• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

RVA Mag

Richmond, VA Culture & Politics Since 2005

Menu RVA Mag Logo
  • NEWS
  • MUSIC
  • ART
  • POLITICS
  • EAT DRINK
  • PHOTO
  • WATCH
  • EVENTS
  • MAGAZINE
RVA Mag Logo
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contributors
  • Sponsors

RVA Mag Exclusive: Q&A with Attorney General, Mark Herring

Landon Shroder | October 24, 2017

Topics: Commonwealth, Democrats, Elections, Marijuana, Mark Herring, opioids, virginia

Most voters don’t realize just how important the post of Attorney General really is to the Commonwealth. In addition to providing the legal basis for the governor’s policy agenda, the office of Attorney General defends and upholds the constitutionality of state law and acts as the de-facto law firm of the Commonwealth.  This is a daunting task in an age when federal policy proscriptions are colliding with state agendas in very real and very contentious ways. Look no further than challenges to refugee re-settlement, Title IX protections against campus sexual assault, immigration, challenges to Obamacare, LGBTQ and environmental protections, along with a host of other legalese that govern our daily lives.

At the center of this turbulent vortex is Mark Herring, the incumbent Democratic candidate for Attorney General. Herring, a former State Senator from the 33rd District in Fairfax and Loudoun counties, made a name for himself early in his tenure by refusing to defend the Virginia Marriage Amendment – an amendment which defined marriage as ‘solely between one man and one woman’, which was a dark blemish on Virginia’s fight for equality. Herring’s refusal effectively paved the way for marriage equality in the Commonwealth.

RVA Mag’s Political Director, Landon Shroder and Staff Writer, Madelyne Ashworth, caught up with Herring at Lamplighter near Virginia Commonwealth University for a coffee and to chat about the upcoming election, gender-based violence, the LGBTQ community, Virginia’s opioid crisis, the events in Charlottesville, and just about everything else that is on the mind of young voter’s this campaign season.

Shroder: Nice to see you again, how is the campaign going?

Herring: So far, so good. People are beginning to realize there is an election coming up and it is really exciting and I feel good about how things are, but you have to sprint towards the finish.

Shroder: You’ve been in electoral politics for some time now, but clearly we are in a new political age and we’re all experiencing something new in politics. Because of this, has this campaign differed from other campaigns you’ve ran before?

Herring: This is definitely one of the most challenging political landscapes I have encountered in my public life. It is drawing upon all the skills I have to navigate through it, but it is also a really important time for folks to become more deeply engaged. There are a lot of questions that our country is asking right now about who we are as a nation, who we are as a Commonwealth, and it’s a time that people should not be on the sidelines.

Shroder: Do you feel that is reflective in your day to day interactions while on the trail? Or is this just something everyone already knows, like a tangible feeling?

Herring: I definitely sense an awareness that we are in a different political time. [Previously] elected officials at least seemed like they were operating within a certain lane of reasonableness. Now a lot of boundaries have been crossed and a lot of people are scratching their head about what direction is our country really going in right now; how are people reacting to the chaos coming out of the White House? It’s unclear how it is all going to shake-out.

I have a lot of confidence in Virginians being people who are caring about others, about the importance of community and being committed to equality and inclusiveness. I truly believe that’s who we are as a state and is something I am deeply committed too.

Herring Speaking at the Obama Rally Last Thursday. Photo by Landon Shroder

Title IX Protections:

Ashworth: This is something that’s important to me as a recently graduated college student, and here we are sitting next to VCU’s campus. Now that the Title IX protections have been withdrawn, how can we protect students from sexual assault, especially since 23 percent of young women are experiencing that every day?

Herring: I am deeply concerned about the direction Secretary DeVos is taking us with campus sexual violence. I chaired the Governor’s task force to combat sexual violence three years ago. We made enormous progress in getting much more comprehensive prevention programs in place at Virginia’s colleges and universities, working to change the culture, letting students know that as a state, we are committed to campus safety. I want to make sure every student knows as long as I’m Attorney General, they should feel comfortable stepping forward to report an incident of sexual assault when it happens, and they will not be treated with suspicion or judgment. They will be treated with the dignity and respect and compassion they deserve.

