Citizen Tom

The principal issue area where the candidacy of Jim Gilmore would seem to have its greatest advantage is foreign policy.  So to give Gilmore the greatest possible advantage relative to Bob Marshall, I decided to compare the candidates with respect to their experiences and their stances on foreign policy.

Please note that this is the fourth in a series on the competition between Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall for the Republican Party’s nomination to be Virginia’s next senator.  Here are the previous three posts:

• ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
• ON LAW
• ON EDUCATION

At first glance, Jim Gilmore has obvious advantages.  At least, he would appear to have the better resume.  Gilmore has military experience:

Upon graduation, Jim Gilmore volunteered for the U.S. Army and won honors after completing training at the Army Intelligence School and Defense Language Institute.

He was then assigned to the 650th Military Intelligence Group. Serving in Germany during the Vietnam War and fluent in German, Jim Gilmore played an important role in counter-intelligence work safeguarding the security of American bases in Europe. (from here)

And Gilmore has recent experience on homeland security issues.

Gilmore’s successes laid the basis for additional roles in the service of others. Congress chose him to chair a national commission charged with making recommendations on methods to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks on the United States. The Gilmore Commission warned in 1999 and in 2000 that America was facing a possible terrorist attack. After 9/11 Congress adopted 146 of the Gilmore Commission’s 164 recommendations. (from here)

So with respect to foreign policy issues, we should not regard Gilmore as a complete novice.

Bob Marshall, on the other hand, is unable to make any such prestigous claims.

Bob has a BA in History and Philosophy from Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, and an MA in Humanities from California State University. He has a personal library of 2000+ books, is an avid reader of history, philosophy, constitutional issues, and medical, social and political issues of importance. His hobbies (when he has time) include exercising, gardening and photography. (from here)

So why, when I consider the prospect of voting for Jim Gilmore, do I feel like I am being asked to buy a pig in a poke?  Jim Gilmore has too little to say about foreign policy issues on the issues page of his web site (see here).  He has a couple of nice sounding paragraphs.  Basically, he is asking you to trust him. 

Although Bob Marshall has served our state for many years as a major figure in the General Assembly, he does not ask us to trust him.  Instead, Marshall tells us what we will get if we vote for him.   Marshall has two posts that specifically relate to foreign policy.  One is on Foreign Trade and the other is on War and Foreign Policy.  In addition, Marshall speaks to his concerns as to how the Illegal Immigration issue should affect our policies towards other nations (here).  What Marshall does not do is pretend that our nation’s energy policy is a foreign policy issue.  It is not.  No foreign nation made us their hostage.  We chose to be a hostage.

If you want to vote for Jim Gilmore instead of Bob Marshall, it is your choice.  Just keep in one thing in mind.  If you want to find out where Gilmore stands, you will have to go to somebody else’s website.  Because of Gilmore’s brief presidential campaign, there is actually a fair amount of information about Gilmore on the Internet.   Here are several informative websites:

• Council on Foreign Relations
• OnTheIssues
• Wikipedia (here and here)

One thing I found, for example, is a open letter that Gilmore wrote for the Washington Post on Iraq on June 18, 2007.  This letter calls for a “third way”.  The letter calls for a withdrawal without calling it a withdrawal.

As a veteran of the U.S. ArmyI believe we cannot just abandon Iraq. I believe the only realistic alternative — the least bad option, if you will — is a limited deliberate drawdown of our military men and women and a redeployment of the forces remaining in the region to areas where they can more efficiently and effectively carry out a clearly defined mission.

I believe that the American military is on target when officers ask for a mission that includes maintaining — either at bases in Iraq at the request of Iraq or in bases in Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia– a military force powerful enough to launch special operations missions against al-Qaeda or Sunni insurgents in Iraq; train Iraqi troops to defend their own country; and guarantee the security of the Iraqi government, if so desired by Iraq.  (from here). 

We can trust Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to host our troops?  Has everybody already forgotten that Turkey flip-flopped and would not let us invade Iraq through Turkey (see here)?   What Gilmore proposes is naive. Of the three nations he lists, only Kuwait might provide a reliable base.  However, the only reason Kuwait would let us stay in their country is to protect Kuwait.  None of these Muslim nations are likely to host our troops so we can carry out the special operations missions that Gilmore suggests latter in his letter.  Muslims letting unbelievers attack Muslims?   Not very likely.

