"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Lingamfelter Starts A Reformation Effort
By Greg L | 26 November 2007 | Virginia Politics | 32 Comments
An opinion piece by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter was published in today’s edition of the Washington Times calling on Virginia Republicans to stop trying to out-Democrat the Democrats, and fully live up to the conservative principles that underpinned the coalition-building policies of Ronald Reagan. The timing of this piece is important. This weekend, Virginia Republicans will gather at the “Republican Advance” in Crystal City to talk about what direction state Republicans will take this year, and listen to the opinion leaders that may well end up becoming candidates for state-wide contests that kick off in 2008. Delegate Lingamfelter is one of those opinion leaders, and he’s effectively laying down a challenge for Virginia Republicans they should be eager to embrace.
By failing to constrain government spending, we lost our opportunity to compel a re-prioritization of spending for things like transportation. When high-profile Senate Republicans (now in the minority) and a small group in the House joined Democrats in supporting the Warner tax increases, we surrendered to the notion that there was not enough money in Richmond to meet our core needs. The result? Spending has blossomed. It took more than 200 years for Virginia to get to a $38 billion budget in 1996 and only a decade for it to almost double to $74 billion. Like outgoing House Appropriations Committee Chairman Vince Callahan, Fairfax Republican, used to say: “If you send it, we will spend it.” And we did, present pundit included.
Republicans do tend to have their eyes glaze over a bit at every candidate who trots out that they’re the heir to the Reagan legacy. It’s standard campaign rhetoric, and often employed by those very elected officials who have worked awfully hard to depart from this easy-to-say, tough-to-execute basic philosophy of governance. Reagan made this look easy, lulling many of those wanting to follow his example into talking like a Ronald Reagan, but acting more like a George W. Bush. To have someone again drag the legacy of Ronald Reagan out of the rhetorical storage shed risks a “here we go again” response, since we’ve all heard this before and we’re still very much mired in the muck of discussing not whether we’re going to reduce spending, but how we’re going to raise “revenues”.
If you’ve listened to Scott Lingamfelter much at all though, you’ll realize this isn’t some convenient temporary fixation, but a consistent theme of his statements. His op-ed piece here is almost a stump speech, and it’s what he delivers whenever he gets the chance. As just one member of the House of Delegates, Lingamfelter can’t by himself drive this Reagan philosophy home as a legislative agenda, but if he gets enough attendees at the “Advance” to sign on with this, it could make a difference in the legislation that passes the House of Delegates this upcoming session. Nothing would restore confidence in the Republican party more than it actually delivering on a consistent and well-explained philosophy of what it stands for, something which has been sorely missing while Democrats have steadily gained seats.
Lingamfelter is out of the gate first with an attempt to get Republicans to actually deliver on a philosophy of government. That no one else seems to be trying to reach out to the grassroots like this is somewhat puzzling, but perhaps Lingamfelter understands more than many that reform within RPV isn’t going to come from the top. It has to come from the base, as was evidenced in the recent re-establishment of the House and Senate leadership despite many misgivings over the results they’ve delivered. If Lingamfelter can establish himself as the philosophical leader of the Republican Party of Virginia by actually giving it a clear standard of performance to adhere to, backed by a grassroots that demands it, not only would the party win, but Lingamfelter’s position within it would make him a likely candidate for promotion from the House of Delegates.
This should be an interesting “Advance”. The philosophical battle that begins in earnest this weekend should establish the foundation for success or stagnancy and determine whether the grassroots have reclaimed their party or will continue to be ignored by it.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
32 Comments
Views: 1229
Loading ...
Is Del. Lingamfelter setting himself up for possible run for Lt. Governor in 2009?
I will be more impressed after the Republican caucus produces a budget that meets the high goals of Ligamfelter and his ilk with specific proposals of cuts and reallocation of funds that is necessary to fund our priorities, reduce over spending on non-priority items, and hold the line, or, reduce the tax burden.
We hear this kind of crap from Republicans every year but no one ever puts their money, or their proposed budget, where their mouth is.
If Ligamfelter walks into this meeting, or the next session, with specifics for how he will accomplish meeting our Commonwealth’s priorities, then color me impressed and I will be the first one in line to congratulate real leadership. Otherwise, it is a continuation of empty rhetoric.
Let’s see if they go against Kaine’s state sponsored day care- pre-k in public schools.
Well said, Matt. I agree completely.
I totally agree with Linamfelter’s premise, but he also needs to sign on to a return to the highest standards of ethics from the GOP. His support of Faisal Gill and the abomination that was the 51st HOD convention sours my opinion of him significantly. The GOP must be above reproach when it comes to matters of ethics if it is ever to keep its position as the supposed party of ethics and morality. Unfortunately Republicans in Loudoun and Prince William Counties have seen far too much unethical behavior by their party leaders that has unnecessarily soured them on the party.
Talk’s cheap. To continue Scott’s metaphor, it will be very interesting to see if he can get some steel on the target, or if he’ll be shooting blanks.
I second the comments of LI. Also, the way Lingamfelter just walks up to the microphone at the 4th of July parade without standing in line like all the other VIPs sort of shows how high he thinks of himself. He had a chance to support someone in Julie Lucas who has done an excellent job on school board and instead chose to lay in bed with the Gill/Kopko crew.
Also, notice how they are holding this in Cristal City - guess there is nothing like having a function to rally Republicans NOT to be like Democrats and hold it in the People’s Republic - lol
FYI, if attendance is high, that is great, and like Greg said, it is needed, but, if attendance is low, I would say it has more to do with the messenger vice the message.
Is this Scott “What Are You Going To Do To Get This Guy [Gill] Elected?” Lingamfelter?
Lingamfelter was one of a number of low-lifes (including Cuccinelli, McQuigg, Bolling and Stewart) who praised Faisal Gill from the podium at the 3/31/07 kickoff of Gill’s campaign for the HOD-51 Republican nomination.
Does Lingamfelter think that he doesn’t owe anyone an explanation of what happened? Let Lingamfelter first explain what went wrong in HOD-51 before he lectures people statewide.
I always find it interesting when the “Reagan Republican” mantra starts to rise.
Maybe a little history is in order…
First lesson, the Republican Party emerged when the Whig Party fell out of favor. The earliest Republicans were centrist, big government federalists, not small government libertarians. While the party has obviously changed over the years since then, the truth is that the roots of the Republican Party are in big government federalism. In fact, one of the largest government programs of all time (in terms of percentage of GDP) was a Republican program–Reconstruction after the Civil War.
Second lesson…Reagan. The man. The myth.
I love it when Republicans glom onto the Reagan legacy of “small government and lower taxes.” As governor of California, Reagan enacted the largest tax increase in California history (an increased reversed by Democrat Jerry Brown). Small government? Under Reagan, the Federal government *grew* by 90% during his years in office.
So feel free to bandy about the “Reagan Republican” banner. We all know what it really means…more of the same.
Before Scott Lingamfelter begins to preach, he needs to sit down and take a little lesson concerning the significance of candidate’s past associates to our national security, the Republican party and even his own political career. Oh, and Loudoun Insider, John Light and Jonathan Mark are all well-qualified “instructors” for him.
I’m not as forgiving as you are Greg; I can never forgive him for what he did to the 51st District and the Republican party…and besides, if he would have had an opponent on 6 Nov who was even mediocre, he’d be sitting out the next session of the General Assembly. Unfortunately, he won’t be, and the threat continues.
Turn PWC Blue - thank you for the mini-recap of Reagan. My impression of the folks I know that were his biggest fans is that they were mostly a lost group of souls looking for a father figure. He was a good one but I did not agree with his expansion of government or closing of mental institutions that landed so many on our streets. That same group really liked Dick Cheney for the same reason - at first.
I am not a Republican, but have always been for smaller federal government and cringe when I hear that every one but a Republican is against it. Republicans are not the answer, anymore than Democrats are and I for one am so tired of this nonsense, I just won’t listen or vote to/for anyone that starts throwing out partisan comments. That might be a tough one!
I thank the Republicans for investment opportunities, and I thank the Democrats for health insurance and prescription card. Frankly, I have benefited from both parties. Anyone who says they haven’t should give up either their 401/IRA’s or their health insurance.
We should be seeking out individuals that will accurately represent us not pretending that anyone believes all the extremes of either side. As citizens we should have convictions that rise above this. A little consistancy in those convictions wouldn’t hurt either!
One Voice,
Very well put. I guess that is why I am an Independent. One size doesn’t fit all. If our legislators and political parties would work together more and stop the partisan bickering, perhaps they could get on with the business of running the country.
Turn PW Blue:
Nice try. Maybe we should stick the Democrats with being the party of slave owners?
