This Friday, candidates for Virginia’s 10th District U.S. Congressional seat will debate on WAMU radio’s Politics Hour.
Well, most of the candidates. GOP primary candidate Vern McKinley will be there. Democratic candidates Judy Feder and Mike Turner will be there. But Congressman Frank Wolf thus far is not planning to participate.
Here is last week’s press release from the McKinley campaign:
Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia’s Tenth Congressional District has not faced a Republican primary challenge since he first won his seat as part of the “Reagan Wave” in 1980. Today, he faces strong criticism from many conservatives for turning from the “Reagan Values” that he once campaigned on. Vern McKinley, Republican challenger in the 10th district, is running a campaign on these issues. McKinley is an experienced policy expert who would bring vast federal government, international and private sector experience to Congress, along with a vision of limited government.
At least four independent efforts have been made over the past few weeks to organize a debate of the issues between Congressman Wolf and McKinley: the Politics Hour on WAMU with Kojo Nnamdi; the “Road to…” show on FCAC Channel 10; the Sterling Foundation; and the Loudoun County High School Young Republicans, all of which were turned down by the Congressman. The 10th Congressional District has a long-standing history of political debates. During Congressman Wolf’s early campaigns in the 1970s then-Congressman Fisher made himself available for debates several times against then-challenger Frank Wolf. Next week McKinley will debate the two Democratic Candidates in the 10th Congressional district to get out his message. This week he also debated the Libertarian Party candidates for President, including Bob Barr and Mike Gravel.
The two Republican candidates appeared at this past weekend’s 10th Congressional District Republican Convention, but were only given two minutes each to speak. “Two minutes is not enough to inform the Republican faithful on where we stand on the issues. I hereby challenge Congressman Wolf to have a debate on the direction of the Republican Party. There are stark contrasts between Congressman Wolf and the limited government base of the party, of which I am a member. Republican voters have sent Congressman Wolf back to Washington time and again over the past three decades. Yet he doesn’t think they deserve to hear him explain his transformation into a big government Republican. We need to talk about his stance on spending and entitlements, on the proper role of government, the 2nd amendment, life and foreign policy matters,” noted McKinley.
“The Congressman’s supporters are spreading misinformation and distortions about my work in emerging market economies, such as Sudan and Libya, where I have advised on the transition to more open, free-market based, financial systems. What we need is an open debate about the issues and our years in public service. Otherwise conclusions will be based on rumor and innuendo,” McKinley concluded.
To learn more about the McKinley for Congress campaign, please visit www.McKinleyforCongress.com.
I suppose Wolf feels he has nothing to gain from the debate – no reason to submit to attacks from three sides. But he has in the past articulated his positions well, so he should have no worries about being “out-debated.” His refusal to participate conveys a sense of fear, as though he does not want to have to defend his record in the Congress.
UPDATE: Read the comments – some good discussion!
Tags: Frank Wolf, Judy Feder, Mike Turner, Vern McKinley
Yes. I was unsure whether you were talking specifically about DC statehood, which would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would require ratification by the states.
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union….” (Article IV, Sec 3, Clause 1.)
No vote by the states is required.
Ya ! Jonathan comes running in flying the rainbow flag ! We almost made it through an entire conversation without injecting the Homosexual agenda.
Talk about being stuck on ” Panty politics “
G.
We ignored him the whole time until you gave him recognition. I now feel obliged to give him comment. Jonathan, once N.Y. recognizes all the homosexual marraige licsences from Ca. and Mass., we want you to go there for the other “if I were a republican girl” (you know, Bloomers-burg) and get a date with him. Oh, yes. He is flakey just like you. Then you both can get married and live abominated ever after.
Jack, jacob,
Yes, I did read Jack’s post, but it smacked of “it’s unconstitutional because I believe the Constitution says it is.
I am talking about home rule, established by an act of Congress, not “ham sandwiches”, or not just “anything”. I am talking about LAW.
As the Home Rule Act, which is LAW, has not been overturned, (or challenged for that matter), it remains with the assumption of constitutionality until a court rules otherwise. Another example, the Safe Schools Act of 1990. It stood as law until parts of it were challenged and struck down by the courts. If what you say is true, Heller would not be in front of SCOTUS would it ? And yes, sometimes the court does overturn a prior court ruling.
Again jacob, jack, stop wandering off into the weeds, and answer my prior question “When and where was home rule found to be unconstitutional?”.
Dan, no lawyer would go into a court and argue that a law is constitutional because no court has said it is not. That is circular logic, and utterly ridiculous.
You mention the Safe Schools Act. Were the parts struck down by the courts constitutional BEFORE they were struck down? Of course not. The court did not CAUSE them to be unconstitutional.
Similarly, a lack of a ruling on Home Rule does not make it constitutional, either. I have stated my position, which is that the word “exclusive” precludes Congress’ abrogating that power.
Now, using the Constitution, and your (admittedly limited) knowledge of English, and your (even more limited) logical faculties, tell me how you would argue, as a lawyer before the Supremes, that Home Rule is constitutional.
ACTivist,
I’m already married, thanks. I Did not understand your “abominated” comment. I think you meant to say that we will live “Obamanated” for eight years after Barack wins in November.
G. Stone,
Thanks for noticing. Did I ever tell you that I think you’re a swell guy!
Not in this state, you aren’t.
“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Matt 19:6 KJV
Typical liberal, taking things out of context. Here’s the context:
“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matt 19:4-5)
So, which of you is the female? Which of you is the wife?
Jack,
I am debating your assertion that home rule is unconstitutional. You continue to try to put the onus on me, rather than accept responsibility for your own ludicrous declaration.
The ball remains in your court to back up your incredible statement. In light of your abject failure to do so, I would suggest that you tuck your tail between your legs, and quietly go away.
Of course Jack, no conservative would ever take this:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
and think it means that:
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Anyways, back to the topic of Vern McKinley, if he claims to be a Christian, he surely knows that Jesus’ feminist teachings departed radically from the understanding of the institution of traditional marriage of the day.
“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
Matt 19:1-3 KJV
Dan, I have defended my argument by quoting the constitution and a dictionary. You have not countered my argument, nor have you come up with anything but circular reasoning that leads nowhere.
Jonathan, the first phrase of the Second Amendment is merely the justification for the second phrase.
I entirely agree with your reading of the Bible that Jesus forbade divorce.