Reclaiming Kids’ Castle

As someone who grew up in Harrisonburg, I spent many a childhood afternoon and weekend enjoying the public parks the city offered.  However, around the age of ten, the city constructed a new structure in Purcell Park called Kids’ Castle.  Made primarily of wood, with a few bits of metal and rubber, the place was absolutely fantastic.  Without a doubt, it was one of my favorite spots and so I often begged my parents to take me there.

Several weeks ago, I got together with a friend who lives near Purcell Park and so I suggested taking a walk through the area.  Although I had visited the park several months prior, this time I took the opportunity to return to my childhood destination of Kids’ Castle.

Unfortunately, what I discovered was very distressing; the wooden structure was falling into disrepair.  Many of the metal surfaces had begun to rust, some of the boards were exceedingly worn, a few nail ends were visible, ready to pierce the hands of unaware children, a tire bridge was actively disintegrating, and a handful of weeds grew up through the gravel.  Although it was beginning to rain, I toured a bit of the castle and nearly fell on an exceedingly slippery piece of wood.  It was as if Kids’ Castle had been more or less forgotten, abandoned these last 22 years.

I brought up this matter during the public forum of the next meeting of the Harrisonburg City Council.  Reaction from the council was mixed.  For example, Council Member Chenault mentioned that a newer park, A Dream Come True, over on the west end of the city was built to replace Kids’ Castle and given the sorry state of the facility, it might be best to tear it down.  After the meeting, I received an email from Council Member Degner and a phone call from Council Member Shearer; due to these contacts, I also spoke to the manager of Harrisonburg’s Parks and Recreation Department.

Yesterday, I was featured on WHSV TV-3 to briefly speak about the matter.  That segment, which aired at 11 PM last night, can be found at this link.

It is my great hope that Kids’ Castle can be repaired so that the present and next generation of children can treasure it as much as I once did.  And, assuming I ever experience the joy of children of my own, I’d very much like for them to have a wonderful and nearby place to play outside, a recreational option that is much healthier than the hours of television or video games that parents increasingly rely upon these days.

So what will happen next?  Well, as a result of the city council meeting and the reporting of WHSV, I’ve been told that the city is planning to repair much of Kids’ Castle by the end of July.  It is excellent news.  It is time to reclaim Kids’ Castle!

Read Full Post »

Drinking…With Liberals!

Last night, I joined about a dozen or more local political activists at a restaurant in downtown Harrisonburg for about two hours.  As the title of this piece implies, the group was a social gathering called Drinking Liberally.

Now, it seems likely that many of you might question why I, the author of a blog entitled “The Virginia Conservative”, would willingly choose to spend any time with a multitude of self-avowed liberals.  After all, aren’t these people our political enemies, a group that should be shunned at every turn?

When I first became embroiled in politics a number of years ago, I held a similar view of political activists across the aisle.  These people are unreasonable, intolerant, and best avoided.  As far as I could tell, they didn’t care much for me, so why should I treat them any differently?

However, in recent times I have come to a somewhat different realization.  For example, prior to attending a number of Libertarian functions many years ago, I held a rather dim view of those sorts of people.  However, the more time that I spent around them, the more I realized that we actually did share a number of common interests, that they were not some radical monolithic group that wanted nothing more than to spend their day smoking pot and abolishing all forms of government.  Perhaps the best aspect of all was the friendships that came about as a result of our time together, including one that I treasured more than all of the rest combined.

Now, I admit that I don’t share much, if any, political ground with most liberals these days.  Issues that might normally unite us, like a concern for the erosion of our civil liberties and a rejection of an interventionist foreign policy seem less likely given that President Obama has been promoting policies that stand in stark contrast to these views.  Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean, nor should it mean, that each and every self-identified liberal endorses this course of action simply because a Democratic president does as well.  Just a handful of conservatives (not enough in my mind) opposed these same big government policies of Republican George W. Bush.

It is natural for people to band together into like-minded camps such a liberals, conservatives, libertarians, statists, and the like.  However, the sickness in American politics is that there is very little communication between these groups these days, in part, because we are constantly bombarded with an “us against them” mentality promoted by the talking heads on radio and television.

However, I believe that this widening gap is a situation that can and ought to be remedied, which is why I attended this gathering last night.  Now, I didn’t, of course, either literally or figuratively enter the group wearing a sign proclaiming my conservatism; doing so would likely would have created an air of hostility and suspicion from the onset.  Rather, I sat down with a number of folks and spoke to them one on one about issues, current events, and predictions for the future.  Yes, believe it or not, the other side isn’t some collection of political monsters.

As some of you may know, I am currently in talks with a local radio station to craft a new radio program about state and local politics that explores a multitude of political opinions.  Ideally, I hope to showcase the entire political spectrum, not to degrade these other viewpoints, but to create an atmosphere where discussion and rational thought is encouraged rather than simply shouted down.

Although I am not a liberal, nor do I have any plans to become one, I still enjoyed my time with the Harrisonburg and Rockingham liberals last night.  Despite our differences, it is my hope that we can expand this interpolitical dialogue so that each of us can express our viewpoints without fear of rejection or immediate condemnation.  That, I believe, is the hallmark of a classically liberal society, an ideal that we should all strive to achieve.

Read Full Post »

Mid Primary Day Update: The 1%

At 1 PM today, I stopped by the Massanetta Springs precinct, the largest and typically busiest precinct in all of Rockingham County.  Unlike with most primaries and general elections, the parking lot was sparsely occupied and none of the four Democratic campaigns had volunteers or staff handing out materials to the voters as they went inside.  At that time, turnout was exceedingly low, 44, or slightly less than 1% of the registered voting population.

From there, I traveled to the Keister Elementary precinct in Harrisonburg, my polling place.  Again, the scene was the same as it was in Rockingham County, rows of empty parking spots and absolutely no one outside asking for my support.  At about 1:10, I registered as voter number thirty-two, which is about 1% of their registered voter total.  Not only was there no line in front of me, but also there was no one else voting at that same time.  I spent a few moments chatting with the various poll workers.  Having served as election official in a previous election, I know that they ware in for a particularly long and boring day.

Although I am not a member of any Democratic Party, I did find it curious that none of the campaigns sent me any mailings over the duration of the primary season.  After all, my voting history shows that I have voted in a handful of Democratic contests over the years, such as the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary, the 2006 U.S. Senate Primary, and the previous 2009 statewide contests.

Yes, turnout is low in this part of the state today and given that fact, my prediction for the outcome remains the same.  Aneesh Chopra should win the LG race by a small margin over Northam, while Mark Herring will enjoy a convincing victory for AG over Fairfax.

Read Full Post »

Tomorrow’s Primary

Tomorrow features a number of party primaries across Virginia.  In some districts, incumbent members of the House of Delegates are facing challengers from within their own party.  For example, in the northern Shenandoah Valley, Delegate Bev Sherwood faces Dr. Mark Berg and Delegate Todd Gilbert squares off against Mark Prince.  All in all, about half a dozen Republican delegates have an interparty challenge.  In addition, two Democratic delegates also will also have to defend themselves from within their own ranks.

Delegates in a vast majority of the commonwealth are unchallenged.  However, regardless of the delegates’ races, in every single polling place there will be a primary; the Democratic Party will be selecting their nominees for lieutenant governor and attorney general for the 2013 general election.

Given that Virginia does not have party registration, every voter, regardless of party preference, can vote in tomorrow’s primary.  It is not merely a contest for Democrats, but for Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and independents.  However, with those thoughts in mind, one important exception is that no one can vote in both parties’ primaries.  Therefore, if you vote in a Republican contest on Tuesday, you will be ineligible to participate in the Democratic one as well (or vice versa).

Now, many Republicans I know are abstaining from voting tomorrow, claiming that it would be improper for Republicans to participate in a Democratic Party issue.  I take a different approach.  If the Democratic Party didn’t want outsiders to participate, then they would have held a convention like the Republicans did on May 18th and the Libertarians did on April 21st.  In addition, given that the contest is decided by a primary, that means that the Virginia taxpayers pay for Tuesday’s contest.  If a party takes my money, either directly or indirectly, then I believe that I am entitled to voice my opinion in that process.

With these thoughts in mind, how can we differentiate among the candidates?  After all, the Democratic Party offers two choices for lieutenant governor and two choices for attorney general.  They are (with a link included to their websites):

Lieutenant Governor

Aneesh Chopra

State Senator Ralph Northam

Attorney General

Mark Herring

Justin Fairfax

But for which of the candidates should you vote?  Well, there are several competing theories, that I discussed more in depth in an article four years ago.  You could vote for the candidate who you believe is the strongest (or weakest), in order to give the Democratic Party the best (or worst) chance of victory.  However, my recommendation is to support whichever candidate best represents your political principles.  After all, if a Democrat does win in the general election in November, I’m hoping we would get the most conservative of the candidates (assuming such a candidate exists).

For me, control of the Virginia Senate is a very important issue in the LG race.  Given his openness to creating a power sharing agreement in the Virginia Senate (which is currently evenly split between Democratic and Republican Parties), I will be casting my primary vote for Ralph Northam.  Then again, this very same issue may be the driving point which convinces some of my more liberal friends to choose Aneesh Chopra.

Although I know that many of my readers have no plans to vote in tomorrow’s primary, I still encourage you to learn about the various choices and cast a ballot based upon your research.  Never go to the polls in ignorance; arrive well informed.  Our political system requires a knowledgeable electorate.

Don’t forget tomorrow’s primary!

Thanks to Lowell Fulk for indirectly reminding me to write this piece through his Facebook post.

Read Full Post »

The Gubernatorial Debate

Recently, Virginia Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli has been promoting the idea of a series of debates between himself and Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe.  The Cuccinelli campaign has suggested fifteen debates across the commonwealth in a variety of locations including one in the Shenandoah Valley, in the city of Harrisonburg.

However, so far the McAuliffe campaign has not accepted this idea.  As a result, the Cuccinelli camp has run a series of ads on Facebook and elsewhere insisting that Virginians deserve a multitude of opportunities to hear from and learn about their choices for governor in November.

Now, I absolutely agree that debates serve as an important tool in campaigning and a handful of lively contests are exceedingly valuable.  For that reason, I wrote against my own representative back in 2010 when he refused to attend a debate sponsored by James Madison University.  Should McAuliffe agree to at least a few debates?  Yes, a thousand times, yes!

Unfortunately in this situation, Cuccinelli has fallen into the same trap as Representative Goodlatte did three years prior; the debate ought to be used as a forum to allow all candidates that will appear on the ballot to express his or her opinions.  Goodlatte would not debate back in 2010 because he only faced third party opposition.  Cuccinelli wants to debate in 2013 but according to fellow blogger Rick Sincere, plans to exclude at least one other candidate, Libertarian Party nominee Rob Sarvis.  This news is deeply disappointing.

This whole situation has echoes back to the national stage.  After Ross Perot’s performance during the presidential elections, Republican and Democratic operatives got together to make certain that independent and third party candidates would be excluded from future debates.  They created a monopoly among their parties.  After the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Justice Parties weren’t invited to take part in the 2012 Presidential debates, an organization called Free & Equal hosted a debate where all of the candidates, along with the two major party candidates, were invited to participate.  Not surprisingly, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney chose to attend.

I applaud the Cuccinelli campaign in their effort to bring the candidates to a vast number of citizens across Virginia.  However, to exclude any eligible candidate based upon his or her party (or lack thereof) is unacceptable.  Debates are a great thing, but to be legitimate, they must allow all of candidates the chance to express their opinions.

Read Full Post »

The Fifth Anniversary

Well, ladies and gentlemen, today is a special day because it marks the fifth anniversary of The Virginia Conservative.  Five years!  Hard to imagine that so much time has passed.

What a trip we’ve had!  Some of you have been with me since the beginning while others have just recently discovered my site.  Throughout this time, I have strived to provide you with interesting political news and commentary and hope that I’ve succeeded in this endeavor.

Who could have predicted back on June 2nd of 2008 that this blog would not only still be running five years later, but enjoying a significant boost in traffic and readership?   It has been a rewarding experience for me, dear reader, and I hope it has been for you as well.  As a result of this site, I’m pleased to say that I’ve been featured in the LA Times, appeared on several different radio and TV programs, and had the fantastic opportunity to meet a host of politicians and those seeking political office.  It has been an fantastic journey and I hope my exploration of politics gets even more exciting in the years to come.

Although I don’t typically make a plug for fundraising, if you would like to join me in this celebration, please consider making a small donation through the donation button on the bottom right column on this page.  I would certainly appreciate it.

So, where do we go from here?  I hope that you’ll continue to stick with me so that we can find out together!

Thanks for reading!

Read Full Post »

Too Fast, Too Spurious

VC Note:  Recently, a press secretary from the Republican National Committee reached out to me as a result of my work on the Virginia Conservative.  Over the last several weeks, I’ve gotten several articles from them and, from time to time, some of their pieces will likely appear here.  Today, I wanted to share their response to Terry McAuliffe’s latest ad regarding the transportation tax bill.

For the record, here is the ad in question:

And here is the Republican National Committee response:

Democrats And Virginia Legislators Catch Terry McAuliffe Speeding Away From The Truth In His Latest Campaign Ad

Terry McAuliffe’s Campaign Is Airing An Ad That Claims He Played A Role In The Passage Of A Transportation Bill In Virginia. “McAuliffe’s campaign ad that began airing last week details McAuliffe’s behind the scenes efforts to lobby Democrats in the General Assembly to vote for the historic, compromise transportation funding package. The ad infers that McAuliffe’s efforts helped secure passage of the measure.” (Todd Allen Wilson, “Sen. Stosch Says McAuliffe Didn’t Help Transportation Deal Pass,” Daily Press, 5/28/13)

Democratic State Sen. Charles J. Colgan, On McAuliffe’s Participation In Negotiations Over Virginia’s Transportation Bill: “When I Was There, He Didn’t.” “Sen. Charles J. Colgan, Manassas Democrat and the longest-serving member of the Senate, was an informal adviser to the conferees as they hashed out differences between the House and Senate versions. But Mr. McAuliffe never spoke to him about it, he said Tuesday. ‘When I was there, he didn’t,’ Mr. Colgan said.” (David Sherfinski, “Virginia Governor’s Race Turns Harsh With McAuliffe’s Soft Campaign Ad,” The Washington Times, 5/28/13)

Democratic State Senator J. Chapman Petersen Said “He Never Spoke With Mr. McAuliffe.” “J. Chapman Petersen, Fairfax Democrat and one of two Northern Virginia senators to vote against the plan, said he never spoke with Mr. McAuliffe.” (David Sherfinski, “Virginia Governor’s Race Turns Harsh With McAuliffe’s Soft Campaign Ad,” The Washington Times, 5/28/13)

State Senator Petersen: “I Don’t Know If He Tried To Reach Me.” (David Sherfinski, “Virginia Governor’s Race Turns Harsh With McAuliffe’s Soft Campaign Ad,” The Washington Times, 5/28/13)

A Senate Aide, On McAuliffe’s Participation: “There Was No Contact Between Terry McAuliffe And Our Office And Nobody Thought He Had Any Impact On The Outcome.” (David Sherfinski, “Virginia Governor’s Race Turns Harsh With McAuliffe’s Soft Campaign Ad,” The Washington Times, 5/28/13)

A Democratic Aide Claimed “She Wasn’t Aware Of Any Direct Lobbying Efforts From Mr. McAuliffe On The Bill.” “One Democratic aide acknowledged that Mr. McAuliffe attended a private caucus meeting but that she wasn’t aware of any direct lobbying efforts from Mr. McAuliffe on the bill.” (David Sherfinski, “Virginia Governor’s Race Turns Harsh With McAuliffe’s Soft Campaign Ad,” The Washington Times, 5/28/13)

“State Sen. Walter Stosch, R-Henrico, Said Claims In A Television Ad By Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Terry McAuliffe Are Absurd.” (Todd Allen Wilson, “Sen. Stosch Says McAuliffe Didn’t Help Transportation Deal Pass,” Daily Press, 5/28/13)

State Senator Stosch, A Conferee On The Bill: “Terry McAuliffe Was Not A Participant Nor Did He Have Any Influence In The Development Or Negotiation Of The Transportation Bill.” “But Stosch, who chairs the Senate finance committee and was on the conference committee of House of Delegates and Senate lawmakers who hashed out the final deal, said McAuliffe is taking credit that he shouldn’t. ‘Terry McAuliffe was not a participant nor did he have any influence in the development or negotiation of the transportation bill,’ Stosch said in a press release Tuesday.” (Todd Allen Wilson, “Sen. Stosch Says McAuliffe Didn’t Help Transportation Deal Pass,” Daily Press, 5/28/13)

Read Full Post »

A Tilted Controversy

Recently, a war has been playing itself out in the opinion section of my local newspaper, The Daily News Record.  This conflict is waged over the opening of a new restaurant at the Valley Mall in Harrisonburg called The Tilted Kilt.

So what’s the big deal, you might ask?  Well, one of the unique features of this establishment concerns the appearance of their employees.  Their well-endowed all-female server staff wears short plaid kilts (though they look a bit more like mini-skirts than kilts), a matching top, which accentuates their physical features, and a tied shirt that leaves the midriff more or less completely exposed.

Many in the religious community, especially the Valley Family Forum, have strongly condemned the Tilted Kilt, declaring it to be blight on the Shenandoah Valley and a place that sexually exploits and objectifies their women servers as well as their male clientele.  Others, however, including one local church, see the Kilt in a positive aspect, as it is a place that offers new food choices as well as a variety of jobs to citizens.

Yesterday, along with a couple of friends, I visited this establishment to learn a bit more about the controversy first hand.  Given the animosity in the newspaper, I was a bit surprised that there were no angry protestors picketing outside.

Communicating with the wait staff was a bit of a challenge at first; given the abundance of cleavage, one did have to try hard not to stare.  However, as my cousin pointed out, is there too much difference between the Kilt attire and spending a day at the beach?  I ordered a cup of their chili.

After the meal, I took a bit of time to speak with our waitress regarding her experiences.  Perhaps defying stereotypes, she was fairly well educated, a college graduate.  Although she too expected an angry barrage of folks outside the restaurant when it first opened, she stated that protests have been pretty minimal thus far.

So, what do you think about the Tilted Kilt in the culturally conservative Shenandoah Valley?  Is it a boon or a burden?  Is it simply another restaurant trying a new tactic to earn a buck or is it degrading to its employees and customers?

Either way, if you do ever plan on stopping in either to gauge the controversy for yourself or for a bite to eat, I’d recommend against the chili; a few too many onions and not quite enough spice for my tastes.

Read Full Post »

Coffee With Dr. Berg

On Friday morning, I had the opportunity to sit down to speak with Dr. Mark Berg.  Dr. Berg is running for the Republican nomination for Virginia’s 29^th district House of Delegates seat, a seat that encompasses the city of Winchester along with a portion of Frederick and Warren Counties.  In the June 11^th primary, he will be squaring off against Beverly Sherwood who has represented the district since 1994.

In the approximately hour long conversation, we spoke about a variety of issues, most notably why Republican voters should vote for Dr. Berg over Delegate Sherwood.  The reasoning against Sherwood is fairly clear for most conservatives.  Sherwood has not compiled a record that indicates she favors limited government.  For example, in the most recent General Assembly session, she voted for the transportation tax hike, labeled the largest tax increase in Virginia’s history, as well as approving the implementation of Obamacare in this state, expanded Medicaid, and creating a virtual statewide Environmental Protection Agency through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.  Dr. Berg also stated that in recent years Delegate Sherwood “has voted for four out of the five big tax increases.” Certainly these are all issues that would make just about any fiscal or constitutional conservative cringe.

