You know, if I were a Republican (which I used to be, by the way), I would be getting a little bit tired of Jerry Kilgore trying to straddle the line on every issue. For example, Kilgore refuses to sign the State Taxpayer Protection Pledge, as his opponent George Fitch has done. Yet Kilgore claims to be against raising taxes. So why won't he sign the pledge? Perhaps he knows that all his expensive proposals will require increased revenues, aka "taxes?"Now, Jerry Kilgore is trying to have it both ways again, this time on Confederate History and Heritage Month. According to today's Washington Times, Kilgore "would support something that recognizes everyone who lived during the Civil War. " Brag Bowling, a spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) calls this issue a "litmus test for all politicians." He adds that "members of the heritage community will support those who want the month of April to receive the designation. "
Whether or not one agrees with their stances, at least Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, George Fitch, and Russ Potts are consistent on this issue. Either they oppose a Confederate History and Heritage Month (Warner and Kaine) or they support it (Fitch and Potts). Only Jerry Kilgore can't seem to figure out his own mind on the issue, neither supporting it or opposing it exactly, but instead waffling and trying desperately to redefine it as "includ[ing] recognition of the sacrifice, status and the plight of all who lived during that period of Virginia's history." Is this Kilgore's attempt to be a "uniter, not a divider," or is it merely a politically expedient attempt to curry favor from all sides? (that was a rhetorical question, by the way)
Unfortunately for Jerry Kilgore, the last time a Republican tried to straddle the line on this issue, it backfired big time and they were criticized heavily. According to Bowling, "former Attorney General Mark L. Earley, a Republican who ran against Mr. Warner for governor in 2001, alienated the heritage community by refusing to honor the Confederacy and lost many votes in the gubernatorial race." In addition, Jim Gilmore was accused of "turn[ing] his back on people of Southern heritage" for doing exactly what Jerry Kilgore is trying to do now -- have it both ways on the issue.
As George Fitch says, in an obvious sarcastic reference to Jerry Kilgore, "You either accept the fact and agree to the fact that it is a large part of our Virginia history that should be recognized or you don't...If you believe in something, then you should stand up for it and not cower under political correctness."
Last time I checked, by the way, Virginia voted to secede from the Union in April 1861, following which Richmond became the "capital of the Confederacy." The SCV, which is leading the fight for Confederate History and Heritage Month, knows exactly what it's fighting for: "preserving the history and legacy of these heroes" -- namely, "the citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy" (aka "the Second American Revolution").
Mind you: the SCV does NOT support honoring "everyone who lived during the Civil War," (abolitionists? slaves? Union soldiers? slave owners? Grant? Sherman? Lincoln?) as Jerry Kilgore proposes. To the contrary, the whole point of Confederate History and Heritage Month, in the view of the SCV and others pushing it, is crystal clear: that "future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause...the Second American Revolution."
Jerry Kilgore may think he can have it both ways on this issue, as he does on so many others. Unfortunately, his political opponents won't let him get away so easily. So here's the blunt question for Jerry Kilgore: Do you, or do you not, support Confederate History and Heritage Month? Pick a side, Jerry, because something tells me there is precious little middle ground on this battlefield!