Thursday, May 20, 2010
Q&A with Bert Mizusawa, Republican Hopeful for Congress
Words Jay Ford
Thursday, May 20th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Bert Mizusawa has a lengthy and impressive list of accomplishments.
Top of his class at West Point, a Harvard educated lawyer, small business president, policy advisor to DOD and Congress, and a Brigadier General in the Army Reserves, Mr. Mizusawa is a serious contender in the Republican nomination race. Bert agreed to sit down with me in his campaign office and share some of his thoughts on the election, and the state of American Politics.
So I hear you are called the “General” around here?
Well I am an Army Reserve Brigadier General to be exact, but I like Bert just fine.
Best movie of all time…go.
Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Godfather I and II. I was able to chat with Al Pacino years later at the cast party for Scent of a Woman, for which he finally won the Oscar. He’s a pretty nice guy. Can I add that I met another Oscar winner from Rain Man, another great movie. Not Tom Cruise but the real “Rain Man” who inspired the movie. I wanted to take him to Vegas with me.
Your press package mentions you were a Wall Street attorney. Is it really the time to be advertising that?
Absolutely. I am the only one in this race who knows the enemy, so I can play a credible role in financial reform. Would it be better to have someone with no clue? I am proud of the work I did to help raise capital for business, educational and home loans, and the experience it gave me. I worked in this area in the early 1990s, back when the capital markets were a rising tide that raised all boats. But there was fundamental change on Wall Street around 1999, when the leading investment banks went public and began orienting on short-term profits at the expense of investors’ and the public’s long term interests. It’s important to point out that attorneys don’t make the laws, they ensure compliance with them, which gave me unique financial and regulatory insights.
Ok. There is a lot of oil pouring into the Gulf, and we still do not have an end game in sight? Given that a spill of this magnitude on our coast could have covered the shore from Delaware to Virginia Beach does this give you any pause for reflection?
This is a serious incident that is still unfolding, so its causes and repercussions will not be known for some time. While I support offshore drilling, we must ensure that the lessons we learn from this incident–which might be the worst oil accident in history–are incorporated to prevent recurrences. As I learn more about what happened, I see that regulatory safeguards were not enforced, so it appears to be more of a leadership issue than a technical issue even though the technical challenges were daunting. Our public sector leaders must enforce standards designed to protect the public from the zeal for short-term profiteering.
What about DOD and NASA objections?
I think an analysis must be done to see how much overlap there would be between the launch “range fan” and the oil rig operations. As for the Navy, I think it’s good training. We are operational in the Persian Gulf and there are oil rigs all over the place there.
Do you think that the Hampton Roads economy is too dependent on the military presence?
Virginia derives over 30 percent of its economy from federal spending, and Hampton Roads as much as 50 percent. This makes a lot of sense from a geographic perspective. You have to station the military where the geography allows, and it is easiest to deploy. From a military standpoint it is good to have a place where you can have the synergies of joint forces and this region is perfect.
Also, whenever you have a military presence you have private sector support. Our defense-oriented businesses are developing new technologies and best business practices that benefit the entire region, and also allow them to diversify into non-defense areas. Most military innovations are coming from the private sector, especially small businesses, so Hampton Roads has great potential as an incubator for new technologies. Along with our academic institutions, all the pieces are in place, and I will help lead our area’s great but unrealized potential to be a national leader in R&D.
Thoughts on the “save the carrier” movement”?
The loss of an aircraft carrier could be the single most important issue currently facing Hampton Roads. I am working to keep the carriers here, and will continue the fight as your congressman. Not on the basis of aircraft carriers as a jobs program, but as an issue of unnecessary spending and national security. Back in 1996, I helped write the original QDR legislation, which the Navy is apparently using to justify the move. I’m not convinced we should spend another billion dollars or more to move the carriers when the taxpayers have already invested in the world’s best naval base in Norfolk.
What is the difference between you and everyone else in this race? Everyone seems to have pretty much the same platform.
