This election year is crucial for the state of Virginia and for our nation.
It is absolutely critical that we elect a candidate to the U.S. Senate who will stand up to the big spending liberals in Congress…someone who will fight for the taxpayers of our state…a person willing to fight to reduce wasteful spending and lower taxes…a U.S. Senator who will protect our families and the working men and women…a man with the courage and honesty who will go to battle for Virginians.
You deserve a U.S. Senator with all of those qualities. You should demand a Senator who is honest and tough and who will work for you. And, my friends I submit that candidate in this election is former Gov. JIM GILMORE, and I hope you will help us elect him as our next U.S. SENATOR!
You may remember that as Virginia’s Governor Jim Gilmore signed into law five different tax cuts for Virginians totaling $1.5 billion, including a 70 percent cut in the Car Tax. Time and again, Jim Gilmore stood his ground against those who wanted to tax and spend and take more money from your pockets. For his courageous stands against wasteful spending and increased taxes, Jim Gilmore was three times awarded the “Friends of the Taxpayer Award” by Americans for Tax Reform.
You may also remember that as Attorney General Jim Gilmore launched successful investigations into Medicaid fraud, government waste, and consumer protection. The fact is that Jim Gilmore is someone who stands up for the working people of Virginia. We MUST elect Jim Gilmore to the United States Senate on November 4th!
Why should I tell you when Obama himself put it so eloquently?
Hear the full interview here. Obama thinks “assault weapons” are only for crime. Sure, and nobody ever enjoys target shooting in this country, and certainly there’s no need to maintain the balance of power between the people and their government. They’ll always protect us!
Sure. And no one ever gets attacked outside of their homes either.
Filed under: Congress, Election 2008, Foreign Affairs, State Government and Politics
Bob McDonnell on Jim Gilmore:
FOR OUR NATION’S SECURITY…VOTE JIM GILMORE FOR SENATE
Dear Virginia Voter:
Although America’s national security isn’t the number one issue in the headlines right now, it is a topic paramount to the future of our children and grandchildren. Who we elect to the United States Senate from Virginia is going to help determine which direction our nation takes to defend America’s national interests around the world and at home.
Because of his experience and his principles, I strongly recommend Jim Gilmore for the United States Senate.
Jim and I are both Army Veterans, and as you can imagine, I have a deep appreciation for the service of the men and women of our armed forces. Jim Gilmore volunteered for the U.S. Army and played an important role in counter-intelligence for the U.S. Army, safeguarding the security of American bases in Europe.
As you may know, Congress chose Virginia’s Jim Gilmore to chair a national commission charged with making recommendations on methods to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks on the United States. The Gilmore Commission warned in 1999 and in 2000 that America was facing a possible terrorist attack. After 9/11 Congress adopted 146 of the Gilmore Commission’s 164 recommendations.
Jim Gilmore has the experience in homeland security I know must be possessed by Virginia’s next United States Senator. Virginia and our nation must elect Jim Gilmore to the U.S. Senate.
This time from the political arm of the nation’s largest Taxpayer’s group. From Marketwatch:
The National Taxpayers Union Campaign Fund (NTUCF), the political action arm of the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU), today announced it has endorsed former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.
“When he held Virginia’s executive position, Jim Gilmore time and again proved his commitment to reduce the burden on taxpayers,” NTUCF President Duane Parde said. “He espoused pro-growth economic policies, chief among them cuts in the state’s dreaded car tax, which inspired many similar platforms across the country.”Gilmore, who also served as Virginia’s Attorney General, emerged as a national leader in the fight against predatory Internet taxes. He’s expressed strong opposition to the recent $700 billion bailout of the financial industry. Gilmore’s Democratic opponent, meanwhile, supports the bailout package, along with a number of other damaging policies, such as cap-and-trade energy legislation, expensive new infrastructure programs, and large tax hikes.
Two must read articles from the Wall Street Journal. First, they get to the heart of Obama’s policies regarding the growth of government:
Whether or not last night’s much-improved debate performance helps John McCain rally in the polls, at least voters finally got a clearer sense of the policy differences. For our money, the best line of the night was Mr. McCain’s Freudian slip of referring to Barack Obama as “Senator Government.” Neither candidate is offering policies that meet the serious economic moment. But Mr. McCain would let Americans keep more of their own income to ride out the downturn, while Mr. Obama is revealing that his default agenda is to spend money and expand the government.
