February 11, 2006

Conservatism

Meet Greg Parke, Candidate for U.S. Senate in Vermont

Carroll Andrew Morse

WASHINGTON D.C. -- Greg Parke is running as a Republican for Senate seat being vacated by Jim Jeffords in Vermont. He is running in a contested Republican primary where the winner will likely face Socialist Bernie Sanders in the general election. Always interested in talking to New England conservatives, I took the opportunity to ask Mr. Parke a few questions.

I asked Mr. Parke why he believes (as we at Anchor Rising do) that there is a bigger audience for conservatism in New England than most of the nation realizes.

Mr. Parke answered by using the example of the 2000 elections for state office in Vermont. There was a 34 seat turnover in the Vermont House of Representatives and Republicans almost won control of the Senate after Howard Dean and the state legislature passed civil unions. Unfortunately, the Republican party leadership squandered their mandate by not taking social issues seriously and, as a result, they lost seats in 2002 and 2004, losing their majority in the House and dropping from 14 to 6 (out of 30) seats in the Senate.

According to Mr. Parke, in race after race, you could find Democrats who lost their seats to Republicans in 2000, but won them back while receiving about the same vote totals they had received in the elections they had lost, because the conservative base didn’t turn out to vote, because they felt abandoned by the party. Mr. Parke used the words “discouraged, disgruntled” to describe the attitude of conservative voters towards the Republican Party leadership.

I then asked Mr. Parke what issues he is running on in his campaign for the United States Senate.

Mr. Parke, a former fighter pilot, diplomat, and Middle Eastern policy analyst with the Pentagon, replied that defense is a natural issue for him and, more importantly, that Bernie Sanders is very weak and out-of-synch with Vermonters on defense issues. According to Mr. Parke, Congressman Sanders’ voting record on defense is not good; he has voted against body armor and improved medical benefits for the troops, has a poor record on veterans’ issues and, in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration wanted to cut the intelligence budget, Congressman Sanders wanted even bigger cuts than the administration wanted.

Mr. Parke believes Vermonters take defense issues very seriously and that they understand that the Senate is lot different from the House; he has heard many people tell him that they voted for Mr. Sanders for the house, but don't feel that Mr. Sanders is appropriate for the Senate.

8:43 AM
Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

I've known Greg for a few years now, through his association with the NFRA. He's a great guy and right on the issues that matter to most people.

Other than our own US Senate race in Rhode Island, the one he is waging in Vermont should be very high profile. The dynamics of a US Senate race differ from a US House race in many ways. This is a very winnable race for Greg. However, he first has to get by the establishment Republicans (RINOs) in his own state, before he can face socialist Bernie Sanders in the general election.

I would urge any Republicans from our area who are looking for other good regional candidates to back to seriously consider giving to his campaign.

Posted by: Will at February 11, 2006 12:39 PM

Mr. Parke makes some good points, but one of the the main reasons why the Democrats were able to reclaim legislative seats in VT in 2002 with the same number of votes with which they lost in 2000 was that 2000 was a presidentiall election, which always has a higher turnout. Conservative discouragement was the reason the GOP lost, but even had conservatives been energized and would have given the GOP the victory in legislative races it would have been with fewer votes in favor than in 2000.

Posted by: AuH2ORepublican at February 12, 2006 10:21 AM

Greg Parke was on my show campaigning for the House, in the Fall of 2004. He is highly intelligent and well-spoken and is highly qualified for the U.S. Senate, especially in view of the fact that he served on diplomatic missions to Egypt and the Middle East.
Someone like him would be a benefit to the country right now, much more so than Sanders.

Posted by: Ron Ruloff at March 3, 2006 10:20 AM

Greg Parke was on my show campaigning for the House, in the Fall of 2004. He is highly intelligent and well-spoken and is highly qualified for the U.S. Senate, especially in view of the fact that he served on diplomatic missions to Egypt and the Middle East.
Someone like him would be a benefit to the country right now, much more so than Sanders.

Posted by: Ron Ruloff at March 3, 2006 10:21 AM

If Greg Parke is so in synch with Vermont, why was he so badly defeated by Bernie Sanders in 2004? Bernie Sanders had never won by such a large margin in all of his prior elections to the House.

And what evidence do you have that the RINOs don't represent the people of Vermont? Is the only bit of evidence the fact that Republicans can't win, so you need to find a scapegoat to blame? Maybe you should question your assumptions.

For example, what are the real threats to American lives and welfare? Yes, nearly three thousand people died on 911, but that number of people die violently in the US about every 15 weeks, and I see no Republican calling for preemptive action to prevent these very predictable deaths. Why no data mining that tracks guns, their owners, and the factors that are correlated with all those who commit the more than ten thousand violent gun killings each year? Why are the Republicans so soft on those who are plotting to kill Americans?

And why have almost as many people died in Iraq as died on 911 when it is clear that Iraq had nothing to do with 911? Why are Iraqis dying violently at a higher rate under US occupation than died during the same period prior to the US invasion?

Posted by: mulp at March 4, 2006 8:25 PM