Monday, November 28, 2005

A Republican policy agenda

Patrick M. McSweeney: A Republican policy agenda

November 27, 2005

My last column calling for a clear and forceful Republican agenda prompted some readers to ask about content. I'm happy to oblige.

Before I spell out my suggestion, I think it is important to consider what the purpose of an agenda really is. I believe it should be the membrane that binds party members together. A political party without an agenda is an empty vessel in pursuit of raw power. Without an agenda, a party lacks coherence and grass-roots energy.

As a party grows larger, its ability to agree on a political agenda becomes increasingly difficult. Most parties begin as a relatively small group of like-minded people intensely committed to a political objective. As political parties seek to expand their power, they typically embrace people who aren't as committed to the original objective and may even disagree with party members on policy matters.

Read More Here: Daily

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Deaths After Abortion Pill to Be Studied by Officials

November 23, 2005

Deaths After Abortion Pill to Be Studied by Officials

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 - Federal drug regulators have discovered that all four women in this country who died after taking an abortion pill suffered from a rare and highly lethal bacterial infection, a finding that is leading to new scrutiny of the drug's safety.

Since all four deaths occurred in California, an unusual clustering, the Food and Drug Administration quietly tested to see if abortion pills distributed in California were somehow contaminated. They were not.

Stumped, officials from the F.D.A. and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have decided to convene a scientific meeting early next year to discuss this medical mystery, according to two drug agency officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

Among other issues, the experts hope to explore whether the abortion pill, called Mifeprex or RU-486, somehow makes patients vulnerable to an infection with Clostridium sordellii, the lethal bacteria. If so, they will explore how such an infection "could be more easily diagnosed and even prevented," one official said.

Monty Patterson, whose daughter Holly died on Sept. 17, 2003, less than a month after her 18th birthday, said he believed that Mifeprex inhibits the immune system, making women more vulnerable to bacteria.

Mr. Patterson's campaign against Mifeprex helped persuade the family of at least one other woman who died to have tissue samples tested for the presence of the rare bacteria, he said.

"I believe this drug should be taken off the market," Mr. Patterson said.


Excerpted from:

NYTimes Article

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

U.N. Wants Control of Internet

Posted by Bobby Eberle November 16, 2005 at 7:02 am

As someone who has worked on the Internet since the very first web browsers starting appearing from a research group at the University of Illinois and who has built a web-based political enterprise, I am keenly aware of the power, speed, and freedom of the medium. The Internet has truly transformed the way news is disseminated, broken through the left-leaning mainstream media, and allowed ordinary citizens across the world to have a voice. Now the United Nations, the group that has put Syria on its human rights commission, wants to control it.

Currently, the Internet is under the supervision of a non-profit organization formed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. However, there is a push by nations such as China, Cuba, and Iran for the U.S. to turn control of the Internet over to the U.N. In this digital age, if the U.N. were to gain control of the Internet, it would truly be one of the biggest and most dangerous blunders of all time.

First, there is the issue of freedom. The Internet represents the ability for any individual to speak out about topics or news important to him or her. The Internet also provides a wealth of news and information from countless sources, allowing people the power to make informed decisions to a degree unmatched in the world’s history. Nations such as China, Cuba, and Iran are notorious for stifling human rights and personal freedoms. Do we really the Internet controlled by the U.N. who kowtows to nations such as those — nations who would likely arrest (or worse) a person for speaking ill of the government. We cannot afford to put nations who have no concept of free speech in charge of the ultimate free speech medium.

Second, there is the issue of competency. As long as there is a buzz for U.N. control over the Internet, I should only have to utter three words to make my point: Oil For Food. In what is truly a scandal of epic proportions, one that shows not only incompetence but also mass corruption, the U.N. proves once again that it is not up to the task. Now, they want the Internet? I’d laugh if it weren’t so scary.

As Nat Moffat points out in his Wall Street Journal, “One of the goals of the summit is to advance the ‘internationalization’ of what is known as ‘Internet governance.’”

So, despite what Kofi Annan might say, the issue is about control. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. only “controls” a small portion of the Internet anyway, particularly in the area of the domain name system or DNS. Most control is under the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This company, run out of California, has a board of directors comprised of many international members.

The Internet is a strange medium… Al Gore invented it, and now the U.N. wants to control it. This could mean we’d be putting the Internet into a “lock box” with Iran, Syria, and China holding the keys? That premise is simply unacceptable, and the best option is to keep the Internet free… under the watchful eye of America.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Grasping for a trend

Grasping for a trend

By Donald Lambro
November 14, 2005

If last week's governors elections and the exuberant Democratic claims after sounded familiar, that's because it was, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "deja vu all over again."

Four years ago, Democrats also won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey in the only two statewide contests in that 2001 off-year election. The next day Democrats and political news analysts said the results proved Republicans were in trouble and would suffer serious losses in 2002's elections.