I was really disappointed in the Secretary’s remarks in the early part of the school year. That’s a time when it’s back to campus, a time that students should hear from their education secretary that she and all of us are committed to safe environments in all of our colleges and universities. Particularly at the beginning of the year, to hear something else was a concern. As Attorney General, I would like Virginia students to know in particular that maybe the Secretary wants to go in a different direction, but we in Virginia are on the right path. We’re going to continue to make sure that there is a survivor center and trauma-informed response at our state colleges and universities.

Ashworth: Another issue I think is important to women my age, particularly women of color, who don’t necessarily feel represented by the people who are creating policy around Title IX, namely older, white, male politicians. How do you reconcile that difference?

Herring: It’s important that young people, including women, make their voices heard, make the concerns know. I, myself, am a parent. I’ve got two children, one still in college, our son is a senior, and our daughter is 25. By making sure that their voices are heard in policy-making forums, in elections, in other types of conversations that can impact laws and regulations so they can have an impact. They should also begin thinking about taking a leadership role. It’s not just about making your voice heard, but stepping up and becoming a leader in your community, in your school, in your state. We need new generations of young people to step forward and become the leaders of today and tomorrow.

Opioid Crisis: 

Shroder: What is the responsibility in Virginia to treat the opioid crisis as a public health issue vs. a law enforcement issue? Where do those two things meet?

Herring: There is a law enforcement component and I have worked hard to step up prosecutions against dealers and traffickers who bring heroin and fentanyl into Virginia – those who profit off of addiction. But, I have known from the very beginning that this is not a problem we were going to solve with arrests. Many of our drug policies of the past have not worked well and we need to take a fresh look at this. One of the things that taught me a lot early on when I started working on this back in 2014, was meeting with family members who had lost loved ones to heroin or opioid overdoses. Initially, the conversation goes towards the person they loved and the wonderful qualities they had. I could see that these drugs were not going after one particular demographic, it was crossing every racial and demographic divide. It wasn’t an urban, suburban, or rural problem, it was happening everywhere, and it was something that could happen to anyone.

We are also part of a 41 state Attorneys General investigation into pharmaceutical manufacturers. To see if they have engaged in any unlawful practices, regarding their marketing and distribution. These drugs are incredibly powerful, and devastating the lives of so many families. It is estimated over 60,000 Americans died last year alone, over 1,100 of them in Virginia. It’s a national tragedy and a problem that is decades in the making, and has it has it’s roots in the medicine cabinet much more so than in the streets.

Herring Stumping for Ralph Northam. Photo by Branden Wilson

Marijuana:

Shroder: Do you support the decriminalization of marijuana?

Herring: It is time we look at the experience of other states. There are several other states, that have either decriminalized or legalized and we should look at what their experience has been. There have been some unintended consequences as a result, but it is time to take a look at it and see what might work for Virginia. That’s something that might not have been on the table a long time ago, but it is time to have the conversation about what the impact has been in other states and to see if that {is} something we want to do in Virginia.

This is an area where Republicans and Democrats can sit down at the table and talk about it, and try to come up with practical solutions that make sense.

Gender-Based Violence: 

Ashworth: Shifting gears again, there are 1,300 untested rape kits in the Commonwealth. Why?

Herring: When I came into office, there were over 2,000 untested rape kits. When I found out, that was unacceptable to me. I’m now working to completely eliminate the backlog and I’m not going to stop until every kit is tested, survivors know the results, and every case gets a fresh look. It has made such a {difference} for survivors. First of all, that means perpetrators could still be out there. It means survivors are not getting justice. It also means a lot to survivors of sexual assault to know that their Commonwealth understands the severity of the crime, as well as the trauma that goes with it.

I’ve had survivors talk to me and share with me what it has meant to them. I talked with a woman, I won’t use her name for her privacy, but she heard I was visiting near where she lived and she reached out to our office to arrange a meeting for five minutes. We didn’t know what it was about, but we said ‘okay.’ It turned out she had been raped. Her perpetrator was apprehended, and she followed the case through trial and he’s in prison. But when she heard we were eliminating the backlog, it made her feel better to know that her Commonwealth understands survivors. We will stand with them to get justice and help them on a path of healing and recovering.

Ashworth: So I’m guessing the backlog is a result of a lack of funding or money?

Herring: It could be for a number of reasons. They weren’t part of an active investigation. The good news is, many of the departments kept the kits in their evidence rooms long after state law would have allowed them to be destroyed.

Ashworth: Could you explain your lethality assessment protocol? Does it apply to citizens, or is it just for law enforcement?

Herring: Lethality assessment protocol is a way to help reduce domestic violence and homicides. Local police working with community advocates can come together and develop a set of questions that can be asked of a victim of domestic violence when law enforcement first arrives on the scene to assess whether that person might be at risk for further victimization and danger. If so, connect them right there, on the scene, with services in the community to get them to a place of safety where they can begin to rebuild their lives rather than leave them in that environment in which, once the police leave, they could be in danger again.

Reproductive Health:  

Ashworth: As of now, we have a Republican-dominated General Assembly. Where does that leave Planned Parenthood?

Herring: I will continue to do everything I can to block efforts by the Republicans and the General Assembly to take the rights away from women to access the full range of reproductive health services that they need and deserve. It’s one reason why it’s really important to elect me and Ralph Northam as governor, so when those laws get passed, there’s somebody there with a veto pen who can veto them, and there’s somebody like me who will go into court to protect the rights of women to access their health care.

Shroder: It’s amazing we even still have to have this conversation in 2017.

Herring: Oh, I know.

Shroder: We could be talking about so many other things, couldn’t we?

Herring: We could. But we still have to fight these fights. I don’t know how much you want to get into my opponent’s record, but he opposes abortion in all cases including rape and incest. He fought twice in the Supreme Court to limit access to birth control and would allow employers to make that decision for employees. It’s a stark contrast between him and me, and I will stand up for women’s rights.

Ashworth: Going off that point, providing birth control for employees and birth control for students using their public university’s health care systems, how worried do those women need to be about seeking birth control after the reversal of the contraception mandate from the President?

Herring: I think it is a real concern. The numbers of women who could be impacted negatively by this are enormous. We are looking at what legal options might be out there to stop the President from being able to implement that. Right now, rolling that back would put the decision in the hands of the employer. I don’t think someone should have to go to their employer to ask permission to have birth control. Having the contraception mandate has been very beneficial for public health. It has helped to lower unintended pregnancies. Rolling it back will have a significant impact on public health and the ability of women to access birth control. It could increase co-pays and out-of-pocket costs, and make it much more difficult to access important health services.

Again, it’s hard to believe we’re having this conversation in 2017.

Mark Herring with LT Gov Candidate, Justin Fairfax. Photo by Landon Shroder

Fight Against White Nationalism: 

Shroder: Well I’m about to hit you with another ‘I can’t believe I am asking this in 2017 question’. Obviously, we can’t legislate out people’s perceptions and bigotries and the fears which drive these things. But are there any practical protections that the Commonwealth can offer against the creep of white nationalism and white supremacy. I can assure you, young people are deeply scared of these groups marauding through their towns.

Herring: Virginia is a state that is committed to equality and inclusiveness. It is essential for all of us, especially those in leadership positions, community, state, and nationally to speak out against this kind of hatred and bigotry. Whether it is the neo-Nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists, by whatever name they go by – to make sure that kind of hatred and bigotry never finds a home anywhere in our Commonwealth.

The first thing we have to do is make sure we all speak out against that to make it clear that is not who we are as a state. As well as, speak out when other public officials look the other way and give it a wink and a nod, aid, and comfort because right now, it seems like these groups feel they have a fellow traveler and supporter in the White House – the highest office in the land. That is helping to embolden them, and it is harmful and detrimental.

Shroder: One of the things which was shocking in Charlottesville, was the sheer amount of military kit these guys could purchase. These guys were wearing paramilitary kit, so what responsibility does the Commonwealth have to say ‘you can’t show up in public gatherings in body armor with long guns’?

Herring: The governor has established a commission to review the after-action to see whether there are conditions we can attach to permits to help improve public safety. I think in addition to that we need to take a look at our private militia laws to make sure that they are as strong and as broad as they need to be. To make certain that when there are paramilitary groups out there, they are under the control of the civil authority and not operating autonomously on their own. That may require some legislative change and I am looking at that very carefully right now. I may be bringing something forward next year.

Shroder: Do you think the vehicular attack was an act of terrorism?

