Citizen Tom

ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: JOHN MCCAIN WEBSITE REVIEW

Citizen Tom — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:00:32 +0000

What does the campaign website of a political candidate exist to do? Although the technology is still quite new, we can already describe the typical campaign website. The usual campaign website provides:

The candidate’s biography and pictures of his family.
The candidate’s position on the issues (at least in general terms).
A contrast with the opponent’s position on the issues (or the opponent himself).
Lists the endorsements of important people and organizations.
Links to allied blogs.
An appeal for YOU to help the campaign.
Sales information on campaign paraphernalia.
A site to accept donations.

Are there still new ideas for campaign websites? Every year technology advances. So every election candidate websites have new opportunities for innovation. This year video technology is taking center stage. Thanks his shifting positions as he supposedly positions himself for the general election, McCain’s web crew was having fun with Barak Obama himself. McCain’s lead video was about Obama flip-flops on Iraq (see here). Now McCain’s web crew is having fun with the news media. Their latest video documents the news media’s love affair with Obama (see here). What a riot! What is funnier is that because hundreds of thousands will see this video on the Internet, the news media has had no choice except to respond to it — and to give the video even more publicity.

Nonetheless, the primary subject of McCain’s website remains John McCain. Supposedly, McCain does not talk much about his experience as a POW, but the story is headlined on his website. In fairness, this seems appropriate. McCain served 22 years in the Navy, five years as a POW. Since his lead issue is national defense, his military experience and the commitment he has made to our nation’s defense should logically be front and center.

So what is the character of McCain’s website? When I spoke of Obama’s website, I characterized it as divisive (see here). Does Obama intend to be divisive? I doubt it, but what he proposes will pit us against each other. Do McCain’s proposals have a similar prevailing theme?

Where Obama promises vast, sweeping programs to ensure “fairness”, McCain tends to pander. On defense issues, McCain is confident. On economic issues, McCain tries too hard. So it is that while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fought their prolonged battle, McCain worked out his 15 page Jobs For America. Some of this is good. Some of it is just plain silly and wasteful.

What does McCain’s plan include? Here are some examples.

A summer gas tax holiday. This comes from a man who believes in global warming, does not want our money to go to dictators, and thinks it important to balance the budget.
A repeal of the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol and roll back corn-based ethanol mandates. These are actually good ideas. The corn-based ethanol mandates contribute to the rising cost of food, and the tax on imported sugar-based ethanol decreases competition.
Bail out for “financially strapped mortgage borrowers”. This is bad idea and such foolish legislation is moving through Congress now (here). McCain wants to replace bad loans with FHA guaranteed HOME loans. The borrowers and the lenders need to work this out without government interference.
Balance the budget by 2013, the end of his first term. What?!!! Why wait that long?
Reform entitlement programs — somehow.
Keep taxes low.
Banned Internet taxes.
New tax credits.
Simplify the tax system. New tax credits will simply the tax system?
Make health insurance more portable and provide the tax subsidy for health insurance to the individual. Currently, it is for the company.
And so forth.

Lots of McCain plan is nonspecific. Some of it is quite specific. For example, McCain supports nuclear power plants and coal. There is a reason that we have not built a nuclear power plant for years. That issue will cost McCain votes, and he will have to fight relay teams of lawyers to build anything. He will have similar problems with coal-fired power plants.

One interesting idea is a 300 million prize for a practical battery powered car. I am not certain exactly how this car would insure our energy independence, but I guess we could charge the batteries with coal-fired electric power plants.

Okay, maybe maybe coal-fired electric power plants would pollute too much. Perhaps, if the environmentalists will let us build them, we could use windmills.

McCain also offers his health care schemes in this plan. He makes a bunch of promises. Fortunately, with his health care plan, medicine stills stays in the private market. McCain will just add more regulations. With more government regulations, the cost will just go down. Right? Actually, with McCain’s plan, the cost just might go down. That depends on how serious McCain is about making medical insurance portable. Currently, most of us get medical insurance through our employers. If instead of employers, the health insurance tax break goes directly to consumers, we may find it possible to shop around more. That just might reduce costs.

So which website do I like best? When I look at Obama’s website, I cringe. When I look at McCain’s website, I do not breath a sigh of relief, but McCain does have a record, and his promises are more restrained and credible.

McCain is certainly not the most liberal senator in the Senate. McCain panders, but he does not support such abominable nonsense as hate crimes legislation (see here). McCain makes a laundry lists of promises and pursues votes with tax holidays and bail out proposals. Nevertheless, the tone of his website suggests he just engaging in the traditional American political idiocy of promising a chicken in every pot. Herbert Hoover, unfortunately, made similar promises (see here), but the Franklin Roosevelt did not learn anything. His “economic reforms” probably prolonged the Great Depression, and many of Roosevelt’s dumber regulations were eventually scrapped.

Some voters insist that government do more than just protect their rights. Some voters are so naive they think government can take care of them. Regardless what McCain promises, these voters will most likely vote for Obama’s Utopia.

What too many people cannot get through their heads is that government can only regulate the economy. Only Americans can make America work. Unfortunately, instead of promising to get government off our backs (what Ronald Reagan did), McCain sometimes forgets to be humble. Instead, with silly promises he tries reassure foolish voters that with a McCain presidency, he can guarantee they will still have food on the table and a roof over their heads. In fact, he promises more, but all McCain should promise us is that he would work to make it easier for us to help ourselves.

This is the fourth post in a series on the 2008 election candidates (from the perspective of Gainesville, Virginia). Here are the earlier posts.

Other Views

Below The Beltway comments on the internation nature Barack Obama’ campaign (here).

VB Dems reviews Obama’s choice of tourist destinations (here).

QandO documents a prominent endorsement for Obama (here).

The Shad Plank spreads the message about news media’s love affair (here).

Raising Kaine calls McCain’s claim false (here). Good news! A vote for Obama is a vote for off shore oil drilling and oil wells in ANWR.

Bearing Drift provides a link to a Leiberman interview on McCain’s candidacy (here).

From On High provides an interesting perspective on Obama’s trip to Iraq (here).

