RPV Executive Committee Takes A Stand On Smoking, Has Some New Members?
Members of RPV Executive Committee released a letter today blasting General Assembly for their smoking ban compromise and calling on Republicans to remember the core values of the Party:
We Believe: That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice. We write to remind you of this key element of our Republican Creed because we understand that HB 1703 is moving on a fast track to a vote on Tuesday, and as our duly elected Representatives we urge you to vote NO. The passage of such legislation is completely antithetical to our Party’s core free market principles. This not about smoking. This is about unnecessary government intrusion into the private sector. This unconscionable encroachment will cost those affected their ability to operate a free enterprise and further alienate our Republican base.
While it is heartening to see the Party taking a solid stance on this issue, it’s a little disappointing to see how well the delivery was handled when viewing the signatures from such indivudals as:
Jeff Fredrick, RPV Chairman (Jeff FredErick?)
Tucker Watson, 5th District Chairman (Tucker Watkins?)
Becky Steckel, 11th District Chairman (Becky Stoeckel?)
It is important for the Party to come out strong on an issue that strikes at the heart of what we believe it. But it is equally important that such an effort come out professionally and properly proofread.
Full letter and signatures after the break.
To Our Republican Members of the General Assembly,
As members of the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of
Virginia, we wish to remind you of the following core tenet of our
Party’s creed: We Believe: That the free enterprise system is the
most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice. We write
to remind you of this key element of our Republican Creed because we
understand that HB 1703 is moving on a fast track to a vote on
Tuesday, and as our duly elected Representatives we urge you to vote
NO. The passage of such legislation is completely antithetical to our
Party’s core free market principles. This not about smoking. This is
about unnecessary government intrusion into the private sector. This
unconscionable encroachment will cost those affected their ability to
operate a free enterprise and further alienate our Republican base.Because the proponents of the smoking ban cite huge public support
for this type of legislation, we understand one’s inclination to
support it. But you will find the owners and patrons of smoking
establishments will disagree. This legislation will make it difficult,
if not impossible, for many small businesses to operate in Virginia.
As you must know, bar or restaurant owners will be forced to make
expensive renovations to meet the requirements of HB 1703 in order to
offer their patrons a choice. This is another unfunded mandate that
will cut into businesses’ profits. How will you explain the loss of
revenues from successful businesses that fail from their loss of
smoking patrons? Who will enforce this legislation? Where will the
money be found to add the needed bureaucracy? In a struggling economy,
to increase government enforcement and decrease revenue is completely
flawed logic, particularly in an election year.Consumers already have the ability to decide if they wish to frequent
an establishment based upon whether that establishment does or does
not allow smoking. We urge you to allow the marketplace to influence
private sector activity instead of relying upon heavy-handed,
intrusive government regulation. As members of the General Assembly,
we believe you should be particularly concerned about passing this
bill in an election year. Supporting HB 1703 will discourage and
demoralize the Republican base and confuse those that view us as the
Party of free market principles. Our Gubernatorial nominee understands
our principles and position in regard to the smoking ban, and we
believe you should take heed of his position. Every member should
reconsider their support of this bill, and we are proud of all members
who have already voted no. To allow this legislation to pass will
compromise the integrity of members who have stayed true to Republican
principles and faithfully worked against this legislation.As a Party we do not need to create a divide between members and the
Republican base by supporting legislation that is inconsistent with
our Party’s core principles. It is our greatest hope that this
legislation will be voted down as to avoid intra-party conflict. Our
goal is a Republican Party united on principles and vision, standing
ready to win in 2009.Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Fredrick, RPV Chairman
Mike Thomas, 1st Vice- Chair
Kathy Hayden Terry, National Commiteewoman
Kevin Gentry, Eastern Vice Chairman
Juanita Balenger, Eastern Vice Chairwoman
Trixie Averill, Western Vice Chairwoman
Tom Foley, 1st District Chairman
Gary Byler, 2nd District Chairman
Mike Wade, 3rd District Chairman
Jack Wilson, 4th District Chairman
Tucker Watson, 5th District Chairman
Fred Anderson, 6th District Chairman
Lynwood Cobb, 7th District Chairman
Mike Ginsberg, 8th District Chairman
Michelle Jenkins, 9th District Chairman
Becky Steckel, 11th District Chairman
Category: Government
Loading ...
I like it. Standing by their own creed would do wonders for the party and might even get some former GOPers to return to the fold. I hope this won’t be the only/last example of sticking with the creed.