But what motivates Dr. Berg?  Well, professionally and politically he is a retired family practice doctor who has served on the Republican State Central Committee for the 10^th district since last year.  However, as is the case with any candidate, it is his position on the issues that is most valuable.  When I asked him about his principles, Dr Berg responded by saying,  “There are two big principles that I think are not promoted and not adhered to well and that’s limited government and individual liberty.”  Unlike Sherwood, Dr. Berg opposes Obamacare and the tax bill.  Regarding Obamacare, he stated, “I know what it is going to do, as a physician I can see what it is going to do and it is a huge mistake both financially for the state and for personal liberty.”  He believes that the state needs to stand up for itself and for its citizens against the ever-expanding encroachment of the federal government.

One big challenge, according to Mark Berg, is that a lot of Sherwood’s constituents don’t know her record.  Her thinking doesn’t match the Republican creed and the traditional conservative values of the Shenandoah Valley.  Government policy should not be designed merely to pick winners and losers.  Too many politicians, in his mind, say one thing and then vote another way.  However, Dr. Berg believes that each legislator ought to be able to justify his or her votes according to his or her own political philosophy.  With those thoughts in mind, given that this year marks the first that Delegate Sherwood has faced a challenge from within her own party, will she listen to the conservative voices in her district by transforming herself into a legislator who promotes their values?  Dr. Berg thinks it is unlikely.  “…After nineteen years of being an incumbent, (she) pretty much continue(s) to do what she’s done.  I don’t think her record is what we need to go forward with right now.”

It seems that Dr. Berg’s message of liberty coupled with a general distaste for Delegate Sherwood’s policies, is attracting considerable support from both within the 29^th district, in a coalition of conservatives and the local tea party, as well as recruiting volunteers from other portions of the Shenandoah Valley.   His goal is to speak with as many voters in the district as possible, either in person or through his supporters, in order to form a connection with them and gather feedback, rather than simply blanketing the area with glossy direct mail pieces.

Given that 29^th district Republican primary happens to fall on the same day as the statewide Democratic primary and that voters will only be able to vote in one of these two primaries, it seems unlikely that too many Democrats will participate.  However, Dr. Berg thinks that this fact could likely benefit his campaign given that he is the more conservative of the two candidates in the race.

I very much appreciate Dr. Mark Berg taking a bit of time from his campaign schedule to travel down to Harrisonburg to share his message with the readers of The Virginia Conservative.

Lastly, as a bit of personal commentary, for those fellow conservative and liberty-minded voters and activists, I’m sure you’ll agree that Dr. Berg seems to be a candidate who not only shares our values, but also is willing to ardently fight for them in Richmond.  Given everything that I know about the two candidates, if I lived in the 29^th district, not only would I be voting for Mark Berg, I’d also do my best to help spread his message to my friends and neighbors and encourage them to get informed and be involved.

Don’t forget to vote on June 11^th!

Read Full Post »

Fun With Chairman Mullins

One extremely frustrating aspect of Saturday’s Virginia Republican Convention (which I cover in considerable detail in a previous article) was the excessive amount of waiting.  Typically, there is a good bit of down time, a good bit of wasted time filled with an array of speakers that do little to alleviate the boredom of the crowd.

Unfortunately, the 2013 Convention offered attendees countless hours with little to do.  Between the technical difficulties associated with counting the first round ballots, coupled with the daunting prospect of another three rounds of balloting, it was inevitable that a bit of mischief would occur sooner or later.  After all, even a fervently Republican crowd could only stomach so many lackluster speakers or repeated Cuccinelli campaign commercials.

At one point, in order to amuse themselves, a few of the delegates in the upper reaches of the Richmond Coliseum began to make and throw paper airplanes.  This new development seemed to greatly upset Pat Mullins, chairman of the state party, who took to the stage and in a gruff voice shouted for an end to the paper airplanes, stating that that these projectiles could damage the three $50,000 screens behind him.  However, perhaps given the chairman’s demeanor, unconvinced that these planes could cause much harm to anything or anyone, or simply irritated by the continued waiting, the paper began to fly from the rafters again a short while later.  For those of us seated on or around the floor, we simply watched as the handful of airplanes glided and fluttered to the ground.

To poke a bit of fun at the whole situation, especially given that Chairman Mullins’ words seemed to fit the stereotypical angry old man motif exceedingly well, I couldn’t help but imagining him uttering these words while I was at the convention.

Enjoy a little humor for your Wednesday afternoon!

Read Full Post »