Representative Abigail Spanberger (D) VA07 was elected amidst what many political analysts called the "Blue Wave" of 2018 where the Democrat Party too control of the House of Representatives. Spanberger defeated one of the "Tea Party" holdovers in the House Republican David Brat.
Like many other victorious Democrats in the 2018 Midterm Elections, Spanberger won in a district in Virginia that has historically supported conservative candidates. This Virginia 7th Congressional District had not elected a Democrat to the seat since the 70's.
Abigail Spanberger campaigned on a platform that was characterized as "passionate pragmatism" and mostly moderate positions on things like immigration reform, healthcare, and educational funding, One of the issues she quickly tackled was rural broadband access which appealed to many of the rural voters of the District and signaled that Spanberger would represent that which she campaigned on in terms of representing all constituents. The rural areas of the District had supported her opponent during the election while Spanberger carried the larger Richmond suburban areas.
However, the tensions and animosity between Progressives Democrats and President Trump widened and Spanberger's positions on many issues appeared in direct contrast to her fellow Democrats. Although, Spanberger was one of only a small number of "Blue Dog" Democrats comprising the Blue Dog Coalition her identity within the new freshman Representatives portrayed on Saturday Night Live of all places began to fade and others like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Oman began to steal the headlines and fill the media news feeds.
Spanberger is part of the Blue Dog Coalition Rural Opportunity Task Force in the House and House Rural Broadband Task Force which as working groups or caucuses attempts to address the needs of the rural communities throughout the country.
Much of the Spanberger campaigned comprised convincing voters that Spanberger as a former intelligence "operative" had the experience and knowledge to address many of the issues the country faced whether it be immigration or foreign policy. Spanberger is a member of two main committees in the House; The Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Spanberger has been highly critical of the trump administrations foreign policy. She felt compelled to inform Secretary of State Pompeo what his functions are and instructed the Secretary that "as a former intelligence officer I understand the nuance is deep" and later challenged the Adminstration's commitment to the intelligence services which both were part of in the past. Spanberger asserted to Pompeao and the country that the intelligence community will continue to "speak truth to power even when the truth even when the power ignores that truth".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyvL9uEXlRk
As Spanberger continually refers to the intelligence community as her "sisters and brothers" it is apparent that her allegiances have not left the intelligence community even though now she sits not as an operative or intelligence analyst but as a duly elected voice of the People in the House of Representatives. Spanberger's recent positions and said allegiance should alarming to every constituent but not not only them but all Americans.
The House is now comprised of many officials from the "Swamp". Former career intelligence officers or other positions. Some politically appointed but the former administration or worked in some capacity or another in the former administration. The role of these individuals is tasked very differently than that of an elected Representative. Spanberger did not refer to her "sisters and brothers" in the past tense but the present tense implying she still stands with the intelligence community that she was once a part.
Constituents have little basis or knowledge as to what functions Abigail Spanberger performed during the Obama Administration. Spanbegrer has been highly critical of Trumps Syrian policy recently and even sent a letter to the White House joined with others condemning his actions in Northern Syria. Did Spanberger work on Syria as part of the Obama Administration. Was she an operative involved in gathering the intelligence in that area that led to what can only be described as fueling the rise of ISIS in that region. Was it the intelligence community that recommended selling arms and munitions to known terror groups like the PKK in Syria and forming an alliance with them in the first place?
There are many questions that likely may never be answered but it appears by Spanberger's statements she is clearly of the opinion that the Trump administrations policy and positions regarding removing American forces from the area is wrong. She has clearly joined the likes of former national security adviser to Obama, Susan Rice who stated the policy of removing forces was "bats**t crazy" which Rice stated on CBS "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert". Yet, was it not the policy of Obama and the guidance provided him by the intelligence community that created the situation facing America in Syria in the first place?
Wasn't the Obama intelligence community of which Spanberger hold allegiance to that struck the deal to align with YPG, the Syrian right wing of the PKK that the U.S. State Department declared a terrorist group and in effect betrayed our NATO allies especially Turkey who asked the Obama administration not to undertake such alliances?
In effect wasn't the Obama Administration who sought to align with the YPG in effect to appease the Iranians who they sought a strategic accommodation with? Who that had been negotiating with regarding the nuclear deal? Given Damascus was an ally with Russia and Iran, wasn't the Obama intelligence community who recommended the alliance with the YPG so not to upset negotiations with Iran? Is the the "nuance" of policy that Spanberger referred to in the March hearing involving Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Pompeo once served as director of the intelligence community and clearly Spanberger is at odds with his leadership as it appears both were serving in their respective capacities at the same time.
Spanberger while campaigning to work with President Trump has yet to by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, she has done the exact opposite. Spanberger has opposed Trump's support for Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region in the civil war in Yemen another Obama blunder leading to the most catastrophic humanitarian crisis in the world. Spanberger and her colleagues in the House have simply emolden the Houthi extremists in Yemen as they attempt to restrict the President and prevent our military and out intelligence services from assisting our allies.
Now the country is hearing how there may have been an intelligence community connection to the spying of individual American citizens and the Trump campaign and how the community may have been weaponized against the Trump campaign; Spanberger's "sisters and brothers". AG William Barr and others are investigating the matter and now it appears as though the investigation as turned into a criminal inquiry. This shift permits John Durham the lead on this inquiry to hold a grand jury and issue criminal charges. Of course the Democrats are furious and scrambling to move up their own impeachment inquiry against Trump.
Spanberger has not hidden her objections to Trump's continued portrayal of an intelligence community that appears ripe with issue. Spanberger also is clearly angered by Trump attempting to implement his own vision and foreign policy that is counter to the intelligence community she was once a part of. Yet, isn't that the right of the President under the Constitution? Spanberger appears to be implying that Trump works for "them" and not the other way around yet the Constitution clearly defines the role with regard to foreign policy lies directly with the President.
With all the Progressive condemnation regarding Trump Syrian policy, just last weekend we learned that both the #1 an #2 leader of ISIS in Syria have been killed by joint American and Kurdish forces in two operations in Northern Syria.
Rep. Abigail Spanberger has yet to praise our military forces or the President for a mission that has said to be one of the best planned and executed ever against ISIS or in Syria. Spanberger's lack of praise and support for the military over her own "sisters and brothers" speaks volumes about her true allegiances.
Now what she once claimed a "passionate pragmatism" is but a memory for most constituents in the conservative VA07. Her claimed desire of working with Trump has proven nothing more than an empty campaign promise and now with her support for formal impeachment of the President places her at odds with the majority of her district. Spanberger joins Rep. Elaine Luria of the 2d Virginia Congressional District in support of impeachment and the entire Virginia Congressional Delegation appears now to have jumped on board.
What are the implications of supporting impeachment?
Both Spanberger and Luria have one looming issue facing them. Like about thirty other Congressional Districts around the coluntry, both the VA07 and the VA02 were won by Donald Trump. Trump won the VA02 by 3 points in 2016 and won the VA07 as well over Hillary Clinton. Spanberger won her 2018 election by mere 2 points and only won two localities, Chesterfield and Henrico County out of the ten in the District both in suburban Richmond. Trump won Chesterfield County by two points but lost Henrico County by twenty points Clinton. Luria defeated Republican Scott Taylor by two and half points in 2018.
Any Republican challenger to Rep. Spanberger in 2020 with Donald Trump on the ballot will have alot of things on their side in terms of the District map but will have to concentrate as much resources as possible to Henrico County which will comprise about 110,000 votes of the 350,000 votes likely cast or roughly one third.
Spanberger championed that she was her own women when she was challenged repeatedly as simply being a "yes" vote for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi her 2018 opponent yet Representative Abigail Spanberger has been just that since January having voted with Pelosi almost 94% of the time and with her support for impeachment has proved there is little difference in truth between her and the Progressives of the Democrat Party.
As Spanberger likes to tell constituents over and over about her intelligence background, never forget that they live and work in the shadows and deception is simply one of the tools of the trade when in comes to all of Spanberger's "sisters and brothers" in the community of intelligence operatives.
Voters should always consider that fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment