the Convention of States project, a group which is working to convince state legislatures across the country to call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution under the provisions of Article V. Several years ago, Ms. Dunaway spoke at First Friday on this topic.
For those who haven’t heard her speak on the subject, I recorded her speech on my phone. However, shortly into the question and answer period I received a phone call which cut off the recording. In addition, as the restaurant was somewhat noisy, you may need to turn up your volume in order to hear it properly.
About six years ago, on January 6th, 2011, I excitedly wrote an article in support of a piece of legislation proposed by my state senator, Mark Obenshain, SB 1203. This proposal would require political parties to pay for their own primaries as opposed to the taxpayers, who shouldn’t have to foot the bill for the nomination process of a private organization. As Senator Obenshain wrote, “If a political party wants a conventional primary, fine – but they can pay for it. Our localities are burdened enough as it is. If a party cannot or will not put up that much money, they can always go with a cheaper option. Our localities can ill afford it – and under my proposal, they wouldn’t have to.” During this same General Assembly session, Obenshain also sponsored a bill, SB 1272, to privatize the state government-run ABC liquor stores. Although unfortunately both bills were killed in committee, I was delighted to see that they were proposed.
I had routinely supported Senator Obenshain since 2003 when I was a volunteer on his first campaign before he even got the GOP nomination. Sure, some senators in Virginia were pretty good, but Obenshain was mine. Were there bumps along the way? Of course, such as when he campaigned alongside Senator Lindsey Graham in 2008, but you can’t find someone with whom you always agree. In 2009, I strongly encouraged him to seek the GOP nod for Virginia Attorney General. By 2011, I believed that no other Virginia legislator could hold a candle to Senator Obenshain and I proudly told folks about my senator. I felt he was making good on his promise that “The most important goal in my life is to have some significant impact in preserving and expanding the realm of personal freedom in the life of this country”. It was a quote that his father made before his untimely death in 1978.
However, when the General Assembly session rolled around the next year, although I didn’t realize it at the time, something had begun to change. He didn’t advocate the bills he had in the previous session. Instead, included in his proposed legislation in 2012 were bills that didn’t limit the size of government and expand liberty, but rather ones that had the opposite effect. For example, there was SB 244 which was an attempt to register voters in Virginia by political party. It didn’t make sense to me. How are the ideals of limited government or liberty advanced by getting the state government involved in a party’s membership recruitment and retention? Fortunately, the bill was defeated and I didn’t pay it much more thought, merely considering it an odd fluke, much like in 2009 when he crafted a bill which would have charged a woman with a crime if she didn’t report a miscarriage to the state police within 24 hours of her child’s unfortunate death.
As we all know, in 2013 Senator Obenshain won the Republican nomination for Attorney General. I was invited to attend his campaign strategy sessions and, given that I was a board member of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia and had adventures with Libertarian Party members as well, I strongly encouraged his staff to make the message of liberty a center point for their campaign and that they should use this message to reach out to these like-minded individuals. Unfortunately, each time I made this suggestion, I was ignored, even when I offered to personally take the lead for this endeavor. As many will remember, Mark Obenshain ended up losing this race by 165 votes.
The following year, I began my run for Harrisonburg City Council. As mentioned in previous pieces, I was expelled from the Harrisonburg GOP, a unit in which Senator Obenshain was a member, in February 2014, but that didn’t deter my campaign plan. Throughout 2015 I tried repeatedly to attempt to schedule a meeting with my state senator, but his legislative aide steadfastly refused my request, declaring it to be a waste of the senator’s time. As such, I was unable to speak with my elected representative for almost an entire year. I should note that while I was blocked, this aide and Suzanne Obenshain, my senator’s wife, had formed a consulting firm and among their clients was one of my Republican opponents for council. Although I didn’t expect an endorsement from my state senator, given that we were no longer members of the same party, I was deeply dismayed when, the night before the election, Senator Obenshain apparently intentionally mislead the voters of Harrisonburg by sending out an email declaring that voters should support my Republican opponents because they were the conservatives in the race. For anyone who paid any attention to the race it was a blatant deception, especially considering one of these opponents supported higher taxes, more government regulation, and taxpayer funded subsidies.
After the election was over and his quarrelsome (and dare I say useless) aide had left his employ did I finally have an opportunity to speak with my state senator once more. Given my own experiences getting certified, I didn’t think that it was fair that I had to collect 125 valid signatures of registered voters in order to appear on the November ballot while my Republican and Democratic opponents did not have to do likewise. Therefore, I suggested a bill for the General Assembly which would require all candidates, regardless of political party, to meet the same filing requirements in order to achieve ballot access. Senator Obenshain flatly refused, telling me that he only wanted Democrats and Republicans to appear on the ballot.
In the 2015 General Assembly session, Senator Obenshain proposed another bill, SB 1060, which would require voters to register with the state by a political party or be declared as independents. This time, however, I knew it wasn’t some kind of aberration, but rather a deliberate attempt to squelch independents and the rise of third-party options. Therefore, I fought back, writing blog pieces and speaking with Republican and Democratic legislators against it. My primary effort during this time was centered around killing this wretched work. In the end, I’m pleased to say that the bill was narrowly defeated by the Virginia Senate on a vote of 19-21.
2015 was a reelection year for my senator and he ended up hiring a former liberty activist and former friend who had been a harsh critic of our congressman, Bob Goodlatte, and rallied local activists against him for several years. However, by this time, he had done a complete 180-degree turn, declaring Goodlatte to be “America’s best congressman”. In addition, this staffer had also been arrested for beating up a woman and other offenses while intoxicated. Unfortunately, adding this hire to the actions of Obenshain’s previous aide and his second campaign manager in his 2013 bid who had stolen materials from the campaign of Delegate Rob Bell, Obenshain’s Republican opponent, I came to the conclusion that my senator didn’t hire individuals based on their principles, ethics, or their ability to work with the public, but rather for their unquestioned loyalty (or those that could be bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise controlled). Although I had been a strong advocate for my state senator in his previous elections and re-elections, in the 2015 cycle I found myself sitting on the sidelines. During that time, I wrote a piece on the matter but didn’t end up posting it.
Although it was good to see a bill curbing the abuses of civil asset forfeiture, which allows the police to take and keep your property even if you are found innocent of committing a crime, I was horrified when I learned that Senator Obenshain voted against the bill in committee. Even though it passed that particular committee, it died in the next one.
When in mid to late 2016, Senator Obenshain once again declared a seemingly nonconservative candidate to be the conservative choice for Harrisonburg City Council, I found myself very upset still an entire week later. As a result, I wrote him a letter explaining my almost overwhelming frustration and disappointment. In it, I added that if he ever tried to enact party registration again or otherwise erode the political freedoms of the people of Virginia, I would do whatever I could to lead the charge to defeat such a bill.
Well, a few months later, Senator Obenshain announced SB 902, his third effort to force registration by political party. On Friday, January 6th, he spoke at the monthly First Friday gathering and I intended to ask him about the matter, but his wife was leading the meeting and my efforts were either not noticed or simply ignored. He explained how “we” needed to keep the Virginia Senate in Republican hands due to a special election coming up in several days, but couched it in a message of fear, saying how terrible it would be if the Democrats regained control of the chamber. It had echoes of his speech from the October 2015 First Friday gathering. Never mind the fact that the Republican Senate continually chooses Senator Tommy Norment, who is a liberal and supports big government, (he helped push through the 2013 transportation tax hike) as their majority leader each and every time they have controlled the chamber in the last two decades.
Although Senator Obenshain has been pushing for the Republican candidate in the 22nd district both at First Friday and in an email sent the day before, there are actually two special elections for the Virginia Senate on January 10th. While some people and groups like Representative Tom Garrett (VA-5) and the Virginia Citizens Defense League have also come out in support of the Libertarian candidate in the 9th district, Obenshain has remained silent on the second race because, presumably while it is important to support candidates who share your political party, we certainly don’t want to advance the cause of liberty as much as possible because that might mean supporting a candidate of a different political affiliation. There is a Democratic and a Libertarian candidate in this contest, no Republican ran.
