Abortion Revisted

I finally realized what has been bothering me about the Whig position on abortion.  At first, I thought it reasonable to defer decisions about abortion to the states.  It made sense to not legislate it at the federal level.  Additionally, practically speaking there would have to be a massive change in public opinion to bring about a Constitutional Amendment.  Then each state could determine its own law.

This would make it palatable to a certain type of Republican that may be interested in joining our party.  Unfortunately, it would turn away a certain type of Democrat.  Initially what bothered me about this is that it is currently legal in the country and we were proposing a regression of that legal status when we defer to the states.

Today I realized what the real disconnect is.  The Whig Party platform on Social Advancement is that the Government should refrain from legislating morality.  This I agree with 100%.  The problem comes from the fact that we are enabling states to legislate morality, in the case of abortion.

Does the party platform on legislating morality only apply to the federal level and we would encourage it at the state level?  Or are we to find some consistency in our position and say that we are against legislating morality at all levels of government?  If the answer is the second position, then our policy toward abortion should be that we support the current legal status.  This should apply to other situations of morality as well.

So what comes first, States Rights or Not Legislating Morality?

Whig Cookery

Please leave recipes for your excellent Whig dishes, contemporary or historical, in the comments!

The Forgotten 10th Amendment

From the Whig:  http://whigblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/forgotten-10th-amendment.html

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers..... United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).

In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided the 10th Amendment to be a nullity, which adds nothing to the Constitution. As an amendment, and part of the bill of rights, one would think it would be as important as any other part. But that is not how Supreme Court decisions view it. How did this happen?

Democratic Issues

I asked several democratic friends to look at the national Modern Whig Party Issues and respond with some positions they had and other issues that weren't covered.  I responded.


Gay Marriage - Democrats want it to pass.  The Whigs want this as well. However it is a state issue. Each state can decide on it's own whether and how far to support this issue. I would vote for it.


comprehensive health care reform - Dems want it.  Some support single-payer not for profit health care.  I think it should be a state issue. At least, not the comprehensive part. I want universal coverage - no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, affordable healthcare, tort reform, maintain the free market mechanism.


increased regulation of financial industries - Not mentioned. Federal issue. I want this too.


foreign policy - less unilateral and macho.  Federal issue. I think we should be able to act without approval from the UN. We should only go with support from our allies.


education - reformed so that we have education that is affordable and effective for everyone.  I agree with this. State issue. Here is what is said by the Whig Party:

Increased public and private emphasis on fields such as space, oceanic, medical and nanotechnology. Also, providing common-sense solutions to enhance our educational system from pre-school to university-level studies.

political financing reform - Not mentioned. I am for this. Federal issue.


Environmental Protection - 
His point:

I agree that we must eliminate our dependence on foreign oil wholeheartedly. However, the notion that clean coal exists is, from a scientific perspective, false. Though the technology exists to decrease the amount of pollution the burning of coal causes, it cannot be eliminated completely. In fact, the clean coal process only eliminates approximately 41% of emissions. With this aside, we also have to take into account the destruction of the environment to obtain the coal. Living in Appalachia myself, I have witnessed first hand the barbaric practice. On one ridge you'll have a beautiful assortment of wildlife surrounded by breathtaking scenery. Top over that ridge and it's as if a nuclear bomb has been dropped. The water is tainted and undrinkable, even after attempted purification; and this water runs directly into citizens' wells and water tables.

My response:

Well, to me clean coal means it is cleaner than before, not completely devoid of pollutants. I do realize that coal mining is very destructive, especially to the water table, but once the mining is done, successful replanting of the land is possible.

I regret the absence of nuclear technology, from the Whig platform, for environmental protection and energy.

The reality is that green technologies don't come close to meeting the energy needs of the population or of industry. They don't yield enough energy. The only things that do are: nuclear, oil, coal, natural gas. Coal is with us to stay.

Immigration - 
His point:

I don't agree with the suggested path to citizenship. I want to offer amnesty and a path to citizenship that doesn't involve military service.

My response:

I feel that way to, but the problem is that it will not stem the tide of illegal immigrants over the border. It is impossible to secure the border. 

Church and State Separation - 
His point:

I don't feel as if any religious icon should be displayed on or in any government location in the true spirit of secularism and separation from religion.

My response:

This country was not founded on secularism. That is not the meaning of separation of church and state. The actual meaning is that the state will stay out of the business of the church, not that the church stays out of the business of the state. So no national religion and no pope. But it is perfectly fine to teach religion in school and displays of faith in a government context is fine.

Divisive Issues

I wanted to post on what I see as a couple of divisive issues between the right and the left, and how the Whigs position themselves in relation.  Let me reiterate that I do not speak for the Whigs, I am merely using their national Modern Whig Party website to view their issues.  One of the items I will talk about is called out in their issues, but the other is not.  As we are a moderate party, we look to attract moderates from both parties.  These divisive issues could exclude potential members from one or the other party.  The worse situation is if we choose in line with the Democratic principle on one issue and choose in line with the Republican principle on the other issue, and then we are left with no new members as each says, oh no I can't join because of X or Y.

First, the issue is abortion.  It seems that there are only 2 positions one can have on abortion, pro-life or pro-choice.  Although this post is not about my personal positions, I am pro-choice.  The current law of the land is pro-choice.  I think the Whig position is ultimately the right position, which is that each state should decide on abortion.  This is a standard position for the whigs, to get the state involved.  There are a few problems with this position, however.  

There is the fact that to get the states to decide on abortion, we would need a Constitutional Amendment to send the issue to the states.  A Constitutional Amendment requires 2/3 of the Congress to send it to the states.  Another possibility is if 2/3 of the states demand it, then it will go to the states.  Once it goes to the states, 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify it.  This is a tall order.

Another problem with the Whig position, for pro-choicers, is that since the law of the land is pro-choice, liberals will be potentially giving up their rights to move the decision to the states.  In reality, because the first issue is such a tall order, it seems likely that this is not a practical concern.

Although it is a tall order, this issue seems positioned to attract Republican moderates.

The other divisive issue I wanted to mention is that of strict constructionists.   Strict constructionism is a Constitutional argument that the powers of the federal government are explicitly defined, and so the implementation of entitlement programs are unconstitutional.

In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 the Taxing and Spending Clause contains the General Welfare Clause, in bold:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 This is followed be a list of explicit powers.  Then we look at the Tenth Amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 Which is argued that it places a limit on the explicit powers.  Loose constructionists claim that the General Welfare Clause above allows the government to define implicit powers not called out in the Constitution.  Alexander Hamilton says of this paraphrased from Wikipedia

the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

The current situation is based on Hamilton's interpretation for loose constructionism.  Practically speaking, it will take a decision by the Supreme Court, heavy with jurists who are strict constructionists, to have a changed outcome on this issue.  This will abolish Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and some say the FBI, FAA, and many other federal agencies.  These would all need to be enacted through Constitutional Amendments or implemented by the state.

Whig Issues.  The Whigs want to use States Rights as a way to move moral issues out of the sphere of the federal government, so this applies to issues such as abortion and gay rights.  What is less clear is what the Whig position is on entitlements.  Under Fiscal Responsibility, the Whig Issues state:

The Modern Whig philosophy is to empower the states with the resources to handle their unique affairs.

While under Health care they state:

The Modern Whig Party is continuing to work with experts in the field to develop a realistic, common-sense proposal for this issue.

and there is no mention of the involvement of the states. 

I personally see the argument made for strict constructionism, and so I would like to see a SCOTUS decision.  I think that entitlements are best left to the states and different states can decide different types of entitlements, including Welfare, Social Security, and Healthcare to include Medicaid and Medicare.  

This is clearly a Republican versus Democratic issue as well.  My personal position is the Republican side, on both issues I am mentioning today.  This is in opposition to my desire to see Democratic moderates join the Whigs.   I don't know what issues are important to them but I intend to find out.  [ed.  perhaps the Whig position on abortion and my personal opinion on strict constructionism are not problems for Democratic moderates.  It would still be good to get an idea of the issues they feel strongly about.]

Whig Flyer

Here is some images from the flyer I created.  I printed 100 of them, at 50 cents a flyer.

Whig Flyer

Great American Smokeout

I still enjoy my cigarettes, but I wish I could quit.  I've tried 9 times with Zyban, Chantix, patches, gum, exercise.   None of it works.  I just enjoy it too much.

Great American Smokeout 2009: Which states have most smokers?

