George Allen: Sending “Virginia Values to Washington”
By Shaun Kenney | Friday, July 8th, 2011 | Policy, Politics
Looks like the hard work of Family Policy Issues advisor Steve Waters is paying off in the “personnel as policy” department.
Former Governor and 2012 U.S. Senate candidate George Allen has unveiled his platform on social conservative issues today, and the list is fairly exhaustive and intensive. The 14-page document outlines Allen’s positions on judicial nominations, life, marriage, property rights, education, the 2nd and 10th Amendments, and personal freedoms.
On judges, George Allen all but declares war on judicial activism. Allen promises to introduce legislation that will have federal judges serve for terms rather than for life, approve only those judges who will decide by the rule of law, and reject those who would decide domestic cases under “international laws or other laws not enacted by Americans in our States or the U.S. Congress.” No more shariah law, and no more French jurisprudence infection our American system.
George Allen on defending human life reviews his prior record — parental notification, a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, and a fetal-pain bill. Allen pledges to re-instate the Mexico City Policy, ban federal funding to Planned Parenthood, oppose RU-486, and reverse the Obama administrations spending on embryonic stem cell research.
On defending marriage, Allen is clear — “I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.” Allen opposes same sex couples adopting, supports a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, and will continue to oppose legislation that adds sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation.
Allen re-iterates his support for property rights and opposes sovereignty-infringing treaties such as Kyoto, Law of the Sea, and CEDAW.
With regards to public education, Allen places himself squarely on the side of reform. Homeschoolers and school choice advocates will be glad to see Allen’s support of vouchers and charter schools as alternatives to the public school education system. Allen also will continue to support the Education Opportunity Tax Credit Act which will allow families to deduct $1,000 per child as a refundable tax credit for educational expenses.
10th Amendment supporters will find Allen to be a strong supporter of the Repeal Amendment, a Balanced Budget Amendment including a line item veto, repeal Obamacare, and oppose “cap and trade” and EPA carbon regulations.
On the 2nd Amendment, Allen does not offer too many new ideas, but he does reinforce his support for old ideas — concealed carry in National Parks, voting against the Assault Weapons Ban, prohibiting the confiscation of firearms during a national emergency back in 2007 (?!?! — what the hell?!?!). Allen does not mention the individual mandate recently held up by the Supreme Court, though… but supports the “Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.” Still a little shocked with the Homeland Security Bill… good vote against, George.
On economic freedom, Allen pledges a proposals to ease the burden of government on working families. Taxes on job creators are to be reduced to (not by) 20%, American citizens can opt for a flat tax for individuals, force all new regulations to outline the impact on the economy as they are proposed, repeal and replace Obamacare, and aggressively pursue America’s energy resources — a pet project of Allen’s for some time.
…and that’s your layman’s summary of Allen’s 14-pager.
So what do you think? Ambitious? Realistic? Not bold enough? Too wonky? Don’t take my summary for it… read it through and share with others. Hat’s off to George Allen for a comprehensive, detailed plan of attack for working families that can be discussed and debated.
I eagerly look forward to Tim Kaine’s alternatives… because I’m sure confiscating my firearms during a national “emergency” is right out of his gun-grabbing playbook… I still can’t believe that one. Glad that Allen opposed it!!!
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
34 Responses to "George Allen: Sending “Virginia Values to Washington”"
oh piddly-poo Shaun. What do Allen’s folks pay you (direct or indirect) to tote his load (of crap)?
You (used to) know Allen was not and never was pro-life, except insofar as it suited his America-sized ambition.
His record FOR Big Government in the Senate is heartbreakingly clear.
Today’s campaign crafted rhetoric means absolutlely nothing.
I expect him to twistnturn with today’s TP political winds, that’s what politicians do. But it is painful to watch a once-effective winger like yourself decend into pure flackery.
Ciao
Same “Virginia Values” he’s been touting for years. What did they accomplish in the Senate last time?
rtwingtroll –
No pay… just reporting on the news, dude! If someone contradicts it, Bearing Drift will report that too!
Actually, I did find an issue in his platform with which I agree; that is, activist judges. The republican appointees have done all they can to disrupt the will of Congress, from electing Bush, to making corporate power overwhelming in elections, and to their decision to deny women and minorities access to class action suits. Never have I seen a court majority more involved in legislating instead of interpreting the law.
No pay? Not even via a third party consultant? I don’t believe you, but I cannot prove anything.
If you aren’t being paid, submit a bill, because you are not reporting nor being the pro-life, conservative activist you used to be … you are a shill.
Cheerio
MB- Please point out where any judge has ruled that class action suits are available only to men and white people.
Ken, I believe their denial of class action status in the Walmart case is a continuation of the court’s elevation of corporate power over individual liberty.
Agree “hats off” to Allen for putting out a plan, but it’s neither ambitious or realistic. It is ho hum predictable and intended to please the social issues hard-right base, but also likely to return and bite him in the butt during the general election ~ especially if Kaine falls in line w/ Mark Warner and the Gang of 5/6 vis-à-vis debt/deficit/tax plan.
Mike- What you said was “their decision to deny women and minorities access to class action suits.” The Walmart decision did not deny women and minorities access to class action suits. So, either you were referring to some other case, or you once again engaged in the typical leftist tactic of mischaracterizing the actions of your political opponents for the purpose of defaming them. Which was it?
Mike,
The Walmart suit was a joke: some antedotal stories were coupled with some statistics to try to claim a policy of discrimination. It didn’t start to meet the legal threshold to win.
The Walmart suit was just another underground union effort by a union to become able to collect dues from all of those workers.
Once again, Shaun, you take great pains to defend yourself as a “reporter,” yet you’ve all but implied a “fate acompli” where GA is concerned. Speaking strictly to his policy statements, my reaction is a big YAWN. Did I expect him to take any position, other than those he articulated? Of course not! Heck, I could have written the same thing and declared myself a candidate, but I doubt I’d make headlines on your blog. Really disingenuous to suggest you’re just “reporting,” when you’ve barely paid lip service to contenders other than GA and JR, when the others actually have fresher ideas, more realistic perspectives and actually present the case for election much more genuinely. Tsk Tsk. May I suggest you just come out of the closet and endorse GA now? At least that would be honest.
Sorry folks don’t like detailed policy discussions. Wow… never thought y’all would be in the department of the thin-skinned.
I am as hard on GSA as anyone on this blog and continue to see Allen as as progressive masquerading as a conservative.. This article does not change my position one iota. That said, to attacks Shaun for sharing it here is out of line. If I thought Shaun was stroking Allen I would call him out and if he chooses to do so I will not attack him.. ok, maybe a few wise cracks..
This is the right place to air these discussions and I applaude Shaun for bringing Allens positions here with the hopes that he will also fairly bring viable opponents ideas here as well for this and future elections.
George Allen’s plan is the same plan he’s carried from day one when he ran for elective office. There is no more a consistent Republican in this state than George Allen. He is rock solid on his issues with mainstream conservative family values! Also, please stop this shoot the messenger crap. Shaun is just stating facts plain and simple. If you don’t like the fact that your candidate doesn’t have a plan then vote for George Allen! Don’t abuse people like Shaun and George Allen for getting things done. Talk is cheap give me a candidate that gets it done. The one candidate in this race who does what he says and doesn’t put his finger up to the wind is GEORGE ALLEN. The rest just wanna be and never will be.
Allen put his finger in the wind Lee didn’t he.. Looked like a 3 finger salute back in 05.
Over what? What are you talking about Turbo?
Appreciate it, Turbo. rtwingtroll is an old, old friend… reminding me not to squish (or at least, any more than what I have).
Wow. Now I remember why I didn’t vote for Allen last time. (I just didn’t vote at all in that race.) If he wants to get just 37% of the vote in the general, this is the right platform for him. I can’t wait for my mailbox to be flooded with red-meat anti-gay, 100% pro-life (that means anti-death penalty and against right-to-die, folks, think on it), and guns in every child’s lunch box (no gun left behind?), hey, he’s your guy!
Shaun asked, “So what do you think? Ambitious? Realistic? Not bold enough? Too wonky? Don’t take my summary for it… read it through and share with others. Hat’s off to George Allen for a comprehensive, detailed plan of attack for working families that can be discussed and debated.”
My reaction when I read it is that my eyes kind of glaze over. One sure way to lose me as a reader is when they start talking about gay marriage and stuff like that, I start thinking … who … cares. Gay marriage and most of the other social issues that politicians push is kind of like the Casey Anthony trial to me, meaning, why am I having to listen to this nonsense 24/7 when there is important stuff going on in the world ? It’s the same with the Allen text, gay marriage, REALLY ? I mean this year the federal government is borrowing approximately $6500 per person in this country, we have better than 1 in 10 unemployed, and I’m supposed to care that two dudes in New York want to pick out wedding rings ??
This fiscal conservative doesn’t care in the least about Republican’s social agenda, it is just a sideshow that doesn’t mean much of anything to me.
So my cousin had a new kid, which of these issues is more important to his well being ?
1) 9.2% unemployment, father might not be able to work, kid doesn’t eat food or sleep indoors.
2) Kid born owing $46000 and this year alone the government borrowed another $6500 on his behalf, money that one way or the other will eventually have to be repaid, probably through monetizing the debt. $6500 dollars, how many loaves of bread is that ?
or 3) That two dudes can get married, which is important because … uhh, ???
Worse, though, is that issues (distractions ?) like gay marriage causes divisions between otherwise semi-sane people who could actually FIX the fact that we’re borrowing 1.6 trillion dollars this year if they wanted to. If they were not so fixated on complete nonsense they might get something done.
Analyse this Lee.. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-176
There are a few dems who think there is an october surprise hidden in there.. Piggy meat radar sez oink oink.
A couple of issues here from an “old school” conservative perspective:
1.) Line-item veto: I’m not very enthusiastic about giving the American President any further powers. The executive branch already wields too much authority, and this is just a further weakening of the legislative branch.
2.) Federal Marriage Amendment: I just have a philosophical problem with placing this in the federal constitution. We already have it in the Virginia Constitution. Why not leave this issue up to the states?
Glad to know I’m not the only BD reader who objects to the far-righteousness intrusion into personal liberties. Politicians have FUBAR’d every institution they’ve touched … yet many in our party still believe relinquishing marriage and reproductive rights to the government is a good thing??! These decisions are personal and moral – rather than civil; instruction should come from the pulpit, not the halls of Congress.
Thanks to the RPV for taking yet another stupid pill and hawking up another candidate for independents and socially moderate republicans to reject.
Turbo it’s just a grant process bill…. Sounds to me you have a bunch of fluffy conspiracies floating round your head. Really?
Shaun, thanks for summarizing, because if Allen wrote FOURTEEN PAGES on his social conservative platform, God knows he needs an editor. Turbo is spot on- this is the forum for such information and I appreciate your writing.
Jay D, nice to see you and read your sane thoughts.
Craig, have you considered stand-up? Seriously funny, in a oh-God-could-this-really-happen kind of way.
Temporary, give me a shout and I’ll buy you a beer. Maybe BD can bring you on as a contributor? Your eyes are on the prize.
Jessica wrote: “Craig, have you considered stand-up? Seriously funny, in a oh-God-could-this-really-happen kind of way.”
Good idea. I’ll think about that. Seriously, somebody needs to point out the obvious. Anybody want to give me some air time?
To all those who are remarking of how homosexual marriage doesn’t matter to them, killing unborn babies doesn’t bother them and for people to have the audacity to own guns…tell me, what candidate for the U.S. Senate Republican nomination in Virginia agrees with you? 0, ZERO, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE RUNNING AS A REPUBLICAN!!!
If you don’t believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, that killing unborn children is murder and that people have every right to ownership of guns then okay, but don’t try to make the rest of us look like were stupid because we believe in morals and principles.
I am reminded of a saying told to me by Hillard Selck, who for many years was the National Committeeman (GOP of course) from Missouri: “People like their elected officials to be Christians, but they don’t like Christians being their representatives.”
“…but don’t try to make the rest of us look like were stupid because we believe in morals and principles.”
There is nothing moral about the government FORCING a woman to have her rapist’s (or even her father’s) child.
There is nothing moral about denying the rights you have with your spouse to an entire class of American citizens simply because your bible tells you so.
And there is certainly nothing moral about allowing the manufacture and sales of guns that are designed to do nothing but kill another human being – nothing moral at all.
Eric, either we sell them legally to law abiding citizens or the underworld market will do it and there will be zero accountability. Legall and safe vs underworld.. pick your poison.
@Eric the 1/2 troll,
The ability to defend oneself against a tyrannical government was one of the most important rights enshrined by our founding fathers. How else would they have fought the revolution, Eric?
Since you appear to be such a fan of homosexual marriage, could you explain to me the benefit of it?
And in regard to a woman destroying a human life due to incest or rape, how about the rights of the unborn child (what the medical community considers a human life)? Two wrongs do not make a right!
My question to you is this, since it seems to be okay, based on your comment, that it is okay to kill unborn children, okay for people of the same-sex to pretend to have the same relationship as a man and a woman and since you disagree with one of the main tenants of liberty, the right to defend oneself against a tyrannical government, what is it that you actually stand for?
Steve Waters, (and perhaps Eric the 1/2 troll):
2nd amendment: You are spot on, although I would suggest that the right to keep and bear arms does not entail the right of the individual to keep and bear a pocket sized thermonuclear device or artillery.
Gay marriage: I think society should encourage monogamous heterosexual relationships. We should tolerate homosexuality as long as much as we tolerate adultery (and there is too much tolerance). I will note that most people still see the evil of tolerance of prostitution. It is my opinion that society should discourage the spread of sexually transmitted diseases since so many such diseases are becoming beyond the ability of medical science to combat at affordable levels.
Abortion: The majority of Americans oppose the use of abortion as primary birth control and I think I can safely claim this majority is about 75%. However a slim majority of our citizens support choice at least under certain circumstances. Problem is the pro-life crowd is not open to compromise as far as I can see.
Now, if I were a Republican with the above opinions, I would be a RINO (Republican In Name Only) but I can proudly paste that I am a Blue Dog Democrat while holding such opinions.
“My question to you is this, since it seems to be okay, based on your comment, that it is okay to kill unborn children…’
“It is not ok to kill any children. But according to our current laws and Constitution, the unborn are not children. Change the Constitution to make them children (and, btw, extend all other rights of Citizenship to the unborn) and I will fight right by your side to the death to protect those rights (all of them).
“…okay for people of the same-sex to pretend to have the same relationship as a man and a woman…”
Perfectly ok to same-sex relationships to be anything they want to be. I certainly do not believe that they have done anything that warrants taking their Constitutional rights to Equal Protection under the law away.
“…and since you disagree with one of the main tenants of liberty, the right to defend oneself against a tyrannical government…’
THAT is REALLY funny. The protections against a tyrannical governemtn are built into our Constitution but they certainly do not include violent insurrection. What makes you you think that owning an assault rifle will protect you against ANYTHING. If you really look to the 2nd as your right to protect yourself against a tyrannical government, then you are advocating for private ownership of tanks, artillery, jet fighters, missiles and the like because THAT is what would be required to protect you from ANY tyrannical takeover of our government.
“…what is it that you actually stand for?”
What a stupid comment…dolt!
I don’t know that I need a tank but a fighter jet would be cool. No more traffic jams!
Leave your response