Herring: Yes. It was an act of terrorism. The individual was motivated by this kind of political hatred and he weaponized his car. Whether he used a gun or a bomb or a car, it was nonetheless lethal and fatal to a woman who had the courage to stand up and express her opposition to this kind of hatred and bigotry.

Shroder: Can Fields [the white supremacist who conducted the act] be charged with terrorism in the Commonwealth or does that have to be a federal charge?

Herring: The local Charlottesville police investigated the case and the local prosecutor is the one responsible for bringing the charges. But there is no question in my mind and I think to most people’s understanding that this was an act of terrorism.

LGBTQ Equality:

Shroder: Our editor at GayRVA couldn’t be here, but she wanted us to ask you this: “The Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently argued in favor of businesses being allowed to discriminate against customers and employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which brings us to the fact that neither sexual or gender identity are protected in Virginia at a state level.”

Herring: Where do I begin?! First, we have joined a group of states’ attorney generals to take a different view of the case where the DOJ is arguing that position. I have been very proud to fight for and advocate for the rights of the LGBTQ community in Virginia. Whether it was 11 days after taking office, and announcing that we were going to bring Virginia into the fight for marriage equality. Or issuing a legal opinion to school boards that they had the legal authority to include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies. Or issuing legal opinions to members of the legislature that discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual orientation might be discrimination depending on how federal law evolves. There are many decisions in federal courts that would make it discrimination.

These are issues that are being fought out in courts across the country, which is one reason why Virginian’s have an Attorney General who will stand up and fight for their rights. My opponent has a very different view. He said marriage equality was quote, ‘totally made up’, and he would use the powers of the office to roll it back.

Shroder: It seems like we’ve made so much progress towards marriage equality, so is that just pandering to the base because the base has continued voice to be vocal on this issue; or is this just a move towards the usual conservatism?

Herring: I take him at his word that this is what he believes. It is a reminder that progress is not always linear, nor is it inevitable. It is something that all of us need to work hard to move forward. We have made a lot of progress in Virginia and as long as I am Attorney General we are not going to give up the hard-fought gains and we are going to continue to move forward.

Shroder: This has been a great interview, lots of ground covered. Any parting words to our readers?

Herring: What I care about is engaging them [young people] on issues important to them. A lot of people might not know exactly what the Attorney General does, but when I talk about some of the work we’ve been doing over the last four years: breaking Virginia into the fight for marriage equality, successfully defending our Chesapeake Bay clean up plan, helping dreamers find an affordable college education, successfully defending the Affordable Care Act from another cynical legal challenge and taking it all the way to the Supreme Court and winning, standing up to President Trump’s Muslim Ban and winning, fighting the heroin and opioid epidemic and bringing in a lot of new ideas, addressing campus sexual violence across the state, and taking a survivor-centered and trauma-informed approach.

When young people hear the work we’ve been doing over the past four years, they do get excited and say ‘an Attorney General can do these things?’. That is what I’ve been wanting to do, to find ways to break through and talk to young people where they are – like with your publication – and help get the word out about what an Attorney General can do for them – not to flatter you!

 

Virginia Politics Sponsored by F.W. Sullivans

 

Democrat Schuyler VanValkenburg is bringing the fight to Henrico Republicans

David Streever | August 23, 2017

Topics: Elections, interviews, Virginia House of Delegates

National politics are local in Henrico, a new battleground for the Democratic party in Virginia. For the first time in living memory, every district went blue in the 2016 presidential election. However, it’s not a sure bet for Democrats, particularly in District 72, where Hillary Clinton edged out then-candidate Trump by only four points. Collectively, Gary Johnson and Ewan McMullin won 6% of the vote in this district.

Schuyler VanValkenburg with his officemate Debra Rodman

Enter local high school history teacher Schulyer VanValkenburg, who is running in District 72 as the Democratic candidate for State Delegate. After 9 years in office, Republican incumbent Jimmie Massie is not seeking re-election; the Republican candidate for the seat is Eddie Whitlock III. He’s a lawyer who specializes in representing creditors and serves as the current Chairman of the Henrico County Republican Committee.  RVA Mag caught up with VanValkenburg at his office opening to ask him some questions about his campaign and to see how it was all going.

Streever: Henrico seems to be shifting blue. Is that driven by local or national issues?

VV: You’re definitely seeing Henrico become more Democratic, and it’s local and national issues [when knocking] on the doors. People are increasingly concerned with the rhetoric and actions coming out of DC. But national issues aren’t their only concern. They’re concerned about schools. How can we make sure kids can prosper? How do we make sure kids are in a position to succeed? These are very local issues we talk about, but they’re affected by the national, and people are starting to feel the pinch from national decisions.

Streever: Like healthcare or jobs.

VV: Right, like Medicaid for example. If we were to expand Medicaid in our district alone, it’s over 2,000 people insured, over 100 jobs. People understand that those national issues connect locally. People are excited about the Democratic party and what it stands for.

Streever: The Atlantic Coastal Pipeline was a divisive issue for Democrats statewide. Where do you stand?

VV: I’m not pro-pipeline–I’d like to see us more aggressively move toward renewable energy–but it seems like this pipeline is going through. As a legislator, my responsibility will be to make sure that environmental regulations are being met in a fair and above-ground process, and property rights must be respected.

Clean energy is on the horizon, and I think it’s neglectful that the state is not doing what it can to incentivize clean energy. This is the first year we’ve had more solar jobs than coal jobs, and we should be encouraging that. That’s where the jobs of the future are. Let’s create middle class jobs, let’s make sure they’re careers that people can retire from. This is a project for a whole generation.

Streever: Some legislators have pledged to not take contributions from Dominion. Will you?

VV: To be above-ground and to do away with an appearance of conflict, I took the pledge. That doesn’t make me pro- or anti-Dominion, it’s just a way of keeping my decision-making clearly separated. Because they’re a state-regulated monopoly, the legislature has to work with them. The best thing we can do with Dominion is work toward the future, which is green energy.

Streever: Tom Perriello, who was anti-ACP, is headlining your office opening. Nationally, the party seems split between two wings, Sanders and the establishment. Do you identify with either?

VV: I’m going to keep it local; I’m a Tim Kaine Democrat. He represents the best of what it means to be a Democrat. He stands up for equality, inclusion, and he is pragmatic about expanding opportunities for people. He’s willing to get down and pass laws that will benefit people, whether that’s the economy or on healthcare.

Streever: On local issues, you and your opponent seem to really differ on education; was this the biggest issue for you?

VV: Education is the core of our candidacy because it’s the core of this county, the core of my career. People move to Henrico because it has some of the best schools in the state. It’s really at the foundation for this community.

The better your public schools, the less crime you have. There are so many studies showing that children with better educations are in less trouble and more likely to prosper. This is a big divide. My opponent is a fan of vouchers, privatizing schools, virtual schools. That’s something I wholeheartedly reject and I think it’s something our county rejects.

Streever: It’s national and it’s local–Richmond author Tressie McMillan Cottom wrote a best-seller, Lower Ed, that highlights the perils of for-profit collegiate education.

VV: Yeah, I’ve read that. People have seen the state neglect education over the last decade, since the recession. They’ve neglected it in funding. Counties are paying double now. It’s put a huge burden on Henrico, that’s why you have larger class sizes, less support staff.

They’ve also been neglectful on testing. Our current testing is very poor. We need state government working for our public schools, and we can’t afford to fund two systems with privatization.

Streever: What can you do as a legislator that you can’t do as a teacher?

VV: Having a public school teacher in the assembly–that matters, but actual change will be accomplished through legislation. Most legislators aren’t public school teachers. How do we fix student assessment? Right now, we assess them purely through a testing mechanism of SOLs, which are a bad test. So we are not creating whole students.

People talk about things we used to have in school. Music and art, tech training, apprenticeships. Those are gone because the general assembly focused on test scores in core subject areas. Economically, we have a whole generation of students who don’t have the skills to get into jobs that don’t require college.

Justin Fairfax [Ed: Democratic candidate for Lt Governor] talks about this. There’s over 100,000 jobs that require more than a high-school diploma, less than a college degree. An apprenticeship or job training program can get those kids really solid middle-class jobs.

Why are we asleep at the wheel on this? It’s the incentive structure the General Assembly put into place. Those are areas where you can get bipartisan agreement, but it requires people in public education to build awareness around what’s working and what’s not.

