Cross posted from Clark County Conservative
I was somewhat surprised last evening to receive an email from Candidate Michael Delavar about midnight. No, it was not the usual run of the mill “vote for me” email, but a personal note asking why, back on May 26 on Victoria Taft’s forum, I said I would not vote for Delavar and would cast a vote for Democrat Brian Baird instead, due to his support for winning in Iraq now.
Apparently, Delavar, 34, considers himself the sole conservative running. In subsequent emails, he speaks of the race as between him and Baird, neglecting that the Washington State Republican Party unanimously endorsed the candidacy of Christine Webb, not Michael Delavar, to run against Baird and another Democrat anti-war activist, Cheryl Crist.
I’ve never met Delavar, Crist or Webb, but I have Brian Baird. Even as a Republican I was going to vote for Baird over Delavar, but due to Baird’s joining fellow Democrats in not supporting the Broadcaster Freedom Act, I am having second thoughts on that.
Currently Delavar appears ahead of Webb in gaining enough votes on our August 19 Primary to face Baird, but Webb is a late starter and just getting going.
Delavar can be found on many Ron Paul forums, supporting his failed run this year. Paul considered himself a conservative Republican, but has a history of being a lifelong Libertarian, losing a previous bid for the presidency under that parties banner in 1988.
Delavar and Paul both have some excellent fiscal ideas that I agree with. Then again, even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day.
I was a bit surprised that a candidate for the House of Representatives would be thin skinned enough to contact a single voter who expressed opposition to him for an explanation of why. Out of the thousands of voters in the 3rd Congressional District, surely one little voter isn’t all that important for one who claims to have “jumped ahead” of an incumbent.
Most disturbing to me was his reply after I told him that I cannot support any candidate that advocates withdrawing from the War on Terror prematurely, as we have often done since WW2, leaving allies at the mercy of enemies who have historically slaughtered millions of innocent civilians as we turned a blind eye. I also stated that I could not support anyone who advocated the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, essentially outsourcing the defense of our nation to mercenaries.
So, I was somewhat taken aback that someone considering themselves to be a Conservative Republican would reply with,
“one question we have to ask is whether the Republican party has become the party of war.”
Being a Viet Nam Veteran myself, I do not like war, but understand that our liberties and freedoms are ensured and protected by our Brave Troops fighting on our behalf to prevent another September 11 attack upon our country. I do not see the love of freedom and liberty, understanding the price that must be paid and has been paid since our country was founded, and being willing to pay that price as being “the party of war.”
I am left with the impression that Delavar, like Ron Paul, feels we brought the attacks of September 11 on ourselves.
Delavar also asked,
“What about being pro-life, fiscally conservative, for securing our borders without amnesty, and protecting our sovereignty? None of those things seem to be important to our supposedly "conservative" Republican party. Only war.”
As I see it, Delavar is completely missing the boat in what we are fighting. Of course, if we lose this war, or just walk away and allow the Iraqis and Afghanis to flounder as Al Qaeda and the Taliban take over two countries to base out of, of what use will the other issues be once the suicide bombings and I.E.D.’s begin within our borders?
Additionally, Delavar said,
“If we want bankruptcy as a nation, we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until the cows come home.”
Does it escape him that “the cows” haven’t yet come home from Japan, Germany and South Korea, not to mention hundreds of other bases around the globe in some 60 years? That hasn’t bankrupted us. He must not realize that the cost of fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan currently amount to less than 4% of our GDP, hardly bankruptcy range, I believe.
Explaining to him that as a Viet Nam Veteran, the thought of abandoning another struggling country to their fate against a heavily armed enemy, as we did Viet Nam, which culminated in millions of innocent lives being lost in South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, was abhorrent to me, the reply of
“Yes, there are some unpleasant possibilities that might come about when we leave. We don't know exactly what will be happening until that happens,” was elicited.
I don’t know about you, but millions of innocent people slaughtered because of what they believe, many thousands more dying when escaping a Communist nation in rickety boats, is a bit more than merely “some unpleasant possibilities.” I place more value on life than that.
Earlier on he was mentioning his “pro-life” stance in opposing abortions, as most of us do. How pro-life is it to support a child being born but consider millions of innocent men, women and children being slaughtered as an “unpleasant possibility?”
Little wonder that the July 22, 2008 “In Our View” section of The Columbian says,
“Michael Delavar, is trying to seize on the Ron Paul passion that rose but now fizzles among many conservatives. He and others made big noise at the Clark County convention, but the real news occurred in the February GOP primary when Paul earned less than 7 percent of local votes.”
This Conservative Republican has no intention of standing by as Ron Paul Libertarians step in and take over the Republican Party as Liberals did the Democrat Party. The GOP is fractured and does need repair, but not adopting the views of a whiner as Ron Paul who can’t even see who our enemies are, in spite of three decades of attacks against us.
Support our Troops. Support their mission. And, help return the GOP to its true conservative base by voting for Christine Webb.