Those promoting Thursday's Great American Smokeout 2009 have their work cut out for them. That's because cigarette use among Americans, after declining for decades, has remained virtually unchanged for five straight years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

That's about 46 million smokers in the US – or 20.6 percent of the adult population. Every day, 1,000 young people become new smokers, the CDC says. (The level in 2004 was 20.9 percent, dipping to 19.7 in 2007.)

"At the national level, we're kind of stuck," Matthew McKenna, director of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, told WebMD. "Now we're back to where we had been. Too many bars, restaurants, and construction sites are still exempted from smoke-free laws."

Seventeen states ban smoking in bars, restaurants, and workplaces. Fourteen other states prohibit smoking in one or two of those three categories, The New York Times has reported.

But cigarette use varies state to state. Utah has the smallest share of smokers, with 9 percent of its adult population reporting cigarette use. West Virginia has the highest percentage – nearly 27 percent are smokers. It's followed closely by Indiana, at 26.5 percent, and Kentucky and Missouri at 25 percent.

My take on healthcare

Here is my take on healthcare.  You can also find it in the Issues page linked above.

1. Necessity: Healthcare is a necessity for a well functioning society, designed along the lines of compulsory education.
2. States Rights: Each state should implement their own healthcare coverage.  Some will choose single payer.  Others will have a regulated market.
3. Coverage: Everyone is covered - no exclusion for pre-existing conditions.
4. Affordability: No one should have to pay too much - put the high-cost patients in a large enough actuarial group to spread the cost.
5. Choice: You can choose the doctors, specialists and drug companies you do business with.
6. Competition: Protect the free enterprise nature of the industry - not so much the insurance companies, but the drug companies, hospitals, research labs, equipment/device companies.  
7. Funding: There is some federal tax dollars given to those states who implement compulsory healthcare.  State taxes pay for the rest.  One idea is to allot an amount to the insurance card carrier.  That person will spend that money.  If you need to exceed the amount alloted, your insurance rates will go up to a higher bracket which is also subsidized by state taxes.
8. Medicaid and Medicare: These remain federal programs for those states that do not adopt compulsory healthcare.  They become part of the state program for those states that do adopt compulsory healthcare.  The federal funds will go to the state, and will be phased out over time as the state collects revenue for these programs.

more opinion about Afghanistan

A friend and I were debating Afghanistan and whether counterinsurgency would work without sufficient troops to implement security for the population.  His suggestion was to pursue a strategy of counterterrorism.  The following article has something to say about that.

Excepts from the Afghanistan Myths article by Tom Cotton 

1) A counterterrorism campaign is an effective alternative to counterinsurgency.  Some analysts believe precision counterterrorism strikes can defeat al Qaeda without a simultaneous counter-insurgency. This logic is faulty for several reasons.

First, General McChrystal is a counterterrorism expert, yet he has proposed a full-spectrum counterinsurgency. A decorated Green Beret, he has commanded the Army's Ranger Regiment, Delta Force, and Navy SEALs. His recommendation is entitled to great weight.

Second, a counterterrorism-only approach will lack actionable intelligence. Senior al Qaeda operatives are extremely hard to track at a distance: They move constantly, live among fierce loyalists, and avoid phones, radios, and computers. The best intelligence tends to come as tips from cooperative locals who have come to trust troops on the ground. Locals can't provide such tips if there are no troops to give them to.

Third, our counterterrorism tools have fatal limitations. Predator drones and special-operations forces have limited ranges and need in-country bases, which generate large protective forces, vulnerable supply lines, and sensitive political questions. Aerial or

2) The Afghan people don't want us there.  Although we frequently hear that the fiercely tribal and proud Afghans instinctively rebel against foreign forces, I did not encounter this sentiment during my deployment. Afghans rarely objected to our presence, but they did complain that we haven't provided basic security. When I asked if they would accept more American troops in exchange for improved security, the overwhelming answer was yes....

3) America cannot win a war in Afghanistan, the "graveyard of empires." How can America succeed where Alexander the Great, the British, and the Soviet Union struggled? This refrain belongs, as they say now in the military, in the graveyard of analogies....

4) America needs a new political partner before committing more troops. This myth stands counterinsurgency doctrine on its head. A government battling an insurgency is by definition weak, else the insurgency would never have gained strength. We must accept this inescapable fact and focus on helping improve President Hamid Karzai's government, not use it as an excuse to abandon his government....