THE DEBATE CONTINUES: IS THERE AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM?

Citizen Tom — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:00:10 +0000

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

While its focus may slowly be shifting, our debate on immigration continues. When he asked the following question, Henryk A. Kowalczyk shifted the focus.

Could you focus on one issue, how reasonable immigration policy, as the FMA, could harm National sovereignty, as you claim? (from here)

I answered Henryk’s question here. I explained new immigrants should not come here to be a drain on our society. I explained we need to make certain new immigrants learned English.

Henryk countered with this.

At the beginnings of the U.S., besides Englishmen, large number of Germans settled here. For decades, German language was practically an official language in many small communities from Pennsylvania to Dakotas and from Minnesota to Texas. It is over.

In some neighborhoods in Chicago, I know people who where born there, attended Polish schools and Polish churches and never learned to speak English.

The same, I made an extra effort to make sure that my children maintain knowledge of the language of their ancestors; with very weak results.

I have Mexican immigrants in my close circle of friends. On social gatherings, I meet many Mexican immigrants that do not speak English. However, even their small children are perfectly bilingual.

People immigrate here to work, often more than one job, not to learn the new language. However, most of them realize soon that when knowing the language, they can make more money.

Can we agree on keeping government away form this language business, and let money play its role?

By the way, in how many languages can you communicate efficiently?

The whole world is learning English as today it is the language of business, and mass culture. Intellectuals all over the world are complaining that English pushes away many other national languages.

At the same time, many Americans make a big issue that some Hispanics pick up tomatoes, wash dishes or mow grass without learning English first. So pity. So out of touch with reality. (from here)

Henry does not see an immigration problem. He sees an imbalance of liberty. We deny illegal immigrants sufficient liberty to protect themselves. Does Henryk have a point? Is there an immigration problem, or are we making a problem out of immigration?

When we look around the world, we see many different kinds of societies, but there is always an elite grasping for power. In poor nations, the elite bind the poor and sap the poor for everything that might be gained from them. Only societies with large middle classes seem able to resist the might of human greed.

It took many strange accidents of history to create the liberty that Western Europeans enjoy today. How fragile is this liberty we enjoy? I don’t know, but we will never preserve it with ease.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. — Thomas Jefferson

Blood is not too high a price to pay for liberty. Men have paid it time and time again. From the perspective of history, we are our own worst enemy. Our civil wars destroy the most. When we Americans ever fought over slavery, we paid our highest blood price. Some were that determined to keep others enslaved.

The slave owners lost the Civil War. Try as they might, the slave owners could not spread their slaves to every state — but the devious never rest. There is always a new kind of slave, a new way to exploit human beings. New generations of slave owners created wage slaves, but the middle class fought that. The wage slaves looked too much like them. Now we have yet another form a slavery. The slaves look different. They speak an alien tongue. They volunteer for bondage and do not struggle to escape. Instead they spread themselves from state to state.

Illegal immigrants – cheap labor for greedy elites. Could we end the problem easily? Would it be enough to just have our leaders apologize for their huge mistake? Why not just declare illegal immigrants legal? What would be the cost? What could possibly go wrong?

Would endless hordes of uneducated poor stream across our borders. Could we afford to educate all their children? Would our nation be balkanized into Spanish and English speaking quadrants? Would the number of the impoverished in our nation grow by leaps and bounds?

What has experience taught us? When most of the immigration we have is illegal — ILLEGAL — what has experience taught us?

TEAM VIRGINIA NEWSLETTER: REPAIRED

Citizen Tom — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:00:54 +0000

REPAIRED: Sometimes WordPress does not work the way I wish it would.

Sometimes it is easier to do things the “hard way”.

A local McCain campaign volunteer forwarded the following to me. I thought it worth passing on.

Team Virginia Newsletter

Excitement continues to mount throughout Virginia for John McCain. The campaign has continued to build momentum as it earned new endorsements from former military leaders and opened additional Victory offices in key areas around the Commonwealth.
A STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN:
McCain Outlines his plan for success

McCain’s detailed plan for victory in Afghanistan includes:

Working with our allies to ensure unity of command in Afghanistan.

Appointing an Afghanistan czar to ensure commanders have what they need to win.

Supporting sending at least three additional brigades to Afghanistan.

Doubling the size of the Afghan military.

Increasing our non-military assistance to the Afghan government.

Enhancing our regional diplomatic efforts by appointing a special presidential envoy.

As part of the regional strategy, put special focus on Pakistan.

Eleven Admirals and Generals Endorse John McCain

In a week where national security issues were at the forefront, John McCain earned the endorsement of eleven retired admirals and generals.

“Through a lifetime of service in uniform and in Congress, John McCain has consistently displayed the wisdom and courage to do the right thing for America regardless of the cost to him personally. It is for this reason, above all others, that we endorse John McCain for President, and it is for this reason that we stand with him now as he continues his long history of service to this country” they said in a joint statement.

Read the whole story on JohnMcCain.com

Victory offices are opening for business in Fredericksburg and Virginia Beach

On Thursday night, over 100 McCain supporters in the Fredericksburg area turned out to celebrate the opening of the new Victory headquarters. Local elected leaders were on hand to address to the energized crowd.

Today, the Virginia Beach Victory Headquarters opened its doors with an overflow crowd of supporters turning out to show support.The new headquarters locations are:

Fredericksburg Regional Headquarters:
150 Riverside Parkway, Suite 213
Fredericksburg, VA 22406
Directions to the Fredericksburg Regional Victory HQ
Contact: Frank Puleo, fpuleo@rnchq.org, 202-731-7845

Virginia Beach Regional Headquarters:
512 S. Independence Blvd.
Suite 200
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
Directions to the Virginia Beach Regional HQ
Contact: Michael Jaeger,michaelpjaeger@gmail.com, 571-722-7808

Ready to start volunteering?

Click here to find the Victory Office nearest to you!

Talking Point: What is John McCain’s military service record?