As you might imagine, these last several years have been profoundly discouraging. Although my state senator declared himself a champion of liberty in the mold of his father, he acts as if he no longer cares about the idea. These days he seems to be far more concerned with protecting and promoting Republican legislators regardless of their principles and maintaining Republican control of as much government as possible.
A month or two before her death in mid-2016, I found myself in Rockbridge County helping Suzanne Curran, the somewhat legendary political activist from Shenandoah County, pack some materials in her vehicle. While I carried a box outside, she mentioned to me how she thought it might have been a good thing that Senator Obenshain lost his 2013 race for attorney general. Although I found it a surprising sentiment at the time, unfortunately, it is becoming all too clear what she was saying.
Billing himself as an advocate for liberty, Senator Obenshain seems to have unfortunately morphed into a mouthpiece for the Republican establishment. My once great pride in my state senator has been replaced by feelings of shame and regret. Has there been a radical transformation in Senator Obenshain in the last several years or has it always been the case and I was simply deceived?
On Friday, the local Republicans held their monthly First Friday gathering at the Woodgrill Buffet in Harrisonburg. The featured speakers were Ralph Smith, who is running for 6th district Republican Chairman, and Cynthia Dunbar, who is seeking to be the next Virginia Republican committeewoman.
Although not quite every seat was filled, the room was almost full. After both Smith and Dunbar spoke, they took questions from the audience. As a few examples, Laura Logie asked Mr. Smith about party primaries and the fact that although Senator Emmett Hanger isn’t popular with valley Republicans and often votes against the wishes of his constituents, he continues to get re-elected due to fact that the senator, and not the party, gets to select the party nomination process. Mr. Smith seemed to indicate that he preferred the current system of open primaries as opposed to conventions.
I pointed out that although the Republican Party demands loyalty from its members, it doesn’t hold its candidates and politicians to the Republican Creed and asked Ms. Dunbar what she would do about this issue. She agreed that the party leaders needed to create some system to keep rogue or unprincipled politicians in check.
Then, Cole Trower, an employee of Representative Bob Goodlatte, got up. He started off by declaring that Cynthia Dunbar was wholly unqualified to serve as national committeewoman and furthermore that she had no understanding of the position for which she was running. It wasn’t so much a question, but rather a hostile accusation. Another fellow at Mr. Trower’s table added that Dunbar was “a smooth talker”. Dunbar offered a rebuttal to this accusation, but Cole continued which led the organizer, Donna Moser, to ask Cole to stop. He refused. Then, Scott Sayre, another candidate for 6th district chair, said that Cole was a plant of the Obenshain campaign, Dunbar’s opponent. Nevertheless Cole was not deterred. At this point, Ms. Moser asked Bryan Hutcheson, the Sheriff of Harrisonburg and Rockingham County who was in attendance to remove Cole Trower. The sheriff thought such an action wasn’t called for, and fortunately Cole finally sat down, ending the matter. However, a local JMU student spoke next saying that Ms. Dunbar was new to Virginia and questioned how much she had helped out the Virginia Republican Party, one of the main talking points of the Obenshain campaign.
After that, things got less heated as several of the candidates who are running for spots as delegates to the national convention spoke along with individuals seeking positions on the Republican State Central Committee.
Then, at the very end of the meeting, a fellow asked if he could say something, which was granted. He declared that although he had supported Bob Goodlatte for many years, he could no longer do so because he considered Bob Goodlatte to be a liar. He pointed out that although Goodlatte pledged to only serve three terms in the House of Representatives when he first ran, he is now in his eleventh term and is presently seeking his twelveth.
As I left the meeting I realized I hadn’t seen anyone treat a guest speaker with such disrespect as Cole Trower had to Cynthia Dunbar since several years before when Cole interrupted and berated Bob Goodlatte, the man he curiously now works for. Even though I had no hand in it, I felt it necessary to apologize to Ms. Dunbar for Cole’s behavior. Unfortunately, Mr. Trower has been acting more and more thuggish as of late, bullying people as he did me at the Rockingham County GOP mass meeting on February 17th.