5) We should not put troops in harm's way without thorough debate. True, but we already have 68,000 troops very much in harm's way, and they urgently need reinforcements. The continuing delay demoralizes those soldiers and puts them at greater risk. Also, our allies among the Afghan people and government and in the Pakistani government are wondering if America is truly committed to victory. According to General McChrystal, the security situation is deteriorating and may be irreversible unless we can seize the initiative in the next year--and he made that assessment in August. To put it bluntly, we are not winning in Afghanistan, and without more troops we will lose....

6) The military will break if we send more troops to Afghanistan. This fear, heard often about Iraq in 2004-06, is no truer now than it was then. At the 2007 peak, the United States had 200,000 troops deployed to Iraq (170,000) and Afghanistan (30,000). Currently, there are 110,000 troops in Iraq and 68,000 in Afghanistan, well below that peak. And 60,000 troops are expected to leave Iraq by next August as more troops flow into Afghanistan. Thus, overall deployed troop levels in 2010 will remain the same or fall....

Read the whole thing.  Points 1 and 4 are the ones that interest me.  When I was having the debate on counterterrorism, Tom's first point above, the second sub-point Tom makes is the one that struck me.  We need actionable HUMINT to generate targets for counterterrorism units.  How do we get that without a counterinsurgency force in country?

Point 4 concerns me, as there is no strong ties between local government and the national government, and there is a lot of corruption at both levels.

Several items that concern me that were not on Tom's list are the existence of sanctuaries in Pakistan, seemingly out of our reach, and whether there are sufficient troops for counterinsurgency.  You can't win a counterinsurgency with untouched sanctuaries, so the theory tells us.  The lack of sufficient troops means that we will have to pursue an oil spot strategy, where we secure specific towns and grow security outwardly.

On Being A Whig

The Whig has a couple of posts, On Being A Whig and On Being A Whig, Continued, where he expounds on the origins of the Whig philosophy:

a belief that the paramount public value is the freedom of the individual.

He goes on to define the political philosophy of the Whigs as classical liberalism.  This is distinct from conservatism, on the right, and social democracy, on the left.  The two posts spend most of their words in distinguishing classical liberalism from conservatism.

Since the first Whigs developed in England, we have pursued this great and simple idea. We Whigs believe in a society in which every individual is free to do their best. For Americans today, it means each citizen living his or her own life, and doing the best for himself and herself. The one idea which has united Whigs for nearly four hundred years is that of freedom. While staying true to our legacy, we must address old problems with a fresh mind, as well as addressing new challenges unencumbered by the weight of old prejudices and certitudes. The central task of a Whig, from which all else follows and upon which all else depends, is to maximize the freedom of the individual.

"We have realised that men and women are not just ciphers in a calculation, but are individual human beings whose individual welfare and development must be the main concern of government … We have learned that the right answer is to set the individual free, to aim at equality of opportunity, to protect the individual against oppression, to create a society in which rights and duties are recognized and made effective.” -- Robert Menzies

Likewise, Whigs must be "a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary, but believing in the individual, his rights and enterprise, and rejecting the Socialist panacea."

So are Whigs liberal or conservative? These two terms are overused so much that their original meanings are obscured. Here, by liberal I am referring to what in American we now call "classical liberalism." Aside from the confusion of language, there is a deeper reason why classical liberalism and conservatism are so often confused.

Our public values – personal freedom, toleration of diversity, equality of opportunity, the rule of law – are classically liberal values. In striving to preserve them, the Whigs share the conservative’s instinctive suspicion of change – but not his reasons.

What's the answer on Health Care?

Is it a single-payer system?  Regulation to force coverage of pre-existing conditions?  Force people to buy insurance or send them to jail?

Deep divisions linger on health care talks about some poll results:

Over the past few months, public opinion has solidified, leaving Obama and the Democrats with the political challenge of enacting one of the most ambitious pieces of domestic legislation in decades in the face of a nation split over the wisdom of doing so. In the new poll, 48 percent say they support the proposed changes; 49 percent are opposed.

With the bill through the House, Senate Democrats are now looking for the votes to enact their version of the legislation and keep the reform effort moving forward. Whatever the outcome of the health-care debate, it will have a powerful influence in shaping the political climate for next year's midterm elections.

 It goes into the support for denial of abortion, but I am not even concerned about that issue.  I try to understand how we mandate coverage without single-payer.  How do we limit those on a public option plan?

Maybe single-payer IS the right thing to do.

From a Whig perspective, could this be an issue best left to the States to decide?  Lot's of questions.

Obama's Afghanistan plan: the warlord factor

Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor about Afghanistan and what the proposed surge of troops may look like in the provinces:  Obama's Afghanistan plan: the warlord factor

Each Afghan valley has its own politics, with its own peculiar blend of warlords, tribal leaders, foreign fanatics, Afghan government personnel, and NATO troops. Allegiances can shift quickly, and often in ways known only to Afghans.

The elites in an Afghan province cannot be managed effectively from Washington, nor even from Kabul in most cases. Winning the tribes over is best left to Afghan provincial governors and Afghan and American battalion commanders, who can keep abreast of the shifting local dynamics and customize military and political actions accordingly.

In fact, Gen. Stanley McChrystal's review team has studied the opportunities for further cooperation with warlords and tribal leaders and deemed them an inadequate substitute for additional American combat troops. The facts on the ground tend to support that judgment. According to American officers in Afghanistan today, tribal elders will gladly take US money and assure the US that they are eradicating insurgents, but will not really take up arms against the insurgents, or even share where improvised explosive devices are located, unless the counterinsurgents can protect them and their families from reprisals.

Only by sending tens of thousands of additional American troops and partnering them with Afghan forces can the US provide the security the fence sitters crave.

Northern Virginia Tea Party

I just signed up with the Northern Virginia Tea Party.  I am thinking that there may be some energized moderates that might like the idea of the Whigs.  I need to get some materials to hand out to the public, so I can attend one of the Parties and do some smoozing.  I was thinking about having a very lightweight 5" x 8.5" flyer that could be easily folded up and put in a wallet, a pocket or a purse.  On the flyer, we could have the national party website, a description of the party and the Tenets, and maybe add my blog address as well.

Foreign Affairs

Another good post from The Whig, from earlier this year.  Moderation and Common Sense in Foreign Affairs

Foreign Policy

I was delighted to find this old thread on Foreign Policy on the Sword & Quill forum.   Join and read it and comment.  Non-interventionism, isolationism vs. Foreign interventionism: The winner?. I am quite curious what the Foreign Policy position of the Whigs is. It is absent from the Issues page of the national website - only National Security is there and it only mentions Iraq.


In My Personal Opinion:
Regarding this thread and the idea of Separatism, with allowances for foreign intervention to enforce regime change, I would highly recommend you to read The Pentagon's New Map It divides the world into the Core and the Non-Integrating Gap. It is related to how connected a country is to the process of Globalization. The "gap" incorporates Andean South America, the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and much of southwest Asia. Then, Thomas Barnett divides the military into 2 forces: a quick-strike military to take out combat forces and deal with counterinsurgency, and a "SysAdmin" force with knowledgeable, experienced members to do reconstruction and rebuild governance.

As the world's superpower, we guarantee security in many parts of the world. We guarantee it in the ME with its oil, and we guarantee shipping lanes on the worlds oceans. Unlike the time of our founders when we had little to no foreign interests, we have grown in our dependence until now, where we find ourselves the global power and dependent on the global economic system.

We won't do it every decade, but we preserve the right to intervene in the Gap to institute regime change and build a democracy.

To help build coalitions for this purpose, we should create an Organization of Democracies.


Please leave comments with your thoughts.

Tea Party protesters take on another issue

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/14/immigration-reform-pitch-morphs-tea-party-protests/

Protesters think the Democrats want to ram amnesty down their throats.   Are they wrong?  They even compare the Tea Partiers to the Whigs of old:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s call for immigration reform legislation is a moment of truth for a major campaign promise from President Obama: A “tough but fair” road to legalization. It also raises the curtain on a likely legislative battle, firing up grassroots conservatives who’ve gained increasing notice — if not political power — in recent months.

For many conservatives like Idaho resident Andi Elliott, looming immigration policy reform is simply proof that Democrats plan to “jam amnesty down our throat.”

“And those,” the Tea Party organizer in Hamer, Idaho, says, “are fighting words.”