But it didn't turn out that way. The Republicans, with some nonstop campaigning by President Bush, made sizable gains in the House and Senate and maintained their majority in the governorships. And they made more gains in 2004 and kept their advantage over Democrats in the state capitals.

Nevertheless, Democratic leaders and political pundits renewed the 2001 claims last week after the GOP's losses in Virginia and New Jersey. Not only did they point to a Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill next year, but said the results were all due to backlash against President Bush and his party.

"It's going to be a real shot in the arm for Democratic efforts to take back the House and Senate in 2006," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. As to what caused last Tuesday's results, well, Mr. Schumer huffed and puffed, it was "a clear repudiation of George W. Bush and the Republican agenda."

But it doesn't take a lot of deep insight to discover there's a lot of exaggeration going on here.

Let's dismiss any trends out of New Jersey. Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine won because of a nearly 2-1 Democratic advantage, an ultraliberal agenda and a lot of get-out-the-vote money Mr. Corzine gave to black church leaders and union bosses. It is hard to see how Mr. Bush or his party affected this race at all.

Second, as Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman said after the results were in: "This was a status-quo Election Day. There were 28 Republican governors before the election and there were 28 Republican governors after the election."

Virginia, however, tells a little different story, but the way liberal Democratic leaders portray it.
Consider the kind of centrist to right-of-center campaign Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine ran. He focused on bread-and-butter economic-growth issues, transportation gridlock and roads. He campaigned as a Second Amendment Democrat who supported gun rights, and talked openly and frequently about his religious faith and values -- issues that are not in the national Democratic Party's mantra.

Mr. Kaine, in other words, used the campaign playbook of Democratic Gov. Mark Warner, who followed a similar game plan in his election four years ago. Little wonder then, that, with Mr. Warner finishing his term with an 82 percent approval rating and Virginia's economy one of the most robust in the country, voters wanted the closest thing to a second Warner term, and chose Mr. Kaine over former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, whose campaign was weak, vague and inept.

Missing from most of the national postelection analysis, however, is the fact that outside of the governor's office, Republicans won the No. 2 and No. 3 statewide contests for lieutenant governor and attorney general and lost only one seat in the state legislature, which they control.

Excerpted from Washington Times:

Thursday, November 10, 2005


It ain’t necessarily so. Democrats, especially those in the media, are claiming a great Democrat Party victory in Tuesday’s election in Virginia. The Democrats, especially those in the media, are boasting the election shows President Bush and Republicans in Congress are in trouble. According to the Democrats, the election proves Governor Mark Warner and Governor-elect Tim Kaine are super-hero political leaders. The truth? All of this is phony baloney.

Yes, the Democrats managed to hold on to the governor’s office. They lost, however, two of the top three races. Moreover, the Republicans remain firmly in control of the House of Delegates. Their majority is reduced by only one or two from their actual 60-40 advantage, going into the election. Winning only one of the top three races in Virginia and reducing the Republican majority in the House by only one or two votes does not create a great Democrat Party victory.

The Democrats are engaging in wishful thinking, when they claim the Virginia election shows President Bush and Republicans in Congress are in trouble. Bush, Republican members of Congress, and national issues were not on the ballot. The campaigns of the candidates and state issues decided the results of the election. More than anything else, by far, the campaigns run by the candidates decided the election outcomes.

Liberal Tim Kaine followed the blueprint that liberal Mark Warner created four years ago. Kaine distanced himself from his left-wing background and beliefs, and he talked like a conservative. He labeled himself "pro-life" far more often than his Republican opponent, Jerry Kilgore. Kaine promoted the fact he had been a Christian missionary. He ran away from his left-wing positions on hot-button issues. Many voters probably thought Kaine was at least as conservative as Kilgore. Once Kaine takes office these voters will learn how much they have been deceived.

Jerry Kilgore ran a botched campaign. As Republican candidate Mark Earley did four years ago, Kilgore soft-pedaled his conservative philosophy, and suffered the same negative result on Election Day. Four years ago, the Republican Party of Virginia launched an attack on Mark Warner that could not be proven true when it was challenged. That crippled Earley’s campaign. Kilgore launched, early in his campaign, nasty attack ads that Kaine and his media allies seemed to successfully refute. Throughout the campaign, Kilgore’s campaign blasted Kaine with venomous ads, which turned off many voters. Kaine has a far-left record that Kilgore could have exploited successfully with good ads. However, Kilgore’s campaign ignored the most effective issues and ran bad ads.

Bob McDonnell’s campaign was botched, too. He did not effectively tout his conservative record and positions. His opponent, Creigh Deeds, has a left-wing record that made him very vulnerable. However, McDonnell’s campaign all but ignored it. His campaign let Deeds claim to be a "conservative" without a significant McDonnell response. McDonnell’s campaign focused on some plea bargains Deeds made, when Deeds was a Commonwealth Attorney. Deeds was able to counter these ads and minimize the small damage they could have caused. Although McDonnell’s campaign had ample political ammunition available to go big game hunting, it chose to use BBs.