This matter brings up a lot of important questions. Did Mark Obenshain and Bob Goodlatte know of Cole’s conviction before hiring him? Once they found out about it, why would they keep him on their staff? Why didn’t the media report it either when the event transpired in 2014 or when he was found guilty in 2015? Did Cole’s powerful political connections help keep his arrest out of the public spotlight before it was revealed on Friday by Mr. Briggman? With this knowledge, why would any politician who considers himself to be a defender of the family and the individual bring Cole Trower on his staff? Now that these events are in the public spotlight, will he continue to serve as Bob Goodlatte’s northern field director on his re-election campaign?
It is unfortunate that Cole Trower treated both Cynthia Dunbar and Donna Moser, the leader of the group, with such contempt at the Republican First Friday gathering. Disagreement is natural in politics, but not such incivility. Let us hope that that kind of disrespect will not happen again.
Last Friday, Republicans from Harrisonburg and Rockingham County gathered for their monthly First Friday meeting at the Woodgrill Buffet. The featured speaker was Senator Mark Obenshain (R-Rockingham) who is facing a Democratic challenger (April Moore from Shenandoah County) in November. Given the make up of the district he represents, that election is not expected to be terribly close.
Instead of spending much time talking about his race, he mentioned how Republicans across the state need to work to ensure that the GOP continues to hold the Virginia Senate. Presently, the Republicans enjoy a 21-19 majority in that body and all 40 seats are up for election this November. Most of the seats are either uncontested or heavily favored for one party or the other. However, Senator Obenshain identified three seats that could tip the balance of power: The 21st in the Roanoke area, the 10th in parts of Richmond and the surrounding counties, and the 29th in Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park. If the GOP wins just one of these contests, then, assuming no surprises, the party will retain control of the Virginia Senate.
Senator Obenshain then went on to explain that it would be terrible if Democrats won the Senate for then they would control the various senate committees. As one example, he mentioned the agriculture committee, currently headed by Senator Emmett Hanger of Augusta County. Should the Democrats win, he declared that Senator Chap Petersen of Fairfax City would be the new head. He didn’t really explain why that would be such a bad thing other than these points: Petersen isn’t from the Shenandoah Valley, he is a Democrat, and he is from Fairfax. Oh the horror of allowing a northern Virginia Democrat (one who opposed the 2013 Republican Transportation Tax hike) to lead the agriculture committee! However, besides the overarching rallying cry to beat the Democrats, there wasn’t much in the way of policy differentiation discussed.
The next morning, as I reflected on the previous day, I was reminded of a Shakespearean play and, assuming you have any familiarity with the subject, read the title of this article, or, more likely, saw the film with Leonardo DiCaprio, you’ve figured out that that play was Romeo & Juliet. In case you don’t remember the plot from high school English, in this story there are two feuding families, the Montagues and the Capulets. We are told from the prologue that they are “both alike in dignity” and that they have some “ancient grudge” against each other that is never really explored or explained in the work. As such, the reader has no real idea if either family is motivated by some important ideal other than gaining power over the other. Was there any reason for the hatred? It is quite likely that none of the characters in the play truly comprehend the point of the struggle either. Nevertheless, the Montagues, Capulets, and their assorted friends and allies sacrifice quite a lot as they do battle against each other.
Unfortunately, Verona becomes a much worse place for the average citizen as a result of this constant feuding between the two families. As Prince Escalus, the leader of the town, states in Act I, Scene I, “Three civil brawls, bred of an airy word, by thee, old Capulet, and Montague, have thrice disturbed the quiet of our streets; and made Verona’s ancient citizens cast-by their grave beseeming ornaments, to wield old partisans, in hands as old, cankered with peace, to part your cankered hate”.
In Act III, Scene I, Tybalt Capulet challenges Romeo Montague to a duel due to a perceived insult against his family. However, by this point Romeo is smitten by Juliet Capulet, sees no reason to quarrel further, and so refuses to fight her kinsman. Romeo’s friend Mercutio, although not aligned with either house by blood, considers it dishonorable for Romeo to refuse the challenge. Romeo attempts to stop the scuffle that follows, but is unsuccessful as Tybalt slays Mercutio. Although he sought peace, this act rouses Romeo to fight and kill Tybalt. As Mercutio dies, he curses not only the Capulets who directly cause his demise, but the Montagues as well.
