Senior Statesmen of Virginia
Candidate Forum
13 October 2004

I want to thank all of you for sponsoring this forum today. Especially, I want to thank Gene Smith for her persistence in getting Mr. Goode and me together in this very busy campaign season.

More importantly, I want to thank Mr. Goode for agreeing to a large number of debates throughout the District. When the press does its job, voters should be well informed about the differences between Mr. Goode and me. As Mr. Goode will argue throughout, he and I are very different.

Last night in Danville the moderator asked each of us what was the most important issue in this campaign. I said health care - a topic on which I spoke at length before this very group in August and will discuss a bit this afternoon.

Mr. Goode said that the most important issue is that I am a very liberal candidate while he represent "the values of Southside". He also asserted that I wanted to be in Washington full time to attend parties, while he, putting the 5th District over D.C., would continue to spend most of his time away from where the real work of a Congressman is done.

Let me help you understand what Mr. Goode seems to be saying.

Using the label "liberal" used to be the kiss of death in a conservative district. You notice that he, a member of the Party that has run up the largest deficit in the history of the world, had the decency to leave off the formerly very popular qualifying phrase "tax and spend". So, let's see what it means to be a "liberal" running in the 5th District.

It must be "liberal" to be concerned with fiscal responsibility. I, an alleged "liberal" won't insult your intelligence by saying we can increase non-defense spending more than any other administration and still give massive tax cuts to the wealthy. It used to be conservative to say that if we are going to engage in a war of choice we ought to have the tax revenues to pay for it. Seems that only "liberals" are saying that these days.

If I have my history right it was those liberal icons, George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, who warned us about what today the Bush Administration is calling a "generational commitment to building democracy in Iraq". Nation building by any name you give it has always been anathema to conservatives. Seems that only "liberals" are saying that these days.

Since this nation was formed it has been conservative to take a "strict constructionist view" of the US Constitution. Mr. Goode has sponsored at least seven proposed amendments to that founding document. Last night he even agreed that he would support an amendment to ensure that the phrase "under God" remains in the Pledge of Allegiance. Historically, with the exception of Prohibition, amendments have been used to expand rights for Americans. Mr. Goode would use the Constitution as a Christmas tree for his posturing radical right wing views. Conservatives used to revere the US Constitution. Seems that only "liberals" are saying that these days.

Mr. Goode claims to support the protection of Social Security, yet has voted for every tax cut - including the one that would give Bill Gates' family a $22 Billion estate tax break - proposed by the Bush Administration. The Social Security trust fund, made secure only twenty years ago by increasing the contributions of working people and small business, now is being put in jeopardy as it is being drained to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. Conservatives objected to Social Security when that frightful liberal FDR introduced it, but I know of no one today who refuses to accept payments earned through years of hard work. Conservatives used to say that it was a family value to ensure the security of our parents in their old age. Seems that only "liberals" are saying that these days.

The Republican party has entered this election year bragging about "Medicare Reform" and all the benefits that it will bring to older Americans. Few conservatives call this "socialized" medicine today, or suggest a more efficient way to provide these necessary benefits. But, Mr. Goode would have us believe that a Medicare expanded to all Americans is "socialized medicine". Conservatives used to support government services that could reduce costs to the economy, help small business and manufacturers, provide for a healthy work force and increase the competitive nature of our economy. Seems that only "liberals" are saying that these days.

It used to be that conservatives understood the dangers of government intrusion into our personal lives. It also used to be conservatives who understood how important it was to keep religion out of public life if religious freedom for all of us was to be secure. In fact, in 1994, Mr. Goode, running as a conservative against Chuck Robb, stated on choice: "I oppose governmental interference with a woman's right to make her own decision in this very personal matter." Seems that only "liberals" are saying that these days.

The core of the difference between Mr. Goode and me, though, is his belief that it is acceptable to use public stigmatizing to exclude a whole class of Americans from enjoying full rights. In yet another opportunistic appeal to the innate bigotry that tempts all of us, Mr. Goode has opposed "gay marriages" because, among other reasons, these would "destroy Social Security". As someone who has been a chief henchman in the organized GOP attack on Social Security we might think Mr. Goode would know what he is talking about.

Yet, this is alarmist claptrap for which there are no supporting data. And, even if a large percentage of homosexual Americans entered into legal marriages, and the surviving spouse were to claim survivor benefits, why should they be denied the same Social Security benefits as others can claim? Is this not the core of the argument?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court did not just wake up one morning and call for the legalization of gay marriages. They carefully considered the whole range of laws in place that provide special privileges for "married" straight couples and ruled that to deny these same rights to committed gay couples was unconstitutional.

The religious right has made this to be the end of civilization as we know it. As long as Mr. Goode can convince folks that it is perfectly OK to deny rights to a certain group of Americans, and this is his highest priority, he can hope that people will not focus on his abysmal record of accomplishment as a legislator.

And this is where Mr. Goode and I also differ greatly. He thinks it is enough to answer letters promptly and attend every event possible in the District. After thirty years as a professional politician you'd think he should know a bit about what the people he "represents" need, and should be willing to buckle down and get the job done. After eight years in Congress Mr. Goode has gotten only one substantive bill passed. If the 5th District were really his "First priority" you'd think he'd do more for us.

I made the conscious choice over thirty years ago to move from Washington to farm in Nelson County. I didn't want to raise my children in the city and we have never looked back. I also made the conscious choice last year to run for Congress. I knew, that if I won, I would have to spend a lot of time in that place that we escaped from many
years ago.

A rural Congressman -- and we are in a small minority in this increasingly urban and suburban nation -- must build coalitions across party and geographic lines if issues important to rural constituents are going to be heard. Mr. Goode doesn't seem to understand that. On his own bill to legislate the tobacco buyout so important to many in this District, Mr. Goode was able to get only two other Virginia Congressmen as co-sponsors.

Mr. Goode thinks that working to get support to pass legislation vital to the needs of his district is "partying". I guess, looking at Mr. Goode's record of non-accomplish-ment, no one will accuse Virgil of being a "party animal".

You will also be able to judge us on the difference in what we seek to accomplish for the people of this District.

I will work in Congress for a Medicare expanded that will cover all Americans for health care and prescription drugs. This will lower costs, increase national competitiveness, and free Americans from the daily worry of health care for themselves and their loved ones. Every other industrialized country in the world has this, but Virgil, and his pals in the drug and health insurance industry, will try to persuade you that health care justice and efficiency is a socialized plot. I believe you can think for yourselves.

I will work to bring short term jobs to the suffering areas of the 5th District, and, through imaginative use of Federal funds for a research university, long term development to the struggling Southside.

I will be a voice for reason about the failed war in Iraq. I will be a Congressman who keeps his eye on the real enemy, Al Qaeda, and not on hard working Mexicans whose only crime is that they will risk their lives to seek opportunity in an economy that cannot do without them.

I will be a defender of the environment and, on this, Mr. Goode and I agree about the primacy of the 5th District. The difference is that I will not vote against EPA funds that can improve impaired waterways in this District as he has done.

I will be a voice for all people in this District - black and white, rich and poor, gay and straight, conservative and liberal, rural and urban. I will work to bring communities together to ensure a bright future for our children and grandchildren.

I will be a leader who will speak for your dreams and hopes. I will help us all to leave behind our bitter legacies of hate, fear and division.

I promise you hard work. For a change.