Deeds ran a clever, misleading ad that transformed his support for a massive tax increase to an "investment" in many wonderful things. It, also, turned McDonnell’s tax increase opposition into opposition to all of these great goodies. Deeds ran a fraudulent, despicable ad, late in the campaign, that strongly insinuated McDonnell is unethical and a law breaker. McDonnell failed to make any meaningful response to either of these dishonest Deeds’ ads. This let Deeds’ slick deceptions hang in the air like the odor of a skunk.

Unlike Kilgore and McDonnell, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, Bill Bolling, drew sharp contrasts between his conservative record and his opponent’s left-wing record. It should be no surprise that, of the three Republicans running for a statewide office, Bolling fared the best. Bolling would have won by a larger margin, if he had not been handicapped by the poor performances of the Republican candidates above and below him. Bolling’s victory would have been more decisive, too, if some of his ads had been less harsh.

There are crucial lessons future Republican candidates must learn. First, do not turn off voters with nasty attacks. Second, run as forthright, bold conservatives. Third, do not let left-wing opponents persuade voters that they are conservative. Expose their liberal records. Fourth, do not let Democratic candidates make dishonest attacks with no Republican response. Fifth, employ political consultants and campaign managers who have not botched previous important campaigns.

by Lewis R. Sheckler
November 10, 2005

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Yesterday's elections in Virginia and New Jersey signify almost nothing

JERRY KILGORE lacked the three things needed for a Republican to be elected governor in Virginia. In order of importance, they are: a dynamic campaign, an issue, and a president who's not a burden. So he lost to Democratic Tim Kaine yesterday in an election that Democrats will claim is more meaningful that it really is. Democrats captured the governor's office in New Jersey, too, but that barely rises to the level of talking point.

Kilgore, the ex-state attorney general, is a nice man with deeply conservative views. He is a protégé of Republican Senator George Allen. But his campaign, except for two ads denouncing Kaine for opposing the death penalty, was "nasty and dull." That's how Larry Sabato, the University of Virginia professor and expert on Virginia politics, described both the Kilgore and Kaine campaigns. Sabato was quite right.

Abortion wasn't a big issue, but Kilgore insisted he was pro-life. From time to time, Kaine said he was too. But Kaine said he would fight to protect a woman's right to have an abortion even if the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationally. Kilgore wouldn't say what he'd do if Roe were overturned, irritating many conservatives.

To win the Virginia governorship, a Republican usually needs an issue that rallies conservatives. In 1993, Allen was elected by promising to end the frequently abused system of parole. Four years later, Jim Gilmore won by vowing to eliminate the regressive car tax. Kilgore tried to make the death penalty an overriding issue, but it didn't click. Nor did his attacks on illegal immigration.

It was an election without a paramount issue. This helped Kaine, who spent most of his time denying that he is a liberal. He was, though, as Richmond mayor. He was less liberal as lieutenant governor to outgoing Democratic Gov. Mark Warner. In his campaign, Kaine had no issues worth mentioning. He simply declared himself a clone of Warner, who is enormously popular, despite the fact that he promised never to raise taxes--and then raised them.

All of which leads to the Bush factor. There was one. For the past seven elections in Virginia, voters have elected a governor from the party that doesn't hold the White House. Even if the president is popular, as Ronald Reagan was in 1981, he can't help his party's candidate much. But he can hurt the candidate if he's even slightly unpopular, as Bush is today in Virginia. Bush was a mild drag on the Republican ticket, especially in populous northern Virginia, where Kilgore did poorly.

Was Bush a huge factor in the race? Not at all. The election wasn't a referendum on his presidency. But Bush's current troubles meant that Republicans weren't in a good mood. One Republican official said the floor dropped out of the party's conservative base when Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Had the election been held six months ago, Bush wouldn't have hurt Kilgore. And Kaine probably would have won anyway. Nonetheless, national Democrats are bound to insist that Bush was decisively rejected in Virginia. Not true. He was only gently rebuked.

Sabato said the important element of the race was the Warner versus Allen subtext. Warner stumped widely for Kaine. Allen campaigned extensively for Kilgore. Since both are likely candidates for president in 2008, this was a triumph of Warner over Allen, according to Sabato. If so, it was a triumph of microscopic proportions.

One aspect of the Kaine campaign should encourage voters. In 2001, Warner spent millions from his personal fortune pretending to be someone he wasn't. He's from urban Alexandria, but traveled with a bluegrass band, sponsored a NASCAR race car, and tried to bond with hunters and rural voters. Kaine ran a conventional Democratic campaign, emphasizing minorities, cities and inner suburbs. His margin of victory was roughly the same as Warner's. So the lesson was: you might have to fake your ideology, but you don't need to fake who you are.

THE NEW JERSEY RACE had only two interesting elements. One was the TV ad that Republican Doug Forrester ran quoting the ex-wife of Democrat John Corzine--he dumped her after 30 or so years of marriage--as saying she wouldn't vote for him. Corzine, spending freely from his personal wealth of $300 million, now contemplates the presidency.

