Virginia Senate Debate

By Sarah Prescott

On Thursday, October 20^th Luke Wachob, Helen Shibut and I attended a local Tea Party debate held for candidates for Senate from Virginia. Instead of covering what each candidate said, I’m going to write about each candidate’s body language non-verbal communication skills. Kevin Chisholm, E.W. Jackson, David McCormick, and Tim Donner were all present to debate current issues and to convince the audience why each one thought he should be Virginia’s next Senator. The debate began with each candidate giving an opening statement where they were free to say whatever they chose to.                

Kevin Chisholm began the evening and admitted to reading part of his opening statement from his notes because he was “a little nervous.” The opening statement was the beginning of a night full of blunt honesty from Chisholm. He was the only non-Republican candidate present, which made his evening a little challenging. Throughout the debate Kevin leaned far back in his chair. He often looked extremely uncomfortable. He also seemed unprepared for many of the questions that were asked. He did not act like a typical Washington politician. When confronted with difficult questions, he often said he felt he would have to speak with an expert on the subject before making a judgment. Though some people in the room seemed turned off by that answer (especially the second or third time around), it definitely made him seem less arrogant in comparison with the other candidates.

                The second candidate we were introduced to was E.W. Jackson. If I could sum up E.W. Jackson with one word it would be passionate. From the moment he advanced confidently to the podium to give his opening statement to the moment he stood up and leaned over the table to give his closing statement, he voice was filled with passion. Jackson’s diction was neither watered-down and simple nor overly eloquent. Although he said some very provocative things, such as “we should profile” (when discussing border security), he did so in such a way that received applause from many of Tea Party members present in the audience.

                David McCormick seemed to me to be a classic Republican candidate. If that is what the tea party members want, than I think he would be a good choice. In fact, while looking back at my notes, it is almost difficult for me to picture his face. He seemed to me to be very forgettable. He constantly referred to “kicking out Obama”. I wonder if he realized that he was running for VA Senate not the presidency. 

               Tim Donner, who was seated on the very end of the table, looked stern and almost angry when he was not speaking. When he did speak, he used very effective language. I enjoyed the tone of his voice and the diction he used. He also used humor now and then, which everyone seemed to appreciate. Tim Donner commanded attention when he spoke and used every bit of his speaking time on stage to share what he wanted to do to change Washington.

What Went on at the VA Senate Debate

By Helen Shibut

There were no losers in this debate (sorry). But I think all of the candidates who showed up managed to showcase themselves pretty clearly. Kevin Chisholm was inexperienced but relatable.  He admitted to being confused by specific tax codes and policies of the federal government, and I’m sure everyone can identify with that struggle.  Tim Donner was positively pragmatic, and perfectly conservative.  He was the easiest to imagine actually making it to Washington.  David McCormick was confident because he had a jobs plan.  Fewer regulations and lower taxes—I can’t argue with that.  Unfortunately, his plan was full of economic protectionism, and I don’t think China will just sit there if we starting bumping up tariffs on everything they send here.  E.W. Jackson was certainly the most exciting person on stage, and in the beginning I was prepared to get excited with him.  Raise the debt ceiling? “Under no circumstances!” Department of Education? Waste of space. Ditto for the EPA.  I was loving it. But then he started talking about cutting off immigration for the rest of the recession (strike one), bringing back Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (strike two), and how the PATRIOT Act is actually a good thing (strike three, and thrown out of the game for arguing the call).

Not surprisingly, all of the candidates were opposed to the way the federal government has twisted the Constitution’s eminent domain clause.  Everyone seemed to agree that private property is important, and the government shouldn’t be able to take it from any individual without a seriously good reason and actual just compensation.  Therefore, it surprised me that the candidates were split on the question of whether or not the PATRIOT Act should be renewed.  Though McCormick stated clearly that he opposed it because it is directly contrary to our Constitutional rights, Jackson, who talked about civil liberties and individual rights throughout the evening, said that it was necessary because our security is a bigger deal than our property, so our liberty has to be compromised—for our own good.  This threw me off, because in general, I don’t like the government taking away anything from anyone for his or her own good. 

My Reactions to the Verona Virginia Senate debate, October 20

By Luke Wachob

The 30 year business man. The fair-minded engineer. The former Marine and minister. The outsider free of political baggage. These were the four candidates on stage as they wished to be seen: David McCormick, Kevin Chisholm, E.W. Jackson, and Tim Donner. Here’s the best and worst of each candidate, in my view.

McCormick was at his best advocating 6 year term limits on Senators and Congressmen and the elimination of the Departments of Education and Energy (a view shared by Jackson and Donner). However, he also wanted tariffs and quotas to balance trade with China and supported state immigration law and nullification.

Chisholm plays the role of calm consensus-builder, which is both his strength and weakness. I liked that he was honest enough to admit a lack of expertise about certain complicated policies and tax codes, and humble enough to seek expert advice or mimic others’ successful policies. However, Chisholm accepts a larger government than the other three candidates, characterizing green energy funding as a “noble struggle” and saying government stimulus can work in some circumstances.

Jackson was the rabble-rouser, advocating the abolition of the IRS, the NLRB, the complete repeal of ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank bill, and promising to never raise the debt ceiling. However, Jackson supported a moratorium on immigration until the economy improves, and was hostile towards homosexuals in the military and what he perceived as a homosexual agenda in public schools.

Donner talked the most of all the candidates about containing military spending and cutting bureaucracy in the Pentagon, and also argued for U.S. withdrawal from the UN and market-based health care reform. Donner did, however, caution against a complete repeal of the PATRIOT act, and his confrontational “us versus them” mentality and his belief in not only American exceptionalism but also ‘Virginian exceptionalism’ made him tough to warm up to.

Who’s the best? I’ll leave that up to you.