Connect with us

Virginia

Tight race looms in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District as Anderson and Vindman face off • Virginia Mercury

Published

on

Tight race looms in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District as Anderson and Vindman face off • Virginia Mercury


The election in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District is shaping up to be a tight contest, with two political newcomers vying for the support of swayable voters in one of the state’s most competitive districts. 

Democrat Eugene Vindman is taking on Republican Derrick Anderson in a race to succeed U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Prince William, who announced last year that she is not seeking reelection in favor of a 2025 gubernatorial bid.

The district, anchored in Prince William County and stretching west to Madison County and south to Caroline County, has a history of narrow victories in past elections. With this being Vindman’s inaugural run for office and Anderson’s second foray into the 7th District race, both are working hard to connect with undecided voters who may swing the election.

In addition to their shared ambition to represent the district in the U.S. Congress, both candidates bring a strong record of military service to the table — a key theme in their respective campaigns. 

Advertisement

Vindman, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and attorney, has emphasized his commitment to defending democracy and advocating for national security. Anderson, also a veteran, served as a Green Beret in the Army Special Forces and has focused his campaign on conservative values, including strengthening national defense and supporting law enforcement.

“I was a troop leader paratrooper in the 82nd, and when we jumped out of airplanes, it didn’t matter who was to the left or right of us, who was Democrat, Republican or independent, or whether you’re Black, Hispanic, what part of the country you came from,” Vindman told The Mercury in a recent interview. “We’re focused on the mission, and that’s my mindset in everything that I do.”

Anderson did not respond to repeated interview requests for this article. 

The Republican has aligned himself with former President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda and has expressed his support for at least some proposals in the conservative policy roadmap known as Project 2025, which outlines plans to reshape government and policy under a future Republican administration.

Energy policy has also emerged as a significant point of debate between the two candidates, with each offering contrasting visions for the future of Virginia’s energy sector.

Advertisement

Additionally, both have taken clear stances on abortion and immigration. Vindman has emphasized the need to protect reproductive rights and seek comprehensive immigration reform, while Anderson has focused on more restrictive immigration policies and has voiced support for overturning federal protections for abortion.

Candidates’ backgrounds 

Vindman’s family immigrated to the United States from Ukraine in 1979 when he was 3. He joined the Army’s 82nd Airborne division as a paratrooper before rising to lieutenant colonel and Judge Advocate General,,the highest-ranking uniformed lawyer in the military. He later joined the White House’s National Security Team. 

Vindman’s twin brother, Alex Vindman, became nationally known as a whistleblower who leaked details about a phone conversation betweenTrump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine during his presidency, which led to Trump’s impeachment. 

Advertisement

Vindman was fired by Trump in 2020. He was investigating war crimes in Ukraine when Spanberger announced her gubernatorial bid last year. Vindman dominated the Democratic nomination contest, garnering more than 50% of the vote in a seven-way primary

“I thought to myself, I really care about which direction this country is going in,” Vindman explained as his primary reason for running.

Anderson, who traces his beginnings to working at his mother’s restaurant, served in the Middle East in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon.

He went on to work at the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Trump administration and became a lawyer, before witnessing the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he said was “botched.”

“I was upset with the lack of accountability for this administration,” Anderson said during an Oct. 2 candidates debate with Vindman at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg. 

Advertisement

District profile

Spanberger has represented the 7th District since 2019, after ousting U.S. Rep. Dave Brat, D-Henrico, by 50.3%-48.4%

A recent Cook Report analysis has moved the district from “lean Democrat” to “toss up.” 

By June, Vindman had raised $7.4 million — over five times as much as Anderson, who raised $1.4 million. The Democratic National Committee recently backed Vindman’s effort with another $50,000. 

Advertisement

The national support for candidates in the 7th District underscores the race’s significance in the broader political landscape. With Republicans holding a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives — 220 to 211 over Democrats — the outcome of this race could have far-reaching implications. Control of Congress will be pivotal in advancing or obstructing the agenda of the next president, whether it’s Trump or Harris.

The economy

A September Pew Research poll revealed that the economy is the top issue on voters’ minds this election season, and both candidates offer contrasting approaches to addressing economic concerns. 

Vindman has expressed worries about Trump’s policies and the potential impact of Project 2025 on the district’s workforce, which includes nearly 60,000 federal employees. In contrast, Anderson has focused his campaign on energy policy, emphasizing the need for a strong energy sector to bolster the economy.

Advertisement

Trump’s own policy plan, Agenda 47, would remove about 100,000 of those jobs. George Mason University professor Terry Clower estimated that the eliminated positions would equal a $27-28 billion loss from Virginia’s economy annually.

Anderson, like Trump, publicly denies supporting Project 2025, which calls for major overhauls of the federal government.

Folks, I did not know what Project 2025 was until this individual kept talking about it over and over again. But I can tell you that it’s not my plan,” Anderson said at a recent candidate’s forum at a Manassas middle school, referring to his opponent   

Vindman has said he opposes Project 2025 because he doesn’t want to see it replace about 50,0000 “Schedule F” non-partisan federal employees with loyalists to whichever political party is in power.

“Eliminating those jobs would literally devastate the economy in this area. It’s profoundly unfair, and it’s also damaging to national security,” Vindman said. “These are people that have spent decades in government, understanding threats, understanding Russia, China, or law enforcement, and (Project 2025 calls for) replacing them with partisan political hacks.”

Advertisement

To help people’s pocketbooks, Vindman suggested building off the work of Democratic President Joe Biden to cap medication prices, including insulin, by placing limits on a broader range of medications.

Meanwhile, Anderson, who said he understands that “there is climate change,” underscored that businesses have named electricity bills as their top expense, and that the economy could get back on track by prioritizing domestic production of energy. Anderson falsely claimed about 35 minutes into the UMW debate that the country is a “net importer rather than a net exporter of oil.” According to the Energy Information Agency, a federal government tracker of energy trends, the U.S. in 2023 imported about 8.51 million barrels per day of oil from 86 countries, compared to exporting about 10.15 million barrels per day of oil.

Abortion

Abortion rights are another major issue for voters nationwide, and the candidates in the 7th District reflect opposing views. 

Advertisement

Vindman has called for restoring Roe v. Wade, advocating for federal protections for abortion rights. Anderson, on the other hand, has stated that while he does not support a national ban on abortion, he believes the decision should be left to individual states, allowing them to determine their own abortion laws.

“There are two fundamental questions in this race: Will you restore women’s right to reproductive health care, as it was under Roe v. Wade?” Vindman asked. “And will you stand against a national abortion ban? I will restore Roe v. Wade, and I will stand against the national abortion ban.”

Anderson, in the UMW debate, denied supporting a federal abortion ban, or taking away reproductive rights to in vitro fertilization.

Anderson also said he would support over the counter contraceptives, but in a previous forum for both the 7th and 10th congressional districts, he stopped short of saying if he would support a woman’s right to choose.

“I support the states to be able to make those decisions that best fits those states,” Anderson said at the time.

Advertisement

Anderson has falsely stated that former Gov. Ralph Northam supported infanticide, which is illegal in all 50 states. Northam was talking about palliative care for babies born with complications during a 2019 interview that has been widely misquoted in every election cycle since.

Immigration

On immigration, both candidates acknowledge issues at the U.S. southern border, but their approaches differ.

Vindman has proposed reviving the Border Act of 2024, a federal measure aiming to address border security and immigration reform that nearly passed before being blocked by congressional Republicans. 

Advertisement

In contrast, Anderson has emphasized the need for strong immigration and foreign policies to enhance community safety, but he has not offered a specific plan or proposal to address the issue.

Along with several other measures, the Senate proposal would have given the Department of Homeland Security emergency authority to shut down the border if daily migrant encounters reached 4,000 over a one-week span. 

If those crossings rose to over 5,000 on average per day in a given week, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants crossing through ports of entry. Some migrants could stay if they proved they were escaping torture or prosecution.

Vindman said he would have supported the bill, which “would have been the toughest bill in decades, and we’re badly in need of comprehensive immigration reform.” 

Visit the Virginia Mercury’s voter guide to see what other congressional and U.S. Senate candidates had to say on other key issues, including abortion, education, inflation, immigration and more.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Virginia

S&P upgrades Petersburg’s bond rating to AA-, reflecting financial resurgence • Virginia Mercury

Published

on

S&P upgrades Petersburg’s bond rating to AA-, reflecting financial resurgence • Virginia Mercury


S&P Global Ratings has upgraded the city of Petersburg’s general obligation (GO) bond rating to AA- from A+, a move that highlights the city’s strengthened financial health and steady progress toward fiscal stability. The upgrade underscores Petersburg’s success in building reserves, improving liquidity, and achieving a secure financial position after years of turmoil.

Petersburg’s GO bonds are backed by the city’s full faith and credit pledge, affirming its reliability to meet debt obligations. The proceeds from the city’s 2024 GO bond issuance are set to fund several critical projects, including a new courthouse facility, the renovation of a police station, the construction of an animal care center and $1.3 million to refinance older bonds for net savings.

City Manager March Altman said in a statement that the upgraded bond rating reflects continued growth and economic recovery.

“Petersburg has a fund balance of approximately $50 million, which gives it the flexibility to move forward with needed capital projects,” Altman said. “I commend the city council and Petersburg’s Department of Finance for making decisions based on sound fiscal management and best practices.” 

Advertisement

The enhanced credit rating not only reflects Petersburg’s financial stability but also unlocks key advantages, including lower interest rates, greater borrowing capacity for vital projects, expanded economic development opportunities, and increased appeal to potential investors.

It further signals to investors that the city’s creditworthiness has improved, potentially reducing borrowing costs for future projects. It also highlights the city’s steady recovery from a financial crisis that left it on the brink of insolvency less than a decade ago.