Cribbing from Hillary Clinton’s playbook, Mr. Obama called this week for a “90 day foreclosure moratorium for homeowners that are acting in good faith,” whatever that last phrase means. When Mrs. Clinton proposed a foreclosure moratorium during the Democratic primaries, Mr. Obama had said it would lead to more expensive mortgages going forward. He was right then.
The Treasury’s Hope Now program and the Federal Housing Administration are already helping to refinance homes for millions of homeowners. Anyone who isn’t able to qualify for one of those voluntary programs and who still can’t afford to pay a mortgage isn’t likely to be any better fixed in a mere 90 days. Mr. Obama also overlooks that the banks that service the mortgages don’t typically own them. They’re owned by far-flung investors via a mortgage-backed security.
Mr. Obama apparently wants the feds to unilaterally rewrite contracts based on something as undefinable as “good faith.” At the same time, he is repeating his proposal to change the bankruptcy code so judges can unilaterally rewrite mortgage contracts as well. All of this would make credit less available to working families in the future.
Another Obama idea is to give a $3,000 tax credit to companies that create new jobs in the U.S. over the next two years. We don’t know many employers who would hire people merely because of a tax credit that barely covers administrative costs, especially if that tax credit vanishes after two years. And especially if Mr. Obama is going to hit that same business with a whopping tax increase. As he told skeptical “Joe the Plumber” — actually Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo — in his own Freudian slip this week, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” But there won’t be any wealth to spread if no one creates it.
Meanwhile, they offer an even scarier picture of things to come if the Democrats sweep the nation this election:
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
They proceeded to go through a litany of areas where Democrats would greatly affect the shape of domestic policy, including Medicare, business, union regulation, environmental policies, taxes and free speech.
Two key endorsements for Jim Gilmore.
Citizens Against Government Waste:
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste Political Action Committee (CCAGW PAC) today announced its endorsement of former Governor Jim Gilmore for election to the U.S. Senate from Virginia.“Jim Gilmore has served the citizens of Virginia with distinction and has an outstanding record of fiscal discipline and fighting on behalf of all taxpayers,” CCAGW PAC Chairman Tom Schatz said. “We are confident that his strong leadership abilities and longstanding fiscal conservative values will continue to guide his agenda as he seeks to represent Virginia in the Senate.”“Jim Gilmore has proved he is a champion of taxpayers. When he was attorney general, he investigated Medicaid fraud, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. As governor, he cut taxes and reduced spending, saving Virginian taxpayers $1.5 billion. He has always understood the importance of the Internet to Virginia’s and the nation’s economy and led the fight against taxing the Internet. Now, more than ever, Virginia needs taxpayer heroes like Jim Gilmore in the Senate,” declared Schatz.
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore picked up the endorsements of two veterans groups yesterday.
Vets for Freedom and Iraqi Veterans Group said they are backing Gilmore because of his military background and experience in fighting terrorism.
Appearing with veterans at a news conference at the General Assembly Building, Gilmore said he supports the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military if their behavior is not overt.
Gilmore, a Republican, is running against Democrat Mark R. Warner, also a former governor, for the U.S. Senate seat of John W. Warner, a Republican, who is retiring.
Rusty McGuire, a Republican who met with Mark Warner last week, said he asked the “don’t ask, don’t tell” question of Warner, and Warner said he would have to talk to military leaders before reaching a decision. The policy is up for review next year.
Throughout this campaign Barack Obama has run on the mantra of change, change, change. For example, he changed his views of earmarks after it became politically inconvenient. However, that didn’t stop him from making sure that his closest friends and supporters were taken care of:
Sen. Barack Obama, who vows to change Washington by trimming wasteful spending and disclosing special-interest requests, wrote the Bush administration last year to seek a multimillion-dollar federal grant for a Chicago housing project that is behind schedule and whose development team includes a longtime political supporter.
Mr. Obama’s letter, however, was never disclosed publicly. In fact, the letter was ghostwritten for him by a consultant for the Chicago Housing Authority, which wanted the money – a practice ethics watchdogs have frequently criticized.
The housing project through July had completed fewer than one-sixth of the 439 public housing units it had planned, court records show.
The Bush administration obliged Mr. Obama’s request, awarding a $20 million competitive grant last month from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It called the project a “shining example” of urban revitalization. The Washington Times learned of the letter from Republican operatives.