Bob Marshall is less ambiguous.  On Iraq, he says:

Iraq War Policy

Without having access to classified war briefings, I can make informed, though not completely definitive, judgments about the Iraq War.  I believe our troops and our allied forces have successfully removed Saddam Hussein and destroyed his army, but the Iraqi people must win the peace.

Although the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, we cannot cut and run, but we must do all we can to stabilize the region and then begin to bring our troops home.  Stabilization of the region could be aided if all Iraqi citizens were allowed to own shares of the natural oil wealth thereby instilling a greater incentive to deter violence and protect their homeland.  (Wall Street Journal, 11-23-05)  We must consult with our allies on how best to stabilize the area, but our first consideration must be our own nation’s national defense and security.  (from here)

Marshall also specifically addresses when he would make the decision to go to war (from here).

The Constitution and Declaring War

Only the US Congress is authorized to declare war.  Therefore Representatives and Senators have the grave moral responsibility to prudently evaluate the factual conditions for the moral legitimacy necessary to declare war.  War can morally be declared under the following conditions known as the “just war” doctrine:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave and certain;
• All other means of ending the conflict failed or were impractical or ineffective;
• There must be serious prospects for success;
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil sought to be eliminated.

We need leaders who are willing to tell us their position on important issues before we elect them.  Bob Marshall has nothing to hide.  He is not an enigma wrapped in a riddle.  Vote for Bob!

Deo Vindice has an excellent post on the race between John Hager and Jeff Frederick for RPV Chairman.

At the culmination of my three weeks as a politician running for Congress last Fall, Jeff was there opposing me tooth and nail. Yet, a few months later when he asked for my support for his candidacy, I didn’t hesitate a second to say, “Yes, how can I help?” My unqualified, enthusiastic, confident support for Jeff is focused on the future. Jeff Frederick understands what it will take for Republicans to win today and tomorrow across Virginia. Jeff is the Conservative to trust – to invest in.   (from here)

The time of choosing rapidly approaches. This coming Saturday, Virginia Republicans will hold a convention and select their party’s nominee to fill an open Senate seat. Because the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party is considered an especially strong candidate, the choice is critical. Unless Republicans select their strongest possible candidate, their nominee is unlikely to win.

Two choices stand out: Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall. What distinquishes these two men? Although they are very similiar, their websites reveal much about them. Gilmore’s website is big on videos and all the speeches he has made. Marshall’s website, on the other hand, has a detailed explanation of the candidate’s stand on each of the major issues. When you visit Marshall’s website, you do not have to dig to figure out what Marshall will do once he is elected. Whereas Gilmore busies himself attacking Mark Warner, Marshall has taken the time carefully explain why you should vote for him.

If you visit Gilmore’s website, you will learn why you should not vote for Mark Warner (You can also find that out by visiting Warner’s website.). If you visit Marshall’s website, you will find out why he thinks should vote for him.

Why do people running for publice office try to avoid explaining what they will do if they are elected? The problem is that most of us are stupid. We vote against the candidate we do not like. That is, if a politician says something we do not like, we vote against him. So candidates try to avoid saying anything that might offend anybody.

There is an old proverb.

“Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don’t”

We would well advised to consider the wisdom in that old proverb.

Don’t assume you know what Jim Gilmore will do as your senator. Because he has carefully avoided telling you, you do not. In fact, because Gilmore has not held legislative office, you can only guess how well Gilmore will perform as a legislator.

Consider instead what Marshall has to say about why Gilmore will not debate.

