New George Allen ad: These defense cuts are bad news, Virginia

posted at 12:41 pm on October 24, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

With the partisan rundown of the next U.S. Senate still very much to be determined, there are several very tight races in the mix, one of the tightest being the contest between former Congressman and Virginia Governor George Allen (Republican) and also-former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (Democrat). The latest RCP average has Kaine with just a one-point edge over Allen, and meanwhile, Romney’s gained some serious ground and caught up to President Obama for a virtual tie in the commonwealth — Virginia is shaping up to be one of the more clutch factors in what our federal government will look like come 2013.

In that light, seems like a pretty smart move for Gov. Allen to emphasize an issue that’s both state-specific and nationally significant, and if there’s one common issue to which the extra-swingy Northern Virginians can all relate, it’s the upcoming defense cuts. The upper counties are chock-full of bureaucrats and defense workers, so the defense cuts really hit home with this crowd. During Monday night’s foreign-policy debate, one of President Obama’s more popular moments was when he bizarrely claimed to be certain that the sequestration won’t actually be happening (how he knows this, when nobody else seems to, remains unclear), underscoring the political weight the issue holds.

Decisions in Washington ripple through our communities, harming small businesses like this one. The defense cuts Tim Kaine supported are threatening over 200,000 Virginia jobs. His solution is to raise taxes. That’s not the answer, that would cost us even more jobs. My plan would stop the defense cuts by growing our economy, using our energy resources, and creating jobs.

In addition to the damage from the defense cuts, Virginia also stands to gain quite a bit economically from a President Romney energy strategy, especially with its offshore drilling potential. Given that a vote for Allen could very well squeeze through the Republican-majority Senate that would make a Romney administration more effective, I think this ad hits all the right points it can in 30 seconds — particularly as a counter to some of the war-on-women themed appeals to the young-professional, “I’m-so-independent” transplants also populating NoVa that I’ve been hearing lately from the Kaine camp.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You’re right — the British military didn’t do a damn bit of damage when they were here, did they..?

affenhauer on October 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Now, now…you’re trying to change the argument. You said, “Remember the good ol’ days when the job of the military was nation-destroying..?” You took issue when I said you were incorrect.

So please explain how we destroyed England twice.

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Defense is the ONLY item in the Federal budget that the Constitution says should be a Federal expense. Nothing hypocritical about that. It should be the last item to be cut in the Federal budget. Let us first cut the items in the Federal budget that are not constitutionally mandated. We are not a democracy we are a Constitutional Representative Republic that elects it’s representatives democratically.

IowaWoman on October 24, 2012 at 1:54 PM

1. Just because “defense” is authorized by the Constitutionthis does not equal a blank check.

2. The only branch of the military the Constitution permits to perpetually maintain is the Navy. In Article 1, Section 8Congress is permitted to “raise and support Armies,” but “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” Obviously the Founding Fathers were no big fans of standing armies.

It’s long past time to take an ax to DoD’s budget.

antifederalist on October 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM

But I thought you said pre-emption was bad? Or is it just a matter of degree, not of kind?

Oh, and by the way, you’re still talking about preferring to fight on U.S. soil (given the exigencies of modern warfare, which typically don’t recognize lines on a map), rather than defending another nation the defeat of which would threaten us.

Athanasius on October 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Another one who is confused over sovereign and natural rights as well as the non-aggression principle.

And no, I never once said I prefer to fight on U.S. soil. That’s a straw man.

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Now, now…you’re trying to change the argument. You said, “Remember the good ol’ days when the job of the military was nation-destroying..?” You took issue when I said you were incorrect.

So please explain how we destroyed England twice.

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Good effort, but not good enough. I never said our military – I said the military. Like, what do you use your military for? When the Brits sent their military over here, one could argue quite effectively that they did their job and trashed a few of our places, like DC for example. Your story is becoming tiresome…

affenhauer on October 24, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Good effort, but not good enough. I never said our military – I said the military. Like, what do you use your military for? When the Brits sent their military over here, one could argue quite effectively that they did their job and trashed a few of our places, like DC for example. Your story is becoming tiresome…

affenhauer on October 24, 2012 at 3:30 PM

LOL. Sure.

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Another one who is confused over sovereign and natural rights as well as the non-aggression principle.

Enlighten me.

And no, I never once said I prefer to fight on U.S. soil. That’s a straw man.

Of course you didn’t say that. But it is what would happen in the hypothetical I offered. If you think that in that scenario fighting could be restricted solely to territories north of the border, you are living in a fantasy world. The effect is that, rather than violate the principle that the US should never defend another nation, you would rather take the risk that we would be forced to defend the US homeland, which in the hypothetical we certainly would be.