Coming off a muscle-flexing summer of widespread protests and success in the off-year elections, the Tea Party coalition began its first major realignment Saturday, joining forces with anti-immigration reform groups in over 50 “Tea Party Against Amnesty and Illegal Immigration” rallies across the US in places from Anchorage, Alaska, to Snead, Alabama.

Critics say the emerging Tea Party coalition reminds them of the mid-1800s Whig party realignment, as pro-slavery Southern Whigs aligned themselves with anti-immigration forces, leading to the formation of the Know Nothing Party and the eventual demise of the Whigs as Northerners formed the Republican party.

A similar dynamic (minus the slavery issue) could be at play today. A big question for conservatives has been whether the Tea Party energy can be captured by the Republican Party or whether the Constitutionally-minded political insurgency will ultimately hurt the GOP’s “big tent” strategy to incorporate moderates into a revived voting bloc.

Both Old Parties Divided Internally

I can see that I am going to need to come up with my own material at some point, related to Virginia.   In the meantime I need to point you to another good post by the superlative Whig:
Both Old Parties Divided Internally

Iraqi Government: Looking at security breaches

Primarily, this blog is for Whig activities in Northern Virginia and broader Whig discussions.  However, I personally remain very interested in the news from Iraq and so I will occasionally post something interesting.

The Iraqis recently passed an election law that will allow elections to continue in January, 2010.  The biggest items in the election law was the disposition of Kirkuk and the 'Open list' decision.  The 'Open list' decision allows Iraqis to vote for indivuals instead of parties and is not what the Iranians wanted to see.  Yay!  :)

This article is not good news.  It talks about the devastating car bombings at the justice ministry.  It comes from the always excellent Jane Arraf in the always balanced Christian Science Monitor.
Iraqi Government: Looking 'very seriously' at security breaches that led to Oct. 25 bombing

Facebook Group comment on States Rights (Powers)

Jason Rose writes an excellent comment in the States Rights discussion on Facebook

I feel that if the party is going to use the promotion of States Rights as one of it's building blocks then it's important to let the individual State parties to have their own unique stances on issues. As the party as a whole progresses nationally, the states' concerns should feed into the national headquarters to form a united baseline. It is the responsibilities of our party leaders and members, both locally and nationally, to ensure that there is a balance between state and national stances so that one does not conflict with the other.

Good post by the Whig

The Whig has a great new post Modern Whigs! Beware The Cul De Sac On Your Right!.   Check it out!

Where the Virginia Whig Party is headed

Here's an update on where the Virginia Whig Party is heading.  Mike Lebowitz is both the Whig National Commitee Chair and the Virginia Whig Party Chair.  He is quite busy.  He has stated that he intends to refocus on building the Virginia Whig Party.  There are other states who have made progress in building their organizations.  These include California, Texas, and Florida.

I hesitate to post the entire text of a recent email Mike sent, but here is something he wrote about the future of the Virginia organization:

We are currently putting together a statewide committee. At the same time, we are looking for people willing to assist in developing local organizations on either the community, city or county level. It can be as simple as getting a few people together for a meeting and seeing where that leads. Others can assist by spreading the word about what we are working to build. None of us pretends to know everything, so your thoughts, ideas and feedback are certainly welcome.  Moreover, if someone is interested in running for office, local or otherwise, please let us know. We can enlist the entire national movement on any endeavor.

We still need to put together a website, a mailinglist, promotional materials, and figure out a discussion forum (which may be the forum I mentioned in the previous post).  Regardless, it is an exciting time for Virginia Whigs!

Whig Out!

Whig Out!

Hi, I'm Rob Withers.  Welcome!  I recently joined the Whigs after learning about their Tenets and Issues Platform.  The Whigs are a centrist party in opposition to the rancorous partisanship found in both the Democrat and Republican Parties.  They take issue positions from both parties.  You can read more about them at http://modernwhig.org/.  You can also join and sign up for their newsletter.

There are other Whig resources out there.  First, there is the Facebook Modern Whig Party group, found at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16692232269.  Join up and join the discussions.  There is also a Sword & Quill discussion forum that needs new members.  This discussion forum can be found here: http://modernwhig.forumotion.net/forum.htm and you can automatically join up.

Here is a list of blogs for the Whigs:

• http://whigblog.blogspot.com/
• http://modernwhigparty.blogspot.com/
• http://modernwhig21.blogspot.com/

Whig Out!