Willie Deutsch.com

Religion and Politics from a Young Christian in Northern Virginia

Downticket Fundraising: Obenshain Obliterates and Jackson Keeps Pace

July 16th, 2013

Today at 5:00 PM political nerds in Virginia started looking through campaign filing reports.  Candidates for office in 2013 filed reports for the period from May 30th to June 30th.

Mark Obenshain obliterated Mark Herring in fundraising.  Obenshain more than doubled Herring $479,914 to $206,360.  His Cash on Hand is almost four times as much as Herring’s: $487,044 to $127,680.

This is also a historic record for the same time frame.

Obenshain’s June Fundraising in Context

Jerry Kilgore (2001): $255,318
Don McEachin (2001): $140,415
Bob McDonnell (2005): $178,475
Creigh Deeds (2005): $151,035
Ken Cuccinelli (2009): $291,704 (previous record)
Steve Shannon (2009): $284,733
Mark Obenshain (2013): $479,916

Obenshain is running a steady on message and aggressive campaign.  He is working hard and getting the job done.  While the left is busy tying Cuccinelli to a falling governor, and trying to call a refreshingly honest African American extreme, they have largely left Obenshain to steadily become the best bet of the three to win.

While we need all three to win, recent court decisions make the Attorney General office a crucial office for defending conservative laws.  In light of the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 ruling, an Attorney General who refuses to defend a law in court almost insures the law will be struck down.

Obenshain is a principled conservative who unites the party and is working hard to win in November.  This historic fundraising is yet another encouraging sign from a very well run campaign.

Almost equally amazing is the LG race.  As the “extreme” candidate, and a political neophyte running against a veteran state senator, Jackson was supposed to be the one blown out of the water.  Instead Jackson is neck and neck with Northam.

Northam has $106,184 COH while Jackson has $90,025.  While many have worried that Jackson would crater in the general election, running neck and neck with Northam should be an encouraging sign of what could be a November surprise.

Mark Obenshain and the Truth About SB 962: Extremist or Gotcha Politics?

May 24th, 2013

Democrats are excited that they have found their chance to paint Mark Obenshain as an “extreme” “uncaring” right winger.  If you listen to his detractors, Mark believes in throwing women in jail for not reporting their miscarriage to the police within 24 hours.

Upon further review, this is actually a situation of seeing a problem, trying to fix it, but then withdrawing the legislation when no solution was available.

So what was the problem?  In May of 2008, a woman in Rockingham Co. entered a plea agreement of counseling, one year probation, and a 30 day suspended sentence for having thrown her newborn baby in the trash.  Because the body was never found, and no evidence was found to counteract the woman’s claim that the baby was stillborn, this was the maximum sentence possible.  In light of this incident, the Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst stated, “I entered that plea deal with great reluctance, but because of the current status of the laws in the United States and the Commonwealth, as well as the lack of evidence in this case, and that we never recovered a body, it was necessary in order to preserve a conviction.”

Naturally since Mark Obenshain’s district includes Rockingham Co., she went to him to try to get the law changed.  Mark received this request almost right before session and worked with the Commowealth’s Attorney and others on the original draft.  The bill he introduced was flawed and he understood that which is why he had absolutely no intention of letting it pass in the form it was introduced.  Mark introduced the bill with the plan of using it as a vehicle to address the problem.  He then met with every women’s group he could including NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the Family Foundation to try to amend the legislation to address the problem.  The conclusion of these meetings was a realization that any language that would address the problem would have unacceptable unintended consequences.

What was Mark’s response?  He did what every responsible legislator who unsuccessfully tries to address a problem does.  Before any vote was taken on the bill, the bill was “stricken at the request of the patron.

So what was so wrong with what Mark did here?  Is there anything wrong with introducing a flawed piece of legislation in order to amend it to fix a problem?  Of course not.  That happens all the time in politics.  Mark Obenshain was not going to allow legislation to throw women in prison for not reporting a miscarriage to move forward.  The only reason that after four years, this legislation is being discussed again is that a certain party is trying to twist Mark’s record to paint him as extreme.  If the best they can come up with is a bill that he asked be killed, then they are clearly more interested in gotcha politics than pursuing the truth.

For a full statement from Obenshain’s office on the legislation, see below.

“At the request of one of his local Commonwealth’s Attorneys, Senator Obenshain carried legislation (SB 962 of 2009) dealing with a specific law enforcement issue. As sometimes happens, the legislation that emerged was far too broad, and would have had ramifications that neither he nor the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office ever intended. Senator Obenshain is strongly against imposing any added burden for women who suffer a miscarriage, and that was never the intent of the legislation. He explored possible amendments to address the bill’s unintended consequences, and met with representatives of both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice in an attempt to identify a solution. Ultimately, however, he was not satisfied that any amendment could sufficiently narrow the scope of the bill to eliminate these unintended consequences, so he had the bill stricken at his own request.”

Why I Support Mark Obenshain

April 30th, 2013

I don’t know if Mark remembers this, but the first time I met him was election day November of 2005.  I was in Harrisonburg for the weekend doing GOTV for the Republican ticket and helping Matt Lohr win his delegate race.  I was passing out literature at a polling location, and what I saw of Mark Obenshain that day impressed me.

This was the state election in between the two votes by the General Assembly on the state marriage amendment.  While a bunch of homeschoolers and Mark Obenshain were manning the poll for the Republicans, a militant lesbian couple was manning the polls for the Democrats.  They were furious with Obenshain for supporting the marriage amendment and got in his face to make sure he knew it.  Obenshain’s response was one of kindness, but conviction.  He defended his vote, took the time to explain why, and never had the slightest hint of responding in kind.  As a highschooler just getting involved in politics, I was impressed.  The qualities he showed that day are exactly why we need to nominate Sen. Mark Obenshain to run for Attorney General on May 18th.

This year, the Republican Attorney General nominee will be attacked viciously on social issues by the Democrats.  With the successful implementation of the TRAP legislation, passage of the ultrasound legislation, and other efforts, the Democrats are up in arms over the “Republican assault on a Women’s right to choose what to do with her body.”  At a time when many Republicans are afraid to stand up for the unborn and traditional marriage, Mark Obenshain will be an effective communicator on these crucial issues.

Over the last eight years, I’ve watched Mark Obenshain lead in the fight for conservative values.  No senator worked more closely with Sen. Ken Cuccinelli than Mark Obenshain.  They would team up for key procedural votes, and carry each others proxies in committees.  After Ken Cuccinelli, no one in the General Assembly did more to get the Property Rights Amendment passed than Mark Obenshain.  Along with being a dedicated conservative, Mark Obenshain is also a bridge builder.  He was elected as the conservative voice on the senate leadership team, and has put together a broad coalition for his bid for Attorney General.

I appreciate Rob Bell’s work in the House of Delegates.  As a homeschooler, I definitely appreciate his hard work to pass the Tebow Bill.  While there is little difference between the two candidates on the issues, there is an important difference in focus.  Rob Bell has been running as the “tough on crime” Attorney General candidate, while Obenshain has been running as the pro-liberty candidate.  Honestly, I think penalties are high enough for a lot of crimes, and we probably need to start thinking about whether penalties are too high.  Obenshain on the other hand talks about the need to “expand the realm of Liberty in our lives.”  At a time when the Federal Government is encroaching on our freedoms, we need an Attorney General dedicated on protecting them.

I look forward to helping Mark Obenshain win the nomination on May 18th, and the election in November.

Where do Virginia’s Republican LG and AG Candidates Stand on Marriage?

March 26th, 2013

Yesterday, thousands of Americans marched in support of marriage in DC, as expected the media barely covered it.  This march coincided with the Supreme Court oral arguments on Prop 8.  Many discussions have erupted today and yesterday on the issue of marriage, and the role of the government in it.

Virginia’s statewide candidates have been remarkably silent.  They’ve been quite willing to talk about federal issues in this race: Obamacare, the 2nd Amendment, The Patriot Act, and Standing with Rand to name a few.  So I asked them where they stood.

The definition of the family is a crucial issue for government to grapple with.  Prop 8 also makes the stance of state officials particularly important because in California, state officials refused to defend the law before the courts.  Will our LG nominee stand strong in defending marriage, or will he/she be comfortable with the continuing erosions?  Will our Attorney General nominee be willing to defend the state’s marriage amendment if it is challenged in court?

Below are the statements provided by either the candidates or their campaigns.

Lieutenant Governor

Jeannemarie Devolites Davis:

As a traditional, pro-life Catholic, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.  That is why I voted for the Constitutional Amendment, both in 2005 and 2006.  (The Resolution proposing a Constitutional Amendment must pass two General Assembly Sessions twice, with a House of Delegates election between the two votes – you probably already know that!)

Please keep in mind that my Senate District had a 17 point Democrat generic (only 25% of my voters were Republican), but I voted for the Amendment, none the less, and it failed in my district when it was on the ballot. It’s easy to say you would have voted for it if you’ve never had to, and it’s easy to vote for it when you represent a district that supports it – I am the candidate for LG who actually voted for it in a very tough district in which it failed!

E.W. Jackson:

I strongly support the only true definition of marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. Any other arrangement will never be a marriage no matter what anyone calls it. This has been the definition for thousands of years, and it is disappointing that we have come to a place where radical activists, politicians, lawyers and judges arrogantly seek to change that definition and turn history, biology and reality upside down. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, the true definition will never change. With love and patience toward those who are confusing the issue, I will defend the rights of Americans who hold to the truth against all efforts to persecute and marginalize them. Marriage as we have known it from time immemorial is best for children, best for society, best for American culture, and it is a sacred gift that we dare not desecrate.

He was also the one candidate to advocate for traditional marriage online.

