Kenny Golden on Gay Marriage, Offshore Oil Drilling, Iran, Nancy Pelosi

    237
    1
    SHARE

    I recently had the opportunity to interview Kenny Golden, independent candidate for Congress in the 2nd congressional district of Virginia (currently represented by Democrat Glenn Nye). The interview is fairly long, so I’m breaking it up. You can read Part 3 here. Enjoy.

    Blue Virginia Question

    Based on an interview you did recently with Democratic blogger Vivian Paige, it appears you may be somewhat of a social libertarian. When it comes to issues like gay marriage, abortion, and gun rights, do you agree with Jim Webb’s formulation that “the government shouldn’t come in our front door unless there’s an overriding reason to do so?”

    Kenny Golden Answer

    The Federal Government should keep out of personal lives. In the case of guns, I completely respect and support the Second Amendment. Marriage issues should be left to the sovereign states; however, I would and do support a marriage amendment and, as

    I stated in the interview, civil unions for homosexual couples should be allowed. I would also support adoption by stable homosexual couples. Children deserve love and support whenever and however we can give it to them. I’ve already addressed my stand on the abortion issue.

    Blue Virginia Question

    In that same interview with Vivian Paige, you referred to BP’s “greed” that “killed the Gulf of Mexico.” In general, what do you think of offshore oil drilling and of the oil industry? More broadly, do you consider yourself a “Teddy Roosevelt Republican” in the sense that you believe we are in a new “robber baron era” and/or that corporate power is out of control and needs to be reined in?

    Kenny Golden Answer

    I have no problem with offshore drilling per se as an interim means of achieving energy independence for America. We must wean ourselves off foreign oil supplies to keep us from being at the mercy of the markets and countries that would use their supplying of oil to us as a means to hold us hostage. I completely support the stance of Mr. Pickens on this issue, he believes we should get ourselves out of OPEC oil consumption for several reasons; one it would bring the price down worldwide, two it would free up our foreign policy from energy concerns in the gulf and Middle East, and third it would and can spurn a new energy industry in this country creating thousands of new jobs particularly here in the Second District.

    That said, we have to ensure that offshore drilling never again becomes the source of such a disaster of this magnitude. We must ensure that standing regulations pertaining to safe operations are enforced to the letter. I believe that since 2008 there were supposed to have been around 16 inspections of Deepwater Horizon. According to media sources, only 6 were conducted. This is appalling! We should apply cost-effective safety programs, similar to those used by the Navy’s nuclear power program, to the petroleum industry. Prior to the resumption of offshore drilling, we must find out what exactly went wrong at Deepwater Horizon, fix the problem, and ensure the necessary safety programs to prevent it happening again. The bottom line is that we can conduct offshore drilling safely. We have to have the will to do it, however.

    I don’t see myself as a TR type when it comes to regulating corporations, for I don’t necessarily view them as “robber barons.” Too much regulation is bad for the economy. The government should concern itself with protecting the consumer. On foreign policy, yep, “Walk softly and carry a Big Stick” that would be me. On national parks, more is better. Take for instance my stance on Fort Monroe and Buckroe Beach. Having another historical park that would attract visitors to our region is a huge beneficial idea. The Freedom Museum should be part of a national historic effort where it all began in 1861, at Hampton, VA and Fort Monroe.

    Blue Virginia Question

    Based on your interview with Vivian Paige, you appear to be somewhat of a national security “hawk.” What do you think needs to be done, if anything, about Iran’s nuclear program? Would

    you support the use of force, as a last resort, to stop Iran from “going nuclear?”

    Kenny Golden Answer

    I do not believe the Iranian program to be for peaceful purposes. The current regime is dangerous and poses a serious and near-term regional as well as international threat to peace and security. I don’t have any desire to see us return to the days when we actively worked toward changing a government unfriendly to our national interests.

    That only brings about short-term results and resentment toward us in the long term.

    I believe we have exercised good judgment to date by working through the UN with the imposition of sanctions. Whether they are demanding enough to move the Iranian populace to change their government is unclear. They certainly have not deterred the thinking and rhetoric of those in power and that’s what concerns me most.

    The key players are Russia and China. They have supplied the goods to Iran and must take responsibility for their actions. Given their reluctance to do so, I believe we must have contingency plans to deal with the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. I sincerely believe this cannot be allowed. The thought of a regime of that type backed by nuclear weapons is staggering. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in my book.

    Blue Virginia Question

    Finally, if you are elected as an independent from the 2nd CD, will you caucus with the Republicans or the Democrats? If the Democrats maintain control after November, will you vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker? If the Republicans take control, will you support John Boehner as Speaker?

    Kenny Golden Answer

    Philosophically, I have certainly some distance to  both parties, but the current positions of the Democratic Party seem to be too fiscally liberal for me. I dread the continued spending habits we seem to be wedded to on the Democratic side. Unfortunately, the Republics haven’t done a great deal better. Speaker Pelosi is unfortunately on the side of more spending and I cannot support her as Speaker. Representative Boehner has not shown the leadership I had hoped for, so I will withhold judgment on him until I get all he furniture back in my house in Manassas and report for work in January.  

    • K in VA

      Marriage equality is absolutely NOT a matter of keeping government out of our personal lives, and those who say that are either clueless, or are looking for a way to sound semi-sympathetic without lifting a finger to do anything in the name of civil rights.

      Marriage equality is totally a matter of getting the government involved in our personal lives … to the extent that it’s the government that decides who files jointly, who gets Social Security survivor benefits, who can share USDA crop loans, and well over a thousand other Federal matters and several hundred state matters.

      “Getting government out of private lives” is obsolete language (viz. Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), another way of saying “I don’t care what those people do in the privacy of their own homes,” etc. Well, people fill out 1040s in the privacy of their own homes.

      Either you believe our government (federal and state) should treat all Americans equally, or you don’t. There’s no in-between for wafflers.