Streever: One of the speakers at your opening, Congressman Donald McEachin, has launched a federal probe into discrimination at local schools. Is this something you’re familiar with?

VV: I’ve been following this. The suspension rates and disparities in education are very troubling. The way we punish kids is not effective. You have the troubling civil rights issue and the effectiveness issue. When you suspend kids in such a high volume you aren’t doing the core duty of educating them and creating the opportunities they need as they move forward in life. I think Congressman McEachin is on solid ground here.

Streever: You’ve been vocal on Charlottesville. How do you think this discussion will unfold here in Richmond?

VV: Charlottesville is a clarifying moment for a lot of people. We are clearly at the point in our history where we either need to remove or contextualize these monuments. I think Dr. Northam was right though, we need to move this issue to the localities.

Whether you put them in a museum or contextualize them on-site as Mayor Stoney is trying to do, if we do it correctly, we can tell the fuller picture, which recognizes the awful legacy of racism and slavery that are part of our history. I think Mayor Stoney’s commission is an exemplary model of an inclusive and democratic approach.

Charlottesville tells us that equality and inclusion, core American values, will always have to be talked about and fought for. We need leaders who are going to stand up and say when something is wrong, because this is the core of who we are as a country. This is America; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people.

Streever: There was a wave of KKK fliers distributed in Henrico on Monday, right after the march in Charlottesville. What can you do about something like that?

VV: It’s imperative for leaders to condemn those things. People need to know that it’s not acceptable. As a Constitutional nerd, I bring up Martin Luther King and his I Have A Dream speech. He talks about the promissory note of the Declaration. He recognized that those are values that we have to constantly stand up for. You have to make them true as leaders and as citizens.

Schuyler discussing issues with a supporter

Streever: What’s the difference between teaching and running for office?

VV: It’s the same. It’s all about talking to people, explaining why things matter, why you should care about these ideas. It’s a lot like teaching. I hope I’m never seen as the talking points candidate, because I have too much fun talking about these things and having these conversations.

To learn more about VanValkenburg and his platform, visit his campaign website or Facebook page.

Northam vs Gillespie: An overview of the first Governor’s debate

Stephen Wood | July 24, 2017

Topics: Debate, Ed Gillespie, Elections, Governor, Ralph Northam, Virginia Elections

The first debate between Virginia’s gubernatorial candidates took place at the Virginia Bar Association’s summer meeting on Sat., July 22.  RVA Mag was on the scene to bring a blow by blow account of the sparring match between Democrat Ralph Northam and Republican Ed Gillespie.

The Opening Salvo: Pipelines and Guns

The first attack on Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam did not come from Republicans, but the progressive base of his own party.

Northam had barely started his opening statement when a protester interrupted him with cries of “No pipeline!” The project he was referencing, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), has become an internal flashpoint between establishment party members and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Northam, Gillespie, and Dominion Power all support the ACP.

The audience laughed as the activist shouted, “This stage is owned by Dominion Power!” before being escorted away, but the incident highlighted the extent to which both candidates have distanced themselves from the more vocal elements of their own parties.

Unfazed, Northam immediately linked his opponent Ed Gillespie to President Donald Trump.

Ralph Northam. Photo by Norfolk Democrats.

“I believe the president is a dangerous man,” said Northam, adding that Trump “lies like a rug.” This was a familiar refrain, as his campaign has dedicated much of its energy to linking Gillespie with the deeply unpopular president.

On that issue – as well as on issues like the Second Amendment – Gillespie stuck to his proverbial guns, saying that he would work with the Trump administration, but that the gubernatorial race should be about Virginia, not Washington.

“I don’t agree with everything the president says or tweets,” said Gillespie. “But my focus is on Virginia.”

The Chase: Immigration, Healthcare, Weed, and Guns 

Gillespie cautiously sidestepped his personal opinion of the president. Instead, he pivoted instantly to defense spending when asked if he would continue to support Trump in the event he fired Robert Mueller – special counsel for the investigation into the president’s ties with Russia.

Northam then attacked Gillespie on reproductive rights and gun control. This earned him applause for the assertion that “legislators, most of whom are men, continue to tell women what to do with their bodies.”

Early and often, Gillespie argued that Virginia had fallen behind economically during Northam’s tenure as lieutenant governor.