Brian Kirwin:
I am interested in knowing your reaction to this letter. Thanks.
This truly does go to show that RPV as no common sense whatsoever. RPV, American’s for Prosperity, and Bob McDonnell should be ashamed of themselves. How about actually tackling issues that really matter instead of chasing after red herrings that will actually cost us votes in the areas were we do the worst. I have to believe outside of the hard core rank and file that will never be satisfied no consensus exists among conservatives on this matter. I am far right wing and I am in favor of a reasonable ban for several reasons.
How about tacking, transportation? The Budget? The Economic crisis? Bringing new technology and jobs to Virginia?
Lets see smoking annoys most people greatly, lets go after this issue to satisfy a small minority that will probably vote libertarian anyway. Lets avoid the important issues and change the subject. If this is the kind of stuff we have to look forward to with the McDonnell campaign and RPV then we may be in for a very long summer and fall.
[...] situation in Iraq and Afghanistan first hand, and Shaun and I discuss the smoking ban (including RPV’s unprecedented opposition), the GOP transportation bill, AG McDonnell resigning, and statewide Democrats cozying up to [...]
“Brian Kirwin:
I am interested in knowing your reaction to this letter. Thanks.”
Sounds like everyone signing that letter thinks government should allow abortion and gay marriage, since the free market, and not government, should make decisions for people, right?
If you would, please stick to the topic and my question at hand, I am truly interested in knowing your rational thoughts on these folks opposing the smoking ban. Is that too difficult a question for you to give a straightforward answer on?
I did stick to the topic, and I really don’t take orders from internet people with fake names.
If the free market solves all problems, then following their logic, gay people should marry and women should have as many abortions as they want without government getting involved, don’t you agree?
Brian – Free markets are a matter of free association and choice.
You have a right and means to choose not to go to a smoking establishment.
A baby in the womb does not have the means to choose whether or not to associate with an abortion doctor, so the state has every right to assist that innocent life in the decision and protect that child.
Gay marriage should not be an issue because the government should not be in the business of marriage.
So you’re half right, half very wrong.
Jason, there are a lot of government-imposed regulation on a woman seeking an abortion. Hell, I watched some being debated on the Virginia House floor yesterday.
Are you going to tell me that all these restrictions of what has to be told, shown, advocated and given before a woman gets an abortion is fine and dandy, but government can’t tell a restaurant to be smokefree?
“Sounds like everyone signing that letter thinks government should allow abortion and gay marriage, since the free market, and not government, should make decisions for people, right?” -Brian K.
Brian are you implying government SHOULD be making decisions for people? How scary. As to the rest of your arguements I agree completely with Jason.
To Maximus, I think it is clear without asking, that Brian was a bit disappointed. He has after all, taken a strong position that those fellow party members don’t share. That said, there is no perfect political party, you just join the one you agree with most or are disgusted with the least.
The RP can have it both ways on this. Support property rights without ostracizing hard core anti-smokers because, smoking will become a thing of the past regardless. We all see the trends. The sad thing is the rest of us will have to pick up the cigarette tax burden once there’s nothing to tax. I guess I could hope for an offset in health insurance premiums with fewer cancers occurring but, health care costs likely will continue to go nowhere but, up.
Britt, I’m not advocating. I’m just exploring how many people tolerate government regulation when they agree with the result, and scream from the hilltops against it when it doesn’t.
Brian,
It’s a matter of gradients.
Government is necessary for security and the promotion of the free market. This is a difficult – and interesting- topic for discussion due to the fact that it is both: a public safety as well as a free market decision.
For a person to be intransigent on one side is not recognizing that there is a broader discussion.
As for abortion, that is exclusively a public safety decision; and I was against the gay marriage amendment…I have no idea why that’s a role for government.
Well, opposing the smoking ban and the marriage amendment are at least consistent positions.
I favor both. I’ve said it before. Smoking can be a tradition that goes back for thousands of years and it might have been the only economy in this state for generations, but I’m not going to waste my time fighting to preserve it.
If anyone wants to smoke, they can. If anyone wants to smoke next to me at dinner, I have a problem with it.
Even most Libertarians agree that there is a need for laws and regulation. The function of government is to “Protect the Individual from Force and Fraud”. That’s why we have laws that prohibit murder, theft etc.
There are a multitude of reasons for regulating abortion. This is true whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. If you are pro-choice you STILL want the woman to be able to make an informed decision. There ARE health consequences and risks involved with any procedure let alone something of this magnitude. If you argue from the Pro-Life side, then you maintain that the baby is regarded all rights as a human being and therefore due protection of life ending force.