That's the second item of interest in the race. Corzine is already a senator, though hardly an influential one. Why else would he want to be governor of New Jersey except to use it as a launching pad for a presidential bid? I can't think of a single other reason.

New Jersey is a blue state, Virginia a red state. But both had Democratic governors coming into yesterday's election. Both will continue to. Thus, there was no change, no earthquake, no reordering of the political universe. Ignore anyone who tells you otherwise.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Weekly Standard Article

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Richmond Times-Dispatch For Kilgore

The most influential paper in the state, endorsement for Kilgore

For Kilgore

Richmond Times-Dispatch

Oct 30, 2005

In the race for governor, the Times-Dispatch today endorses Jerry Kilgore. Contrary to the too-usual sentiment on the part of voters contemplating an election, this is not a lesser-of-two-evils decision but a positive endorsement of Kilgore.
Why? Two principal reasons.


Because Kilgore's views are in the mainstream of Virginia's voters, he holds the advantage on key issues.

For instance:
He is right on transportation. He favors funding additional road and transit needs out of the general fund budget. As he said in a T-D interview: "I'm calling it general-fund dollars that are going to be used to fund transportation, somewhat, in our future. So I'm willing to find the funds any way we can." He would encourage beginning the process with billions in surplus general-fund revenues. Perhaps significantly, Kilgore's plans for transportation proved decisive in his endorsement by the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce.

He is right on taxes. Not a no-tax man but a low-tax man, Kilgore favors giving localities the power, through referendum, to tax themselves -- a position long embraced by this newspaper, and by incumbent Governor Mark Warner. Kilgore once more: "I think the most basic relationship between the people and their government is taxation. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of the people? I'm glad to put it out to the people. I'm not afraid of the voters." (If that line of reasoning sounds familiar, compare this from gubernatorial candidate Warner, October 3, 2001, in the VCU debate moderated by Doug Wilder -- responding to a question on local transportation referendums: "Not all political wisdom resides with the politicians in Richmond. We ought to sometimes be willing to trust the people.")

He is right on the death penalty -- standing unequivocally for it and understanding its deterrent effect.

He is right on illegal immigration. Again, as he told the T-D: "I don't support spending taxpayer dollars on those illegally in this country. [I don't believe in] encouraging illegal behavior." Similarly, he opposes in-state tuitions for illegals attending Virginia's colleges.

Finally, Kilgore is right on these issues: (1) As a law-and-order guy, former prosecutor, and former Virginia public safety secretary (under Governor George Allen), he is tough on crime. (2) He supports genuine merit pay for teachers. (3) He wants to raise from $2,500 to $4,000 tuition assistance grants -- to make Virginia's private colleges more affordable to Virginia students. And (4) he is categorical in his opposition to civil unions.

Sincerity & Conviction
Kilgore shares the values of Virginia's citizenry. He is a Republican conservative appealing to an electorate that regularly describes itself as conservative. Virginia has two Republican U.S. senators and has gone Democratic for president only once since 1952. Virginia's voters have elected a number of Democratic governors since their first Republican governor, Linwood Holton, took office in 1970. But to win, those Democrats often have had to sell themselves -- as Mark Warner did -- as moderately conservative.

The fundamental problem a liberal politician has in Virginia is this: He frequently cannot say what he sincerely believes; rhetorically he must obfuscate and hide. Mark Warner faced that problem, and campaigned saying, e.g., "I will not raise taxes. I will not raise taxes. I will not raise taxes." Then he went on to push through the largest tax increase ($1.5 billion) in Virginia's history. Even now, one doesn't know what -- and what not -- to believe from Warner's rhetorical offerings.

Kilgore can be categorical, unequivocal, and direct in expressing his views -- he needn't seek to confuse and deceive -- because those views are in sync with the majority of Virginia's voters. On issues generally -- and on the death penalty and tax referendums specifically -- Kilgore's principal opponent faces the same problem of conviction and sincerity that Warner faced. Whoever may present himself as the logical, nuanced heir to the Warner mantle, it is Kilgore who today echoes Warner's 2001 campaign themes on tax referendums (pro) and the death penalty (pro).

Kilgore projects a commendable sincerity, a trust -- with no disconnect between what he believes and what he says.
. . .
This newspaper is for Jerry Kilgore. He is right on the crucial issues. He is straightforwardly in tune with the views and values of most Virginia voters. He would go to the Executive Mansion with the courage to fight for his convictions -- and Virginia hardly needs a governor who would not.

Come November 8, we urge you to give him your vote, too.

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Still Great News in the Battleground Poll

by Bruce Walker

03 November 2005

Conservatives are winning, and winning convincingly, the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of Americans.

I have written articles soon after the various Battleground Polls have come out over the last three years. People trained, like the dull, illiterate drones in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, are accustomed to acquiring information only from images, with tools like bright colors replacing, as much as possible, the precise data of words and of numbers. These dullards are also conditioned to believe that if information is important, it will be presented in a pie graph or line chart.

This, of course, is nonsense. Give me an ideological agenda and I will give you a statistical image to prove that point -- which is something that I have been pointing out in a series of articles over the last several years as soon as the Battleground Poll is released. Nothing has changed.

Read the Battleground Poll website itself (to say nothing of the even more skewed lurid descriptions by the mainstream media describing the horrible problems that conservatives face in the election a year from now.) Perhaps it helps the reader for me to quote from my past articles. My text, drawn from the guts of the data, shows the true picture of America and the trend of that electorate.

This is the foundation from which silly, ad hoc questions about transitory opinion regarding particular issues, political figures or political parties ought to derive. The reason for this disconnection between profound political facts and ephemeral polling data is that conservative politicians, parties and pundits panic too easily.

Go to the Battleground Poll and skip down through all the flashy and alarming graphs and charts. Skip also the approval of the parties to handle problems, the highly volatile intention now -- a year before the general election! -- as well. Ignore the popularity of a second term president nearing the second half of his second term: no president, Reagan, FDR or Eisenhower has done well, personally, at this point in his presidency.

The results also show progress, not a malaise. The problem is that this good news, better with each Battleground Poll, is ignored. It is not used, as it should be used, to win battles and permanently shift the balance of ideological power in America. All of the muscle to win the battles exists; it simply needs to be rallied to clear and unapologetic causes. Does this sound overly rosy?

Consider that in June 2002, in the salient question D3 of the poll, fifty-nine percent of the American people called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative,” while thirty-five percent of Americans called themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.” Excluding those who called themselves “moderate” or expressed “no opinion,” conservative voters constituted about sixty-one percent of the voters.

In September 2003, the percentage of Americans who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” was fifty-nine percent, while the number of Americans who called themselves “liberal” or “very liberal” remained at precisely thirty-five percent – a gap between conservatives and liberals of twenty-four percentage points. Excluding the few Americans who called themselves “moderate” or had no opinion, conservatives had the same whopping sixty-one percent majority.

One year later, in September 2004, the percentage of Americans who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” had risen slightly to sixty percent, while the number of Americans who considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal” had dropped to thirty-four percent -- leaving exactly the same gap between conservative and liberal of twenty-four percentage points.

Given all the doomsday pundits -- both of the Right and of the Left -- one might expect that the brand new Battleground Poll would show big changes. There were changes, but not in the way that pundits would expect. The number of Americans who call themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” increased by two percentage points to sixty-one percent, as high as it has ever been in any Battleground Poll. Now sixty-one percent of Americans consider themselves “conservative” or “very conservative,” while, again, precisely thirty-five percent of Americans consider themselves “liberal” or “very liberal” -- the gap between conservatives and liberals has actually widened by two full percentage points.

That, however, is only part of the good news for conservatives. The good news -- the great news, really -- is what has happened to the intensity of American political opinion and the direction of that intensity. The number of people who call themselves “moderate” or express “no opinion” or “do not know” has dropped from the six percent or seven percent in past polls to only four percent today. Where have these people been going?

In 2002, the number of Americans who considered themselves “strongly conservative” was fifteen percent; in 2004 the number of Americans who considered themselves “strongly conservative” had risen to seventeen percent; the latest Battleground Poll shows that the number of Americans who considered themselves “strongly conservative” has risen to twenty-one percent, almost three times as many Americans as there are who consider themselves “strongly liberal.”

Conservatives are winning, and winning convincingly, the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. The number of conservatives and strong conservatives is growing, and the number of liberals is shrinking. What America needs right now is a political battle in which the lines are clear. If we have that, conservatives will win. The Battleground Poll numbers show an unmistakable, steady and compelling shift to a big conservative majority. It is time we used that majority to change America. Bruce Walker's articles can be found at the Conservative Truth.

Friday, November 04, 2005


Friday November 4, 2005 RGA Press Release


Refers to Commonwealth's Attorney for Potential Prosecution

WASHINGTON, DC - This morning the Virginia State Board of Elections, in an emergency meeting called to examine Tim Kaine's deceptive campaign mailer, issued the strongest possible penalty against the Kaine campaign for violation of Virginia Law, as well as referred the matter to the Commonwealth's Attorney to further investigate whether the illegal mailer was intentional, and therefore subject to criminal penalties.

The Board of Elections, in response to a complaint filed by the Republican Governors Association ("RGA") against the Kaine campaign, unanimously ruled that the disclaimer on the Kaine campaign's deceptive mailer did not meet the requirement of Virginia law to be "conspicuous." The Board of Elections then unanimously voted to issue the maximum allowable fine ($100) against the Kaine campaign. Next, the Board discussed whether the Kaine violation was intentional or "knowing" under VA law, and because of the seriousness of the violation unanimously referred it to the Commonwealth's Attorney to further investigate and potentially prosecute.

Charles Spies, the RGA's General Counsel who testified at the emergency meeting, commended the Board "for taking the strongest possible action to sanction the Kaine campaign's dishonest and deceptive campaign tactics."

RGA Executive Director Mike Pieper stated: "Virginia voters need to evaluate whether they can trust Tim Kaine and his consistently dishonest campaign. It must be especially disheartening for Kaine's supporters to see his campaign referred to the Commonwealth's Attorney on the eve of Election Day for potential prosecution."

Thursday, November 03, 2005

The Media In Virginia’s Statewide Races


The Media In Virginia’s Statewide Races

By Lewis Sheckler
Wednesday, November 02, 2005

The media play a very important role in all political campaigns. The campaigns this year are certainly no exception. There are many news stories, editorials, editorial cartoons, and a big variety of political ads. This column is about the media in Virginia’s races for governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

Attack ads are playing a major role in the statewide campaigns. They are being used by the candidates for all three statewide offices.

Jerry Kilgore and Tim Kaine, candidates for governor, are hammering each other with harsh attack ads. There are apparently some misleading inaccuracies in some Kilgore ads, and Kaine’s ads include a questionable personal attack and some misleading information.
These are two examples of inaccuracies in Kilgore ads. One of his ads accuses Kaine of volunteering to represent a murderer on trial. Kaine’s law partner denies this, but admits Kaine did give him advice regarding the case. Another Kilgore ad says Kaine wants to raise the gasoline tax, but there is evidently no proof of this.

These are two examples of misleading information in Kaine ads. In a harsh personal attack, Kaine accuses Kilgore of giving legal protection to a company, because it is a big contributor to Kilgore’s campaign. The “proof” for this accusation would certainly not hold up in a court of law. Responding to Kilgore ads that criticize Kaine’s opposition to the death penalty, Kaine looks into the camera and declares that, regarding the death penalty, he would “obey the law.” This implies, of course, that he would ensure that murderers sentenced to death will be executed. However, a governor can obey the law and commute the death sentences of every criminal on death rows, eliminating the death penalty for all of them.

In the Lieutenant Governor race, Republican Bill Bolling is running ads that criticize Democrat Leslie Byrne’s liberal record. Byrne’s very soft positions regarding illegal immigrants provide one area of disagreement. Bolling’s ads are apparently accurate. Byrne is running a vicious, misleading personal attack, which insinuates Bolling was involved with the failure of The Reciprocal Group, a Richmond-based insurance company for which Bolling once worked. The truth is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Virginia’s Commissioner of Insurance have stated Bolling was not involved in issues that led to the failure of the company. Byrne claims, falsely, also, that Bolling “is not a friend of Virginians on health care issues.” There is ample evidence this is false, too.

In the Attorney General race, Republican Bob McDonnell is running ads that focus on Deeds’ left-wing positions on issues, and on some plea bargains Deeds made as a Commonwealth Attorney. Deeds is criticizing McDonnell for opposing a Deeds’ laundry list of “investments” by the state government. Deeds and other tax-and-spend liberals have learned to label their taxing and spending as “investments,” because “investments” sounds much better to voters than “taxing and spending.” Deeds is also running an ad, only in liberal Northern Virginia, that tells viewers McDonnell graduated from "Pat Robertson's law school, the Christian Broadcasting Network University [and] he's taken $36,000 from Robertson." Deeds is makung a disgusting appeal to antiChristian intolerance.

The media are not only presenting paid political ads to voters. They are, also, sticking their own oars into the campaigns. We are seeing biased news stories, the bias usually favoring the Democrats. Furthermore, left-wing newspapers almost always endorse the Democratic candidates, except when a Democrat is bound to lose. By endorsing Republicans who are a cinch to win, these newspapers will not harm Democrats, and they can then claim they do not always endorse Democrats. The statewide races are close enough this year that left-wing newspapers are endorsing all three Democratic statewide candidates.

We are seeing many editorials supporting the Democrats and attacking the Republicans. The editorial cartoons of liberal newspapers demonstrate this pro-Democrat bias, too. In this part of the state, the Roanoke Times is a classic example of a newspaper infected with an aggressive, pro-Democrat bias.

Kaine is running an ad, attacking Kilgore, that consists of quotes from the Roanoke Times and several other newspapers. Almost all of these newspapers are leftwing. (The one exception is endorsing Kilgore.) Newspaper staffs know candidates can use effectively what the newspapers print.

The web site of Roanoke’s WSLS-TV (Channel 10) has a web page entitled “Voice of the Voter.” It contains articles about the campaign between Jerry Kilgore and Tim Kaine. An examination of these articles reveals there is an extremely heavy preponderance of articles that favor Kaine’s campaign.

Never underestimate the influence of media liberals in political campaigns. Constantly pursuing their left-wing agenda, they know getting liberals elected to public office moves America to the left. Therefore, they strive constantly to achieve that shorter objective, to reach their ultimate goal.

Lewis R. Sheckler, ED.D. is a U.S. Army veteran (Counterintelligence Corps) and a retired Radford University professor, who has served in a number of leadership positions in education. He and his wife (married 53 years) have lived in Radford 40 years. They have three adult sons.

The conservative case for Kilgore

Op Ed from Washington Times

The conservative case for Kilgore

By Ken Cuccinelli
November 3, 2005

Next week's gubernatorial election results will determine the principal direction of our state government in the near future. We will either continue to grow the government with increased taxes and spending, along with more state control over the lives of individuals, or we will change course by reining in taxes and spending, and protecting personal rights and freedoms.

All concerned Virginians, but most particularly conservatives, should vote for Jerry Kilgore for governor on Tuesday. There are conservative Republicans, Democrats and independents in Virginia. The conservative philosophy transcends party lines because it focuses on issues, not parties. Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, smaller government and lower taxes, protection of the rights to property and to bear arms and, wherever practical, conservatives rely on the free market rather than big government to address our many challenges. As measured on these issues, Republican Jerry Kilgore far outclasses Democrat Tim Kaine.

As our Founding Fathers noted in the Declaration of Independence, the first right is the unalienable right to life. Without it, all of the other rights are meaningless. As attorney general, Jerry fought for the ban on the grisly partial-birth abortion procedure that Gov. Mark Warner vetoed. Jerry supported parental notification and parental consent, as well as "Conner's Law," making the murder of a pregnant woman a double murder. And while Jerry has committed to supporting common-sense pro-life legislation, like requiring abortion clinics to be subject to health and safety standards, Mr. Kaine has committed to vetoing such pro-life legislation. The choice for pro-lifers must be Jerry Kilgore.

After Mr. Warner broke (in spectacular fashion) his major campaign promise, namely, not to raise our taxes, the issue of taxes has become the premier issue in Virginia politics. Mr. Kilgore has vowed to veto further tax increases while Mr. Kaine says "we still need more." Mr. Kilgore opposed the 2004 tax increases while Mr. Kaine supported them. Three days after the vote for higher taxes, Mr. Warner revealed for the first time that Virginia had a surplus of more than $1 billion — the same amount that Virginia taxes had just been raised.

Jerry has also laid out a plan to rein in runaway property taxes. The choice for those who oppose tax increases must be a vote for Jerry Kilgore. In the area of preserving constitutional rights, Jerry has always been an advocate of the Second Amendment, thereby garnering an "A" grade from the NRA versus Mr. Kaine's "F." During the last 10 years, Mr. Kaine has regularly supported anti-second amendment efforts. Now he has added the beleaguered Fifth Amendment (property rights) to his hit list.

As a desperate last-ditch effort to win the governor's race, Mr. Kaine has proposed restricting property owners' current ability to use their own land in order to curry favor with environmentalists and others. Frankly, our property rights have been taking such a beating in recent years, that Mr. Kaine's promises to continue that assault should motivate every conservative to vote for Jerry Kilgore. While Mr. Kaine intends to rely on tax increases to address our pressing transportation needs, Jerry is an advocate of relying on the private sector to help address our traffic problems.

Critically for us in Northern Virginia, Jerry is the only candidate with the courage to propose widening I-66 inside the Beltway in both directions.

In recent days we have seen the tremendous benefits that private-sector competition can bring to addressing traffic in our area, specifically, we now have three different private proposals to address traffic in the Dulles corridor, with at least one of those proposals including building additional lanes on Route 28 and I-66 all the way to Washington. Jerry's reliance on the private sector instead of government is another reason for conservatives to support him.

Recently, we have been confronted with the prospect of our tax dollars being spent to build day-labor centers that even their advocates concede will be serving the illegal immigrant population. As a strong law enforcement attorney general and candidate for governor, Jerry understands the word "illegal," and he has opposed spending taxpayer funds for the benefit of illegal aliens. Mr. Kaine dismissively calls Jerry's position "mean spirited," a traditional liberal attack. Jerry knows that such spending is unfair to those who come to America legally and it will only encourage more illegal immigrants to come to Virginia. Jerry also opposed allowing illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition, while Mr. Kaine supports this subsidization of illegal immigration. For Virginians who believe that we should welcome our legal immigrants and do everything we can to discourage illegal immigration, Jerry Kilgore is your candidate.

When one looks at the candidates one issue at a time, it's clear that the choice for conservatives must be Jerry Kilgore, and that if Tim Kaine does prevail, he will be one of the most liberal governors in Virginia history.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Volunteer in Coming Election

Hey, you... Yeah, lazy, I'm talking to you! Why aren't you volunteering to help out in the coming election? No excuses! The Roanoke Republican Party needs your help. If you'll shoot me an email robyn *at* (the @ sign should be in place of *at*) I'll put you in touch with someone who needs your help. I'm not entirely comfortable with putting someone else's contant info on here w/o their permission.

And, while you're at it, if you know of anyone who wishes to contribute to this blog, just send me an email to let me know. If you can write reasonably well (or if you don't mind my editing for grammer... I'm a stickler for that) I'd love to have your help.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

In Response To "Google Will Return to Scanning Copyrighted Library Books" from the Wall Street Journal

This is written by a collegue who is actively fighting porn in libraries via

Visit Dan's site to get involved.


