A Sea Of Red

...that Valentine lost? I will admit that I haven't really paid attention to Lynchburg politics for very long so maybe somebody on here can set me straight.

It seemed to me that Valentine is basically just as conservative as Garrett. She is pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, and cares about Liberty University.There are three things that really put her above Garrett in my opinion:

1. She is the incumbent so we already know what we're getting. Garrett can wave the banner of conservativism and the Republican party all he wants, but we really can't be sure of him until it comes time for him to vote and introduce legislation.

2. I attended the Young Democrats meeting last year (even though I'm registered Republican) where she and a gentleman from Sudan presented the legislation she was trying to get passed to stop American companies from enabling the atrocities in Darfur. Unlike Obama, she has actually worked across the aisle with Republicans on this issue.

3. She introduced legislation that helped Autism research in Virginia. This is something I really appreciate as an individual with Asperger's Syndrome. It doesn't seem to me that Garrett will help continue this work or really cares much about it.

I'm not bitter that Valentine lost and I don't want to disparage anybody for the way they voted. I just don't see how Garrett's win is such a great victory when they're both basically conservative. It just seems to me like Liberty voters punished Valentine for having a D beside her name. Can somebody shed some light on this for me?

She's done nothing but flip-flop on issues since she was elected. She voted for traditional marriage (one man, one woman) and then two months later, opposed a senate bill that was in support of traditional marriage.

She has a clear record of voting against the sanctity of life.

Combine those two things--opposition of traditional marriage and support of abortion and you're 0-2 in issues that Liberty is specifically interested in.

Green Monkey wrote:... I will admit that I haven't really paid attention to Lynchburg politics for very long so maybe somebody on here can set me straight.

It seemed to me that Valentine is basically just as conservative as Garrett. She is pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, and cares about Liberty University.

Not sure where you got that she's pro life, she's not. She's also not pro 2nd ammendment and just skirts the issue not commiting either way. Maybe you should read up on here positions:

http://www.tffaction.org/images/HD_23_Final.pdf

You've just got to hear her 105.9 interview; one of the hosts directly asked about her pro-abortion stance. She made it clear that she didn't "like" abortion and her ideal would be more akin to the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center, but she chose not to make any further comments. She has stated from the beginning that she believes in a woman's right to choose, so I chose not to support her. That view, along with her anti-gun and support of homosexual marriage pretty well paints her as a social liberal.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/lo ... ett/21075/

i think Valentine will still most likely end up on the city council. and i don't really see that as a bad thing, because she does seem more moderate than liberal and hopefully will treat us fairly in council matters. and would be much better to have a reasonable democrat on the council then another Obama type liberal.

but then again i could be wrong...

p.s. i voted for Garrett.

TDDance234 wrote:She's done nothing but flip-flop on issues since she was elected. She voted for traditional marriage (one man, one woman) and then two months later, opposed a senate bill that was in support of traditional marriage.

She has a clear record of voting against the sanctity of life.

Combine those two things--opposition of traditional marriage and support of abortion and you're 0-2 in issues that Liberty is specifically interested in.

Actually, to clarify, she voted for marriage being one man one woman, but voted against the bill that would also deny benefits (i.e. Power of Attorney, tax filing procedures, etc...) to homosexual couples.

flamesfan30 wrote:http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/lo ... ett/21075/

i think Valentine will still most likely end up on the city council. and i don't really see that as a bad thing, because she does seem more moderate than liberal and hopefully will treat us fairly in council matters. and would be much better to have a reasonable democrat on the council then another Obama type liberal.

but then again i could be wrong...

p.s. i voted for Garrett.

i could be wrong, but i don't think she will end up on city council. that would be a demotion. also, if (assuming conservative candidates win 2/3 at large seats) conservatives have the majority, a conservative at large member would be mayor on the 4-3 vote along "party" lines. so she would go from state delegate to under-council member? i cant see her doing that. i see her taking an advisory or lobbying position that pays her well for her state delegate experience.

granted, she would be a WELCOME change from Gillette (if she ran for Ward 1) or Foster (if she ran for At Large). you guys should see the photos from news and advance on election night. photo 15/16 is priceless. the Dems realizing they lost... Mayor Foster looks like someone shot her dog. almost felt bad for her.

The simple answer to the questions is ..."Yes, you are the only one"

I looked up some more stuff you guys were talking about. I guess she isn't as conservative as I thought she was. Thanks for not jumping all over me about it. I figured I was just missing something. Although she does seem more moderate than most Democrats and I am worried that Garrett won't continue the good things she had been working on that I mentioned, I guess Garrett probably was the better choice especially with how far to the left the national political scene has been going.

She is indeed more moderate than a lot of dems, if only out of pragmatism. She is also a skilled politician, and I doubt we have heard the last of her.

I think she is probably done. When you have an incumbent who loses, typically their political career is over. Typically if they rematch the same race, they lose even worse the second time around. (Creigh Deeds anyone?) She can't run for State Senate. What's she going to do, take on Steve Newman? That would just be a bloodbath! Congress vs. Bob Goodlatte? Not gonna happen!