After Romeo is ordered into exile as a result of his deed, Capulet attempts to marry his daughter to one of the leading political figures of the town, despite her protests to the contrary. Neither, Juliet’s mother nor her father care about her wishes. Only at the end of the play, when Capulet’s daughter and Montague’s son have fallen, do the two families finally agree to end their seemingly pointless feud.
Could this story from the 1590s mirror our political situation today? Have many of the Republican and Democrats, much like the Montagues and Capulets, forgotten why they first fought each other, only continuing the battle in order to accumulate power for themselves and their party? Are the two factions primarily motivated by conservative and liberal values or are these issues merely used as window dressing to convince the grassroots into following them in whatever crusade the leaders deem necessary? Do the powers that be consider our wishes and desires irrelevant, much like Romeo and Juliet were treated in their world? If, like Mercutio, you made a supreme sacrifice in the service of a house, would your deed be honored? Or would you be viewed as a relatively worthless pawn offered on the altar of power? Perhaps, in his final moments, Mercutio finally realized the folly of the discord between the Montagues and Capulets and how meaningless his death was which was why he declared “a plague on both your houses”. Could the same thought be applied to our two major political parties, too?
To help answer this question, on Saturday a former chairman of the Harrisonburg Republican Party shared this image of a t-shirt on Facebook. What do you think his opinion is on the subject?
Toward the end of First Friday, the monthly Republican luncheon for Harrisonburg and Rockingham County, my former pastor rose from his chair and asked the audience how many of them feared radical Islam. Although I couldn’t see the entire group, I believe that everyone in attendance raised their hands…with the exception of me and the fellow sitting beside me.
As we all know, as a result of the actions of some radical Muslims on 9/11, many Americans have been living in fear of this religion and those who practice it. Although there were some vague mentions of Islam before 9/11, I don’t recall it being particularly pronounced and when it was, it could be disregarded as religious bigotry.
Unfortunately, due to the fear generated against radical Islam, our citizens and our lawmakers have surrendered many of our civil liberties and greatly expanded the power of the federal government through legislation like the Patriot Act and new government agencies like the TSA and Department of Homeland Security. Patrick Henry’s famous cry of “give me liberty or give me death!” has been replaced with “do everything you can to keep me safe! I don’t mind if you take away our liberty!”
Don’t misunderstand what I am saying. Our government has both the right and responsibility to keep its people safe from all threats, including those posed by radical Islam. Any person, group, agency, or government who seeks to deprive any American citizen of his or her life, liberty, and/or property without the due process of law must be held to account.
Have we become so hyper-sensitized to an over-imagined threat of radical Islam on American soil that we have forgotten that it has supposedly been the longstanding policy of conservatives to push back against growing government power? Yes, it is hypothetically possible that terrorists hiding in caves in the Middle East can deprive us of our lives, and I certainly don’t want that to happen to anyone, but it is also quite true that the legislators in Washington D.C. and our state capitols, not to mention black robed men and women in our court system, have been slowing eroding our liberties, taking more and more of our tax dollars, deciding what does and does not constitute as free speech, degrading our religion, imprisoning people for years without trial, and even depriving some people of their lives through the use of drones. Politicians are marching us toward a police state. Which of these two actions, in the grand scheme of our nation, poses the greater and more pressing danger to our well-being?
As President George W. Bush stated on September 20th, 2001, “They [the terrorists] hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” Well friends, if we have taken away our freedoms and replaced them with fear, then who can make the argument that the terrorists have not won? If the terrorists are as irrational and hate-filled as our leaders claim, why in the world would we ever want a citizenry or a government which emulates them?
Yes, we must not allow radical Islam to succeed. Stand firm against evil! But, I urge you too to resist the call to surrender to fear!
Today, the Harrisonburg and Rockingham County Republican Parties held their monthly gathering at the Woodgrill Buffet in Harrisonburg. The featured speaker at this event was Dr. Robert Roberts, a professor of political science at James Madison University. The topic of the day revolved around the upcoming 2013 statewide elections.