Many people know John McCain was held as a POW during the Vietnam War and served his country with honor in the United States Navy. However, most people know little else about his distinguished military career. Here is some information that will help you answer questions about Sen. McCain’s time in the Navy:

“Sen. McCain served 22 years in the US Navy, including 5 years as a POW and as commander of the largest attack squadron in the Navy. During his military career, McCain was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, the Purple Heart and a Distinguished Flying Cross. He is a graduate of the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.”

On the Air: Watch the campaign’s latest TV Ad “Troop Funding”

Today the campaign released its newest television ad entitled “Troop Funding.” The ad highlights Barack Obama’s record of failing to call a single oversight hearing on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, failing to visit our troops on the ground in Iraq for over 900 days and failing to support our troops when he voted against critical funding in 2007. The ad will air nationally.

Watch the new TV Ad “Troop Funding” now!

Your Role in Team McCain: What you can do right now to help John McCain win?

Technology makes it easier than ever to play a part in helping John McCain on his road to victory. By visiting our campaign’s Action Center you can take advantage of our website’s powerful grassroots tools and, in less that 5 minutes, help expand the reach of our campaign by sending emails to friends, registering people to vote, or spreading the word on the internet. Help the team today!

Want to Volunteer? Email us at Virginia@johnmccain.com!

HERO OR HUMBLE SERVANT? PART II

Citizen Tom — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:41:13 +0000

Since Bruce Roemmelt provided a detailed reply to the first post (HERO OR HUMBLE SERVANT?), I think it appropriate to give his reply at least as much visibility as the original post. So here it is.

Tom/KG,

sorry for the late response but this has been a very busy weekend.

this might be dangerous, but since i’m so late to the game i thought i would weigh in of a few points in your post.

“Different jobs emphasize different character traits”
at the time of the SCC hearing i was challenging Bob for the VA HOD 13th. i felt that the voters could read our statements and make up their minds on who they wanted to send to richmond to deal with the SCC and Dominion.

if Bob wanted to get ‘coached up’ on engineering issues he could have asked the Dominion folks about issues when he’s been in thier box for the last several Redskin - Cowboys games at FedEx.

i got my information from PEC’s web site where they did independent research and also quoted Dominion’s proposal directly.

i have a bias for personal responsiblity. it’s not rocket surgery for us to drive slower, conserve energy and urge our energy providers to push demand management.

i also am right in line with Jim Bacon who wants to develop a power generation centric energy system as opposed to a grid centric one.

look i was a fire fighter for 30 years not an electrical engineer, but this is about common sense solutions to problems. i really though my solutions were more pragmatic and could avoid the construction of the power line. Bob’s perspective was much more focused on “here’s what Dominion needs to do during and after they build their line”.

the other comment i wanted to address was your quote “In olden days, kings often presumed to tell other people how to run their business. ” i found myself mentally picturing Bob as the king telling people how to run their personal lives. this is an area where he has had an effect.

Tom you got real close to some kind of Liberatarian perspective there. i know it wasn’t intended to “keep our government out of our homes” but it is the natural extension in my mind.

let’s all be known for our accomplishments - and our failures. i think it was Ceasar who said, “the good men do die with them, the bad lingers on.” as a citizen i want my legislator to solve problems that affect us all. education, health care, transportation, growth management. if we need someone to just be about being on the soapbox, we have op-ed writers in the papers. or bloggers.

let’s face it. bob is principled, but he’s ineffective as a legislator. having his own caucus strip him of committee leadership and give the power to much junior legislators robs us in the 13th of effective legislation.

contrast Bob’s power to Colgan’s even when he was in the minority. huge difference.

and regarding the title of the post i hope you weren’t referring to me as a hero. i’m just a retired fire fighter who thinks he might be able to serve his fellow citizens a bit longer.

b

(from here)

I appreciate the fact Roemmelt both took the time to reply, and that he did not mistake the use of the term “hero” in the title as an insult. When we engage in debate, it is too easy to become hostile.

Roemmelt and Marshall no doubt find themselves far apart in many ways. In fact, there exists relatively few places where men who so much disagree could still have a civil conversation and debate. We each carry with us our own world view, our own moral code, our own purpose in this life. What makes religious freedom and democratic government possible in this nation is the sheer diversity of world views, moral codes, and purposes. Without such diversity, the temptation for the majority to dictate its own world view, moral code, and purpose would be almost irresistable.

Even so we have strange ironies. Roemmelt recognizes “bob is principled”, and at the same time, he still thinks “he’s ineffective as a legislator”. Is Marshall ineffective? Does that not depend on whose standard we are using. Which world view? Whose moral code? Which purpose is served?

From the perspective of the people who voted for Bob Marshall, he is doing great. Marshall has done all his supporters could have asked — so much so that even his opponents recognize that Marshall has behaved in accordance with his principles. How many of us will go to the grave with as much said of us?

That said I intend no ridicule or sarcasm at Roemmelt expense, and I hope my criticisms do not bite or cut more than they inform. As I suggested before, I used the term “hero” when I referred to Bruce Roemmelt without sarcasm. After September 11, who does not recognize the service that our firefighters provide our communities and our nation? Running for public office is no less a commitment. Anyone who does so puts themselves and their family in the public eye. Undoubtedly, the seriousness of Roemmelt’s campaign has most certainly earned Marshall’s respect.

So I will leave off with a quotation I copied from the Skeptical Observer.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” – Theodore Roosevelt

ELUSIVE WISDOM

Citizen Tom — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:00:14 +0000

cacophony
     n 1: a loud harsh or strident noise [syn: blare, blaring, clamor,
           din]
     2: loud confusing disagreeable sounds

Have I found wisdom? I believe I started my life blessed. When I was small, my parents took me to church and taught me the Christian faith, but the world pulls at us. We too easily become confused by the cacophony of own desires and just plain noise.

So who is wise? Most mark the beginning of the Protestant Reformation with the writings of Martin Luther. Luther called the Book of James an “epistle of straw” (see here). Focusing on the writings of the Apostle Paul, Luther observed we are saved by faith.

Galatians 3:11

Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.

But Luther found the Book of James contrary to Paul. Seemingly, the Apostle James emphasized works over faith.

James 2:21

Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

Yet the very next verse explains the seeming contradiction.

James 2:22

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

If even a dedicated Bible scholar such as Martin Luther can be confused, who is wise? Perhaps we should again consult the “epistle of straw”.

James 1:5-8

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

Was Luther wise? Did Luther pray to God for wisdom? In an era when priests sold indulgences and led people to believe that they could buy their way into heaven, perhaps God did answer Luther. Perhaps God did provide Luther the wisdom he needed. With the doctrine that salvation is achieved through faith, Luther began the Protestant Reformation. Nevertheless, Luther’s curious confusion over the Book of James remains as a lesson for the rest of us. Even those accounted wise do not have all the answers. Ultimately, we all must seek wisdom from God.

COFFEE AND BREAKFAST AT KILROYS

Citizen Tom — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 02:02:54 +0000

Keith Fimian

This morning I combined the pleasure of breakfast and hearing Keith Fimian explain why he wants to be our next congressman. This breakfast was an informal affair at Kilroy’s in the Featherstone Shopping Center in Woodbridge (14633 Jefferson Davis Highway). Since the restaurant and staff did a nice job, here is a plug.

BTW - If you like a good story, read the Kilroy story (here).

The banquet room was appropriate; its walls were lined with the portraits of our past presidents and other patriots. Each portrait included interesting observations. Early arrivals, such as myself, either chatted with each other or wandered the room looking at the pictures.

Then the meal began. Each of us filled our plate with bacon, sausage, eggs, fried potatoes, fruit, and so forth. The room slowly filled with 30-40 people. We ate, waited for the candidate, and discussed politics.

Lyle Beefelt, Chairman of the Prince William County Republican Committee (PWCGOP), initiated the meeting by leading us in prayer. Ruth Anderson, the Secretary for the PWCGOP, served as the MC. She asked a senior citizen, a legal immigrant, to lead us the Pledge of Allegiance. Next, with notable enthusiam, Amy Frederick (Jeff Frederick’s lovely lady) introduced Keith Fimian. The Fredericks share the duties of campaigning. She explained that Jeff was at home watching the children. Then she provided some biography on Fimian (That is also available here).

Finally, the candidate started speaking. As he began, it became apparent that over the last several months Fimian has become more polished and focused campaigner. He concentrated on these points.

Why he wants the job. He is running for public office for the sake of his children. He wants them to have a country like the one he grew up in. When Congressman Tom Davis announced he was giving up his seat, Fimian prayed about it. Then he decided to run. Fimian noted that he submitted the paperwork on 51st birthday, not 31st birthday. His campaign is not about his personal ambition.
He spoke about David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 1998 to 2008. Walker resigned from the office to warn Americans of the need to put their fiscal house in order (See here, here, and here for new articles. Here is a video.). As a CPA, Fimian understands budget numbers. We are 52.5 trillion dollars in debt. Continued deficit spending is unsustainable. He says the solution is to cut taxes and spending. We must allow the economy to grow. He gave an example. During a five-year period correponding to the recent boom, the growth of the American economy was as large as the entire Chinese economy.
He took the PDA on his hip and held it up. He contrasted it with the gigantic computers Americans first used for business and government. These machines once took up entire buildings yet they were not nearly as powerful. When our economy is unburdened by high taxes and unnecessary government regulation, American technology development is unrivialed. Once we worried about the Japanese catching up by improving our products, but the Japanese have trouble keeping up with the rate we produce new products.
Fimian also spoke about our energy problem. He said his primary concern is the 700 billion dollars we are sending to unfriendly regimes every year. We must become energy independent. Because we cannot switch from petroleum immediately, he supports off shore drilling for oil. He also supports the development of alternative energy alternatives. In particular, he believes nanotechnology holds the promise of cheap and efficient solar power.

During the question and answer period, Fimian added the following:

He strongly supports securing the border. He expressed disgust over the fact we have illegal immigrants with repeated convictions in our jails. He stands behind the English language requirement for new immigrants. Except for their children, he also made it clear that he does not have an excess of sympathy for illegal immigrants. What we should do about illegal immigrants is ”our decision” (Author’s note: From that I took it to mean that he will support whatever he thinks is best for our country.). Because he does not believe that it would be good for our economy to send all illegal immigrants back to their home country, he supports allowing those with clean records and jobs to stay. Nonetheless, Fimian is in no hurry to make citizens of illegal immigrants. Before they become new citizens, they must go to the back of the line.
When asked about national defense, he provided a straightforward answer. We must have a military second to none.

During the Q&A, a couple of notables added their own observations. Supervisor Marty Nohe spoke in support of Fimian. He says he knows both Gerry Connolly and Keith Fimian. He believes that the more voters get a chance to know Fimian, the more they will like him. Lyle Beefelt made this observation. When he first heard Fimian’s campaign speeches, he observed right away that Fimian is not a professional politican. However, there was something else different about him that he could not figure out. Then it occurred to him. Fimian does not go around promising people things. He just says where stands on the issues.

Author’s note: Keith Fimian is not trying to buy our votes with our own money. He is trying to do something we might find more profitable. He is proposing to tax us less and spend less of our money.

HERO OR HUMBLE SERVANT?

Citizen Tom — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:02:47 +0000

Bruce Roemmelt has a fascinating post (here). What he has done is post both his own and Bob Marshall’s testimony before the State Corporation Commission (SCC). Both gentlemen testified to SCC on the Dominion Virginia Power’s proposal to build the Meadow Brook to Loudoun 500 kV Line. Roemmelt used this testimony to fashioned a “debate”. Undoubtedly Roemmelt believes this debate portrays him in a better light than it does Marshall. But does it?

Different jobs emphasize different character traits. Some jobs require individual initiative and swift on-the-spot decisions. Others require careful study and deliberation. Some require salesmanship and coordination. Others require patient listening. And so forth. We each have a calling — some task for which we are best fitted. When we elect someone to public office, what does the job require? What character traits does the job require?

Rommelt went before the SCC and straightforwardly said he opposed the power line. He spoke about the solution he thinks the public deserves and supports. Marshall, on the other hand, admitted his lack of engineering skills. Instead, he spoke about Dominion’s unsatisfying and inconsistent justification for the power-line. He also spoke about a subject about which he knows much, recent legislation passed by the General Assembly. Marshall closed by expressing his confidence in the SCC.

What does it take to be a good legislator? Sometimes it takes self restraint.

A little knowledge is dangerous. With just a little knowledge, we may oversimplify a complex task. With just a little knowledge, we can easily be tempted to tell other people how to run their business. When we actually have the power to force people to run their businesses our way, that can be dangerous.

In olden days, kings often presumed to tell other people how to run their business. To manage “their” economy, kings would, for example, establish royal monopolies. Even in our more enlightened era, much of our economy is micromanaged and too often run by politicians. Do our leaders know enough to take such tasks upon themselves? From time-to-time, we need consider how little knowledge each of us has. Are our leaders that much more brilliant than the rest of us?

Before the SCC, Marshall admitted he is not an engineer. In effect, he admitted he does not have the competence to tell Dominion Virginia Power how to run its business. Should he tell Dominion how to run its business? Should he tell the SCC in advance what their decision should be?

Consider the problem a bit of humility earned John McCain.

McCain cast doubt on moderator Tim Russert’s assertion that the candidate had said he was no expert on economics. Russert claimed that McCain had repeatedly said, “I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” McCain responded, “Actually, I don’t know where you got that quote from. I’m very well-versed in economics.”

Russert’s quote comes from a 2005 interview with the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 26, 2005: “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

We could not find that McCain has said that quote “repeatedly,” but he has made similar comments recently The Chicago Tribune quoted McCain talking to reporters on Dec. 18, 2007: “The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff.” (from here)

We say we want our leaders to be honest with us, but all a few honest words got McCain was an absurd amount of flak. When one of our leaders has the humility to admit his ignorance or exercise a bit of self restraint, is that such a bad thing? Don’t we want our leaders to have the humility to make the best use of all the experts they can assemble around them? Doesn’t our country work best when our leaders do not claim to know how to run our business better than we do?

IMMIGRATION AND THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Citizen Tom — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:04:03 +0000

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

Debate is one of those things that requires a thick skin, or, better yet, the humility of a saint. Yet some how I manage to get by. I am told it is because I just like to argue. Apparently, Henryk A. Kowalczyk likes to debate as well. With his comments at this post, he has been making a persuasive case for his immigration plan (see here). What Kowalczyk’s argument has come down to is this.

You see that one cannot keep the balance on the bicycle without having a foot on the ground when bicycle is standing. Consequently, you see it logical that it would be suicidal riding a bicycle without a third wheel.

You seem not seeing a difference between a free market and lawlessness. Free market means that two individuals should be able enter any contract they see suiting them. We need laws to guarantee that these contracts are executed.

We do not need regulating “free market”. When the “free market” does not work because of being abused, it simply means that someone has too much freedom, at the cost of someone else who does not have equal freedom. Socialists of all sorts, seek solution to this problem by reducing freedoms of people who are in the position of taking unfair advantage of the freedoms they have; mostly, money. It never comes to their mind that the solution is in increasing freedoms of people who are taken advantage off.

The irony of government “correcting” unfairness of the “free market” is that when it is given to politicians, by the end of the day, they will come with solutions that would suit those individuals that can make the largest contributions. This obviously, would lead to a conclusion that even more regulations are needed to “correct” shortcomings of the “free market”.

If you want to hire Mexicans, and if you can arrange work this way that it would be not essential for you whether they speak any English or not, should I have a right to prevent you from entering into a contract with these Mexicans, unless they would learn English? (from here)

What Kowalczyk appears to believe is that if a foreigner can get a job here and that foreigner does not present any security risk, then they should be allowed to immigrate. This sort of belief is not as unusual as some might think. When I was commenting on a post at Below The Beltway, I found out that Doug Mataconis believes the “free movement of people to be an individual right”.

The only restrictions on immigration that I can justify are those that prevent people with criminal records or questionable political ties from entering the country.

Since I consider to be free movement of people to be an individual right as important as freedom of speech, I don’t think the state has the right to prevent individuals from exercising their choice over where they want to live.

So, tell me, if we’re going to restrict immigration to “well-educated productive people” who do plan on getting to pick the crops in places like Florida and California ? (from here)

So does the free movement of people as an individual right override national sovereignty? Do we as a nation have the right to control immigration? I seriously doubt many of our leaders believe that we do? At least most act like they agree with Kowalczyk and Mataconis. Otherwise, how do you explain their stubborn refusal to do anything about illegal immigration? Perhaps we as a People need to consider our differences with our leadership and clearly define what we want.

Do We the People have the right to determine who crosses our borders? With respect to both Law and Morality, I think the answer is yes.

First, let us tackle the easier question, the matter of Law. The Constitution unambiguously gives Congress the power ”To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4).

Now let us more clearly define the more difficult problem, the issue of morality. Is the free movement of people an individual right? Do American employers have the right to hire anyone they feel like hiring? When it comes to defining the limits on individual rights, there are no simple, straight forward answers. The closest thing I know to a rule comes from this quote.

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins. — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Mataconis says he would restricts the immigration of people who pose security concerns. For similar reasons, Kowalczyk concedes a limited role for government in the control of immigration. So both Kowalczyk and Mataconis concede some immigrants should not be allowed to cross our borders. Where they differ with many, and perhaps most people, is that they think immigration should be treated as some kind of civil rights issue.

Frankly, I tend to sympathize with Kowalczyk’s and Mataconis’ views. However, I think our national nose begins much sooner than they do. National sovereignty involves more than just immediate security concerns. In addition to protecting ourselves from the immediate threat posed by criminals and military invaders, we also have the right to protect our national identity.

Just like any other nation, the United States has a unique national identity. In spite of and because of our immigrant heritage, we share a similar language and cultural heritage. Because of the stability our shared cultural heritage gives our government, we must act in self defense to preserve that heritage. Hence we are wise to limit the “free movement” of people into our nation to those who have taken the trouble to learn to speak our language.

Consider again Kowalczyk’s analogy, the bicycle. If one chooses to go to the trouble, one can learn to ride a unicycle. However, because a unicycle is not very stable, it is not practical except as a stunt or a toy. Because the added wheel increases stability, most people prefer a bicycle or motorcycle. Serious transportation usually involves four or more wheels. When we risk something as weighty as the lives and the prosperity of our family and friends, we take whatever precautions we deem necessary.

Other Views

Grumpy Gripes worries about the Reconquista (here).

QandO had a post in 2006 that considered the civil rights angle (here).

AntiBVBL pursues the profiling issue (here).

THE HOUSE BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD

Citizen Tom — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:00:59 +0000

Today, I got a bit of a surprise. My little blog got a visit (see here) by a former candidate for office, the Honorable Bruce Roemmelt. For some reason, my blog has received a lot of comments of late, and I have enjoyed it. I was reminded of a poem, The House by the Side of the Road.

Here is the stanza that seems most relevant.

Let me live in a house by the side of the road,
Where the race of men go by;
The men who are good and the men who are bad,
As good and as bad as I.
I would not sit in the scorner’s seat,
Or hurl the cynic’s ban;
Let me live in a house by the side of the road
And be a friend to man.

Roemmelt has run for office, which is more than I have done. And a lot of people took him seriously. So I expect his opinions are heartfelt and well-reasoned. Nevertheless, we do not agree, and I think my opinions — and Bob Marshall’s – are at least as well reasoned.

Roemmelt posted his comment in response to the previous comment asking about Bob Marshall’s endorsement by some green groups. Rather than debate that issue, I think the best thing to do is to let Marshall speak for himself. Fortunately, Marshall’s website for his senate campaign is still up. Here is a link to the page he posted on Environmental Issues. The entire page is well worth reading, but here is the most relevant part.

As a state delegate I received a “2007 Legislative Hero Award” from the Virginia League of Conservation Voters for my 100% voting record in environmental preservation. I also received an endorsements from the Farm Bureau and Sierra Club, a rarity for a social conservative legislator.

In a post on his website (here), Roemmelt attacks the legislation that Marshall sponsored with respect to offshore oil drilling (see this post). Since I am not authorized to speak for Marshall, I will let his words stand on their on. I will just give my own opinion.

There are no perfect solutions. So long as we insist on living, we will eat and drink. So long as we insist on living, we will urinate and defecate. So long as we insist on living, we will pollute. Just as we came up with toilets and sewage treatment plants to minimize the ill effects of human excrement, we have also come up with ways to minimize the ill effects of securing and using petroleum products.

Democrats, in the name of environmentalism, have prohibited offshore oil drilling. However, the technology for drilling offshore is well developed. We have been doing it a wide variety of places for years. The most notorious offshore oil spills have come from oil tankers, not oil wells. Shipping oil to America poses the greatest risk, not drilling for it off our shores.

In his post, Roemmelt references the Pickens Plan. This is an interesting idea to build a bunch of windmills in the center of our country to generate electricity. Supposedly, we could then use the methane we are using to generate electricity to power our autos. While Picken’s idea may or may not be sound, it exists now merely as speculation. What do we do if the environmentalists who think windmills are a environmental problem succeed in banning them? Sounds stupid, but windmills kill birds (see here). Rather than transport electricity from the Great Plains, some people want to site them in the breeze offshore. These people are having the same sort of problem as the folks who want to drill for oil offshore.

There are already more than 20 offshore wind farms producing electricity in Europe but, in this country, such proposals have sparked opposition from the Great Lakes states to Long Island. Opponents, including seafront homeowners, say such installations would threaten avian and aquatic life and ruin scenic vistas. With such environmental concerns pitted against the demand for clean energy, there is not a single offshore turbine anywhere in the United States. (from here)

Will windmills work? I don’t know. The current reality is that we are paying a lot of money to unfriendly nations for oil we could be taking out of wells just off our shores. Why? Some people don’t like the idea, and with all our lawyers and judges, we are doing a great job of tying up every new idea in knots. Instead of spending so much money in court, why not come up with a system that estimates the damage done by polluters and tax them when they pollute?

Americans, not America’s government, fix problems. When Americans pollute, the problem usually results from the fact that the Americans causing the pollution do not bear the direct costs of the pollution they produce. So they do not have an economic incentive to fix their problem. Fortunately, there exists an effective way encourage Americans to fix their problem. We can tax the problem.

You have heard of Western Europe’s Value Added Tax (VAT)? America can scrap its income tax system and give our accountants some useful work. We can tax pollution with a Pollution Added Tax (PAT). The PAT would make clean energy sources far more competitive.

Consider our trash problem. When you go to the store, half of what you bring home is used to wrap the other half. Your mailbox is loaded with junk mail. That trash litters the environment and is costly to dispose. The people responsible should pay the cost.

We could apply the PAT to anything that results in litter or any other form of pollution. If somebody insists on making a mess, that somebody should pay for the privilege. Then they will either stop polluting or their competitors will put them out of business. Problem solved.

Stopping pollution. Why don’t we make it a good business practice?

Roemmelt also complained that the Special Session did not accomplish anything. I have already addressed that complaint in this post.

A PUZZLE

Citizen Tom — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:31:27 +0000

I posted 6000 Thousand Steps; A Chinese Love Story in March. The post hardly got any hits at all. Now it sometimes gets over a hundred hits a day. The post links to a good story, but I am puzzled by the sudden popularity. Anybody know the reason for the increase in interest?

ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: BARACK OBAMA WEBSITE REVIEW

Citizen Tom — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:00:00 +0000

Barack H. Obama Jr.

When we speak of the Information Age, we generally think of computers and the Internet. We reflect on the amazing amount of data that can be moved and stored by modern high speed communications systems. What we do not give much thought is the improved quality of our communications. It is not just the amount of information that we have available, it is its quality (of the information) that has made a profound difference. Unlike any era that preceded this one, the very best of those amongst us have the ability to display their communications skills. Even the dead can now speak to us — whether they be a writer, an actor, a musician, or an orator.