Most of the growth of the Federal Government under Reagan was due to growth in entitlement programs — based onn legislation passed by Democrats. I remember hearing this from Robert Reischauer (sp?), who directed the Congressional Budget Office under the Democrats. Remember, under Reagan, the top tax rate fell from 70% to 28%, yet Federal Revenues doubled. The Democrats who ran Congress (particularly the House of Representatives) wanted to spend a whole lot more. I imagine that, if you were old enough, you probably were calling Reagan “mean.”
Ron:
The fact remains that as President, the federal government expanded by 90%. Some of that was entitlement programs that the Democratic Congress passed (and Reagan signed into law). A lot of that was also defense spending. While an argument can be made that this spending helped bring down the Soviet Union, that’s an argument for another day. The important part of the issue is that the size of government increased dramatically while Reagan was in office. And while Reagan did lower the overall tax rate, he didn’t bring about those cuts by actually reducing the size of government. He did it by borrowing and running a budget in the red to an extent never before seen (but unfortunately repeated with a vengeance by the current administration). And let’s not forget the tax hikes Reagan put into effect while Governor.
Reagan was a lot of things, but a small government, lower taxes guy really isn’t too consistent with actual history.
Let’s get back to the topic - Lingamfelter and reformation. If he seriously wants to make that his matra he needs to start with Tom “Faisal Gill’s website designer” Kopko.
OneVoice–Let’s get something straight. Reagan did not close the state psychiatric hospitals. That ill-advised scheme was devised by John F. Kennedy’s administration. Now, we get chronic psychiatric patients living on the streets or in prisons. Thank you, JFK. Another hare-brained liberal plan fails.
There is absolutely nothing ANY of the delegates in PWC can do about Kopko. The delegates (Miller, Lingamfelter, and McQuigg) that voted for the transportation bill are already on the bad side of the leadership in PWC and that includes Kopko and company. Marshall is their hero.
As for all the nasty comments on this threat about conservatives who supported Gill, get over it. Gill decided to run long before Lucas or anyone else. That is Lucas’s fault and others who were NOT decisive in their decisionmaking. That is the main reason Cuccinelli, Bolling, Lingamfelter and other prominent state conservatives came out to support Gill. Its very unhealthy to hold grudges over who supports who in a primary and it is very obvious some are bitter about it. I am certainly glad to see Greg does not hold grudges over who elected officials support in a primary.
I agree…you guys are a bunch of losers for focusing on what happened in the past in a silly-ass primary. Get over it. And hell, get over the Reagan was this, Reagan was really that crap, too. Move on, you losers. The future is what’s important…not the past.
Yes, because we all know that analyzing the past is no way to prepare for the the future, right SLB?
I agree. Until Kopko is ousted and those responsible for supporting him have explained their reason for doing so adequately to my satisfaction then they will have no chance at getting my vote. Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it. Scott just comes off as a hypocrite to me by proposing a reform effort in Reagan’s name after all the flag waving he just did for Gill. *rolls eyes*
Isn’t this the same Scott Lingamfelter who not only supported the Faisal Gill candidacy, but also a higher tax budget and abusive driver fees? You guys need to get it out of your head that some of these jokers are actually conservative. Unless your definition of conservative is support people with questionable security ties and talk a big game but produce next to nothing, I dont think you really know what a conservative is. What is it Scott has actually done?
I am more convinced than ever that all any politician is really out for is himself. Lingamfelter included. There are very very few politicians out there who take a selfless stance on real principle anymore.
He almost got us the Ten Commandments in school. But he could not decide which version.
Anonymous @ 10:34,
You mean the Spanish or the English version?
Sarcasm button off now.
Greg is 100% correct. Regardless of whatever grudges you may have against Lingamfelter, his message is spot-on. The GOP can’t win elections by out-liberaling the Democrats. We need a return to the consistent core philosophy that brought Republicans to a majority status in the first place, namely that government intrusion into traditionally private economic spheres hampers growth, freedom, and the innovations and dynamism that come with it.
People can criticize Republicans like Reagan all they want for spending more money, but the fact is that Reagan’s philosophy was that government does few things well, but those few things (e.g., defense) deserve higher priority than they got under Carter and the succession of liberals who preceded him. It is easy to point to bigger budgets and pin them on Reagan, but the fact is he opposed tooth and nail the expansion of the welfare state that occurred under his watch at the behest of the Democrat controlled Congress. Where he had a free hand, Reagan rolled back the influence of the federal government in favor of states, markets, and individuals. This is best evidenced by his vast deregulation efforts, as well as by the activities of the Reagan Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission. Further, as big as the federal budget got under Reagan, both its scope and domestic influence shrank under his leadership. The legacy of these efforts is twofold: (1) the virtually unbroken prosperity we’ve experienced since the early 1980s; and (2) Republican ascendancy to the majority nationwide in the early 1990s.
To be certain, Reagan was not 100% effective, and even found it good for the country to compromise at times. Indeed, it was such a compromise that allowed the funding of the Strategic Defense Initiative that had an important role in the endgame of the Cold War. But these shortcomings don’t diminish the power of his underlying message. Logically, one can’t criticize a message by saying the messenger wasn’t faithful in enacting it…that doesn’t make sense, TurnPWBlue.
The rollback of the GOP majority is directly and positively correlated to Republicans’ departures from Reagan’s sound basic principles. Virtually the entirety of the domestic agenda of the GWB administration–enabled by a weak-spined GOP majority on Capitol Hill–is an illustration of this. We saw it again in Virginia, and that’s the message Lingamfelter is highlighting to those who care about actually getting conservative policies enacted.
I thought it was Jimmy Carter who let the mental patients lose and while Turn PW Blue says, “While an argument can be made that this spending helped bring down the Soviet Union, that’s an argument for another day.” I say, “Yeah, beating the Soviet Union without firing a shot (KGB files prove that our build up is what eventually took them down) IS an “argument for another day.”
It is a FACT that without the MUCH needed military build-up under President Reagan under a VERY hostile Congress. It is so funny how the libs talk about how bad Bush is doing and treat him like the devil incarnate (only Reagan before him was afforded this “honor”) yet fail to mention that the only two institutions on the trust scale that get lower approval ratings are Congress, then the media.
“monticup said on 27 Nov 2007 at 12:31 am:
OneVoice–Let’s get something straight. Reagan did not close the state psychiatric hospitals. That ill-advised scheme was devised by John F. Kennedy’s administration. Now, we get chronic psychiatric patients living on the streets or in prisons. Thank you, JFK. Another hare-brained liberal plan fails.”
Mr. Monticup — Jack Ruby was placed in a mental institution, so I guess they weren’t all closed by the time JFK left office.
That said, the Community Health Services and Facilities Act of 1961 provided states with funding to establish out patient style mental health centers. ( JFK’s adminsitration was heavily focused on mental retardation due to his own sister’s diagnosis. This also resulted in JFK’s sister, Eunice to found the Special Olypmics.)
To that point in time all inmates were diagnosed at one level of crazy rather than varying degrees. My understanding is that yes, the process to begin to strategically place folks in state mental institutions began to shift with this public law. State funding for these programs all but disappeared under Reagan.
I did not realize until you said so that this process began under JFK. Thanks for the clarification.
Actually, nothing much changed during the Kennedy era. The Community Health Services and Facilities Act of 1961 also dealt with regular health services. It really didn’t clear out the mental institutions. In the late 60’s I did several field study trips to institutions like Western State and St. Elizabeths. I can assure you, both institutions were packed to the gills and remained so for about a decade. So was Lynchburg Training Center for the Mentally Retarded.
I don’t think we can attribute any one president to the emptying of mental hospitals. There was much furor during the 40s, 50, 60’s over abuses in hospitals and the idea that people were committed for life with no chance of ever coming out.
I would say the situation evolved, and by Reagan’s era, the die was cast because of the emphasis on fiscal conservatism. Closing down the huge facilities saved money.
Dolph–closing the state hospitals did not save money. The patients had to go somewhere and they ended up on the street and in prison. The costs to our communities is very high. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The fact is JFK started the Act to close state psychiatric hospitals. It took many years to implement that plan. Now we really do not have a place for chronic schizophrenics who cannot be managed in the community.
Monticup,
I agree that it ended up not saving money in the long run. I was never under the impression that JFK started the act to close state mental hospitals. I have always thought it was to de-institutionalize all medical treatment that could be done in an outpatient environment.
If memory serves me, the movement to put the mentally ill into the community hit its zenith in the late 70s. It certainly wasn’t any one president who made this ultimately happen. There were many movers and shakers out there who pushed for this great emancipation of those locked up. The courts didn’t help the situation either.
I personally feel that chronic mentally ill people have way too many rights. I have seen them in hospitals and out in the general population. I feel they are far better off and so are we if they are in hospitals.
This subject exemplifies the expression about beware of unintended consequences.
Anonymous 7:06AM….all I can say is that it’s obvious you don’t know what goes along with Faisal Gill…but please don’t take that as a criticism, you’ve been blessed.