Bert, Yvonne, Mark, Michael and Eric in Alaska.
I think there are big differences. Especially reality versus rhetoric. I don’t want to be a politician; I want to be a leader. Leadership is a rare commodity and I have proven that I can lead throughout my career. I am the only one who has actually done the things needed to successfully represent the district. I helped bring 5,000 jobs to this area by transforming our military structure, in this case Joint Forces Command. This is the most military district in the entire nation, so if there is ever a reason to have a congressman with a strong military background, it is here. I would be the only general serving in Congress, the most highly decorated post-Vietnam veteran in Congress and the only one with senior experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the Pentagon. My background gives me unusual clout to help the district and the nation in the area of defense. With my unique financial and legal background, I would also seek to be on the Ways and Means and Appropriations Committees, where I would be positioned to control taxes, spending and entitlement reform.
Scott Rigell is without a doubt the man to beat in this primary. How do you two match up?
There is stark contrast between Scott Rigell and myself. He has been a successful industrial-age middleman, which is his strength, and I credit him all his successes as a local businessman. The key question here is what are the relevant skills and experience to effectively serve the district in Congress? I’ve been successful at creating information-age jobs in the private sector and have created over 5,000 jobs from the public sector. Add my flag-rank experience in the military, in the Congress and in the nation’s Senior Executive Service. Regardless of the rhetoric, public sector experience is of paramount importance at the federal level, especially in the areas of defense and national security, which drive our local economy.
I’m not sure if I’d call Rigell the man to beat, but it is clear he is the political establishment’s choice in this race. Rigell has aligned himself with the political establishment in Washington, and if he gets this nomination he will be beholden to that establishment. Voters around the country are widely rejecting establishment candidates. I want to fight for a smaller, more efficient federal government, lower taxes and more preservation of personal freedom. I’m not interested in going to Washington just to “go along to get along.”
Also, I am a lawyer with experience in the global capital markets. And since it takes a good lawyer to kill a bad lawyer, my legal training will come in handy.
Do you think this primary process has been unfairly weighted to favor Scott Rigell?
It’s been weighted, but I don’t know if it’s been unfairly weighted.
Do you think this “greasing of the rails” undermines democratic principles?
I think it undermines perceptions of the party. If there was ever a time for the party to change tack and politics as usual, it is now. The people are demanding it, and they deserve it.
Do you align yourself with the Tea Party movement?
Yes–I adhered to the principles of less spending and smaller government even before the Tea Party movement gave them visibility. It’s a great grassroots movement with lots of energy and ideas. We will be most effective if the energy can be channeled into capable and successful candidates.
What is the prettiest part of the 2nd district?
We are blessed to have great beaches all throughout the district, especially Virginia Beach. The entire Eastern Shore is amazing, although many there would like to keep it quiet. My hometown of Hampton along Buckroe Beach and Grand View is also gorgeous, as is Norfolk’s Ocean View. I go through the bridge tunnel daily and that’s a wonderful view with the ships and water. To me these are symbols of American power, so it’s inspiring to see the naval ships, and see and hear the F-22s and F-18s overhead.
You make it through the primary and it’s you and Congressman Nye this fall. He has voted with Republicans on most major policies thus far, so where do you draw a contrast?
First of all, he is a Democrat and I am a Republican. Second, the reason he voted that way is because his party knows he needs to vote like a moderate Republican in order to get reelected. They want to keep this district. This is a very important district politically, and Nancy Pelosi and the others would like to keep it Democratic. Given his delicate footing, I discount every vote in the first term of Glenn Nye. If he attains job security through reelection this November, his votes will change. I aim to stop that.
Twenty years from now, how do you envision Hampton Roads?
We will be able to travel at highway speed limits 24/7, including the bridges and tunnels. Hopefully, by that time Ft. Monroe will be a national historic landmark, with parts of it nicely developed via a public-private partnership. The Chesapeake Bay is the most biologically productive estuary in the world, and it is my hope we will take steps to keep it that way.
I also would like to see more telecommuting, and more reliable, safe, and clean energy sources developed. It is a national security thing.
Would you then support a tax rebate for telecommuting?
I support lowering taxes to spur business growth, and a rebate might be appropriate since telecommuting lessens traffic congestion and related costs to the community. But businesses will realize savings regardless, such as office space and parking, if they embrace the practice. The culture has to change where you can expect people to be as productive remotely with cell phones and laptops. In fact, telecommuting will over time encourage supervisors to focus on productivity rather than timecards, which is another plus for the economy.
Do you support gay marriage?
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.
Civil unions?
I think it should be an issue for the states to decide.
If you could meet one person that has ever existed, who would it be?
Jesus Christ.
What would you ask him?
I would ask him what inspired him to do what he was doing. Someone once told me that the two most important people in history were Jesus Christ and Karl Marx. Recent history discredited Marx so he’s not that influential anymore. Mohammed appears to be taking his place as someone whose following has had a major geostrategic impact.
Arizona has passed state level immigration laws that have sharply divided people, and renewed the calls for federal reform. What do you think we should be doing?
First, a nation is defined by its territory and its people, so we must be able to assert control over our borders and who lives within them. Second, we are a nation of laws, therefore we must enforce the laws, including immigration laws, on the books. In the case of Arizona, I understand they amended their law so the police may not stop someone just because they might be an illegal immigrant, but must ask for identification documentation if there is probable cause to stop them for other reasons. Given the principles on which this nation was founded, I do not understand what all the issues are with enforcing laws that are preexisting.
Do you support some kind of comprehensive federal immigration reform?
Aside from enforcing the laws, I would support changing the 14th amendment so that just being born in a certain geographic area does not confer citizenship. Citizenship at birth should be a function of either of the parents’ citizenship. I don’t think that people should be able to come here to have kids, who as citizens give non-citizens a legal reason to remain in the United States.
[Mr. Mizusawa pulls copy of the Constitution from his back pocket to reference 14th amendment.]
Do you think we need to expand access and opportunities for higher education?
I think an educated citizenry benefits us all and makes us more economically productive, happier, and lowers crime. I also believe it is a national security issue. I support maximizing access to higher education to people with the potential to make the most of it.
If I was not afforded the opportunities to get a college degree I would not be who I am today.
Best rock band of all time…go.
The Beatles.
Finally! Your favorite Beatles song?
‘Let it be’ or ‘Hey Jude’. Neither necessarily because of the lyrics. ‘Yesterday’ is also good.
Parting words?
I think we need to have leaders in Congress we can trust to do the right thing. Issues are often ephemeral, and leadership is more important. We hope you will come out and select a leader in the June 8th primary. ‘Duty, Honor, Country’ is the West Point motto, and it is something I have done my best to live by.
?
""
COMMENTS
Facebook comments:
ABOUT THE WRITER
Believes the world would be a nicer place if we all made some of our own furniture and grew some of our own food. He has worked on various state and national political races around the region, before switching over to issues based campaigns, where he advocated for voting rights, universal health care, and the environment. He has taught grassroots activism, and happens to think it is pretty important. He believes passionately in environmental reverence, social equality, the power of collective action, and his ability to speak with his cat. He fancies himself a part-time philosopher and thinks that people should dance on their cars more often. Jay thinks that abolishing the hand shake and replacing it with mandatory five second hugs would go leaps and bounds in changing the world.
Other posts by Jay Ford.
Other posts by Jay Ford.
RELATED POSTS
More Politics Posts
RSS
His responses make him seems somewhat robotic. What was his demeanor like? Down to earth? Rigid and monotone?
Oh, great. Another right wing wacko. How, pray tell, does this individual plan on amending the constitution with a Democratic president and democratic majorities in both houses? Oh, that’s right, he can’t, he’s just saying this nonsense to make the tea maniacs happy.
Also its ironic how much tea partiers criticize government spending unless it comes to their own pet projects and earmarks.
Joe, having met Bert many time, he is one of the friendliest easy-going politicians I’ve ever encountered. He is quite intelligent, but jovial as well.
You forgot to mention why is he running for Congress here when he really lives in Fairfax.
Do we want to elect a man who would abandon his wife and kids to run for Congress? His wife and kids live and go to school in Fairfax, as Bert will readily acknowledge.
Not only that, but nearly all of his money has come from Wall Street and DC, basically none from in the district. Just check his FEC reports.
Bert Mizusawa is the only candidate who was actually raised in the District. His father was an enlisted man, his mother worked part time, and together they raised 6 sons – one of whom earned a Presidential scholarship to West Point and went on to graduate first in his class. If you want to know why Bert is running, he tells you on the first page of his web site. If you want to know the principles that guide Bert, look at his roots. West Point shapes students, at a very young age, to lead with honor, courage, and distinction.
As regards “abandon his wife and kids …”. I will assume you are simply ignorant to military way of life. Within our community, it’s called “holding down the Home Fort”. Military families make this sacrifice every day. Also, uprooting young children (for show) and asking your wife to quit a very good job (Senior Council at the Fed) is not what I would call smart, good for the family, or necessary during a primary campaign. Unlike another candidate in this race, Bert is not a rich man. Plus, the last I checked, congress is in session Tues – Thurs and all congressmen commute between their districts and D.C. Bert will also. It’s one thing to question a candidate’s position on issues; quite another to infer family abandonment, especially with a man that has shown by words AND deeds, he is amongst our nation’s finest.
That’s all great DJ Spiker; it doesn’t change the fact that he is a racist wacko who hates freedom and loves spending taxpayer money,
@Sam
DJ Spiker was answering my question, not justifying the political/religious/personal worldview of the candidate. Relax a little bit. Plus, based on his answers, I don’t think you’re justified in referring to him as a “religious wacko who hates freedom”. You’re taking his concise replies and forcing them to align with a segmented group of people on the right that get massive amounts of media attention. And, if you’re NOT doing that and have actual facts to support him being a “religious wacko who hates freedom”, then maybe share that instead of blathering on with unsupported ad hominem. Even if you are right about him, your chosen method is not a very effective way to deconstruct, dismiss, and debunk an opponent’s stance.
If you oppose gay marriage, you are a religious wacko that hates freedom. It’s actually pretty simple. If you oppose gay marriage, then by logical default you believe that the government is a sacred authority that should be used to spread Christian morality and enforce Christian rules on the populace. In other words, you are a Christian fascist. In other words, you are an enemy of freedom, the constitution, and America.
Also look at his statement, “a nation is defined by its territory and its people.” What does this mean? How are Mexicans not qualified to be American “people”? This is another version of the conservative mantra “borders, language, and culture” which is just code for White nationalism (which is ironic because Mexicans are actually Christian, but not the evangelical type the right-wingers prefer).
samz, take a breath and chill. And then look up the definition of ‘rabid’. Gay unions will eventually be recognized and accepted nationally, but like any ‘rights’ movement it’s about changing hearts and minds, which takes time, exposure, and destroying fear with knowledge. And, before you go further into the madness, the following quotes are from our President: “Gays should not face discrimination, but should not marry.”/ “Decisions about marriage should be left to the states.” / “Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church.” / “Disentangle gay rights from the word ‘marriage’.” / “Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights.” / “Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage.”
Unless you are prepared to call President Obama a “religious wacko that hates freedom…Christian Fascist, etc.”, you should stand down.
Why do you just assume I am an Obama supporter? Because I hate Christian fascists, I must love left-wing statists?
You realize your utopian vision of America will be stopped dead in its tracks if the tea party continues its current ascent to power? They are enemies of Western civilization and if they succeed our society will rever to the Dark Ages. In all fairness, this gentlememan Mizusawa probably didn’t actually believe those horrible things he said about gay people, much like Obama doesn’t actually believe his own horrible statements. But, in any effect, those statements represent a Christian nationalist fascist point of view, and Mr. Mizusawa will be pressured to conform to that ideal once he is in office.
And don’t call me “rabid.” You’re just using that hateful insulting remark as a way of deflecting the debate.
If you’re attempting to start a semantic debate about what “America” means, then I give up even trying to communicate rationally about this. Yes, America in terms of geography includes the US, Canada, Central America, South America, but you cannot ignore context. America, as he used it, obviously refers to the US and its culture. It has nothing to do with whiteness, it has everything to do with borders and citizenship. So, no, in this context Mexicans in the US illegally are NOT AMERICAN. You’re attempting to dismiss his remarks because he uses a common, albeit inaccurate, colloquialism by referring to our nation as America. That’s a really, really weak argument and you know it.
Fascist and Fascism are probably the most commonly utilized terms of denigration in this country without any real academic/historical understanding of what the words mean. You tell this other dude not to call you “rabid” but you toss around statements that imply anyone that thinks gays should not marry are not only Christian, but also analogous with fascists. What a horrific, oppressed existence you must live in in this country where “fascism” means that you can’t be married/recognized by the church–which you apparently despise.
As defined by Merriam-Webster online:
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Gay is not equal to race
Gay is not equal to nation
Gay has very little to do with centralized, autocratic government or dictators
Gays are not ‘forcibly suppressed’ because of their opposition to current laws as in they’re not thrown in camps, tortured, killed, or any other ways suppressed. (Suppression is vastly different than Oppression in case you wanted to argue that).
The only aspect of Fascism that I can see even being tangentially relevant to this discussion is “social regimentation”. Even in that, it’s hardly “severe” and in many ways applicable only in it’s loosest definition.
Given these premises, it’s hardly valid to refer to an anti-gay marriage stance as either innately Christian, innately wacko, or innately Fascist.
Your prejudice against Christianity and the church (likely formulated via your understanding of them and their beliefs through media perceptions and attention) shines through, manifests a significant lack of understanding, and appears to be experiential and anecdotal rather than…well…real.
Furthermore, laws are the practical application of morality and ethics. They always have been. Some less significantly so than others, but at the root of every law, even remotely, is a link to a moral issue. For example, speeding is not inherently immoral, but the reason speeding is against the law is, at least in part, because of the pain, suffering, and even death it can cause in one’s own life or another’s. Thus, the value of human life (an ethical stance) and the obligation not to injure another (morality) are at the root of that law. To suggest that the desire to make laws to propagate morality is wrong just seems kind of ridiculous.
You can’t tell someone that they’re deflecting the debate by calling you rabid and then have your whole argument be a deflection of the debate into personal attacks on not just the candidate but ANYONE that disagrees with you on the stance of gay marriage. If it isn’t ad hominem it’s an appeal to emotions and potentially a red herring. Either way you spin it, your argument is rooted in logical fallacy. God knows, we may end up agreeing on the actual issue, but your assessment of the candidate seems to be rooted in your hatred and prejudice to individuals that have faith in a religion (specifically Christianity) and it weakens your argument nearly to the point of irate inanity, in my opinion.
You are so dumb it boggles my mind.
To start with, I have nothing against the church. I have a problem with dumbasses like you who feel like that the government/the state should enforce the church’s morality. If you look at the history of the world, you will see that the church was at its strongest when the government didn’t interfere with religion. The most secular/atheist/liberal places right now are in Europe where the church historically had the government to do its biddings. People there became so sick of church-influenced statism that they rejected the church completely.
When did Merriam Webster become the authority on everything? Fascism has been defined differently by hundreds of scholars, but everybody agrees that is basically a state where the government controls the lives of the people. And a country where the state can decide who can and can’t marry is more fascist than a country cannot make that decision. And “marriage” here isn’t something that happens in a church, it is a legal distinction that the government gives to certain people that gives them legal benefits and rights. Allowing gay marriage won’t “force” churches to do gay marriages, but it will force the government to give gay couples their certificate that says that they have the same legal rights as any other couple.
As for your argument that laws are the practical application of morals and ethics, I agree, but we live in a Western, liberal (in the old sense) society. In Western societies, our “public” morals are no more than you can’t hurt or defraud your fellow citizens. Our “public” morals don’t include which God to worship, how to treat your own body, etc… It is only the last few years where neo-fascist people like you have made laws banning alcohol, drugs, gay marriage, etc… We don’t allow religion to become part of our legal morality because the various groups in our society don’t agree on one religion. Saying that America is a “Christian” country or some bullshit like that is an insult to atheists, Jews, etc…
Ok.
Let me see if I’ve got this right: I am mind-boggling dumb, rigid because I abide by the idea that words DO have meanings, and am a neo-fascist because you can’t seem to comprehend the differences between ethics & morality/the church (particularly protestant/catholic), gay marriage/civil unions, and history/revisionist history.
You’re response shows that you struggle with even rudimentary reading comprehension skills and are incapable of discussing this rationally or with any semblance of historical, factual, or rhetorical accuracy. How can I discuss a topic with someone that deconstructs the validity of a major dictionary?
I am done attempting to have a rational discussion with you about it. I am sure you’ll feel the necessity to snag that last word and fill the reply with comments about my (lack of) intelligence and prejudicial hatred toward homosexuals rooted in my deep-seated desire to reinsert the papacy into contemporary American culture. But, I am okay with that. For what this “conversation” lacks in practical, intellectual value, it teems with comedy gold.
Oh I didn’t know you could win an argument by citing the dictionary, making up definitions for words, talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, and calling your opponent stupid. Congratulations, you didn’t respond to one point I made.
This whole series has been good, but this was an especially forthright interview. I can’t say I agree with the candidate on all the issues, but he’s makes a strong case on character. If elected I would expect Mr. Misusawa to be his own man.
Real issues aside, Bert: I’m giving you a pass on the popped color because you were in Alaska, and layers around the neck are important in colder climates. However, let’s not have this conversation again.
Grant… I wondered if someone would comment on the collar. I am glad it was you.
Jay, another fine interview in a terrific series. It’s great to ‘hear’ the voice and views of each primary candidate – directly from the candidate. There are a number of excellent folks running and Bert is top tier. I’ve met him; this interview is very much the ‘real’ Bert. He’s forthright, honest, far-sighted, honor-driven, candid, rational, respectful, experienced, and recognized for his keen intellect, analytical abilities, and respect for the process and the law. With Bert, what you see IS what you get. I look forward to future candidate profiles.
I’m trying to figure out his answer on immigration. Bert says he is a lawyer – and then says this: “Given the principles on which this nation was founded, I do not understand what all the issues are with enforcing laws that are preexisting.” relative to illegal immigrants. Huh??
To have someone of this caliber, with this background, running- is terrific.
Tim J – I can’t speak for the candidate, but the reference is fairly straightforward and easily found in the preamble of our Constitution, which outlines the fundamental principles on the which our nation was founded: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
If you’re still not clear, may I suggest a reading of Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Articles of Confederation? If you need more, google “rule of law”. We’re very blessed to have a candidate with a deep understanding and respect for these documents. Refreshing!
Bert seems like a straightforward guy to me. I feel that on the issues most important to me, defense, fiscal responsibility, and support for small businesses, Mr. Misuzawa checks all the boxes. While it seems many would like to make issues that do no require immediate attention into the crux of the campaign, fiscal responsibility and smaller government are two principles that we need to return to immediately. Hopefully if candidates like Bert are able to make a dent in the primary season and beyond people will look beyond both the party and establishment candidates.