After attending a Tea Party meeting in Alexandria where Berry and his Republican opponent squared off, I noted one question in particular that somewhat troubled me. My guess it was probably by a opponent campaign enthusiast.

The question referenced his standing on DADT, and gay marriage.
After hearing his response, I was impressed to note he did not peander to either side on the issue. He remained somewhat neutral.

I was left with the impression that his words subtly cautioned on legislating morality and personal freedoms like socialists, and communist nations have done for decades prior.

He appeared to reflect a old fashioned sense of love for the liberties that are presented to each American at birth. The simple fact that they are fought for daily on battlefields all over the globe.

In closing he finished with a statement about states right to govern themselves. To decide for themselves how they will address issues of morality.

He seemed to get the basics right…..

lgm: I looked at his web site, spot checking under “energy”. What a weasel! Doesn’t mention global warming, but insists we do nothing about it. That might be OK if he didn’t believe what climate scientists say, but . . .
climatologists predict that the cap-and-trade bill would at most lower projected global temperatures by only one-tenth of one degree Fahrenheit by 2050.
In other words, he believes, or wants to act on, only the Republican Conservative things climate scientists say.
An intellectually honest politician, is that too much to ask for?

In response, I posit this:

‘I don’t believe what so-called climate scientists are saying, because I believe they exaggerate to make their point and skew information to favor their position, rather than merely stating facts. Considering that, if the climate scientists are saying that cap-and-trade will only lower global temperature by 1/10th of 1 degree F in the next 40 years, then that would be their best case scenario. That hardly makes it worth all the suffering that I believe cap-and-trade would cause.’

That thought process could explain why he uses data that he doesn’t believe in to support his position.

Is that the stench of identity politics? In the immortal words of Lieutenant-Colonel Bill Kilgore, “It smells like, smells like . . . well, it just smells.”

Don’t vote for the party, vote for the candidate and, whenever possible, vote for the candidate who has actually acted on his stated principles, rather than the candidate who has tacked the usual bullet point list of principles on his web page as a fund raising technique.

Brilliant strategy. After all, it’s not as if all those free-thinking Congressional Democrats are trying to foist a facsimile of Massachusetts’ failed health-care program on a party-line vote, at this very moment, because pundits are telling them it’s the “progressive thing to do.” And no doubt they pondered long and deep over the legislation’s text to come to their votes — philosophers all! I couldn’t care less if my candidate was Ronald McDonald in stockings as long as he wearing a GOP pin and there’s only one party that dares approximate my principles on a national level. Even Matt Yglesias understands this.

How convenient: So you can demonstrate someone is a bigot by defining anyone who disagrees with your position on an issue as a bigot? Why didn’t I think of that! Our society has come a long way when today’s equivalent of a lynching-loving Klansmen is a person who believes marriage means the same thing it has meant for thousands of years.

I, for one, have always mourned the fading away of droit de seigneur.

A person who believes that marriage “means the same thing it has meant for thousands of years” is someone who knows nothing about the history of marriage.

ruuffles: Oh wow. He came out after he voted in favor of DOMA. Just … wow.

What those are not incompatable, you might think that gay folks have a right to live in peace but society has a right to regulate marage.

Furthermore, don’t you folks getting a little cozy about partisan office? All you seem to say about these guys is that they are fine, thoughtful, terrific pals etc etc.

Actually the way I re-read them is that they sound like hacks and as if you have an obligation to give some pay-back and the guy is actually a nonentity. “Damning with faint praise.”

respectfully disagree. It is ruufles who has decided that there is an orthodox position for gays to have on issues — and that perhaps Berry isn’t “authentic” unless he agrees with ruufles on the issues.

The issue isn’t the positions (orthodox or otherwise) that gays have on issues; it’s the positions that Republicans and conservatives have on issues, especially issues involving gays.

I am wondering where all the intolerant Republicans that populate liberals fever-dreams live.

I am tempted to believe this was a sarcastic comment, because it is difficult to believe for several reasons that any Republican or conservative would legitimately invite the answer to this question, but . . . bigots are welcome and prominent among Republican and conservatives in every state of the union, from South Carolina to Colorado, Oklahoma to North Carolina, Hawaii to Illinois, Iowa to Pennsylvania,
Indiana to . . . well, everywhere, to the point at which it is nationwide.

Cautionary note: That’s just the intolerance of Republican bigots involving homosexuals.

But who knows, maybe this is the year, and maybe Berry is the guy? I just hope that we don’t lose sight of the more important targets in VA this year – VA 7, VA 2, and VA 10 (yes, Gerry, we’re coming for you!).

Doctor in Arlington:
Matthew Berry, you complete me.Now, if only you could unseat that idiot Moran.

Why not simply provide for malpractice immunity?

Don’t vote for the party, vote for the candidate and, whenever possible, vote for the candidate who has actually acted on his stated principles, rather than the candidate who has tacked the usual bullet point list of principles on his web page as a fund raising technique. Never vote for a candidate who states his principles in the most general terms imaginable “limited government!” but who can’t or won’t answer any questions about how that principle would translate into actual policies to deal with actual problems. If he can’t answer questions like that, his so-called principle will evaporate upon his first contact with a real-world problem.

And as a general rule, avoid politicians whose major qualification is being related to someone else, being rich, or being a famous athlete or actor.

so, the option for limited government advocates would be to vote Dem?
(i know you didn’t say that; but in a 2 party system these are the choices we have. tell us who would be better)

“I am wondering where all the intolerant Republicans that populate liberals fever-dreams live. They’re kind of like Anthropogenic Global Warming, liberals keep telling you how bad they are, but you can’t seem to see them.”

There was a movie about that.

When a Republican tells you he has a genuine commitment to limited government, think of Lucy asking you to run up and kick that football.

If Mister Berry could assure me that I would not receive future begging letters as a result of my contribution, I would gladly send his campaign some money.

A.S.: Tell the truth now — how often does he get mistaken for the ESPN guy of the same name?

I thought he was the guy from Friends.

troll_dc2: troll_dc2 says:

Berry may or may not be a good candidate, but I do not see his getting the Republican nomination because of his sexual orientation. Republicans in Virginia are like that.

Umm, excuse me? I’m a Republican in Virginia and his sexual orientation does not bother me or even interest me. I’d vote for him and will since I live in the appropriate district.

Meanwhile, the Bush haters keep flying planes into IRS offices, and shooting up the Pentagon.

I would say this guy has a chance.
Alexandria just elected a Republican and a conservative who vowed to vote like a Republican to town gov’t.
It’s become almost socially acceptable to not vote Dem. Just keep it to yourself and wash your hands afterward.

he’s brilliant; that he has a genuine commitment to limited government

“brilliant” doesn’t pay dividends in representative government, IMO- but the second part, if it’s gonna play, is reason enough to vote for the man.

I have a candidate, too:

http://www.pantanoforcongress.com/

March 5, 2010, 6:36 pm

And these would not be legitimate questions for whom?

And what would be the “wrong” answer, for him?

3 Reform medical . . . limit contingency fees charged by attorneys, mandate sanctions for attorneys that file frivolous lawsuits, and strengthen qualification standards for expert witnesses. We should also explore the creation of health courts where medical liability cases would be heard by specially trained expert judges.” — Berry for Congress

Matthew Berry, you complete me. Now, if only you could unseat that idiot Moran.

Berry’s enthusiastic support for broadband is well enough – but beyond a limited point broadband becomes an entertainment medium rather than an economic engine. A good long talk with a businessperson might help define our concerns.

In fact, a good rewrite of his entire campaign site to eliminate both the weaseling and the “elect me and I will” language is very much in order. If elected, Mr. Berry will be one Congressman among 420. “I will seek out and join with others to” do such and so would be much more convincing.

And many of us have had more than enough of campaign obfuscation. Berry’s web site has far too much of it.

Stranger

“but insists we do nothing about it.”
Apparently your “spot check” was very spotty indeed. He outlines 4 policies at the end of the document, 2 of which are carbon reducing. If supporting nuclear and wind through other means than Cap and Trade means “doing nothing” and not being “intellectually honest”, then Sputnik’s response that this is a tribal matter seems quite on point, albeit not with his intended meaning.

Quite possibly I’m projecting, but I take this to restate (probably better) my own position, that the constitution allows all kinds of things that are probably a terrible idea. And possibly it prohibits a few that would be a good idea, but I’m less certain about this.