NEWS FOR RELEASE: On Receipt April 14, 2008Says Race ‘Still Too Close to Call’ MARSHALL: GILMORE’S ‘NO’ TO DEBATES LEAVES DELEGATES ‘IN THE DARK’ Del. Bob Marshall (R., Manassas) said Monday (April 14) that Jim Gilmore’s refusal to debate is leaving delegates to next month’s Republican State Convention “virtually in the dark” on important issues before they select a nominee for the U.S. Senate. Marshall and Gilmore are vying for the nomination. On Friday, Marshall proposed that Gilmore and he, along with a third candidate, meet in a series of debates before the May 30-31 nominating convention at the Greater Richmond Convention Center. The Washington Times has offered to host the first debate. “Jim Gilmore, by refusing to engage in debates, is disappointing a great many Republicans who’ll be delegates at the party’s nominating convention next month,” Marshall said. “Jim’s unwillingness to discuss the issues in a debate format denies delegates the opportunity to gauge us under fire. Without debates, how will they know which of us is better able to take a winning fight to Mark Warner in November? They’ll be left virtually in the dark.” Marshall scoffed at a news report that Gilmore will not debate because he believes he is ahead in the delegate count. About a third of the delegates have yet to be elected. “If he’s ahead,” Marshall said, “he should have no fear of debating the issues – if, of course, he’s ahead. We know he’s not. Nobody knows what the final delegate count will be, and we might not know until the convention. What we do know for sure right now is that this race still is too close to call.” Marshall noted that Gilmore and he have appeared jointly at mass meetings and other GOP events, but that they only were permitted to make speeches. The two were not questioned jointly on issues from those attending, he pointed out. “Canned speeches, especially those written by someone else, really don’t provide a very good way to learn what separates us on where we stand on important issues.” Marshall said. “On the other hand, debates would do exactly that, and that most likely explains Jim’s reluctance.” -XXX-

Unauthorized and paid for by nobody.

This is the third in a series on the competition between Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall for the Republican Party’s nomination to be Virginia’s next senator.  Here are the previous two posts

• ON LAW
• ON EDUCATION

Why a post on illegal immigration?  

• Illegal immigrants are the slaves of our era.  It is immoral for employers to tempt people into our country and exploit them.   Yet it happens.  Too many employers seem pefectly happy to have illegal immigrants in our nation as second class citizens.  Why?  The answer is greed.  To do the work they did not want to do (in this case, the work that Americans supposedly won’t do), human societies have attempted to enslave others throughout history.  That includes Americans.  Remember that peculiar institution of the Old South.
• In our society, a large percentage of the capital assets, the means of producing food and manufactured goods, are owned by a relatively few people. Quite naturally, the owners of these capital assets want those assets to be worth as much as possible.  They achieve that by bringing down the costs of production.  Labor is often the major cost of production.  Illegal immigrants provide inexpensive labor.  So what is the problem with using illegal immigrants?  Our society can only assimulate so many poor, uneducated people.  The rich are not paying the cost to assimulate these poor and uneducated people.  You and I are paying the bill, and you and I can only afford to Americanize so many people at any one time.  In sufficient numbers, illegal immigrants will balkanize our society and tear it apart.  These people do not understand our society.  Often, they cannot speak our language.  They have difficulty adapting so they set themselves apart.  We have already had demonstrations.  What is next?
• The issue serves as litmus test.  Even though rank and file members detest illegal immigration, the Republican Party establishment supports illegal immigration.   Why?  Wealthy people, the people who own most of our nation’s capital assets, are influential.  Such people know to select, engineer, and FUND the election of political candidates to public office.  When elected officials cater to such interest groups, they do not serve the best interests of our society.

Where does Jim Gilmore stand on this issue?  This is the sum total of what Gilmore has on his website (from here).

“I am a descendant of immigrants who came to this country legally to seek the American dream. I believe that dream should remain attainable for those who obey the law. However, illegal immigration is costing Virginia taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year. As someone with experience dealing with homeland security, I know we must secure America’s borders and crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants if we’re going to stop the illegal immigration that is threatening our nation’s future.”

Gilmore’s explanation appears to be an exercise in semantics.  Based upon previous statements when he running for the presidency, there is a strong probability that Gilmore will do virtually nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration.  The key word in Gilmore’s statement is “illegal.”  To legalize “illegal” immigrants, Gilmore will register them.  Then, after they are “legal,” employers can hire them.  I suggest you read this post at the right-wing liberal.  

If the right-wing liberal post does not satisfy you about the dangers of Gilmore’s position on immigration, then I suggest you read this OnTheIssues post (here).  Consider this quote from their post.

No amnesty for illegals; control the border

Q: Do you favor amnesty for illegal immigrants?

 A: No. I believe there should not be an automatic path to citizenship. We should control the borders, and then require illegals to come in and register. Then we can have an honest debate on immigration reform.

Source: Live Chat with Jim Gilmore on his campaign blog Apr 26, 2007

Where does Bob Marshall stand on this issue.  Here is a sample of what Marshall has on his website (from here).