Petersburg’s financial woes reached a breaking point in 2016, when the city faced a staggering $7.7 million deficit, unpaid bills piling up to $18 million, and critical services at risk of interruption. Poor fiscal oversight, structural deficits and mismanagement led to the crisis, which garnered statewide attention. At the time, the city teetered on the verge of state intervention.

To address the dire situation, Petersburg implemented aggressive reforms, including staff reductions, tighter spending controls and measures to increase revenue. The city also partnered with outside financial advisors to help restore fiscal discipline.

By 2019, Petersburg reported a budget surplus for the first time in years and began rebuilding its financial reserves. The turnaround has since been bolstered by sustained economic growth, improved tax collection efforts, and successful community partnerships.

Advertisement

Mayor Sam Parham said that the city’s goal is to achieve a firm AAA rating.

“With the growth of the Pharmaceutical Campus, the recent approval of the Destination Resort Casino, and the many other economic development and tourism projects, the city is positioned to continue to grow its tax base and fund balance while addressing much-needed capital projects,” Parham said. 

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Virginia

Virginia Tech Basketball: Instant Takeaways From Hokies loss to Jacksonville

Published

on

Virginia Tech Basketball: Instant Takeaways From Hokies loss to Jacksonville


1. Tobi Lawal

In the first half, Tobi Lawal helped lead the Hokies in scoring, finishing the first half with 12 points. In the second half, Lawal scored two more points but finished with five turnovers which ended up being costly in the teams shortcomings down the stretch of this game.

2. Mylyjael Poteat

Mylyjael Poteat played well in the first half, leading the team in rebounding and was the second leading scorer. In the second half, Poteat and the rest of the team slowed down and got cold, leading to a blown 11 point lead in the second half. Poteat finished the game with a team high 15 points, eight rebounds, and three assists.

Advertisement

3. Team Efficiency

Virginia Tech struggled with getting the ball in the basket tonight, and it was very evident as the Hokies shot 41% from the floor, 33% from three, and 60% from the free throw line. The team has struggled with shooting the ball the last few games, which has seen them lose both by double-digits against stronger opponents.

4. Defense

The Hokies defense struggled tonight against Jacksonville, and it really showed in the second half as the Hokies blew a double digit lead. Part of the reason for this is because of the Dolphins ball movement compared to the more ball dominant first half that they had. The Dolphins shot 51% for the evening, and won the points in the paint battle 44-32.

5. Free Throws

Advertisement

The Hokies missed out on opportunities many free throw scoring opportunities throughout this game, and it became very evident in the second half. For the game, the Hokies shot 12-20 from the free throw line compared to the Dolphins eight free throws where they shot 62% so one could say with more made free throws, the Hokies win this game as they got more attempts at the line than Jacksonville.

Additional Links:

Virginia Tech Basketball: 5 Takeaways From Hokies Loss to Penn State

Virginia Tech Women’s Basketball: Instant Takeaways From Hokies Win Over Rutgers

Virginia Tech Women’s Basketball: 5 Takeaways From Virginia Tech’s Win Over Coppin State

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Virginia

Judge puts stop to governor's effort to remove Virginia from greenhouse gas initiative

Published

on

Judge puts stop to governor's effort to remove Virginia from greenhouse gas initiative


Virginia can’t withdraw from a multistate initiative designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless the Legislature agrees to it, a judge has ruled, dealing a blow to Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s efforts to exit the compact.

The ruling, issued Monday by retired Judge C. Randall Lowe in Floyd County, said Virginia’s Air Pollution Control Board exceeded its authority when it voted last year to exit the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is an effort by 12 mid-Atlantic and Northeast states to reduce power plants’ carbon emissions. Participating states require plants of a certain generating capacity to purchase allowances to emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

Virginia joined the compact in 2020 when it had a Democratic governor as well as Democratic control of the Legislature. In 2021, Youngkin, a Republican, won election as governor but one or both legislative chambers have remained under Democratic control for the entirety of his term.

Advertisement

Youngkin has said Virginia’s participation in the cap-and-trade program amounts to a hidden tax on Virginians’ energy bills.

His spokesman, Christian Martinez, said Wednesday that the state will appeal the judge’s ruling.

“Governor Youngkin remains committed to lowering the cost of living for Virginians by continuing to oppose the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which fails to effectively incentivize emission reductions in the Commonwealth,” he said in a written statement.

Shaun Kenney, a spokesman for Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares, also expressed disappointment in the judge’s ruling in a written statement, saying: “We look forward to defending the commonsense repeal of this counterproductive program on appeal.”

The State Corporation Commission has estimated the typical monthly bill could increase by $2 to $2.50 for the years 2027 to 2030.

Advertisement

Last year, before the pollution board voted to end participation in the compact, Dominion Energy, the state’s largest utility, estimated that it had incurred about $490 million in compliance costs from the initiative and recovered about $267 million from customers.

Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, a Democrat, praised the judge’s ruling, calling it “a win for all Virginians, their wallets, and our environment. Programs funded by RGGI have helped Virginians cut household energy costs, helped protect communities from floodwaters, and have been critical in the fight to cut pollution and address climate change.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending