GOP picks ex-aide to challenge Warner
ROANOAKE, Va. — Former presidential adviser and lobbyist Ed Gillespie won the Republican nomination at the state party convention on Saturday and will face Democratic Sen. Mark Warner in the general election in November.
Gillespie won the nod at the Virginia Republican Convention in Roanoke to challenge Warner, a former governor and early favorite in the race. Gillespie is the former Republican National Committee chairman and a former adviser to President George W. Bush and Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. A onetime aide on Capitol Hill, Gillespie has made millions as a corporate lobbyist.
Gillespie beat out three rivals for the nomination: insurance salesman and former Air Force pilot Shak Hill; congressional staffer Tony DeTora; and Chuck Moss, owner of a network consulting business.
In a speech to thousands of GOP delegates before the convention vote in which he was the favorite, Gillespie promised to fight for lower taxes, fewer restrictions on energy production and to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Republicans are waging a fight against supporters of Democratic President Obama to gain the six Senate seats required to secure control of that chamber. Warner however, is an early favorite.
A race between Gillespie and Warner pits two multimillionaires from northern Virginia who both worked as political operatives early in their careers.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.