In practical terms, we seem to value oratorical skills above all others. Because we demand that our leaders be great orators, it must be what we consider the highest calling. So it is that Barack Obama rose to national prominence when he gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Now, with just four years in the Senate, Obama is close to winning the White House. What has this man to say that has made him such a powerful national figure?

For the average citizen, the easiest way to find out what Obama has to say is to go to his website. In part because Obama has been campaigning for months, his website shows the benefits of a lot of hard work. There is more to it than that, however. Obama knows how to use the Internet, and he is using it as an effective fundraising tool. As this article notes (here), the Obama campaign has raised tens of millions over the Internet in small donations.

Nonetheless, the Internet cut both ways. Supposedly, for example, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote an article suggesting that much of Obama’s Internet money is coming from Chinese and Middle East sources. That, however, appears to have been a hoax (see here and here). Instead of being an unscrupulous operation, Obama’s website is instead just highly effective.

Whether you are for or against Obama, his fundraising success bodes well for the future of our democracy. Used properly, the Internet gives the average citizen a greater say in who can run successfully for public office. The Internet gives each us a device we can use to break the lock the major parties have on the system. At the same, the silly story about a fictitious column demonstrates the power of the Internet to spread a false rumor.

So what about Obama’s website (see here)? Right away Barack Obama greets us with a nice speech asking us to join a great cause. Entering the website — skipping pass the offer to join — we find www.barackobama.com is not just about Obama; it is about CHANGE.

What is CHANGE? Anybody that says Obama does not have a plan and just makes flowery speeches has not visited his website. The Issues page is long and detailed. For example, his website includes a six page document describing his policies on Civil Rights (here). Is the document somewhat vague? What political policy document from a candidate is not at least somewhat vague? Nonetheless, Obama states his intent and his focus. If he states he wants a Hate Crimes statute, for example, don’t we know what that means? You don’t? Well, read this.

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation,gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made conspiracy to commit hate crimes against the law. As president, he will ensure that the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division makes hate crime a priority. (from here)

What are hate crimes? Obama’s support for hate crimes statutes are one of those things that should lead us to doubt that Obama is the great unifier he might otherwise seem to be.

Let’s back up a minute. What is Obama’s appeal? The man is attractive; he is relatively young, tall, and slim. Obama is disciplined. He speaks carefully and thoughtfully. Rather than give offense, Obama tries to be nice to everybody except unnamed special interests. Obama stays focused on his cause, CHANGE.

What could be wrong with making government work for the benefit of all the little people? Go through each of the issues on Obama’s website or just read
THE BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE. Then ask yourself the following question. If you vote for an Obama presidency, will you be voting for Obama because you believe he seeks to empower individuals or save victims? The first approach gives people the opportunity to help themselves. The second makes the victims dependent upon the tender mercies of their empowered government.

When government empowers people, it restrains monopolies (often itself) and allows the People to take control of the fruits of their own labor. When the government saves victims, it become the monopoly.

To justify becoming a government monopoly, government leaders must pit us against each other. That, for example, is what Hate Crime Statutes are about. Any crime is a hate crime — or worse, simple indifference for our fellows. Hate crimes, however, elevate certain “victim” groups. It gives certain groups a status that make crimes against these groups especially unlawful. To commit a crime against a member of one of these groups becomes a political crime. Instead of making justice blind to race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation,gender identity, or physical disability; we accomplish the exact opposite.

Nonetheless, under the rule of Barack Obama, life would become simpler. You would know he cares deeply. He would find someone to blame. Because you deserve it, he would find some way to give you what rightfully belongs to you.

What should Conservatives do about Barack Obama’s website? First, we need to visit it. Then we need to talk about Obama’s proposals and remind our fellow Americans about the difference between a republic and a democracy.

Because democracies do not limit the power of the majority, democracies do not work. When Obama tries to make Americans feel like they have been victimized so that he can tax the “rich” for their benefit, we need to remind our fellow Americans that this arrangement makes government — and therefore Barack Obama — the middleman. Some how, some way, the middleman will take his cut.

This is the third post in a series on the 2008 election candidates (from the perspective of Gainesville, Virginia). Here are the earlier posts.

Other Views

The right-wing liberal wonders about Obama’s consistency on Iraq (here).

QandO references and admires a post that reviews Obama’s political experience (here).

Howling Latina is still campaigning for Hillary Clinton (here).

Caroline County records the episode of the backfiring magazine cover (here).

VB Demo provides a link to Obama’s latest speech on Iraq (here). (Author’s Note: Just before Obama visits Iraq, he gives his latest policy position? Why? John McCain observes how backwards that is here.)

THE LAST WORD ON THE SPECIAL SESSION

Citizen Tom — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:46:16 +0000

Here is Bob Marshall’s take on the Special Session of the General Assembly.

Special Transportation Session Wrap Up

Thankfully, there were no tax or service fee increases imposed on Virginians in the recent transportation session called by Governor Kaine. However, House Republican leaders up until noon of the last day of the Special Session (July 9) were supporting HB 6055, which did contain increased fees and taxes for Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia similar to last year’s HB 3202.

Instead, HB 6055, was amended by Del. Oder to remove all fee and tax increases. It set aside hundreds of millions for future transportation projects in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads by designating a portion of future taxes generated by the growth in tax revenues in Northern Virginia from the two regional airports (Dulles International and Reagan Airports) and in Hampton Roads from container ships be set aside by the General Assembly for transportation projects in each region.

This passed the House of Delegates on an almost straight party line vote, 51 to 45. (See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+vot+HV1862+HB6055)

I successfully amended HB 6055 to remove provisions which attempted to unconstitutionally bypass the legislature and give these funds, without the General Assembly appropriating them, to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization. HB 6055 lost in the Senate Finance Committee.

SB 6009, sponsored by Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Fairfax), was considered by the House. After a gas tax proposal was removed from the bill on a 95 to 1 vote, the bill, which authorized both regional and statewide tax increases on home sales and a general sales tax, failed on a vote of 39 yeas to 59 nays. (See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+SB6009)

Most all other measures passed by the House to address transportation fixes, including new funding sources, never made it out of Democrat controlled Senate committees. These include:

Transportation Lock Box Constitutional Amendment to prevent diversion of road/transit funds. HJR 6001 (Oder)

Management Audit of VDOT’s operation and program expenses HB 6046 (Lingamfelter)

Tolls on Hampton Roads bridge tunnel projects which requires VDOT to issue contracts for toll projects or seek private toll proposals. HB 6019 (Hamilton)

Revenues to Virginia from Off Shore Drilling if approved by Congress to be designated as follows: 40% for transportation, 40% for Chesapeake Bay Clean up, 10% for renewable electric energy, and 10% for renewable costal energy research. HB 6006 (Saxman)

HB 6006 has been characterized as a vote in favor of, or in opposition to, off-shore drilling. It is neither. HB 6006 is not a petition to Congress to approve off-shore drilling. It is a request to Congress which has total control over drilling, that if off shore drilling is approved by Congress, the state of Virginia would hope to receive some of the royalties.
I asked Delegate Saxman to add provisions to his bill to include requests for Congressional protection of the off shore environment and the economies of Virginia’s costal residents, which he did:

“Whereas, such drilling should be undertaken under the greatest protection that can be afforded to the environment; and Whereas, such drilling should be pursued to the extent that the economic viability of Virginia localities contiguous to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean are not negatively impacted;” See HB 6006 as introduced, plus Marshall and Saxman Substitutes at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+HB6006.

I also asked Del. Saxman to amend his bill to reflect that an enhanced area for exploration as is provided for in other states should be the area identified as Virginia revenue producing waters, and not just a portion of it as is now designated by the US Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service. He also included that provision in his amendments to HB 6006.

Virginia has no legal authority to compel Congress to provide such royalties, so this is a hat in hand request from Virginia based on previous Congressional discussions to provide all Atlantic Seaboard states with oil and gas royalties should drilling be authorized by Congress and prove successful. HB 6006 was reported to the Senate floor 7-6 because Senator Chuck Colgan (D-Prince William) voted yes. It lost 16 yeas to 18 nays on the Senate floor.

Marshall Measures Reported from Committee

I received a phone call on the morning of July, 9 telling me that three of my measures would be heard later that day by the House Rules Committee. I was pleasantly surprised, especially with the committee response. I want to thank voters who contacted committee members in support of these measures.

While my bills (see below) were reported favorably by the Rules Committee, the ethanol proposal and the permanent cost-cutting bill were NOT placed on the calendar nor were they taken up by the House of Delegates. The House of Delegates and Senate Adjourned the special session at 1:39 AM Thursday morning, July 10. I intend to pursue these measures in the 2009 session.

HB 6032: Creates a permanent state oversight Commission, similar to the federal cost cutting BRAC Commission, to evaluate whether state holdings should be sold, identify duplicate programs, and cut unnecessary overhead while maintaining the same level of services. The goal is to identify 3% in savings from our $76 Billion dollar budget which could then be used for roads and mass transit. 13 yeas, 2 nays.
(See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+HB6032)

HJR 6011: Requests a waiver from the federal ethanol mandate to stop burning food! Ethanol results in fewer miles per gallon and higher food prices from diversion of food to fuel. 12 yeas, 3 nays.
(See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+HJ6011)

HJR 6008: Assesses methane resources now being wasted in Virginia which could be converted to fuel for cars/trucks. This measure was referred to the Assembly’s Energy Commission for study.
(See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+HJ6008)

Thank you again for contacting your representatives to voice your concerns.

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall
http://delegatebob.com

Cross-posted here at Bloggers 4 Bob Marshall 4 Speaker. Check out the other great posts.

ELECTION 2008 CANDIDATE PROS AND CONS: CANDIDATE WEBSITES

Citizen Tom — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:00:37 +0000

This is the second in a series on the General Election scheduled for November 4, 2008. DOES DISASTER LOOM BEFORE US? began the series and listed the topics to be covered. However, DOES DISASTER LOOM BEFORE US? did not list the series in the order I will cover these topics.

The problem an election presents for the voter is not straight forward. To choose the candidate we think will best represent us, we need to know about the candidates. Unfortunately, every piece of information available about the candidates is either biased or incomplete. So we must take our time and sift through the information available calmly and methodically. Today we look at some of the information the candidates have made available about themselves.

Who Are The Candidates?

One thing that can be confusing is that America does have a multiparty system. Although only Democrats and Republicans generally ever get elected, that does not others from trying. Here is a list of abbreviations.

(D) - Democratic Party
(R) - Republican Party
(L) - Libertarian Party
(IG) - Independent Green Party
(C) - Constitution Party
(I) - Independent (no party affiliation)

The Virginia State Board of Elections determines who will be on the ballot. Since this is July and the election is not until November, the Virginia State Board of Elections still has work to do. Currently the Virginia State Board of Elections lists only candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives (here).

Senate

We have four candidates on the ballot for the U.S. Senate.

House of Representatives (11th Congressional District)

President

Because the presidential candidates have not necessarily been formally nominated yet, the Virginia State Board of Elections does not list these candidates. So let’s use an unofficial source, Project Vote Smart. Project Vote Smart lists five major candidates (here).

Where Do We Start?

Okay! Now we have a mob of candidates, twelve, for three different offices. Is it worth investigating all twelve of them? Realistically, only the candidates from the two major political parties have a chance of winning — or do they? Well that is up to you? How unhappy are you with the two major political parties? For what it is worth, I have provided links to the websites of the third party candidates. Even if they do not vote Republican, I want people to participate in politics and find out what is going on. Even when we start off on the wrong track, the best education is experience.

Before the election, I will try to do a post in the Libertarian Party. However, because I am a Republican, I will post only on the Republican candidates and their primary competition, the Democrats.

Website Review

Just listing all the candidates and the parties they represent required a post.

So I plan doing four more posts reviewing the candidate websites, one for each of the presidential candidates and one apiece for the Senate (Virginia) and the House races (just the 11th Congressional District, of course).