As Mr. Obama campaigns for president as an agent of change who promises to clean up Washington’s money game, his role in the Stateway project raises questions about the appearance of a conflict of interest and whether he has been participating in the very system he criticizes, watchdogs say.
Now some say that earmarks and similar state funds can be very helpful for communities. I think there may be some logic to that, but certainly not in these kinds of situations:
A charity being probed after it was handed $100,000 of taxpayers’ money by Barack Obama is headed by an “opportunist” whose own family wouldn’t trust him with a dime, The Post has learned.
Chicago Better Housing Association boss Kenny Smith is so desperate for cash, he launched a bitter courtroom battle with his 73-year-old disabled mom in an unsuccessful bid to take control of her $1,400-a-month pension and Social Security payouts, according to court papers and relatives.
His family last week told The Post they were amazed that Smith – a former volunteer for Obama who has donated $550 to his various campaigns – was trusted with the hefty state grant to build a botanic garden in his blighted South Side Chicago neighborhood.
Land earmarked for the plan is still overgrown and covered in garbage – eight years after then-state Sen. Obama steered the pork-barrel funds to the program.
The Illinois attorney general last month launched an investigation to find out what the Chicago Better Housing Association did with the cash.
“I wouldn’t go as far as saying Kenny’s an out-and-out crook, but he’s an opportunist,” said his brother-in-law, Robert Thomas.
Then, finally, Roll Call reveals that pro-Obama lobbyists have figured a work-around to the Senator’s famous ban on donations from their “ilk.” From Roll Call:
Obama has pledged to forgo lobbyists’ political contributions and minimized their role within his campaign. Yet, for the past two years, many lobbyists have found creative ways to stay involved, volunteering on policy committees or having spouses contribute to the campaign.
More recently, Washington-area lobbyists and lawyers have looked across the Potomac to the battleground state of Virginia to put their dollars and volunteer hours to use.
While lobbyists are also prevented from contributing to the Democratic National Committee, they can donate to Democratic state parties.
Last month, more than two dozen Democratic lawyers, lobbyists and political insiders did just that, holding a major fundraiser for the Democratic Party of Virginia.
The fundraiser’s primary purpose was to raise money for get-out-the-vote efforts, which would help all Democratic candidates on the ballot in Virginia.
The Sept. 16 event at Hogan & Hartson’s Washington office raised more than $125,000.
Headlined by a pair of Virginia Democrats, Gov. Tim Kaine and Senate candidate Mark Warner, it also included a number of early Obama supporters and longtime Democratic operatives.
Co-hosts included Stan Fendley of Corning, Tom Walls of McGuireWoods Consulting, Mike House of Hogan & Hartson, John Buscher of Holland & Knight and Dwight Fettig of Arnold & Porter, among others.
Virginia Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott and Jim Moran were also in attendance.
Virginia Democratic Party spokesman Jared Leopold said the state party has more than 2,000 new donors both within Virginia and across the Potomac.
“We’ve seen a dramatic increase in volunteers here in Virginia,” Leopold said. “It doesn’t matter to us if you are a lobbyist or a college kid. The point is to get out there and knock on doors.”
While the Virginia Democratic Party was the only beneficiary of the event, it was nonetheless an outlet for those frustrated by Obama’s strictures against lobbyists contributing to the greater Democratic Party cause, said one Democrat at the event.
Filed under: Congress, Domestic Policy, Election 2008, Strategy and Tactics
Mark Obenshain has joined us for several events in the last few months, and at these events he has been very vigorous in defending the campaign of Jim Gilmore, and why good Republicans need to resist the spin that Mark is a good guy. He summarized some of his points in his latest newsletter:
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, why on earth would we want to help Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and the rest of their gang by sending Mark Warner to Washington to help them reach a 60 vote Democrat supermajority?
Make no mistake about it: Mark Warner got his political start from Chris Dodd. He actually got his business start from him, too. Leveraging his knowledge as one who helped Dodd craft the rules for the eventual auction of cellular phone franchise licenses, he rounded up investors and built the foundation of his vast financial fortune. Since then, Warner has fallen in line, appearing on the campaign trail with John Kerry and now Barack Obama, and backing his liberal friends in Washington whenever they need him. Those who truly believe that Mark Warner will develop an independent streak once elected will be greatly disappointed.
That’s right. The very first vote Mark Warner will cast in the United States Senate will be to make Harry Reid Majority Leader. The Majority Leader in the Senate has incredible sway and deeply directs the course of legislation, and Reid’s power will only grow in they get to a filibuster proof 60 Senators, in which case conservative voices will be nearly silenced. There’s more, though. Behind that moderate “business oriented” facade is the heart of a liberal:
Not enough? Try this on for size. In a filmed interview with Virginia’s AFL-CIO Leadership, Warner promised he would back the so-called “card check” bill, effectively gutting Virginia’s right to work laws. Or this: Warner’s election will help liberal efforts to restore the “fairness doctrine,” which will decimate talk radio in America. The “fairness doctrine” would require radio stations airing conservative talk shows to also air an equal number of liberal talk shows, even if there is no demand for them and they cannot sell any advertising. Their only legal alternative would be to remove all talk radio from the airwaves. Increasingly, for liberals, the First Amendment is a one-way street. Hello Mark Warner — goodbye Rush Limbaugh!
I know Warner is a “nice” guy. I’m sure his politeness and sound logic was the reason that he got all but one freshman member of the House to back his massive tax hike that “saved” Virginia through fixed numbers……that, or the threat of strong Democratic challenges in the 2005 elections, funded through Warner’s massive personal wealth. Obenshain summarizes:
Don’t get me wrong. I like Mark Warner. He’s a nice guy. Jim Gilmore, on the other hand, has stepped on plenty of toes and will never win a “Miss Congeniality” award. That may be all it takes to win the votes of some, but not mine. Good grief!
More is at stake here than Mark Warner’s career trajectory, and more is on the line than one more Democratic vote in the Senate. The Democrats are pouring tens of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of their candidates across the country because they believe their party on the verge of achieving a 60-vote supermajority which would strip Senate Republicans of the few parliamentary procedures they have to reign in liberal excesses. With a supermajority, Democrats could cut off debate on controversial bills and put them to an immediate vote, which they would inevitably win, voting along party lines.
Folks, I know that the people cavorting with Warner these days are “nice guys.” Potts. Chichester. Clint Miller. Pete GIesen. But these people long ago gave up on our party. They chose the easy path of funding “good” government through throwing as much money as possible at the problem, rather than doing the hard work of rolling up sleeves, cutting expenses, and looking for free market solutions.
Again, Mark Warner is not in line with the true conservative values of the Valley. Listen to his own words as he denounces groups that many Valley residents belong to:
Does that sound like a moderate and concilliator to you? Someone who will bring everyone to the table?
Cut through the spin. Vote your values. Vote Gilmore.
Bob Goodlatte and Jim Gilmore: Two men standing up to the establishment on one of the biggest government boondoggles in a generation.
Bob’s Statement:
Today the U.S. House of Representatives considered legislation, the Financial Stabilization Package, aimed at stabilizing the growing financial crisis currently facing our country. Nothing is more important to me than ensuring the future growth of our economy and we can all agree that Congress has a responsibility to act to ensure that credit, the lifeline of our economy, remains available to individuals, families, students, and small businesses all across this country.
Inaction has never been an option. However, after much deliberation, I reached the conclusion that this legislation, which I voted against, is not the solution to our long term financial problems or our short term credit liquidity crisis. While improvements have been made to the legislation, at its core it is the same as the revised Paulson plan which the House defeated earlier this week.
The Financial Stabilization Package represents the largest corporate bailout in American history by taking 700 billion dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned money and handing it over to the very companies that made the bad decisions which led us into this mess in the first place. We literally reward those financial institutions who engaged in risky behavior to the tune of up to $8,000 for every family of four in the U.S. Since the federal government has to get this money from somewhere, it will borrow it, increasing the national debt. Not only will the government be paying $700 billion to bailout these reckless Wall Street companies, but also the billions of dollars in interest to pay off the debt. The bill requires the federal government to evaluate and purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of complex securities. Then the government will have to manage and ultimately sell these assets in an effort to recoup the taxpayers’ money. This is a responsibility for which it has no expertise and is a major intrusion in the financial markets with untold unintended consequences. This will directly affect every American by weakening the dollar and raising the cost of goods and services.