Scott Lingamfelter:

I am one of the few candidates for Lt. Governor who has consistently fought for legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman and have supported legislation to protect this sacred institution of marriage.  As a husband to my wife of 33 years and a father of three children, I believe that the foundation of our society rests largely on stable and cohesive family units. And it is because of this firm belief that I have supported legislation to preserve the institution of marriage and have fought against legislation that sought to erode, even if by the slightest bit, this sacred institution.

Since my first campaign to represent the people of the 31st District, I have promised to remain dedicated to “faith, family, and freedom” and I have kept that promise. And my record as a legislator demonstrates that:

In 2004, I supported the Marriage Affirmation Act, which prohibited “A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited.”  It also prohibited out of state civil unions from being legally recognized in Virginia law

In 2006, I was one of the patrons of HB 101 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+bil+HB0101) which called for an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman.  As required in Virginia, this constitutional amendment was put on the ballot in November of 2006 and was approved by the citizens of the Commonwealth.

While others in this campaign “talk” about supporting families, I have an actual record, a 100% rating from the Virginia Family Foundation and was named one of Virginia Family Foundation’s Citizens of the Year in 2001.  I am proud of my record and if chosen by the people to be Virginia’s next Lt. Governor, you will not only know where I stand on this important matter by my words, but you will know where I stand by my votes and actions.

Steve Martin:

As you’re probably aware, Senator Martin strongly supported the marriage amendment to the Virginia Constitution. He chaired the committee through which the matter had to pass numerous times, and he personally negotiated the final language of the amendment. Senator Martin truly believes that marriage, properly defined, can only exist between one man and one woman.

Pete Snyder:

Pete believes in traditional marriage as defined in the Virginia Constitution, a definition that was approved by an overwhelming majority of Virginians. He’ll fight to stand up for the traditional family as Lieutenant Governor.

Corey Stewart:

I am committed, as a Christian and as a public leader, in supporting marriage between one man and one woman, God Ordained Marriage.  I supported the VA Marriage Amendment in 2006 and support a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution as well.

It is a sad day for our Republic and our United States when the people have spoken and their elected leaders will not represent the will of the people, as in Proposition 8 in California.  Furthermore, I believe the states should decide public policy on marriage, however, the issue of God Ordained Marriage is so prominently essential to our society, as the family is the backbone of our society, I believe there should be a federal marriage amendment to constitutionally protect marriage between one man and one woman.

Susan Stimpson:

She believes marriage is between a man and woman. She supports Virginia’s constitutional amendment affirming that.  She does not support same sex marriage.

Attorney General

Rob Bell:

Rob Bell supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman.  As Attorney General he will defend Virginia’s laws and Constitution, including the Marriage Amendment voters enshrined in the state constitution.

He has publicly stated his position on this issue and other family values issues — here is the link to his website: http://www.robbellforag.com/issues/family-values/

Bell voted for the Marriage Amendment when it was before the General Assembly.  http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?061+vot+HV2149+HJ0041

Mark Obenshain:

I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. As Attorney General, I will vigorously defend Virginia’s constitution and laws.

 

Prince William County Republicans Oppose McDonnell/Howell Tax Increase

February 26th, 2013

Last night at the regularly scheduled Prince William County Republican Committee meeting February 25, 2013 the following resolution was introduced by Bob Fitzsimmonds and passed unanimously by the membership.  This followed Mark Obenshain, Bob Marshall, and Rich Anderson all explaining to the committee why they opposed to the bill.  The committee was packed with outraged conservatives.  Let’s all continue to make our voices heard in whatever way possible.

Full text below:

Resolution Opposing HB 2313 – Revenues and Appropriations of State Prince William County Republican Committee

Whereas, The Republican Party is the party of fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraint, and

Whereas, taxes in the Commonwealth are already unnecessarily high, and

Whereas, we are in the 5th year of a national economic crisis that shows no signs of long term recovery, and

Whereas, the federal government, under the leadership of President Obama, is waging economic war on businesses and families; proposing higher federal taxes and additional job killing regulations, and

Whereas, these same businesses and families are existing under the uncertainty of continued government “negotiations” on sequestration;

Now therefore, be it resolved that we call upon the General Assembly and Governor Robert McDonnell to foreswear any and all tax increases, either for supposed transportation solutions or for any other matter that might come before them.

Be it further resolved that we call upon Governor Robert McDonnell to veto HB2313 or to amend it in such a way that all tax changes be revenue neutral and that any anticipated revenues be directed to transportation in the localities where they are raised and not to the General Fund of the Commonwealth.

The Committee thanks our Representatives who opposed the massive tax hike; Senators Dick Black and Richard Stuart and Delegates Richard Anderson, Tim Hugo, Scott Lingamfelter, Bob Marshall, Jackson Miller, and David Ramadan.

Willie Deutsch.com

Religion and Politics from a Young Christian in Northern Virginia