Response to “Google Will Return to Scanning Copyrighted Library Books” WSJ Online, November 1, 2005

Google need not worry that Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association, feels that digitizing texts will be “a potential disaster on several levels,” or that he thinks Google’s claims are “ridiculous.” Mr. Gorman takes such extreme positions that some of his own ALA members do not support him.

Consider what he said recently in the Washington Post (Bonus Points: Challenges to Books on the Rise, Tuesday, October 11, 2005). When asked, “Clearly there are books that children are not mature enough to read. Is there a standard for school libraries,” he first dodged the question. When pressed further, he revealed his interest in ensuring children maintain access to inappropriate material: “Children should be encouraged to inquire and to seek knowledge, not deterred.”

It seems the ALA’s views, as represented by Michael Gorman, are “ridiculous” and “a potential disaster on many levels.” Sadly, it has gone past potential and into actual harm to children – crimes against children in libraries following the ALA’s anything goes policy are too common. Example 1 and Example 2. Google, you have nothing to fear from Michael Gorman and the ALA.

For info on the ALA’s double standards regarding censorship and on the ALA's possible violations of various codes or policies, see


The Washington Times endorses Jerry Kilgore

As one of the few newspapers in VA that is not a BRANCH OFFICE of the democRAT party, the Washington Times makes excellent points on why Jerry Kilgore should be our next Governor.

The Washington Times
Jerry Kilgore for governor
Published October 27, 2005
Eleven days from now, Virginia voters will choose between two starkly different candidates for governor: The Republican nominee, former state attorney general and state secretary for public safety, Jerry Kilgore, is an energetic conservative and a proven leader who has worked tirelessly to make Virginia a safer place by bringing lawbreakers to justice. He has also proven his willingness to challenge those in his own party (particularly the Republicans-in-name-only who dominate the state Senate) who seem obsessed with the idea that Virginians need tax increases. The Democrat, Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine, isn't steadfast. Listening to him, as he attempts to reconcile and explain the various positions he has taken on issues such as abortion, taxes, illegal aliens, capital punishment and homosexual "marriage," can be something of an ordeal. At times the former Richmond mayor sounds like he would be more comfortable running for statewide office in Massachusetts or New York. For his part, Mr. Kilgore would bring a solid record of accomplishment to the governorship. When Gov. George Allen appointed Mr. Kilgore, then 32, to be state secretary of public safety in 1994, critics questioned whether he was old enough for the job. Mr. Kilgore proved the skeptics wrong by overseeing the highly successful implementation of Mr. Allen's plan to abolish parole in Virginia. After voters elected him attorney general four years ago in a 20-point landslide, Mr. Kilgore proved to be an activist in the best sense. He pushed the General Assembly to enact legislation making it easier to prosecute violent street gangs like the MS-13 and worked closely with the federal government to coordinate efforts to prosecute illegal aliens and remove them from the country. Mr. Kilgore also worked with the General Assembly to enact, over Mr. Warner's objections, legislation banning lower in-state tuition and driver's licenses for illegals. He opposed efforts by state colleges and universities to institute racial preferences. Mr. Kilgore also has been extraordinarily active in prosecuting serial sexual predators. Jerry Kilgore has made clear his opposition to the tax increases rammed through the General Assembly by Mr. Warner and Senate Republicans like Finance Committee Chairman John Chichester. He has been resolute in his support for capital punishment and his opposition to abortion on demand and homosexual "marriage." Mr. Kaine, by contrast, has a disconcerting tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth. On the homosexual "marriage" question, for example, he has said he supports amending Virginia's constitution to ban the practice. But he has opposed a federal constitutional amendment banning it -- effectively leaving the door wide open for the federal courts to impose it at a time of their choosing. On abortion, Mr. Kaine depicts himself as pro-life, yet he has excoriated General Assembly Republicans for refusing to pass partial-birth abortion legislation with an exemption for the "health" of the mother -- a loophole permitting, in essence, abortion on demand. He claims to be against illegal immigration, but opposes Mr. Kilgore's efforts to do anything about it until an unresponsive federal government can be roused from its lethargy. He's against the death penalty, but issues murky promises that he will "enforce the law" when it comes to executions. By every measure, we know where Mr. Kilgore stands. He is the superior candidate. The Washington Times is pleased to endorse Jerry Kilgore for governor of Virginia.

Absentee Voting in Virginia

The window of opportunity for this is closing rapidly, so please review the pertinent information below:

--To request an absentee ballot, your application must be postmarked by 5pm Thursday, November 3rd. To download an application, please visit this page on our website.

--Your completed absentee ballot must arrive at your local voter registrar office by November 8th.

--You may vote absentee in person at your local voter registrar office through Saturday, November 5th.

--Once you have requested an absentee form or voted absentee in person, please take a moment to think about who else might need to vote absentee as well. Do you have a spouse or family member who will be out of town on the 8th? What about a child away at college?