I believe there are other ways to turn this credit crisis around and stabilize our economy without penalizing taxpayers for the sins of those on Wall Street. The fundamental problem we face today is that no one knows how much the risky mortgage-backed securities are worth, and thus no private buyers are willing to purchase them. I am supportive of alternative initiatives to mandate that financial institutions purchase insurance from the federal government on these risky assets which places the burden on financial institutions to pay premiums for the insurance. The guarantee by the federal government would help unlock the liquidity of these assets by placing a minimum value on them. This would also limit the negative effects on taxpayers.
Other proposals worthy of consideration include funding assistance through a guaranteed bond program, which would be purchased by private investors, or a guarantee initiative similar to the net worth certificate program of the 1980s. These initiatives deserved scrutiny and consideration. Each of these would involve some financial participation by those who caused the problem. None were debated or voted on in this process.
I am pleased that after much urging from many Members of Congress, including myself, the mark-to-market accounting rules, which allows all financial institutions including local banks, to fairly value their assets and help to ease the credit crisis facing the country, were eased.
Our economy faces historic and unprecedented challenges. Most importantly Congress must not view the passage of the Financial Stabilization Package as the lone solution to the troubles in our national economy. It is critical that Congress continue to examine the root cause of this crisis, including fiscal irresponsibility and a lack of resolve to rebuild our domestic economy, including energy production.
I remain committed to working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to ensure that businesses are held accountable for their actions, which should help restore long term confidence in our financial markets and set our economy back on the right track.”
Also, Jim Gilmore has finally found an issue to hammer Mark Warner with. His statement, following the vigorous debate on Friday evening:
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore, candidate for the Virginia U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. John Warner, said today in a debate with Mark Warner on statewide television the choice for Virginia voters in the November 4th election is clear — a U.S. Senator like Jim Gilmore who will fight for taxpayers and oppose federal government bailouts or a U.S. Senator like Mark Warner who will sell out the taxpayers for the high rollers on Wall Street.
“I am strongly opposed to asking America’s hard working families to cover the bets of the Wall Street high rollers and insiders who exploited flaws in government regulations to make personal fortunes and devastate our economy,” said Gilmore.
Throughout the debate Gilmore repeatedly pointed out how as a U.S. Senator he will stand up for regular Virginians who are struggling and how Mark Warner will instead protect the special interests on Wall Street, rather than the taxpayers.
“Requiring taxpayers to cough up $700 billion without providing them any additional assurances for their own financial security is wrong,” Gilmore added.
Gilmore said Mark Warner supported the costly bailout of Wall Street while simultaneously taking in almost $3 million in contributions from the Wall Street high rollers who benefit from the taxpayer bailout. (Click here to see)
“Maybe Mark Warner finds it easy to take more and more of the taxpayers’ money, but I do not,” Gilmore said. “We must restore accountability in Washington – and on Wall Street – so America’s taxpayers are protected and our economy prospers.”
This third Virginia U.S. Senate debate between former Gov. Jim Gilmore and Mark Warner took place in Roanoke, Virginia. Sponsored by NBC affiliate WSLS Channel 10, the debate was held at the Taubman Museum of Art in downtown Roanoke and was moderated by WSLS news anchor and political reporter Jay Warren. The debate was broadcast live on television stations statewide.
One of the dirty little secrets of this campaign is that Mark Warner is drawing alot of Republican support. And who can blame them? Mark’s “nice” enough (I always thought Jimmy Carter was pretty nice too). And he “saved” Virginia (the facts aside).
But what about the issues. Mark always tries to talk the moderate talk….except when he needs to pander to the right crowd. The above video shows Warner at a Fourth of July Union Rally supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. Now why would that be such a bad thing? We all like to be “free.”
Well, like all good congressional action, the proposed EFCA would make employees anything but free. Currently, the process for unionization requires that either 30% of the membership sign authorization cards to call for unionization, with an election then to be held by secret ballot, or that 50% sign and the employer allow the 50% showing to stand as a “card check” election. However, under the proposed legislation, employers would be forced to accept the results of a card check as long as no coercion can be proved. Seems fair? But ask yourself–just how do you go about proving coercion when those being forced to sign are too scared to talk? The current system protects both employers by allowing them to ensure a fair process was used and employees by protecting them from coercion. Under the new law, the only thing protecting employees would be their ability to put everything at stake to ensure that fairness was given to all parties.
And this is supported by the “pro-business” candidate.
So think about that when you get ready to cast your vote for Mark Warner. That and the vote for electing Harry Reid Majority Leader, support for Obama’s economic policies, pro-choice views…..