Gillespie also mentioned several times that he is the son of an immigrant, claiming he “can relate” to those who are here “through no fault of their own.” Yet in the same breath, he echoed the president’s harsh stance on immigration.

When pressed by the moderator, Judy Woodruff of PBS NewsHour, he eventually revealed he would not challenge the Trump administration’s deportation policies.

Northam seized on this opportunity to draw a contrast between himself and Gillespie.

“Virginia has to be inclusive, our lights have to be on. Our doors have to be open,” Northam said. Not long after his message of inclusivity, he seemed to double back by adding, “ICE should be allowed to do their job.” It was a sentiment he shared with Gillespie, but clearly not with the more progressive wing of his own party.

As the two went back and forth over relatively minor points on immigration, Woodruff bluntly asked both to explain where they differed on the issue. Gillespie stated that he was opposed to allowing undocumented immigrants to attend state universities, likening Northam’s education plans to those of Bernie Sanders who called for undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition – a common Republican tactic.

When it was time to debate healthcare, Northam leaned on his experiences as a doctor and the unpopularity of Trump’s recently failed healthcare initiatives, as he has for most of the campaign. Northam repeatedly emphasized how many Virginians are in imminent danger of losing medial coverage.

Gillespie, of course, decried Obamacare as being costly and inefficient. Noticeably omitted was any answer to one of the major questions hanging over the debate: should Republicans repeal Obamacare without having a replacement ready?

         Ed Gillespie. Photo by Ed Gillespie

Northam, usually a firm centrist, every now and then did go full progressive. This was especially true when it came to criminal justice reform and one of the more sweeping elements of this platform – decriminalizing marijuana.

It is no secret that Northam wants to end the prohibition of marijuana, however, it still felt like a watershed moment to hear a major-party candidate (with a calm Eastern Shore voice) say, “We need to sit down at the table and talk about decriminalizing marijuana.” More than once during the primary he spoke about the disproportionate rate of incarceration for African American communities over marijuana usage.

Gillespie made no comment about marijuana decriminalization, but there’s little doubt where he stands. Republican Attorney General Jeff Sessions has already started taking steps to re-enforce mandatory minimum sentencing over non-violent drug offenses.

Northam also noted that he differed from Gillespie and, for that matter, Governor Terry McAuliffe in his opposition to the death penalty – referencing the high-profile execution of William Morva on July 6.

One of the most jarring moments came as the conversation turned to the Second Amendment.

Northam described the flow of guns into Virginia as another “pipeline” that needs to be shut down. As the audience reacted to his sobering reminder about the Virginia Tech massacre and the importance of keeping guns off campus, Gillespie responded by proudly referencing his A rating from the National Rifle Association.

The Grand Finale: Establishment, Establishment  

Much of the first gubernatorial debate boiled down to a checklist of establishment viewpoints on various issues important to both parties in the Commonwealth.

In fact, the furthest either candidate strayed from the base of their own party was Northam’s support of the natural gas pipelines, something many Virginia Democrats, liberals, activists, and progressives actively oppose.

“It was exactly what we expected, and excruciatingly disappointing,” said Richard Averitt, an anti-pipeline activist who also attended the debate – in reference to Northam’s stance on the ACP. “He’s lieutenant governor, and a huge percentage of his down-ticket candidates have all taken the right position on this, which is a no-pipeline position, and he is staying the course.”

“We’ll write in ‘No Pipeline,’” said his wife, Jill Averitt, when asked if either candidate had won their support.

After the debate, Northam reiterated that he did oppose fracking, but would allow fracked oil to enter the state via the ACP if it could be done responsibly. A short time later, he left to join his opponent and their respective entourages at a reception sponsored by Dominion Power.

A neutral observer would have a hard time deciding who won, a predictable outcome for a debate between two establishment candidates. While Northam hit his predetermined talking points and fired off a few memorable quotes, he came off stiff next to Gillespie, whose conversational tone provided cover for his refusal to give straight answers on some fairly important questions. Nor does it bode well for Northam that the pipeline protest – which he inexplicably referred to several times throughout the later stages of the debate – was the most memorable event of the afternoon, highlighting the internal schism between the different wings of the Democratic Party of Virginia.

  • ⟨
  • Page 1
  • Page 2

sidebar

sidebar-alt