Dr. Roberts painted a not particularly rosy picture for Republicans, pointing out the recent shake-up in the Cuccinelli campaign coupled with declining poll numbers for the attorney general, especially among women voters, does not bode well for the candidate. According to his historical data, public opinion typically shifts little between September and November and should this trend continue, the Cuccinelli camp is in serious trouble; Cuccinelli has not led a poll since mid-July. Someone in the crowd argued that Cuccinelli was heavily behind late in his 2009 run for attorney general and managed to overcome that deficit. However, the polls from that time suggest that speaker was in error, Cuccinelli seems to have led throughout that contest. Dr. Roberts also pointed out that the Cuccinelli campaign’s attempts to smear McAuliffe and make him appear unelectable have failed. Curiously, when he asked the Republican crowd what Cuccinelli’s first campaign issue was, no one in the group knew of his plan to cut the state income tax.
As for the lieutenant governor, Dr. Roberts predicted that the average Virginia voter will find E.W. Jackson too extreme, based primarily upon his opposition to gay rights, especially gay marriage, and the issue of abortion.
Moving to attorney general, Dr. Roberts offered some measure of hope to the Republicans, reminded them that Virginia has not elected a Democrat to that post since Mary Sue Terry in the late 80’s. However, even that race he thought was far from over for either candidate. Although certainly not as talked about, the latest PPP poll has that election within the margin of error.
Given his predictions of a general Republican defeat, Dr. Roberts seemed like a rather curious choice for speaker at this event. Not surprisingly, his comments seemed to upset a goodly chunk of the audience. However, I found it interesting that his opinions closely mirror my own from last week, which suggested a result similar to 2001 where the only Republican victory was in the attorney general’s race.
Today, the Harrisonburg and Rockingham County Republican Parties played host to both E.W. Jackson and Corey Stewart at their monthly First Friday gathering. These two men are vying, along with five other individuals, for the Republican nomination to be the next lieutenant governor of Virginia.
As the title of this article states, this meeting saw a tremendously high turnout. Normally, the event takes up one of the back rooms at the Woodgrill Buffet in Harrisonburg, but today’s attendence was doubled, a number of activists not reached in at least a year’s time. Besides Harrisonburg City and Rockingham County residents, there were also citizens from most of the neighboring and nearby cities and counties of Virginia including: Shenandoah, Page, Augusta, Staunton, Charlottesville, and Rockbridge.
Both Stewart and Jackson gave impassioned speeches. Jackson, arguably the strongest speaker of the seven GOP candidates, invoked the role of religion in the founding of the nation and highlighting his ability to reach out to minority communities, receiving a standing ovation from the crowd, while Stewart offered excellent statements as well, reminding the group of his successes as the chairman of the board of supervisors in Prince William County and also adding that it is not a proper role of government to be in the business of job creation.
Upon the conclusion of First Friday, Corey Stewart offered what is likely to be a bit of chilling news to the Republican crowd stating his belief that Bill Bolling, the current Lieutenant Governor of Virginia who earlier dropped his run for the Republican nomination for governor, will announce his bid as either a third-party or an independent candidate for governor soon. Such a move on the part of Bolling would likely greatly hinder Ken Cuccinelli, the current Republican Party nominee.
Jackson and Stewart seemed to gain a number of followers at this meeting today. However, as mentioned previously, given the fact that seven men and women are seeking the GOP nod, it is difficult to say which of the candidates currently enjoy the highest level of support.
Remember, the May GOP convention will be here before we know it.
On Friday at noon, the Harrisonburg and Rockingham County Republican Parties held their monthly First Friday gathering at the Wood Grill Buffet in Harrisonburg. The featured speaker was Pete Snyder who is heading up the Republican victory program in Virginia for 2012.
The meeting itself was a fairly ordinary affair. About two-dozen or so local Republicans attended, most enjoyed lunch, while I just had several glasses of sweet tea. However, once just about everyone had dispersed, I paid my bill, sat on the bench near the entrance and wept.
As we live in a society which typically discourages most public forms of emotion, especially from men, it must have been a strange sight indeed for those around watching a thirty-one-year-old person cry for no discernable reason.
So what, may you ask, caused me to act in such a fashion? The answer is boiling anger, overwhelming frustration, and infinite sadness triggered by the actions of one local Republican.
I wept for the sake of the party. In the meeting, one person declared that our goal should be to elect “anyone but Obama”. Really? Has our party become so vapid and devoid of rational worth that we will gladly rally behind any man or woman regardless of merit simply because he or she is not Barack Obama? Heck, Hilary Clinton is not Obama; does that mean we should support her if she had an “R” by her name? And isn’t there is an ocean of difference between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich? Don’t principles mean anything anymore? And I started to fear that perhaps I was gravely mistaken to believe that they ever did. Yet if we cast aside principles, what’s left to separate the parties other than a meaningless animal mascot and a color?
I wept for the state of Virginia and the nation as a whole due to the fact that we have so many leaders of both parties that seem to care nothing or at least very little about the values of the people and the society that placed them in their position of power. Sure, we can criticize members of the other party who trample upon the Constitution, moral decency, or the rule of law, but calling out members of your own party who violate these ideals has become taboo. Therefore, I must mourn the loss of political dialogue and freedom that have given way to strict and unthinking party loyalty.
Although it may sound selfish, I wept for my future employment prospects and myself. As I’ve mentioned to many people over the last several months, there are few things that I desire more than the chance to make a decent living promoting my political principles among my fellow countrymen, the citizens of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. However, my rugged insistence of clinging to my values is likely seen as a liability. Who wants to hire a passionate paleo-conservative when malleable yes men are available? Which kind of person will likely cause less headaches? Unfortunately, most of the powerful and affluent politicians scoff at liberty-minded constitutional conservatives while those companies and people who do value us either have no money and can only offer volunteer opportunities or give little better than subsistence wages. Does the easiest, and perhaps only, way to succeed involve selling out? Again, I fear that blind allegiance to the party and its leaders trump standing up for the creeds that supposedly guide their actions.
Lastly, and more importantly, I wept for the demise of a former political ally, a person who supposedly once held the political principles that I cherish. To be fair, I had known for some time that this person had jettisoned our shared beliefs, but I now realized that there was no turning back, there is no hope for redemption. Conservative/libertarian principles have melted away and have been replaced with a zeal for the establishment. Now the ideological drift is simply too great; today we have about as much in common as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky does with someone like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina or Virginia Senator Steve Newman does with fellow Virginia State Senator Tommy Norment. We might both call ourselves Republican but we likely have as many areas of disagreement as agreement.
This knowledge is particularly disappointing, but it alone wouldn’t have been enough to spur such a reaction. However, after the Republican meeting was over, that same person savagely attacked me with an over the top tirade in front of a fellow activist. At that moment, that person represented to me everything that is wrong with politics today; a person ruled, apparently not by principle, but self-serving ambition that is willing to use anything or anyone as a stepping-stone to greater influence. Although I know that it only heightened tensions during the exchange, much like a scene from Fellowship of the Ring, I more or less inquired when did this person decide to “abandon reason for madness?” This particularly ugly combination of events frays any past political ties and makes the hope of any future cooperation unlikely at best.
So, if you happened to have entered the Wood Grill Buffet in Harrisonburg on Friday and saw someone crying on the bench, now you know why. I was overcome with grief and anger mourning the downfall of many things: the bastardization of my party, the way in which so many politicians continually deceive the public without recourse, the loss of a former ideological believer, the likely failure of my future, and the death of the principles which supposedly guided them all.
How would you feel if you discovered that so many of the activities and relationships you crafted over the past seventeen years might be meaningless? What if your great passion created nothing but corrupted politics and false friends, and the only thing you had to show for your effort was a pile of crumbly ashes? If so, you might say, as Lesley Gore wrote in her well-known song, “it’s my party…you would cry too if it happened to you”.
About a week ago, I received a pretty troubling email from another political activist. It concerned a pre-filed bill for the upcoming legislative session, HB 1528 sponsored by Dickie Bell of Staunton. According to the email, this bill “requires every dealer to prepare a daily report” of precious metal transactions. Furthermore, these reports would be available to both government and law enforcement agents. As you would imagine, I found this news to be particularly troubling. I would assume that more and more Virginians would look toward investing in precious metals given the continued weakness of the U.S. Dollar. Isn’t it just a little bit disconcerting that the government would take such a keen interest in these transactions? What do they plan to do with this data now or in the future?
Resisting the temptation to hastily write a letter to Delegate Bell regarding my concerns, I thought it prudent to do a bit of research first. The most interesting point that I discovered is that the Virginia Code (54.1-4101) already requires precious metal or gem dealers to keep a written record of both their transactions and customers that are available on request. Delegate Bell’s bill would primarily change two points:
“Every dealer shall prepare a daily report containing the information required by 54.1-4101 sold to him each day and shall file such report by noon of the following day with the chief of police or other law-enforcement officer of the county, city or town where his business is conducted designated by the local attorney for the Commonwealth to receive it.” The dealer can submit his or her report electronically as opposed to mailing or delivering them in person, which is the current norm.
Dealers can charge their customers a small service fee to cover the added costs associated with these filings.
As you can see, some of the most onerous parts of the law are already in place. Delegate Bell’s bill just enhances them and provides a much closer and daily link to law enforcement. As you can imagine, with this new information I was still against HB 1528 and looked for an opportunity to speak with the Delegate about it. That opportunity came on Friday when Harrisonburg and Rockingham County Republicans gathered for lunch at our typical First Friday meeting. All of the Delegates and Senators who represent any portion of the city and/or the county were invited. Once I got to the gathering, I discovered that neither Senator Hanger could not attend nor could most of the Delegates. Fortunately, both Delegate Bell and Senator Obenshain were there.
After the meal and a short speech by the Senator and Delegate, I patiently waited my turn to ask about HB1528. Senator Obenshain moderated the questions from the audience and several times he passed over my outstretched hand. Amazingly, after just about everyone else’s questions had been answered, the Senator ended the meeting, thus denying me my opportunity and primary reason for showing up to the meeting in the first place. Although it would be easy to assume such a move as an intentional slight, I really hope it was merely an oversight.
As the crowd began to trickle away, fortunately Delegate Bell stuck around to speak with some of the guests and so I kept my eye on him. Once the line dwindled, I finally got my chance.
The first thing Delegate Bell said to me was that he noticed that I had been waiting patiently for quite some time. I agreed and pulled out my printed copy of HB 1528 and asked him why he was proposing that bill. He responded that local law-enforcement officials suggested the bill as an effort to further crack down on illegal trafficking of stolen goods. However, after speaking with a number of interested parties, Delegate Bell stated that he no longer supports this bill and would be removing it from consideration very soon. In addition, given the potential privacy violations already present in the law, he mentioned that he would be speaking to the Attorney General about deleting (or at least modifying) 54.1-4101 from the Virginia Code.
It is difficult to find the balance between security and liberty. Although I’m sure that HB 1528 would aid Virginia police in catching criminals, is the added bureaucracy, hassle, and loss of privacy worth is? I would say no. In our post 9-11 world, far too many conservatives and liberals alike are willing to sacrifice just about every right in order to gain even the slightest feeling of security, even if doing so provides no tangible benefits. For another example one needs look no further than the ridiculous nature of airport security. First, why do we allow the federal government to look after airport safety? Shouldn’t that role be the responsibility of the independent airport authorities or at least the states or the localities in which they are located? Second, aren’t these body scanners and aggressive pat-downs a clear violation of our Fourth Amendment rights? Must we give up our Constitutional protections in order to fly the not so friendly skies? I could go on, but the simple fact is that once we surrender liberty in one facet, like travel, it will be that much easier to surrender it in another, like commerce, all in the false and misguided hope of greater security.
Now some activists might be upset by Delegate Bell’s HB 1528 proposal, but I think we should look at this event in a different light. After all, Delegate Bell freely admits that HB 1528 is a blunder that he intends to correct immediately. I believe that gesture shows volumes about his character. He could have ignored the concerned letters and phone calls. He could have not taken responsibility for this lapse in judgment. After all everyone makes mistakes and the easiest and most widespread response is to simply deny their existence. A true mark of strength is when we recognize missteps and correct them before the damage becomes irreversible.
Even though we share many conservative values, I’m sure that Delegate Bell and I will disagree on a few points in the future. I’m just glad to know that the 20th district has a Delegate who listens to the people and will change course when he discovers he is in error.