Ten questions for…Daniel “The Wig Man” Vovak

A day late but hopefully not a dollar short. In actuality, though, when I changed the rules to the Ten Questions, Daniel Vovak was moved up about 11 days from his original slot. But I think I like the new “first come, first served” rule better because I think it’s going to encourage participation.

Daniel Vovak has achieved more notoriety than most U.S. Senate candidates. In the first place, he wears an old-fashioned powdered wig (think George Washington) to most of his public appearances. Secondly and related to that, he’s involved in litigation against the Maryland Board of Elections because, on the ballot, he’s listed as Daniel “Wig Man” Vovak. He calls it the case of the missing “the.” And, finally, his frequent self-produced internet commercials have created some buzz, and some of them are downright funny (while others completely miss the mark.) By the way, so as not to get dragged into a court case, I added back that “the.”

He was the very first person to send in his TQ answers back in early May, so today he’ll finally get his due. And as with Kevin Zeese, Daniel provided links as part of his answers – here they will just be text so you can copy and paste them in your browser, or just follow the monoblogue links to his website and blog. And, because upon reading the answers I believe he used some positions and comments he’s posted to the website, I’ve slightly edited them to be one continuous answer by deleting a few quotation marks.

Question #1:

There are several schools of thought regarding the problem of illegal immigrants, or as some would call them, “undocumented workers.” Some solutions offered range from complete amnesty to sealing the border with a wall to penalizing employers who hire these workers. Currently there are competing House and Senate measures – in particular the House bill has spawned massive protests around the country. While I have listed some of the possible solutions, it’s no exhaustive list. What solutions do you favor for the issue?

“Our borders are out of control to the point where private individuals are exceedingly more effective than the government at protecting America against terrorism. The federal government has a department that controls immigration, called the ³Immigration and Naturalization Service.² That department needs to be eliminated or its laws enforced beginning immediately.” http://www.vovak.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=305&isid=568&page=issue

Question #2:

Another top-burner concern is the current spike in the price of gasoline. Again, this is a broad issue with many scenarios that can be played out. Possible solutions that have been bandied about in recent days are a temporary suspension of the federal 18.4 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and easing environmental restrictions on gasoline blends (as happened after Hurricane Katrina). Further down the road but possibly affecting prices on the futures market would be the approval of additional oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. If you were elected, what solutions to this issue would you pursue and why?

“If Americans want to pay less in gasoline costs, America should use Iraq’s oil. It is a small price for that country to pay for giving them democracy.” http://www.vovak.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=305&isid=837&page=issue

Question #3:

Recently the news has featured ethics scandals involving GOP donor Jack Abramoff and former House member Duke Cunningham of California as well as Democrat House members William Jefferson of Louisiana and Allan Mollohan of West Virginia. If elected, what steps would you take to help eliminate ethical improprieties among our elected representatives?

The American system seems to be working, as unethical officials are being caught. In time, more will be caught.

Question #4:

Along that same line, many people have seen the vast sums of money that seemingly are required to run for public office and were under the impression that campaign finance reforms such as those enacted with the McCain-Feingold bill were supposed to relieve this inequity. On the whole, however, the money trail has not ceased even with these laws. How do you favor strengthening these laws to make them more effective, or do you agree with some First Amendment advocates who think these laws should be eliminated?

My campaign is already implementing campaign finance reform. We have spent well less than $5000, the FEC requirement for filing paperwork.

Question #5:

While the above issues have captured the headlines, our War on Terror (particularly in Iraq) is never far from our minds. It goes without saying that the vast majority of us support our troops; but the question is whether you favor our current approach or something different in terms of sending additional troops, seeking more multinational support, or a complete pullout. Maybe your thoughts are someplace in between these listed or would be considered “out of the box” thinking. What approach would you favor?

“All wars are political since politicians begin wars, not generals. Logically, politicians are responsible for ending the wars they create. The usual method of changing a policy is for people to pressure politicians to change the status quo. Hence, to oppose a war is not an act of disloyalty to our nation (or its soldiers) but an act of patriotism, because the American system is used to make a change in American policy. In Iraq, the mission has been accomplished and most troops need to return home immediately. I believe that if troops return home gradually then American soldier deaths will ultimately increase dramatically. I sense a Vietnam-type quandary rupturing in Summer 2006 with a divided nation wanting to remove all troops from Iraq or to substantially increase the number of troops. The American public will elect leaders outside of the traditional thinking of Washington, D.C. By contrast, I support The Afghanistan War, which is rooted in stopping terrorist groups. All terrorism must end.” http://www.vovak.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=305&isid=578&page=issue

Question #6:

Related to the above question is the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The oil-rich nation claims that this program is for the peaceful use of generating electrical power for its citizens, yet on the other hand its leadership has threatened the nation of Israel with annihilation hinted as being from a nuclear bomb. While the President has the final decision, what course would you advocate he take (a pre-emptive military strike, diplomacy either through the UN or some other way, or leaving them alone as a sovereign nation) and why?

America needs to continue to negotiate with Iran.

Question #7:

Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?

“I believe social security should only be for retired people, not for health care purposes. There must be firm, age-based eligibility requirements and they should be consistent. Before there is any financial change to the current social security system, the private amount that each person has invested into it over a lifetime must be easily accessed through the internet and through a local office.” http://www.vovak.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=305&isid=573&page=issue

Question #8:

Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?

Congress needs to cut spending. Period.

Question #9:

Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions?

America should take steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions.

Question #10:

This question should present you with the shortest answer. Given that in 2008 either you will be seeking re-election to the House and hoping for some coattails at the top of the ticket, or preparing to work with a new President (for the Senators), if you had a short list of 3 to 5 names you’d like to see seek the job, who would they be? Please note that they do not have to be candidates who are considered to be running for the post at this time.

Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
George H. W. Bush

Each of those candidates is a proven winner. Ford is my favorite, though.

*************************

By the way, I know Daniel reads my blog occasionally because he also said as much in his reply, and took my advice for longer blog posts to heart. Knowing that, I do have to take issue with his answer to Question #10, because Gerald Ford was never elected to serve as President or Vice-President, being elevated to the post when President Nixon resigned. Constitutional scholars may recall that Ford was the first Vice-President appointed under the auspices of the 25th Amendment, which provided for the President choosing a VP in the event of a vacancy – in this case, the resignation of Vice-President and former Maryland governor Spiro Agnew. The 25th Amendment was passed and ratified in the wake of the Kennedy assassination as President Johnson had no VP for the 14 months he served to finish Kennedy’s term.

Now, if he’s speaking of the several terms Ford served in the House of Representatives, being a proven winner would become a true statement. But the same could be said of our Congressman Gilchrest or hundreds of others in Congress.