May
23
Vern McKinley Debates Barr, Gravel, Root
Filed Under 2008 Election, Debate, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Press Release, big government | Leave a Comment
Vern McKinley Debates Others Because Frank Wolf Won’t
Ashburn, VA – Reason Magazine held a debate on Libertarian and Republican principles on May 20th. In attendance were Vern McKinley, Mike Gravel, Bob Barr, and Wayne Allen Root. Each of them answered a variety of questions from Reason Magazine’s reporter David Weigel and took questions from the audience.
McKinley talked about immigration, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, limiting the role of government, and drug policies. He said that he would have voted for a more targeted attack of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but would oppose any type of nation building. As for Iraq, he would have voted “no” to go in.
Each of the candidates got to express their opinion on getting rid of a department and Vern chose Commerce, Energy, and Education. He said that Republicans talked about it in the 80s and 90s, but “this time around, we need to get serious and get rid of them all,” McKinley stated.
On the topic of drug prohibition, McKinley stated that the Constitution leaves that issue up to the states.
For those who weren’t there and would like to watch it online, can do so at http://www.reason.tv/video/show/431.html
For further information please contact Michael Parrish at 540-539-7733 or mparrish03@gmail.com.
McKinley is a financial expert who advises foreign countries, has worked for the FDIC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, and has done policy analysis for the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute. He is running for the Republican nomination in the 10th District of Virginia for the House of Representatives. The primary is scheduled to be held on June 10, 2008.
May
5
Mention Of McKinley In Nolan Chart Article
Filed Under 2008 Election, Foreign Policy, Media, News Items | Leave a Comment
Vern McKinley received a nice mention within an article on the Nolan Chart from author, “Jake, the Champion of the Constitution”.
I continue to search for other candidates that will not go to war so carelessly, and I am pleased to report I found another. Vern McKinley is running for the House in the 10th congressional district of Virginia. I wrote Vern an email (info@mckinleyforcongress.com) inquiring as to his stance on wars before sending a donation, with two caveats that I was only considering a piddly donation, and that I didn’t even live in Virginia.
His name is Vern McKinley, and he did something very strange. He wrote me back. (Background - this is from a California resident who has written his Representative and Senators over 60 times, sometimes from a personal email and sometimes using www.downsizedc.org, sometimes reasonably and sometimes frantically. I am still waiting for my first reply, its like writing to a wall)
Read the full article at The Nolan Chart.
Apr
30
Loudoun Times: Vern McKinley Challenges Frank Wolf
Filed Under 2008 Election, Earmarks, Economics, Foreign Policy, Frank Wolf, News Items, Republicans, Taxes, big government | Leave a Comment
An article in the Loudoun Times discusses Vern McKinley’s challenge to Frank Wolf in Virginia’s 10th District.
McKinley is firmly against the federal government contributing money to the Metrorail extension out to Loudoun. The main reason, he said, is that voters need to get away from thinking of members of Congress as “ATM machines and Santa Clause.”
“Your oath as a congressman,” he said, “is not to get as much money for your district as possible.”
Read the full article at the Loudoun Times.
Apr
18
McKinley Interviewed on Winchester ABC TV 4/18/2008 [Video]
Filed Under Earmarks, Economics, Foreign Policy, Media, News Items, Regulation | Leave a Comment
Vern McKinley was interviewed this morning on ABC TV 3 in Winchester, Virginia. He covers why he is running, the stumbling economy, earmarks, and the Iraq war.
Check out the interview video at the TV 3 web site.
Jan
17
Contact: Brad Jansen
703-470-5042
Ashburn, VA—Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in late December highlights the continued heavy involvement of the U. S. in directing the affairs of governments around the world. This involvement is underwritten by the American taxpayer. In the aftermath of Bhutto’s assassination, in a country where the U.S. supported the rise of Musharraf, a self-appointed military dictator, the question is whether the U.S. should get more or less involved in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
The U.S. has spent over $10 billion in aid to Pakistan since September 11th. Congressman Frank Wolf, incumbent in the 10th District of Virginia, is a leading advocate of this spending evidenced by his successful attempt to restore $50 million in aid that House Democrats had slated for elimination in 2007.
Some commentators have argued we should pull back and become less involved in managing the affairs of Pakistan. John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, noted immediately after the assassination: “This ought to tell us not to micromanage what goes on in a country like this. What we have now is a prescription for chaos,” he explained. In a separate interview on Fox News he further noted that “in part, the United States is responsible for this.”
On the left, some have argued for more involvement in managing the internal affairs of Pakistan. For example Bill Richardson, who until recently was pursuing the Democratic Party nomination for President argued that “Musharraf must go,” referring to the current President of Pakistan. He further detailed precisely how the Pakistani government should move forward with “a temporary government of technocrats, supported externally by a coalition of the main democratic parties.”
Vern McKinley, Congressman Wolf’s Republican primary challenger, put forward a realistic approach that advances U.S. national security: “We have to put an end to this picking of winners and losers in the internal workings of sovereign countries. Who are we to tell Pakistan how to run their government?” McKinley also noted: “When the U.S. intervenes in countries like Pakistan it inures to the benefit of those in power and promotes a backlash. As a result, our interests will hold less sway, and our international reputation diminishes. Given the current uncertainties and the backlash against the United States, the $10 billion we sent to Pakistan since September 11th was not well spent.”
-
Loading...
Login
Register
Retrieve password