Prince William Committee of 100 Debate

Author: Citizen Tom

Last Tuesday I attended the debate between challenger John Bell and Delegate Bob Marshall.  The Prince William Committee of 100 (PWC100) sponsored the debate.  The PWC100, a well respected nonpartisan organization, strives to provide an educational forum on issues of local interest.  That includes hosting debates between local candidates for political office.

Currently, the PWC100 is hosting a series of debates related to the election of delegates whose districts include portions Prince William County.  In addition, the PWC100 has had some success hosting the debates of candidates for statewide offices.  The PWC100’s home page (here) includes a listing of the time and location of these debates.

Did you miss the debate between Bell and Marshall or between Delegate Jackson Miller and candidate Jeanette Rishell?  Then check out the videos of the debates.  Links to the videos are also on the same home page.

What was my impression of the debate between Bell and Marshall?  I think Marshall clearly won the debate.  Why do I think that?  Marshall distinguished himself by demonstrating expertise, a positive agenda, and a record for integrity.

In particular, Marshall demonstrated respect for our rights.  In that respect, we are unfortunate in that Marshall is in the minority of the General Assembly.  When the General Assembly voted to impose an unconstitutional taxation authority on Northern Virginia (see here, here and here), Marshall fought the legislation and got the Virginia Supreme Court to overturn the law 7 – 0.  In doing so, Marshall kept his oath of office to support and defend the Virginia Constitution.

Unbelievably,  Bell thinks that when Marshall kept his oath of office he made a mistake.  In other words, whenever the Constitution becomes a hindrance to his plans, Bell will set it aside.  On the public’s behalf, Bell is apparently willing to ignore his oath of office.  While Bell may be well intentioned, such behavior is not and would not be honorable.

The Virginia Constitution protects our rights.   Yet those such as Bell would ignore and undermine the Constitution when they think it necessary.  For the sake of short term gains, such dishonorable men ultimately do us far more harm than good.

Once again Marshall needs our help.  Because he has been effective, the Liberals are out to get him.  So as usual Marshall faces a well financed opponent.  As of the last report (here), Bell had raised $224,593.  Marshall has raised only $93,616 (see here).

How can you help Marshall win?  Money would be nice.  Volunteering your time can help even more.  Please contact Marshall’s campaign (go here) and volunteer.

News Reports

Surprisingly, the blogs had little to say.   The news reports generally favored Marshall.

On his website, Marshall cites Dan Roem’s report, Marshall, Bell debate transportation, priorities in race for 13th, on his campaign web site.  This article demonstrates two facts.

  • The debate covered a wide range of state issues.
  • Marshall knows the issues.

Nonetheless, Roem “corrected” Marshall’s reference to an article by Charles Krauthammer.   Roem complained that Krauthammer says that health care bill we all have been arguing about does not contain death panels, and that is true.   However, Roem apparently did not read the whole article.   Here is the part of Krauthammer’s article Marshall referenced.

So why get Medicare to pay the doctor to do the counseling? Because we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we’ve nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.

It’s not an outrage. It’s surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it’s intended to gently point you in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sick room where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.  (from here)

On his website, Bell cites Jonathan Hunley’s report, Bell pushes Marshall on social issues in debate.   This publication highlighted Bell’s effort to paint Marshall as a Conservative focused solely on social issues.  Oddly, however, the article provides little to demonstrate Marshall’s supposed myopia.  Why?  What is implied is that Bell’s effort flopped.