On the other hand, if smokers want to congregate in a place of business that allows it and if non-smokers join, then they are making willful informed decisions to take on risk in order to gain entertainment value or what ever. That risk is not put on other non-consenting people. If you enter, you consent.
Although, the watered down version of Cosgrove’s bill is still distasteful in that it is an intrusion and still doesn’t even give benefits of a smoke-free setting, I do have an appreciation for part of it.
Yes, I made all kinds of “do it for the children” jokes elsewhere but, rhetoric aside, children are not competent parties. Children therefore can not make informed consent and an obvious arguement for regulation can be made. If I read correctly, smokers will still be allowed to smoke where minors are prohibited (bars for example).
Brian – You CHOOSE to go to that restaurant where you KNOW that someone may be sitting next to you and smoking. No one forced you to go to that establishment, in fact, you have every right to choose to frequent another establishment that better suits your own tastes.
In a down economy you support forcing your beliefs on an industry in a manner that could cost Virginians many jobs merely because you don’t want to simply go to Panera over O’Charlie’s or any number of other alternatives available to you.
Jason, no one forces me to get on an airplane, either, but federal law says no one can smoke on it.
No one forces me to take a job, but every office I’ve ever been in has been non-smoking.
Yes, I have a right to frequent another establishment. Ever try to find a non-smoking bar? In 20 years, i have yet to find one.
That doesn’t mean if someone didn’t start a non-smoking bar that it wouldn’t become popular.
Or…do market forces dictate that a majority of people who frequent bars WANT to smoke there?
I get the impression you’re arguing for argument’s sake…at least, you’re about 180 out on conservative, free market principles.
Brian, your contention that you have never seen a non-smoking bar strains credulity. In the People’s Republic of Arlington, I drive by at least five on my way home from work every night that I can think of off-hand – Liberty Tavern, Clarendon Grill, Thirsty Bernies, Eventide, and Ireland’s Four Courts. The free market is remarkably efficient, really.
Smoking is becoming more of an outmoded practice and there are valid reasons to restrict it even though this may run contrary to the most libertarian of positions. Very few restaurants will go out of business; I submit the majority of those smoking folks wishing to eat out will not suddenly go to the trouble of cooking and eating at home. Logical, yes/no? Restaurants needing/wanting to accommodate smokers will spend to upgrade ventilation, etc. If they succumb economically, a new check-cashing enterprise will likely sublet their location!
First, as in the case of the old buggy whip analogy, Altria and some of its jobs may disappear but new jobs and industries seem arise to supplant those which have disappeared since over the long haul the population and economy grow. The new jobs may not directly replace Atria’s but new jobs will come from somewhere.
Second, analogous to the mandatory seat belt and texting while driving issues, health insurance rates (as do auto insurance rates) reflect the overall statistical usage/costs of our insurance, be they health or auto (… and I’m using the word insurance loosely here …).
To paraphrase, let’s not “win the battles and lose the wars”. November ’08 is coming.
Mack, I’m not driving to Arlington for a beer.
JR, of course I’m arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m amazed that this is what people want to comment about.
Brian, are you trying to be obtuse? Let me take you through this slowly, so I don’t lose you. The point is not that you have to drive to Arlington to get a beer in a smoke-free venue. The point is that if I can trip into that many smoke-free bars without trying on a five-mile drive in Arlington, you ought to be able to find at least one in 20 years of living in a sophisticated, urbane area like Hampton Roads, especially since you appear to regard a whiff of smoke in a bar as the physiological equivalent of nerve gas. Sheesh!
Mark, if you trip into so many bars, perhaps you shouldn’t be driving.
As long as he’s not texting in the process he may be alright.
No such thing as bars in VA. The liquor-to-food sales ratio makes all establishments a restaurant.
Oh, that’s why some “restaurants” card you at the door and some “restaurants” don’t, huh.
Yep, and why those places that card you charge ten bucks for a plate of greasy wings a dog wouldn’t eat. What’s amazing is that they are open maybe six hours a night, manage to keep the crowd below fire safety standards, and are still able to meet the ABC 55/45 ratio week in week out. Perhaps Obama needs to pick some of them to run his bail out crew.
[...] efforts of Speaker Howell to compromise with Governor Kaine on a ban on smoking in public places. From Bearing Drift: As members of the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia, we wish to remind you [...]