At the federal level, the Federal Government must do the following:

1. Secure our southern border by construction of a “fence” (electronic, physical or both) and significantly increase border patrols.
2. Give back to states the powers they had before the passage of the 1986 federal immigration law which allowed them to penalize employers who knowingly hire or lure illegal workers to the United States.
3. Refuse amnesty to those who illegally enter the United States.
4. Penalize countries which refuse to take back illegal aliens who have finished serving time for crimes;  
5. Abolish birthright citizenship which is a large incentive for illegal immigration.

Because both his position on and his record with respect to illegal immigration are unambiguous, Congressman Tom Tancredo has endorsed Bob Marshall (see here), and so has U.S. Border Control.

Here is what U.S. Border Control had to say about Bob Marshall. 

      “As chairman of U.S. Border Control,” Edward I. Nelson, of McLean , wrote to Marshall on March 29, “I am proud to give you our organization’s endorsement.

      “I found some time to review your website, not just the immigration portion, but your views across the board.  As important as border and immigration policies are to me, I could not, in good conscience, endorse a person who was right on immigration but wrong on the other serious issues our nation faces.

      “I was delighted to see that your position statements on a wide range of issues reflect a thoughtfulness that must be based on all those thousands of books that you read.  Clearly, this nation could benefit by having a sound-thinking person like you in the U.S Senate.”

Let’s face it.  As Republicans, we know where John McCain stands immigration.  We also know we are not going to vote for Barack Obama.  So we have a problem?  How do we keep McCain from opening the gates at our borders wide open?   

We know Bob Marshall’s reputation.  We know Marshall will fight tooth and nail to do the right thing, and he is not going to let the Republican leadership stop him.  Do you really think Jim Gilmore will fight the head of his own party tooth and nail?  If you believe that, where is the evidence?

Other views

The Mason Conservative tries to set Gilmore’s record straight (here).

STD brags about the money Gilmore has raised (here).

Steven Latimer is overjoyed by Tancredo’s endorsement of Bob Marshall (see here).

The Northern Virginia Conservative explains why he switched to Bob Marshall (see here), and Shaun Kenney (here) and the right-wing liberal (here) echo this post.

Often as not, I have little to say with respect to specific holidays.  However, on Sunday, my pastor gave an outstanding sermon that linked Memorial Day and the courage to testify to the truth of Christianity.  He left me feeling a little confused.  Usually, when one hears a sermon, we expect clarity and inspiration, not confusion.  Nonetheless, I was left in confusion and still liked the sermon.

It is when we are in confusion that we think.  What is Memorial Day?  Wikipedia provides a history here.  The holiday began after the Civil War.  After hundreds of thousands died, their battlefields slowly became national parks.  These parks now protect the stone and masonary monuments that mark the sorrows of the survivors of the Civil War.  Unfortunately, wars never end.  So we also honor the dead of other wars on Memorial Day.  

The generation that fought the last great war is nearly gone.  Most of us have never known war.  Few of us can or will be soldiers.  We are at war, but this battle against terrorism involves few of us.  To many, it seems nothing more than an expensive nuisance (a measure of the success of those fighting this war).  What is there about Memorial Day we need to learn, to celebrate?  What in our daily lives requires courage and patriotism?

My pastor spoke of the courage of Peter and John (Acts 4).  Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Peter and John spoke before the Sanhedrin and the people of Jerusalem.  They spoke before men with the authority to have them flogged for speaking the truth about Christ.  What demands such courage of us?  What demands of us the courage to face the horrors a battlefield? 

Each day in our life, we have a choice.   What do I do with this day?  Some amongst us are true heros.  When you look upon them, you may at first observe that God has given them much.  However, in time you may also observe that these people endeavor to give as much back to their neighbors.   For example, Prince William County is blessed with relatively good public schools (see here).   We owe much of this success to the dedicated members of our School Board. 

The members of the School Board are essentially volunteers.  In return for managing a billion-dollar plus budget, we pay them each about $12,000/year.  These highly qualified people often work 20-hour weeks.  That is in addition to working their full time jobs.  Moreover, they submit themselves to the judgement of the community. 

What our School Board members (and our other public officials) do requires great courage, fortitude, and generosity.  Though few on our School Board will die as a consequence of bullet wounds or cannon fire, there are, undoubtedly, many who would rather face the horrors of a battlefield.   Even unseen wounds can still be full of pain.

Although we dedicate Memorial Day to those who sacrificed their lives for us on battlefields around the world,  we must not forget the debt we owe to those who honorably serve us within our communities.   These people give us a great many precious moments of their lives.   Please take the time to thank your School Board member.