Citizen Tom

When I was reviewing the latest new on the race between Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall, it occurred to me that Gilmore’s supporters should be more careful when they explain why they support their candidate.  Consider this quote.

Gilmore supporters argued the former governor has a strong record on taxes.
“He carried through on his pledge to end the car tax,” said David McWaters, who served on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors from 1996 to 2000.

Gilmore’s views may not be as absolute as Marshall’s but that is positive for McWaters.

“Jim Gilmore is more reasonable than Bob Marshall. Bob Marshall is too extreme. … I like practical politicians,” he said.  (from here)

When I was growing up, I thought one should be “reasonable.”  It sounds like a good thing.  Consider how we define reasonable.

1.	agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.

2.	not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.

3.	moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.

4.	endowed with reason.

5.	capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.

(from here) 

Is Jim Gilmore “reasonable”?  I hope not. Over the years, I have come to understand that how people use a word is far more important than the dictionary definition.  What people actually mean when they want you to be ”reasonable” is that they don’t want you make them uncomfortable.   Asking someone to be “reasonable” is just another way of asking someone to “go along to get along” or ”don’t rock the boat.”   When someone asks us to be “reasonable,” more often than not, they are asking us to compromise on principle.  

Were your parents always “reasonable”?  Have you always been “reasonable” to your children?

Consider some of the things we are asked to believe are “reasonable.”

• Abortion of an unborn baby right up to the time of its natural delivery.
• The application of the right of eminent domain to give the homes of our fellow citizens to developers just because the developers will pay more in taxes.
• Same-sex “marriage.”
• Taxation without representation.
• Legislative bills larded with pork for the rich and influential.

Does being “reasonable” have anything to do with reason?  It does not seem reasonable to believe so.  Does it not seem more reasonable to believe that being “reasonable” has more to do with indifference, not caring about doing the right thing?  If one makes a “reasonable” decision, one avoids trouble.  One makes a decision that conforms to peer pressure.  One maintains the status quo.

God does not ask us to “reasonable.”  Instead He commanded only two things of us:  to love Him and to love our neighbors. 

Jesus said:

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

Jesus said nothing about being “reasonable.”  

When we choose men and women for high political office, to a great extent we put the future of our families and our friends into their hands.  Do we want to choose “reasonable” people or people who love God and their neighbors?  If we choose men and women who love God and their neighbors – that is us – these people will sometimes make their peers uncomfortable.  They will make us uncomfortable too, but they will honor their oath of office.  They will insist upon laws that conform to the Constitution.  They will demand that judges exercise proper judicial restraint.

If we select men and women to lead us who love God and their neighbors, then our leaders will not seek to make us dependent.  Instead, by their example — as they will follow our Lord’s example – they will teach us too how to serve. 

Look over Bob Marshall’s record.  Marshall is definitely not “reasonable.”  Marshall is not the candidate of the “reasonable.”  The “reasonable” candidate is Mark Warner.  The “reasonable” find Mark Warner most reasonable.   

Is Jim Gilmore more “reasonable” than Bob Marshall?  If we nominate and elect Jim Gilmore, will the “reasonable” members of the news media eventually be telling us how much he has grown in office?  Think about it. 

Other Views

Bloggers for Jim Gilmore tells about Gilmore’s support for coal (here).

Mason Conservative tell us about an interview with the Washington Times (here), and he compares candidate responses with respect to a certain issue (here).

Smyth County Conservative argues Gilmore is pro-life (here).

The Cultural Insurrectionist argues Bob Marshall is the best candidate  (here).

Riley endorses Bob Marshall (here).

Novatownhall blog reviews the antics of BVBL (here).

Blog From On High explains that he has been paying attention (here).

UPDATE:  Here is something I missed.  The Shad Plank suggests a surprise.