Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Virginia Politics

Eric Cantor Continues to Draw Ire of Conservatives

Tom Skypek — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:21:39 +0000

Great piece from Erick Erickson at Red State aptly titled, “Eric Cantor’s Failure of Leadership.”

Does Eric Cantor Want a Third Party?

Tom Skypek — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:57:46 +0000

The Republican Party doesn’t want the Tea Party movement to spin off and form its own political party. At the presidential level, this would be a disaster, at least in the near-term. However, this is becoming an increasingly greater possibility as elected Republicans in the 112th Congress shrink from their responsibilities, as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently did when he, along with 91 other Republicans, voted against the Jordan amendment to cut $100 billion in federal spending.

$100 billion is a drop in the bucket. We have no money. I thought the message of the November 2010 elections was crystal clear: cut federal spending. This message seems lost on many in GOP leadership positions. What we expect are deep cuts and bold proposals. Rand Paul has been leading the charge by suggesting across-the-board cuts. This is what Tea Partiers expect. You can’t cut enough from the budget.

This was an important vote and will not be forgotten by the Tea Partiers who made calls, stood in the blistering cold and scorching heat at so many rallies in 2009 and 2010, and gave their time to help candidates during last the last election cycle.

Cantor and 91 Other House Republicans Cower from Spending Cuts

Tom Skypek — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:40:30 +0000

As Adam Bitely from NetRightDaily.com reported, 92 House Republicans voted against Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan’s amendment to the Continuing Resolution which would have cut nearly $100 billion in spending. Among those voting against the spending cuts were House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy. The real conservatives in Republican leadership positions, Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Republican Caucus Chairman Jeb Hensarling, voted in favor of the amendment.

Either you’re serious about cutting spending or you’re not. Despite his tough talk, Cantor let down the voters of Virginia. We have no money. We’re broke. This isn’t the first time that Cantor has failed voters. In 2009, Cantor and 84 other Republicans voted to support the unconstitutional AIG bonus tax. These firms shouldn’t have been bailed out in the first place but passing a law taxing individuals only added insult to injury.

Has the Republican leadership forgotten about the elections of November 2010? The Tea Party movement should be angry. Republicans who talk tough about spending cuts and then fail to deliver on critical votes are no better than their liberal-progressive counterparts. This was an important vote. Even if the measure had passed, $100 billion doesn’t even big to scratch the surface. If the Republicans are going to accomplish any of their objectives they need strong conservatives in leadership positions. Cantor should step aside.

Fimian for Congress

Tom Skypek — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:48:40 +0000

I enthusiastically endorse Keith Fimian for Virginia’s 11th district congressional seat. Despite countless efforts by his opponent–Rep. Gerry Connolly, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other third-party organizations (MoveOn.org)–to obfuscate the debate and make the election about anything and everything but public policy, Keith Fimian has consistently talked about the important policy issues facing this country and the people of Virginia’s 11th congressional district. Fimian has run a positive campaign–focusing on the issues and Connolly’s voting record over the last two years on Capitol Hill and his record of mismanagement during his time as chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

Connolly’s views on government and public policy are simply inconsistent with the voters of the 11th district. Connolly voted for the stimulus package, cap and trade, and Obamacare. His campaign has opted to make name-calling the centerpiece of his campaign against Fimian, rather than his record. Connolly, like many congressional Democrats, is simply not running on his record. The stimulus package, cap and trade, and Obamacare are obviously unpopular with a majority of Americans–what is more, they are examples of bad public policy. Connolly has voted down the line with President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Obama-Pelosi ideology is not compatible with the voters of the 11th district who sent Republican Tom Davis to Capitol Hill for seven consecutive terms.

Connolly said a lot about himself when he cut a campaign commercial taking Fimian’s words entirely out of context–claiming that Fimian plans to give himself a bonus once he gets to Congress. Fimian was actually making a point about balancing the federal budget and has no intention of giving himself a bonus once he gets to the Hill–besides there’s that thing called the 27th Amendment. Is this really the best the Connolly campaign has to offer–intellectually dishonest commercials built around four second sound bites taken out of context? This type of low-grade drivel does absolutely nothing to contribute to the public dialogue on the real problems facing this country. What are Connolly’s proposals for deficit and debt reduction? Tax policy? Border security? The war in Afghanistan?

Keith Fimian is a successful businessman who knows how to create jobs. He understands that government doesn’t create jobs but rather creates the conditions for job growth by reducing tax and regulatory burdens. He understands what it takes to make payroll and to operate within a budget. Judging by his record, Gerry Connolly does not. Plus, if a candidate’s campaign commercials and the company they choose to keep (MoveOn.org–remember this gem?) say anything about their character (which I believe they do), then Gerry Connolly has already lost.

Vote for Keith Fimian on Election Day.

The Fight Against Obamacare Continues…

Tom Skypek — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:07:04 +0000

…and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is leading the charge. The federal government responded to Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate with a motion to dismiss the case, a move which was fully expected by Cuccinelli and his team. The federal government has to file its reply brief by June 22^nd, and then the oral arguments on the motion to dismiss will take place on July 1^st at 10 a.m. – one hour for each side. If Virginia’s case is not dismissed and moves forward, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18^th. There will be a webcast meeting on June 16th–next Wednesday–to discuss the case and its foundation. You can sign up by clicking here.

Below is a summary of the arguments presented by both sides. It was generated by the Attorney General’s team.

Federal government’s arguments to dismiss the case	Virginia’s response
Virginia is not injured by the federal health care law	Because the federal health care law purports to invalidate a Virginia law (the Health Care Freedom Act) under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, Virginia’s sovereign interests have been injured
Because the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014, the case is not “ripe”	1) Based on several previous Supreme Court decisions, if a dispute is certain to occur in the future, this does not prohibit the suit from being brought in the present 2) Virginia has already been forced to make decisions regarding insurance exchanges under the act, as well as changes to Medicaid. One of those decisions made the commonwealth forego more than $100 million in federal money.
Virginia’s suit is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act	The act does not apply to states under these circumstances, because Virginia’s action falls within an exception to the act that has been recognized by the Supreme Court
The government has the power under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance	1) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the text of the Constitution 2) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the meaning of the words of the Commerce Clause as understood by the Founders 3) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the historical context of the nation’s founding. When Great Britain instituted a tax on tea, the colonists’ response was to boycott and to not buy tea. Parliament had the power to regulate commerce, but even it did not attempt to force colonists to buy the taxed product. 4) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the traditional uses of the Commerce Clause. The clause has always been used to regulate economic activity; never inactivity. 5) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has set outer limits to the reaches of the Commerce Clause, including in cases such as Lopez and Morrison, saying that the clause must have principled limits, otherwise the federal government essentially would have unlimited power, rather than the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution.
Even if refusing to buy insurance is not commerce, the government can still force people to buy health insurance using the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.	1) Since 1819, the Supreme Court has held that any use of the Necessary and Proper Clause must be consistent with both “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution. Any interpretation that would destroy the federal form of government (where federal power is limited only to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, with remaining powers reserved to the states and the people) is not allowed under that standard. 2) In May, the Supreme Court decidedComstock. The Court adopted a historical approach to the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Because the mandate is utterly unprecedented, it is unlikely to be upheld under a historical approach.
Even if the government cannot win using the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause arguments, the federal health insurance mandate can be justified under the government’s taxing authority.	1) The penalty for not buying insurance is not a tax. Congress called it a “penalty” and claimed authority to act only under the Commerce Clause. To argue otherwise now ignores what Congress actually did. 2) A penalty for inaction is not a tax of any kind known to the Constitution, when judged historically.

June Primary Day Roundup

Tom Skypek — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:11:13 +0000

I think it’s going to be a solid night for Republicans come November. For a complete overview of last night’s primary election results, check out FOXNews .com.

Virginia’s 11th Congressional District: A big win for businessman and Republican candidate Keith Fimian. Let’s hope party reconciliation is fast. Gerry Connolly is a well-funded opponent, but he’s also way out of touch with 11th district voters. He needs to go.

Nevada: “Nevada Republicans Tuesday picked tea party insurgent Sharron Angle to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, marking the start of an epic showdown between a king of Capitol Hill and a conservative renegade who wants to turn Washington on end,” reports Michael Blood. Angle came from nowhere in the polls to win last night. Her victory is a testament to the power of the Tea Party movement. Pundits who suggest that the Tea Party doesn’t matter are simply being dishonest. Their efforts to discredit the movement failed. The strong opposition to Obama care and Scott Brown’s million-to-one victory in Massachusetts are firm examples of the power of this movement.

South Carolina: Nikki Haley, another candidate with Tea Party backing, won big in South Carolina. Because she just missed the 50% threshold, there will be a run-off election. However, she demolished her nearest opponent, so there’s a good shot that Gresham Barrett will see the writing on the wall and drop out of the race.

California: Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman both won their respective nomination battles last night. Fiorina will face Barbara Boxer and Whitman will face former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

Arkansas: Democratic incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln won in Arkansas. This is good for Republicans, though. Lincoln is very unpopular, has voted in lock-step with Harry Reid, and is facing a very tough challenger in John Boozman.

November 2010 can’t come soon enough.

Send Gerry Rodham Connolly Home: Vote Fimian Today!

Tom Skypek — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:38:56 +0000

If you live in Virginia’s 11th Congressional District, please make sure that you vote in today’s Republican primary (you can find your polling place here). Unfortunately, we can’t send Gerry Rodham Connolly home today, but this is the beginning of the end of his time on Capitol Hill. I’m convinced that either of the Republican candidates–Keith Fimian or Pat Herrity–would be terrific public servants, especially compared to Gerry Rodham Connolly. I hadn’t planned on endorsing anyone in the primary, but the recent flap over the proposed Day-Laborer Center in Centreville changed my mind.

Fimian’s opposition was swift and unambiguous. Pat Herrity’s response was not. Moreover, as Greg from Black Velvet Bruce Li noted yesterday, Keith has always had an energetic presence at the local Tea Party rallies and was vocal in his opposition to socialized medicine. In addition to being a principled conservative, Keith is in the best position to take back the 11th District Congressional seat this November. As such, Keith Fimian has earned my full endorsement.

Here’s a Special Election Day message from Keith:

I Support Ken Cuccinelli’s Fight Against Socialized Medicine

Tom Skypek — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:13:37 +0000

On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law a health care bill of historic proportions. That bill includes an individual mandate on Americans that declares that they must buy health insurance or face penalties. This overreaches the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause and is therefore unconstitutional. Yesterday, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a suit in federal district court in Richmond challenging the constitutionality of this legislation. It is heartening that there are public servants who still believe in, and are willing to defend, the United States Constitution.

The United States Senators and Representatives who passed this legislation have betrayed their oath of office. Since they’ve long forgotten, here it is:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Show your support for General Cuccinelli by joining the “I Support Ken Cuccinelli’s Fight Against Socialized Medicine” Facebook Group.

Steve Shannon: Unfit to be Attorney General

Tom Skypek — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:43:56 +0000

When asked during a debate to delineate the roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Del. Steve Shannon couldn’t give a straight answer. His transparent attempt to dodge this most basic question should raise serious doubts in the minds of all voters of Steve Shannon’s ability to be an effective Attorney General. When you run for public office, you should have a pretty good handle on the specific roles and responsibilities of the office. Ken Cuccinelli is the best candidate, hands down. (hat tip: Black Velvet Bruce Li)