Thursday, August 11, 2005

It's Thursday, so it must be time for "Coffee Talk"!!!

Last week's thread is like buttah!!! In just one week, we've reached over 150 posts on the 2007 elections in Prince William County, earning it the nickname, "The Thread that will Never Die." All this success is making me verklempt again. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you, yes, another topic. Virginia's Democratic Party is neither democratic nor a party. Discuss!!!
Just a little something that I cooked up so that we can keep our eyes on who the real opposition is and help us to all rediscover what it is that binds us together as Republicans.


At 8/11/2005 12:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait a minute. The democrats are our opposition?

At 8/11/2005 01:49:00 PM, Blogger Ben Kyber said...


At 8/11/2005 03:38:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Blue just made my case. The Virginia Democratic Party is nothing more than a disparate amalgamation of interest groups at war with each other for supremacy and ultimately, like Blue's comment, stands for nothing (much like the noises of that other Blue, the whimpering dog from Nickelodeon's "Blue's Clues".)

At 8/11/2005 04:01:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like it or not - Northern Virginia is becoming a Democratic stronghold despite of themselves. There is only one Republican elected official inside the Beltway, with only a handful left in Fairfax County. Bush only won PWC with 52.8% of the vote with Dumfries, Neabsco, and Woodbridge voting with Kerry. Bush won Occoquan by 100 votes. In a couple of years, PWC will vote Democratic although they still have a hard time recruiting candidates. That problem will change once younger Democrats realize that PWC is not a Republican stronghold and that they can win. Most importantly, with the GOP always talking taxes and the residents concerned about transportation/education, the GOP will lose even independents.

At 8/11/2005 04:40:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Bush's 52.84% is nothing to sneeze at vs. Kerry's 46.40%. I'll take a better than 6% margin of victory any day of the week. In fact, in 2000, Bush received 52.52% of the vote in PWC, so he held steady / slightly improved over last time.

Just look at the results for JoAnn Davis in PWC in 2004 -- 68.77%. And go back to 2003 and see just how well our county candidates did. Connaughton countywide - 69.45%. Glen Hill countywide - 57.84. Caddigan in Dumfries - 75.06%. Plus Dumfries, with all the new high-end development going on (in what were once Democratic stronghold precincts, but went strongly for J. Davis, Connaughton and Caddigan), will only trend more GOP. Pointing out Neabsco and Woodbridge only highlights that they are the only two remaining Democrat districts in the county. Once Barg and Jenkins retire, there are strong potential GOP candidates in both of those districts, some of whom have run previously or currently hold lower elected offices.

Besides, anyone moving to the exurb that is PWC are most likely married couples with young children (or who want to start a family) who are increasingly a solid GOP voting block. The Blue Tide stops at the Occoquan.

At 8/11/2005 05:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think you understand the point that blogger was making. The candidates you refer to ran as centrist problem-solvers not right-wing anti-taxers. Compare their numbers with Chris Braunlich or Corey Stewart or Dave Mabie or Scott Lingfelter or Jeff Frederick, people who are perceived to be right of center and more ideological. The numbers in PWC for the Republican cause are moving downward as the county becomes better educated, richer, and more diverse. These folks will vote Republican if you give them a reason, but they won't if you don't.

At 8/12/2005 08:11:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 5:16 -- The point the blogger was making, as you cast it, is misinformed/mistaken, since it forgets the most powerful force in politics -- incumbency.

Corey Stewart and Scott Lingamfelter ran as conservative anti-taxers for open seats, and won. Jeff Frederick ran as a conservative anti-taxer, knocked off an incumbent Repubmocrat pro-taxer, and won rather handily the most Dem seat in GOP hands in the Commonwealth. In '99, Kathy Seefeldt was accurately cast as a pro-taxer (by, among others, the undersigned), and was knocked off by Connaughton, who certainly did nothing to disparage those who thought he would be an improvement (though in reviewing an old column, I note that Seefeldt presciently tried to paint Connaughton as a tax-and-spender which, while true, is the pot calling the kettle "Black!"; she just didn't have the bouyant housing market to indulge her similar desires).

Of the two mentioned, only two lost, both to incumbents. Braunlich lost in a marginal district to an entrenched incumbent with a name associated with Marine heroism, and with a compelling personal story, however much her left-wing policies depart from the former. Mabie also lost to an entrenched incumbent, but in a more Republican district after diminishing differences (he was, after all, running against a personal friend) including advocacy for higher taxes. He ill-advisedly tried to make it a popularity contest, rather than one of competing visions.

Anon 4:01's comments apply only to Fairfax.

As for Riley's point (he's correct that blue stops at the Occoquan), only Hill's numbers are important, and their departure from Connaughton's reflects the reality of incumbency. Connaughton was an incumbent running against a buffoon; Caddigan's opponent was little better (columnists don't win elections; ask Gary Jacobsen). Bush's County-wide numbers were down because of the massive hate campaigns run by Democrats, and an intervention increasingly unpopular.

Republicans can't become complacent in PWC, but there's little to support the proposition that the numbers support a groundswell for tax-and-spend policies. Unfortunately, local Dems face the dual handicaps of: (1) not believing in fiscally conservative policies; and (2) having no credibility even if they advocate them. That is what makes the internecine conflicts in the GOP the only relevant ones. The value of the GOP "brand name" is one reason why spendthrift Republicans can get away with policies which depart from Republican orthodoxy on those issues.

At 8/12/2005 09:08:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Fact is the saving grace for the GOP in PWC is the fact that the Dems have yet to find someone credible to run.

Connaughtons opponent in 2003 was a good guy, but bit off a little more then he could chew.

The three Dems still around are all over-65 and no one knows how long they'll keep ticking let alone if they will retire.

At the moment we have a much better bench than the Dems. I also think with the new amount of McMansions flowing into the county the numbers will build in-favor of centrist-minded Republicans. We still need to get out there and find some younger blood to join in the fray if we wish to continue our run over the next 20 years in PWC.

Thoughts on what young/new blood is there? We discussed it briefly before, but never in-depth.

At 8/12/2005 09:44:00 AM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Well, I'm already grooming my 2 1/2 year old daughter to be the 53rd President of the United States. Look for her as a young up and coming political STAR (Sub Teen Age Republican -- for those ages 0-12.) How's that for new blood out there? :) Also, look for Baby Boy Nohe to begin making a splash later this month when he is born.

At 8/12/2005 09:48:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

mr jms, I can't agree with much that you say (surprise, surprise). And I'm curious as to what kind of "centrists" you have in mind. Ones like Lowell Weicker or Dan Lungren?

I'm not sure that you can support your first assertion, since it's difficult to believe that former Delegate David Brickley wasn't "credible" against Scott Lingamfelter in 2003. I would agree as to Roemmelt, Barg, and Porta, your third comment about the BOCS, and about the bench.

But you're more kind that I am willing to be: "Connaughtons opponent in 2003 was a good guy, but bit off a little more then he could chew."

Connaughton's opponent in 2003 was a former Pot. News columnist who spent the bulk of his tenure banging the drum for higher taxes, specifically, on the 2002 sales tax referendum. He spoke at a Committee of 100 meeting on the issue. To the extent that voters knew him at all, they knew him for that. The 2002 tax referendum demonstrated voters' position on higher taxes, yet the Dems ran a candidate with even LESS credibility on the issue than Connaughton.

Any interpretation of that election has to recognize those facts.

At 8/12/2005 09:51:00 AM, Blogger Hirons said...

What about the Democrat in the Gainesville race in 2003? Forgive me for not knowing much about him . . .Friedman, was it?

Does he have any capablities to run a county-wide race, perhaps winning and perhaps righting the tipping Demo boat?

At 8/12/2005 09:58:00 AM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

If the centrists that we get are for tax cuts and are pro-life (or at least are incrementally pro-life -- oppose partial birth abortion, support parental notification, support waiting periods, etc.), I can work with that. Given that at the county level we really don't have much say in social issues and the primary focus of local government is fiscal policy, if centrists agree with us on cutting taxes and employing government in a limited, but responsible manner, we can build a long and lasting legacy for the GOP in PWC.

At 8/12/2005 10:05:00 AM, Blogger Hirons said...

What about the Democrat in the Gainesville race in 2003? Forgive me for not knowing much about him . . .Friedman, was it?

Does he have any capablities to run a county-wide race, perhaps winning and perhaps righting the tipping Demo boat?

At 8/12/2005 10:09:00 AM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Is he under 70 years old?

At 8/12/2005 10:47:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Riley 10:09 -- Yeah, does he repeat himself unwittingly? ;-)

At 8/12/2005 10:49:00 AM, Blogger Hirons said...

That tricky little refresh button got me :(

At 8/12/2005 10:55:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Mr. Young again you fail to remember my numerous assertions on fiscal conservatism. Weicker?! I think that man is a sack of ______ that lied to the people of his state and raised taxes by cutting back room deals.

Gee, kinda reminds you of a certain Virginia Governor and his buddies doesn't it?

I think most people in the Republitarian side are pro-life(I certainly am), but do not feel the government should get invovled. I think the most incriminating aspect of our society is that a woman would even consider such an autorocity. So my question on the issue continues to be, what do we as a society do to end the need for such acts to take place?

Not to wave the Connaughton flag on this one but I will. At the Committee of 100 I was impressed when he said, "Many people in our party are pro-birth, not pro-life. They expect a woman to have a child, but will then gladly cut all social services so they have no options."

Maybe this is the Catholic coming out in me here... But if we are going to force women to have children how do we break the cycle and assist them when they need help?

Any woman that has an abortion simply for birth-control or because having a child at that moment wouldn't be "convienient" needs to go back and learn to be either abstinent or how to use protection. That in my mind is an autrocity.

At 8/12/2005 10:58:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

I went on a bit of a tirad there.

My apologies.

At 8/12/2005 11:20:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, mr jms, thank you for demonstrating that you are no conservative, and no constitutionalist. It's not that I "fail to remember your numerous assertions of fiscal conservatism"; it's just that your protestations ring hollow given your numerous demonstrations of enthusiasm for fiscal spendthrifts.

I'll forgive you for waving the Connaughton flag, if you'll forgive me for treating like a red flag in front of a bull.

As for the substance, Sean used his pro-life beliefs (which he has never been in a position to advance) to justify big government when, of course, government social programs -- whether to support women having babies or able-bodied men who are just lazy -- are beyond the powers allocated to government. He sounded like nothing so much as Hillary Clinton, doing it "for the children."

So your "numerous assertions of fiscal conservatism" ring rather hollow. Being "pro-life" and "anti-big-government" are not mutually exclusive, particularly since a small, less expensive, and less intrusive government would allow private charities and individuals to address the issue both more effectively and more efficiently, as they did before big government entered the picture and sucked all of the oxygen out of the room.

Of course, Sean was demagoguing the issue, and that you were "impressed" by it speaks volumes. Government is not empowered to "assist [women, or anyone] when they need help"; it is government's role to protect life, liberty, and property. Period. A government powerful enough to "assist them when they need help" is a government powerful enough to tell them/us how to live their/our lives, including when they/we MUST have an abortion, if it sees fit, and whether to smoke, or eat fatty foods, or go on the Atkins diet, etc.

And BTW, why should government have the power to deny money that I would use for my children's welfare by taxing me to support programs for the care of children of people who aren't as responsible as I? It would be presumptuous to assume that Sean would dismiss it as "greed," but some would, and it's bold talk from those who presume to spend my money, not their own. And how is it "greed" to prefer to spend the money you earn on your own children, rather than on the irresponsible (never forgetting, of course, that government bureaucrats get their cut, too).

As for the "Catholic coming out" of you, I don't mind, but why are you mixing the imperatives of your religious faith with government? Tsk, tsk. I'll try to remember that the next time you rail against the so-called "religious right."

And as for "tirades," that's what this is for.

At 8/12/2005 11:46:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

I am simply pointing out the mixed-bag when it comes to the pro-life movement.

The religious right will gladly require a woman to have a child, but then will diparage the government for providing any social welfare to single mothers. Why? The religious right feels life is sacred(which it is) and should always be protected by the constitution, but then we will gladly toss that life onto the streets because we forced an irresponsible parent to have the child.

Seems odd to me that such an argument would be made by that portion of our party. But than again so does the concept that abortion is bad, but executuion for crimes is good.

I will also point out to you Mr Young that I not once advocated government intervention, but rather society. I do not find the two to be synonomous. Please do not put words into my mouth.

Point is this. We should stay out of all personal lives except in the gravest of circumstances. If you have an issue with abortion than one should find a more productive manner to have a true impact as opposed to fighting for a legislative or constituional ban that will never happen.

At 8/12/2005 02:31:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

mr jms, nobody in the world can "require a woman to have a child," particularly if the woman in question eschews the activity which causes children. As I explained in my post, there is nothing "odd" about the government refusing to allow people to take innocent life while refusing to seize property from citizens to give a nice comfy bed to the children of the irresponsible, since legitimate governments are required to do the former, and our Constitution limits the powers of government and prevents (or should prevent) the latter.

Your value-laden caricature is inaccurate. The so-called "religious right" does not "require a woman to have a child, but then will diparage [sic] the government for providing any social welfare to single mothers." I cannot speak to the position of religious conservatives (presumably, those you are slandering as the "religious right"), but I believe a government required to protect life cannot ignore women who murder the children who result as a natural consequence of their choice to engage in sexual activity, and further, that government is not empowered to seize property from individuals in order to subsidize the irresponsible activities of others.

There is nothing unChristian about this position, as you and Chairman Sean imply. Indeed, the imperative to Christian charity precludes government welfare, for it is not charity, as it is not voluntary. There is no morality in an act coerced by government force. Such an act is morally neutral; the only proper question is whether it is constitutional.

And as for your disclaimer that you "not once advocated government intervention, but rather society," please forgive me, but I understood you to be citing with approval Chairman Sean's comment that "They expect a woman to have a child, but will then gladly cut all social services so they have no options," which can be understood as only referring to GOVERNMENT social services, since Chairman Sean has no control over private social services, and was not running to be head of a private social service organization.

Unless of course Chairman Sean was slandering those he was vaguely condemning by suggesting that they would interfere with private charity, somehow akin to Scrooge. Of course, such a comment would make no sense, so I have to conclude that both Chairman Sean, and you, were talking about GOVERNMENT social services. So I wasn't "putting words into your mouth"; I was drawing the only logical inference from the statement of Chairman Sean that you cited with approval. What you are trying to do is withdraw your own words. I suppose you are entitled to do that, but do not replace them with a claim that makes no sense.

As for the difference between abortion and the death penalty, I assume that you can understand the difference between the constitutional imperative to protect innocent life, and the constitutional authorization to deprive citizens of "life, liberty, or property," subject to the requirements of due process of law. There is nothing inconsistent or "mixed-bag" in this position, though I appreciate the position of Catholics who cite the Church's position as the basis for theirs. However, the death penalty is clearly authorized in at least three places in the Constitution.

Finally, whether I have "an issue with abortion" is not the point, as there are plenty who do. And one can have a valid argument over its efficacy of public policy, though I side with those who consider themselves as "pro-life" on the matter.

What should not be the subject of any disagreement among Republicans and/or conservatives is the FACT that abortion is NOT a constitutional issue, and that the matter is left to the states for regulation. Those who wish to have it as a constitutional issue are simply ideologues who are too lazy to do the heavy intellectual and political lifting of amending the thing to make it one.

At 8/12/2005 02:53:00 PM, Blogger MR JMS said...

I can agree with your last point. States should have the deciding power on abortion and several other issues that the fedral courts have injected themselves into.

At 8/12/2005 03:24:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, if you believe that, then I fail to understand why you get so exercised about the so-called "religious right," and spend so much time demonizing them with what I believe are invalid arguments and premises, and caricatures. It seems that you are looking for a conflict, rather than seeking to work with an important segment of the conservative coalition.

So who is it whose actions are inconsistent with the "big tent"?

At 8/12/2005 03:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, a raped woman has CHOSEN to be pregnant - that's the gist of it.

If right-wingers were in charge, no woman could have an abortion, for any reason at all.

And as the all-knowing JY says, "no one can require a woman to have a child."

Therefore, raped women must have CHOSEN to become pregnant.

At 8/12/2005 04:39:00 PM, Anonymous Stupid Liberal said...

ergo, murder victims have chosen to be killed thus murderers are merely serving as facilitators in assisted suicide and don't deserve the death penalty.

At 8/12/2005 04:45:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 3:46 uses the obviously idiotic far Left tactic of using an exceptional case to justify abortion generally. No wonder he or she cowers in anonymity. Of course I didn't say what you misrepresent, and never said anything like it. Pay attention! The subject of the converation, according to mr jms, was "Any woman that has an abortion simply for birth-control or because having a child at that moment wouldn't be 'convienient.' [sic]"

Of course, pregnancy rarely results from rape, and when it does, some pro-lifers hold that this should be an exception. With the morning-after pill, it is and could continue to be.

On the other hand, if the issue is innocent life, is a child conceived by this vile act any less innocent that one conceived otherwise? How does one ethically justify the taking of innocent life simply because it was conceived in rape? Are the sins of the father to be visited upon the child, with a death penalty? I don't support government welfare, but if there's a better case for it than a woman pregnant by virtue of rape not permitted to get an abortion, I'm hard-pressed to imagine it.

At the same time, Coward ... er, Anon 3:46 serially misrepresents the pro-life argument. Few serious commentators who oppose abortion suggest that a woman should not be able to obtain one when her own life is endangered by the pregnancy -- certainly, neither I nore anyone here did -- so the comment that "And as the all-knowing JY says, 'no woman could have an abortion, for any reason at all'" is simply a lie.

Too bad, Coward 3:46, you lack the intellectual capacity to deal with the argument actually presented, as well as the courage to subscribe to your own comments (though the former probably explains the latter).

At 8/12/2005 07:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Also, look for Baby Boy Nohe to begin making a splash later this month when he is born."

It's a little early to make any predictions about the baby's political cache. My 2-1/2 year old son Nicholas however... That kid is so cute, he could get 55% running for governor; 65% if he were potty trained.


At 8/12/2005 08:34:00 PM, Anonymous Interested By-Stander said...

Question for James Young- Given the power, would you eliminate the Dept. of Social Services? Are there any social programs for "the children of the irresponsible" that you would keep?

At 8/13/2005 07:03:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since when do you have to be potty trained to run for governor? Is Tim Kaine?

At 8/13/2005 09:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there anyway to filter Young off of this blog? His rants are offensive and he always diverts to his obvious love for Sean Connaughton. He really is repetitive and boring.

At 8/14/2005 09:07:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Interested 8:34 -- Well, given that my old friend Maurice Jones (H-SC '86) is no longer running it, and I wouldn't be putting him out of a job, the answer is probably yes. There is very little that government does that private charities can't and won't do better (it is, of course, a far Left myth that shutting down government welfare would result in chldren starving). Are there some functions that it performs that government should? Probably. But most "social services" are simply vote-buying schemes.

Coward 9:41 -- I can see how facts and reason would offend the likes of you, but I give the owners of this site credit for refusing to filter all save the slanderous. Or is that your answer for every argument/speaker that you can't answer?

At 8/14/2005 09:48:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, let's kick Young off!

At 8/14/2005 06:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Young is a professional antagonist. Ignore him, and he stops, respond to him, and he emulates the energizer bunny.

He even disparages those that support his statements, here and elsewhere, if that support isn't couched (cached? creched?) in manner or in laguage he considers appropriate.

He really is an exasperating fellow. I realize this is ad hominem, and adds nothing to the discussion. Some of what he says I agree with, some of it is drivel, but I have a hard time getting around his arrogance to address issues either positively or negatively when he's in the mix.

At 8/19/2005 09:59:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

-I agree with you 100% on the abortion issue.


Post a Comment

<< Home