Athanasius on October 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Ah, a Keynsian argument that plays well with the so-con and militarist “conservative” hacks. Just imagine how strong the economy would be if the US spent twice as much on the military as currently! Or 5 times! 10! Just imagine all those valuable jobs driving the economy as never before. Now you right wingers have got it. /Krugnutz

Daikokuco on October 24, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Enlighten me.

It’s pretty simple, really. No one has the right to initiate force against another, and the only time force is legitimate is in defense, whether defending oneself from an attack or defending oneself from an eminent attack.

Here’s a general explanation:
Non-aggression principle

Of course you didn’t say that. But it is what would happen in the hypothetical I offered. If you think that in that scenario fighting could be restricted solely to territories north of the border, you are living in a fantasy world. The effect is that, rather than violate the principle that the US should never defend another nation, you would rather take the risk that we would be forced to defend the US homeland, which in the hypothetical we certainly would be.

Athanasius on October 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Of course that would happen in your single hypothetical. After all, your hypothetical is about an invading force. Where else would it be fought? The Bahamas?

Ah, a Keynsian argument that plays well with the so-con and militarist “conservative” hacks. Just imagine how strong the economy would be if the US spent twice as much on the military as currently! Or 5 times! 10! Just imagine all those valuable jobs driving the economy as never before. Now you right wingers have got it. /Krugnutz

Daikokuco on October 24, 2012 at 3:39 PM

It’s amazing, really. This economic “thinking” was destroyed prior to and during WWII, and now it’s the “conservatives” trumpeting it.

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Of course that would happen in your single hypothetical. After all, your hypothetical is about an invading force. Where else would it be fought? The Bahamas?

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 3:54 PM

It could be fought in Canada before the USSR got a toe hold?

cptacek on October 24, 2012 at 3:59 PM

It’s amazing, really. This economic “thinking” was destroyed prior to and during WWII, and now it’s the “conservatives” trumpeting it.

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Not surprising at all. Modern conservatives fully embrace the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. They also fully embrace the New Deal and Great Society as they continuously vow to preserve and protect the associated social-welfare programs (Social Security and Medicare) In 20 years I predict that they will be on the campaign trail promising to preserve and protect Obamacare for future generations.

antifederalist on October 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Exactly my point, cptacek. Dante, you’ve forgotten the point of the hypothetical: it sets out to demonstrate that, by rigid adherence to the principle that the US should never defend another country, we would be setting ourselves up for invasion of our homeland under certain circumstances. (I can imagine that, if the Soviets had known with certainty that the US would not contest their conquest of Canada, they would have been delighted to grab the military advantage such a conquest would have afforded them. God knows HItler certainly would have, after he’d finished off Europe and the Soviet Union because the US steadfastly refused to provide any aid to anyone else fighting the Germans.) You are apparently comfortable with that possibility, as long as the principle is adhered to.

Athanasius on October 24, 2012 at 4:08 PM

former Congressman and Virginia Governor George Allen

While technically both Representatives and Senators are “Congressmen”, don’t try and tell a Senator that, his ego might explode.

jnelchef on October 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Not surprising at all. Modern conservatives fully embrace the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. They also fully embrace the New Deal and Great Society as they continuously vow to preserve and protect the associated social-welfare programs (Social Security and Medicare) In 20 years I predict that they will be on the campaign trail promising to preserve and protect Obamacare for future generations.

antifederalist on October 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I know. They flock to their cults of personality (Beck, Rush, Reagan, etc.) and loudly denounce Wilson and Roosevelt and progressivism, while all the while fully embracing the foreign policy of Wilson and Roosevelt and progressivism.

Oh, there is no doubt “conservatives” will be promising to preserve and protect Obamacare down the road.

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I know. They flock to their cults of personality (Beck, Rush, Reagan, etc.) and loudly denounce Wilson and Roosevelt and progressivism, while all the while fully embracing the foreign policy of Wilson and Roosevelt and progressivism.

Oh, there is no doubt “conservatives” will be promising to preserve and protect Obamacare down the road.

Dante on October 24, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Today’s conservatives do suffer from what psychologists call cognitive dissonance.

antifederalist on October 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Why is the Governor trying to become a Senator?

CorporatePiggy on October 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM

If you want to help out in VA or OH, take a GOP bus to either place this wkend and/or next, and ring doorbells. They pay your room, meals, transportation on the bus (they don’t pay auto rental or gas – you have to go on the bus to get this deal).

GOP Victory 2012 Bus Deployment

Buses leave from RNC HQ in DC. I’m going down from NYC to DC, to get the bus there.

YehuditTX on October 24, 2012 at 5:42 PM

When it comes to defense spending I’d like to point out it’s not all concentrated in NoVa. Don’t forget about SeVa as well; specifically Norfolk and Virginia Beach. You know…where the world’s largest Navy base is located? Not just the bases, but also the shipyards that build and maintain our Navy’s ships.

wolfva on October 25, 2012 at 6:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2