Tuesday, November 15, 2005

The bombs are-a-flying!

A big fan of the commentary over here at Too Conservative is Phil Rodokanakis. Mr. R(I will mess his name up if I spell it out again) is currently the President of the Virginia Club for Growth. Well, Phil R felt the need to attack Ken Hutcheson(Kilgore Manager) in his latest commentary at Bacon's Rebellion. Well... Ken is of course Ken and did not take this obvious personal(and unneccesary) attack go without a response. Here is what he had to say:

November 15, 2005 Phil I read with great amusement your latest “column” on Bacon’s Rebellion. Simply put, you are a spineless, gutless coward who is as stupid as he is petty. Do you really think anyone of any relative significance in VA cares what you write? I mean let’s face it, you are the epitome of an armchair quarterback with an opinion (which are like a**holes—everyone’s got one). Really, what makes you think anyone cares about your opinion in particular? Where do I begin, there is just too much good stuff to discuss. First, let’s take a moment to ponder your “organization” that bestows upon you the fancy title of President. The Virginia Club for Growth—sounds like an impressive organization, but aside from the email list you conveniently ended up with from me after the Allen Campaign in 2000, who are your members? How many dues paying members are there in VA? Just exactly how many people voted you in as President of the VCOG? Did anyone else run for the position? Can you point to me anything that your organization does other than opine on public policy matters? Can you point to me any meaningful accomplishments of the VCOG? And why do the respected National Club for Growth leaders look down on you and think you and the VA Chapter are a joke? Ok, now let’s review your impressive resume that makes you qualified to judge people like Jerry and me. Name one campaign you have ever managed. Name one race you have ever officially consulted on. In fact, name one race where any candidate paid you for your advice and/or work? Oh wait, I don’t recall any, but to be honest, you have never made an impact or had a significant role in Virginia politics, so I might not know off the top of my head. But, I typically don’t pay much attention to the bottom feeders who look for scraps and constantly 2nd guess those who have a seat at the table. If you aren’t happy in your mediocre job and career, why not whip up the courage to come do what I do on a yearly basis instead of hiding behind a computer keyboard or better yet, run for public office. You have all the answers, surely you could win any race you ran for based upon your principles and then certainly do a better job than the guys who have the guts to put their name on the ballots and stand for election. Ok, so we have established that you are the “President” of a big email list once owned by me and the Allen campaign and have no real qualifications to offer up competent criticism to anyone out there. Speaking of criticism, let’s take a look at your “expert analysis” of things. You claim in a nutshell that we had no principles and that folks like Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell did. Ok, fair enough, but then please explain to me why your expert logic does not apply to Dick Black, Brad Marrs, Chris Craddock and Michael Golden? They were all principled candidates to a fault who also lost. Now why on earth would they have lost if they like Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell ran on principles? I am sure your cowardly and lazy answer will be that they got swallowed up in the wave caused by the Kilgore defeat. Surely principled candidates such as these would overcome a Kilgore loss at the top of the ticket, especially if Bolling and McDonnell were able to. If that is your misguided belief, so be it, but let me fill you in on a little secret: No one really cares what you think. I am man enough to take the blame for the loss of this campaign though it had nothing to do with the reasons you so intuitively articulated. That said, you were correct in assuming I will be fine moving forward. I have worked my tail off for the last 11 years in this party and will continue to do so, very successfully I might add. My peers and friends are the only ones whose judgment of me matters and I suspect you are in an obscure minority who believe the drivel you write. Wayne Ozmore, the GOP’s 4th District C.D. Chair and a friend of mine recently sent me a famous Teddy Roosevelt quote (see below—the last line describes you perfectly) that I believe to be very appropriate and fitting for people like you. You see, it’s people like Wayne and myself who actually get out there and roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty and work the long hours for the cause while folks like yourself and plenty of others like to sit back and type away on your computers and BLOGS, but in reality, each of you is kind of sad and pathetic in your own right. When you build up the same grit under your fingernails that guys like Wayne Ozmore and myself have, come back and we’ll talk, but in the meantime, why don’t you spare everyone your uninformed and laughable babble and try and earn a shred of credibility so that you don’t remain the laughing stock of Virginia. Bottom line Phil is this: If you were half the man Jerry Kilgore is, you might actually be respected and admired, but you aren’t worthy to even stand in his shadow and you know it. Sincerely, Ken Hutcheson P.S. Ignoring you and other nutjobs like Paul Jost was perhaps one of the most rewarding aspects of this campaign. We may have lost in the end, but we did so with our dignity and pride intact and our principles firmly in place and by not selling out to you and your merry band of misfits, I am very much at peace with myself. "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt

Well said Hutch. I would like to thank you for busting your rear for the GOP and conservative values over the past decade. Fact is people like you have done much more for our party than Phil R ever has or will. UPDATE: Poli has this up too.


At 11/15/2005 04:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading, Ken Hutchison for Governor in 2009!

At 11/15/2005 04:48:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

My respect for Ken Hutchison has just tripled.

I am sick of Jost and Rodokanakis ruining our party.

Bill Bolling DID NOT WIN IN PRINCIPLE. and IF Mcdonnell does win, neither was his win.

Leslie Byrne stood on no principle, and she recieved 49% of the vote.

I like guys like Craddock, and Golden, but them taking money from Jost is beginning to disgust me.

At 11/15/2005 04:59:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

There are so many factors that went into Kilgore winning and Bolling losing.

A 3rd party contender, regional differences, ect. ect.

Jerry Kilgore was the one running the ads, putting his name out there, while Bolling sat on the sidelines, and ran only negative ads.

I did not hear one positive plan for Virginia from Bolling, only a constant barage of negativity.

I can not stand the out-right lies some of these people tell, and am getting sick of them. It makes NO SENSE that Bolling ran on principle and won, when Golden, and Craddock were both backed by Rodo and Jost, and both lost in landslides.

MAYBE if they hadnt have corroded some of our base from us, we could have WON.

But we have Tim Kaine now, let's see how much they can work with him.

Jost and Rodokankis need to get over themselves, and stop runining our party.

From here on out, anytime I hear of VCG or Jost helping a candidate I will have them negatively connected.

At 11/15/2005 05:04:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, just because you don't like Bolling, or his principles, doesn't mean he didn't run on the latter. Who was it who made Right to Work an issue in this campaign, for example? And I would dispute that Leslie Byrne didn't run on principle; I think she did, though underfunded.

I haven't read the Rodokanakis piece; don't even know if I will. But the fact is, Hutcheson's candidate lost, and ran a lackluster campaign. And his candidate served as a drag on the ticket, PARTICULARLY in the three races you cite, and perhaps even in PW (Frederick and McQuigg, for instance).

Of course, you go ahead and keep on giving aid and comfort to the enemy by bashing conservatives and the fundamental principles of the GOP. 'Course, maybe you can explain the difference between you doing so and Democrats doing so.

At 11/15/2005 05:15:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim Young-
Great opinion, although it is incredibly wrong.

My frustration with you continues to grow, as you continue to state false accusatory comments.

You fail to understand the extent of my closeness with the Craddock campaign.I know what happened, and Jerry Kilgore DID NOT bring us down.

Your narrow, myopic view of the election, and our party is disturbing, and disheartening.

People like you and paul jost, are THE REASON we lost this election. Rodokanakis has now called Kilgore a "RINO", whos next on the list?

I am sick of the name-calling, sick of the lies, and sick of people who do nothing for our party except sit on their asses, and call the ones who get out and work liberal squishes.

At 11/15/2005 05:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TC can't explain the difference because there is none. As for Hutchison letter, right or wrong, the tone, language and pettiness of his retort or not less reprehensible than the behavior he attacks. Further, the arrogance that oozes out of the letter demonstrates the real reason the GOP has become increasingly less effective since the the first campaign of George the Elder, namely the arrogance at the top of the party structure be it at the state level or local level, an arrogance generally exacerbated by their operatives.

As has been noted elsewhere, arrogance, whining and unacceptable behavior is not limited to the victors but is also exhibited by those who bids failed, see: Connaughton, Sean, adding further to a sense of disgust by the rank and file. Time to grow up boys or the party "leaders" may find themselves relegated to the sandbox by some very angry grass-roots campaigns.

Bear in mind that most of the boomers' children have left the nest or are at least old enough to be left alone and it is those boomers who have suddenly reached a point in their lives where they unexpectedly have a little bit of time and certainly the finances to revisit political activism.

At 11/15/2005 05:24:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Anon aka Jim Young...
Jerry Kilgore won the primary..he was our parties nominee. We do not need tactics from conservative organizations against our candidate. He is no Lincoln Chafee, no Susane Collins, he is a Virginia conservative.

As for your attack on the pettiness of Sean Connaughton, he single handedly helped raise over 200,000 for the ticket, and has attended fundraisers for candidates who ran for Delegate.

People like Paul Jost have no principles and values, he is just one single rich man, comparable to George Soros.

Get your facts right about Sean , and Jerry before you go around calling them RINOS, because one day..when you call RINO the right will be standing there with their pants down, and no one to listen.

At 11/15/2005 05:31:00 PM, Anonymous Frustrated Conservative said...

Fact is no one is listening anymore. VCAP and VCOG have blown what little credibility they have. Family Foundation and VIPP are also knocking on that door.

Wake up GOP... You do not represent the mainstream conservative view anymore. You have been coopted by by conservative fundamentalist that take a purist stance. This is a recipe for destruction and we will soon see a Dem majority in this state!

At 11/15/2005 06:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only the party moderates (aka Liberal Republicans) find fault with words like "principles".

Of course you all hate to hear about these groups who pour money into value-driven candidates. These groups take credibility away from your do-nothing RINO-Gods.

Candidates like Sean C. are much more to your liking, as they stand for nothing, and will agree with you all the time (to your face).

I'll take a candidate who stands up for what's right, any day, over a candidate who does nothing.

At 11/15/2005 06:32:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

I agree with anon above. Hutch's letter oozes with arrogance and his own unfounded accusations. As full of himself as he appears to be, I'm not surprised that he ignored VCFG when they attempted to get Kilgore to support the no new tax pledge. Hutch also calls Phil a "Monday morning quarterback". I find this hard to believe when VCFG has been literally screaming for months (even back to the primary) that the Kilgore campaign's approach on fiscal issues was far off-base from the traditional GOP principles of limited government and limited taxation. He may be whining, but he's been doing it for some time.

I also find it hard to believe Kilgore is as dishonest as Phil opines. While I too was not happy with the Kilgore campaign approach, I would not call it dishonest.

I know Phil, and he has worked very hard at least at the grass-roots level on at least one successful campaign I know of. Bottom-line, I think Hutch's frustration over the VCFG press release is showing. I think moreso that the effect of the Kaine campaign's underhanded use of this press release is also a source of his frustration. I believe this did indeed depress turnout for Kilgore. It was not the sole reason for his loss, but part of the equation. Similarly while Kilgore cannot be blamed for the GOP HoD losses, part of the blame is indeed related to the depressed turnout in general because of the tone of the Governor's campaign. So, there's plenty of blame on both sides.

This could all have been resolved internally and with little fuss had the Kilgore campaign worked with people like the VCFG and other fiscal conservatives to present a positive message on low taxes and limited spending. I'm betting that Phil and others attempted to do this internally before they went public in the matter. While both letters I believe were overly incendiary in their tone, both sides should have worked together to come up with an approach that would have been more acceptable to all.

For those that whine about Phil and those like him attacking the candidate and helping Kaine, remember, VCFG is not a Republican organization. They lobby for their issues and those are strictly related to fiscal conservatism. They clearly came out disappointed by all the candidates for Governor this cycle. Many like them are completely fed up with the antics we see on spending supported by Republicans both at the Federal and State level, and when this is your main issue, it's difficult to drop it when the candidate who is closest to you tells you "don't bother us with your trivial thoughts". While that is not a quote of Hutch, it certainly seems like it could be based on the content of his response above.

At 11/15/2005 07:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't look at Kilgore/Kaine and Bolling Byrne and say, "yeah, Bolling ran as a true conservative and won, whereas Kilgore was squishy and lost." It's like comparing apples to oranges. Bolling did run as a principled conservative, and that was great. But he was up against a principled liberal. Given the choice b/t these two extremes, Virginians chose the conservative. Kilgore/Kaine, on the other hand, offered a contrast between a conservative (and I don't give a crap what VCFG says, Kilgore ran as a conservative) and a "moderate centrist." Now I know everyone is going to say, "no, Kaine was a liberal." But that is not how he was perceived. He was viewed by Northern Virginia as a centrist. Northern Virginia decided to go with a centrist over a conservative. Northern Virginia, more or less, represents Kaine's margin of victory. The lesson here is that Northern Virginia likes moderates. That's why guys like Connaughton do well there, even in Republican primaries among "activists." That's why guys like Craddock and Golden got beaten--they were seen as too conservative for the electorate. Politics ain't that difficult when people get off their high horses and actually do some real analysis instead of trying to spin to promote their own world view.

At 11/15/2005 09:02:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Anon: In the end I believe you are wrong about at least Craddock and Black. I believe their losses had alot more to do with how the electorate perceived these individuals re. the "racist/bigot/homophobe" factor as opposed to their positions on the issues. They were viewed (fairly or not) as intolerant people. That's a far stretch from being a conservative who can build a positive message for people in those areas to support.

At 11/15/2005 09:40:00 PM, Blogger The Chief said...

If Phil R. honestly believes that Bolling is a "principled conservative" then RPV is doomed to the same outcome in the future that we saw last week. To Hutch's credit, he was in the thick of the fight and certainly deserves more credit than Phil gave him. However, being in the fight opens you up to criticism. The Church Lit Piece attacking Kaine, the constant negative attack ads, the Hitler reference, the air war missteps have to be placed squarely at Hutch's feet. Phil isn't right but that doesn't make Ken any better.

At 11/15/2005 10:58:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Agreed That Guy

Rtwng-You and I both know regardless of the papers, Craddock Black and Golden would have been doomed anyways.

Craddock was portrayed as an extremist, and Caputo a moderate, while Black WAS an extremist, and Poisson portrayed as a moderate.

As to the comment:Candidates like Sean C. are much more to your liking, as they stand for nothing, and will agree with you all the time (to your face).

I can only laugh at such comments, because they have no basis. While Bolling was parading around NOVA, talking about how good he would be for us, he stole money from the transportation trust fund.

While Sean was talking about how to solve our transportation crisis, and help education, Bolling was running ads on Sean's RINO status, telling voters downstate Sean was pro-choice.

At 11/15/2005 11:02:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Emotions are running high, which is understandable and, dispite that, a number of good points have been made. Rtwng Extrmst, however, made what I believe to be the most salient point regarding the conflict between the neo-right and what we used to call the mainstream conservatives...in a word, tolerance, or the perception of intolerance. We, of the old mainstream, do not actually disagree with them on basic conservative principles, only the manner in which the principles are presented.

There is a decidedly intolerant atomosphere in the Republican Party today which, I believe, even the electorate is feeling, as evidenced by the last election and the debate which has followed. I've felt it from these neo-conservatives myself...if you are not 100% with us then we are 100% against you, 99.9% is not enough. What's worse, unlike us old mainstream conservatives of days gone by, they tend to attack first rather than open a dialogue. I remember many a time, back in the 70's and 80's when we were building the Republican Party so that some Republicans in the 90's could claim sole responsibility for turning VA into a 'red' state, we would often agree to disagree for the good of the party and the long range goals (principles) that we all shared. Some of the people now being called RHINOS were at the very heart of that battle.

I haven't always agreed 100% with everyone that I have supported in the political arena over the years, but I was always willing to hear them out and, on ocassion, debate their reasoning. Sometimes they changed their mind...sometimes I did, or I at least tried to understand their reasoning. We're all human. No one is ALWAYS going to be right at all times on all things.

Maybe the New Right should take a page out of that history before everything that has taken about 45 years to build begins to implode.

At 11/16/2005 09:55:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Uh, TC, your intimation in your 5:24 post that I am Anon 5:16 is insulting/baseless/wrong, and you have given evidence in the past to indicate that you have cause to know better. I never post anonymously, and generally don't respect those who do. If I've said it, my name is on it. If I can't put my name on it, it probably isn't worth being said, at least by me.

That having been said, it seems that your jibe seems motivated by your unreasonable desire to believe that I'm the only one who thinks this way. 'Fact, I'm not alone. I respect what you claim to have done for the Craddock campaign, but there's little reason to believe that your analysis is any more valid than mine, and many (i.e., GOP success throughout the Nineties) to believe that yours is less so. If you and those of your ilk spent as much time attacking Democrats as you do principled Republicans (and note, I don't endorse what Phil said, or his methodology; I also associate myself with the comment that Hutch's letter oozes an arrogance unwarranted by the election returns), GOP candidates might have done much better. I would remind you that I supported Steve Baril for AG. However, save for noting that fact, I spent virtually no time after McDonnell won the nomination pining away for him.

Were it that the same could be said of the Connaughtonites.

At 11/16/2005 10:52:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken, I second all of your comments. These non-productive "conservative" leeches in the Republican party need to go. We don't want them, don't need them.

At 11/16/2005 11:01:00 AM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

I think the big problem that we're facing is the perception, whether real or not, that our intraparty squabbles are carrying over beyond the primaries and that is damaging our candidates in the general elections.

That said, I think that we need to highlight positive examples where this wasn't the case. It was no secret that Marty Nohe supported Fitch for Governor in the primary. So, I was pleased when driving down PW Parkway in the weeks leading up to Election Day when I saw two 4x8 Kilgore for Governor signs displayed prominently outside his place of business. Likewise, Jim Young who, as he noted above, supported Baril for AG in the primary, but moved on to support McDonnell when he became the nominee. And even your humble host here, a Connaughton supporter in the primary, took the first opportunity I had to obtain and slap a ticket bumpersticker on my car. I could have just as easily only added a McDonnell sticker to my Kilgore one and have been done with it, but Bolling was our nominee and I'd be hard pressed to find much that I disagreed with him on anyway. I wanted to show my support for him even if he did beat my guy in the primary.

Perhaps we need to place more emphasis on party unity following contested nominations. Establish a means to bring together the previous opponents AND their supporters to unite in the general election cause. There will always be some degree of disappointment for those who do not come out on the winning side, whether that be the candidate himself or his supporters. But such situations also present opportunities for these people to shine and establish good will for the future.

At 11/16/2005 11:54:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Thanks for the comment, Jim, and right back at you. I would also add that Connaughton --- unlike some of his supporters --- lent his unqualified support to the ticket, as far as I know, and didn't spend any time badmouthing Bolling after the nomination. About the only thing he didn't do --- which he should have --- was to tell those pining away for him to "Shut up." Might've earned a little more respect from me if he had.

If I may be permitted a return to a recurring theme, I think part of the problem is anonymity. It is doubtful that many of those self-styled "Republicans" would be willing to spew some of the bile toward Conservatives evidenced in many of the posts here if they had to attach their names to it, out of fear of the consequences, belying the notion that the Conservatives aren't a powerful, perhaps decisive, part of the GOP coalition. Sometimes I wonder whether some of these self-styled "Republicans" aren't just the same kind of anonymous caller that C-SPAN gets. You know the type: "I'm a long-time conservative Republicans, but doesn't GWB really suck?"

In transparency, veritas, is as true as "In vino, veritas" (sorry, but don't know the Latin for "transparency").

At 11/16/2005 11:56:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Gee, Anon 10:52 sounds exactly like one of those individuals who lost control of the Prince William GOP in the early Nineties, they of the attitude, "Keep it small, keep it all," and, BTW, "Lose it in the fall."

At 11/16/2005 12:17:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...


I agree they both still would have lost despite what the press did, but it was mainly due to the way they ran their campaigns in addition to the press. It was not because of their issue positions.


While I agree there needs to be more of a team attitude within the party, I object to the idea that the intolerance is all from the conservative side. As to "neo-" vs. "mainstream" conservatives, I have to wonder what your definition is? Mainstream conservatism has always to me meant linkage to the Reagan era. In other words, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, traditional values, sanctity of life, and strong national defense. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many who support these views are being labeled "neo-con" not just by the press and dems, but by those closer to the left in the party, and that those who share the beliefs I mentioned above is are somehow a different kind of conservative, and a bad one. This seems to me to be a bit of revisionist history.

My point in my earlier post was one clearly about people's impressions of candidates and not reality. In other words principled conservative stances like I list above are now immediately viewed not just by the press and dems, but by some in the Republican Party as anathema. I have no problem with disagreement in the Party on some issues, but in the end if we a re going to be one Party, we must have some basic principles on which to stand. Some in the Party seem to have taken it upon themselves to demonize what I call "principled conservatives" (conservatives who support the ideas I mention above) as "too extreme" and "intolerant". While I agree tht some who share my beliefs have been too strident in their methods of espousing them in condescending fashion (e.g. Black), I also believe there is a condescension from the other side where moderates have spared no effort to undermine conservatives, made disparaging remarks about good people to the press and in other venues, and even left the party in order to make their distaste for conservatism known. There is much work to be done from their side as well if they truly want to be a part of the team and make it a winning combination.

At 11/16/2005 01:03:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Rtwg, your definition of mainstream conservative, and mine, are identical. I was the Reagan coordinator for PWC in 1979/80, as well as the PWC Obenshain coordinator in '78...we don't disagree here. From my recent experience (past 2 years), there exists a minority of extremists in the party who believe that "the end justifies the means" and that end is to rid the party of all those who are not 100% in tune with those ends. This is my concern. Constitutionalists, those to the right of center, and others are often treated as enemies of the Party, regardless of the contributions they have made, and are still capable of making. Have we become so blinded by our strength that we must silence those who helped us get where we are today? Dialogue has become lost and replaced by the designation RHINO for anybody having a difference of opinion. That's not the Republican Party that I helped to build. It shames me and should shame all.

At 11/16/2005 01:23:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, Anke, as usual, you paint with a broad brush, and with inaccurate colors, too. Your "recent experience (past 2 years)" is little more than a caricature of revisionist history. "[R]id the party of all those who are not 100% in tune with those ends"?!?! Funny, but I don't know of a single person who has been denied membership in the party, or "treated as enemies of the Party." The only person whose application has even been challenged was John Gray, from Occoquan, who just a year before applying for membership as a Member of the County GOP Committee had run for the DEMOCRAT nomination for Occoquan Supervisor.

You were apparently reactivated by the challenge to Harry Parrish and other big-spenders who support higher taxes. However, please spare me your pretensions of fidelity to the Gipper, who both opposed higher taxes, and challenged an incumbent Republican President (in 1976) on ideological grounds. The GOP nomination isn't and should not be a "gold watch" for faithful service.

And no one (except those opposing more traditional anti-tax conservatives) is talking about "silencing" anyone. Indeed, quite the contrary: it was so-called "moderates" supporting Chairman Sean who tried to impose such rules in the County Committee last summer, and who engaged in a [successful] hate campaign against me when I was a Potomac News columnist.

And given your pro-choice credentials, I'd sure like to know what you define as a "constitutionalist."

But you also say "Dialogue has become lost and replaced by the designation RHINO for anybody having a difference of opinion." Of course, you're right. Just as "extremist" is your designation of choice for anyone who doesn't agree with awcheney. Bold talk from someone who, in the same post, condemns her political enemies as "a minority of extremists in the party who believe that 'the end justifies the means' and that end is to rid the party of all those who are not 100% in tune with those ends." If I hadn't read your prior posts, I might have dismissed your comment as parody, but the sad thing is, people who say things like this are usually completely sincere.

I can think of a few people who fit your description, but they don't describe any Conservatives that I know. Sounds a lot more like a few self-styled "moderates" who only want Conservative support to work the polls, and otherwise, would just have Conservatives shut up.

At 11/16/2005 01:54:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...


I use the term RINO, but my definition is pretty succinct, and I use it only when it applies. As I have posted before, honest moderates should be welcomed in the party and not demonized.

A RINO as James implies above is someone who disdains the conservative, but wishes to use them to gain political power. Specifically, they run for office on definite conservative themes and then go back on their word once elected. These kinds of people I believe we do not need in the party.

If an honest moderate can get elected on their beliefs, more power to him/her, but he/she shouldn't lie to me and expect me to not come after him/her next time.

At 11/16/2005 02:02:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

As usual James, you make assumptions based only upon your narrow view of the world (forgive me, TC...but I feel this personal attack requires response). The primary source of bile that I have noted on this blog has come from you. How is it that you assume me to be Pro-Choice? It happens that I have a clearly defined opinion with regard to the issue of abortion, but it is not my all-consuming issue...and one which you and I have never discussed. I have held precisely the same position since the Reagan years...they've never changed. And, back in those days, I was considered a right-wing conservative in the Republican Party. Can you say the same?

Insofar as my history with the Party, I stand on that proudly. And, yes, you are one of those people who loudly contend that the history of the Republican majority in the Commonwealth began with you in the '90s. I beg to differ...it began in the 60's and was an arduous process. It would seem that the only one here indulging in revisionist history, and paranoia (I never even read your column...I always considered the Pot News to be a liberal rag), is you.

As far as my activities in the Republican Party in the past decade, you might ask some of our School Board (past and present), and Board of Supervisor members whether or not I have been at all active (you could also ask our Sheriff that same question). Until the attack upon a long-time loyal Republican...and CONSERVATIVE..., Harry Parrish, I chose to remain in the background and choose my fights, and participation, carefully. I put in my 20+ hard-fought years in the trenches, long before you even considered getting your hands dirty.

So, young man, consider your attacks carefully...your credibility is at stake, what there is left of it.

At 11/16/2005 02:32:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Random musings--

I thought Reese brought Craddock down. That and a plethora of traffic violations, which is a minor thing but the "social superiority" candidate needs to be completely clean. To parody the democrats, driving so you won't run over children playing in the street is a family value.

I supported Steve Chapman against Harry Parrish in the primary. But on monday night I was sitting in the Parrish office making calls for him. That is what a party is. We have our fights, we make up, we move on.

Loudoun went true-blue. That sunk Black, Marshall lost every Loudoun precinct, Byrnes won there. We need to find out what happened to the Loudoun republicans. Don't tell me they suddenly decided being against homosexuality was "un-cool". Black didn't change in the last two years.

My personal opinion is that the media, the press, took a particularly "anti-republican" stance this year, and it hurt us. That doesn't explain everything. But Kilgore's harshly negative advertising I think gave them license to do so.

And no matter what anybody thinks, or how good an idea it might have been, having regional unelected boards putting up tax increase referendum is NOT a conservative position. Neither is refusing to answer a question about whether you would ban abortion.

I believe Kilgore was conservative, I think his campaign chose to downplay aspects of that (such as not attacking the tax increase since it was supported by a majority).

But many candidates WIN while taking minority positions. People respect minority positions if they make sense and are based on principle. With Kilgore making anti-2004-tax-increase statements, but then refusing to take any further position on it, it looked like he had no principles.

If Kilgore was clear, Kaine's ads claiming that Kilgore was more likely to raise your taxes than Kaine was would never have worked.

When the democrat can run ads plausibly suggesting that the republican will raise taxes, there is something wrong with the republican or his campaign.

At 11/16/2005 03:16:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Please go right ahead.

It's funny because socially I am as conservative as Cuccinelli , but Jim Young, and people like him, make me repulsed to support candidates they support.
Rtwng..Agreed on the RINO stance.
I believe the only NOVA repub deserving though is Reese and Dillard and NOT because of his tax vote. Because of their endorsement of Dems.

At 11/16/2005 03:53:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Yes, Anke, please, go right ahead. I'm always fair game here, especially for TC. Oh, to know how I beat him in an intra-party battle to engender such bilious hatred that I make him "repulsed to support candidates [I and people like me] support"! It's amazing that so much time is spent attacking someone that some here belittle as irrelevant, belying the insult. And it's equally amazing that he feels the need to hide his identity so that the reader cannot discover what is very likely the very peurile squabble which engenders this continuing hatred, probably because this is as important as he's ever been; were his identity known, the reader might learn just how irrelevant he has been to the rise of the GOP in PWC (something I wouldn't say about AWC, whatever our differences).

Anke, it's not an "assumption" when I have your own words to sustain me. But then, you squishes changes stories nearly as frequently as you change "principles." In fact, what you perceive as a "personal attack" is now required to be one, since your post lies twice in its initial paragraph.

Here's what you said in an e-mail to me, sent on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:17:41 EDT: "Abortion, in those days, was an issue of states' rights and, for those of us opposed to the act itself, a condemnation of the use of our tax dollars to perform such an egregious act, but one that was, and is, of a very personal nature (God gave man...and woman...the right to choose right from wrong. Got'em kicked outta the Garden of Eden, afterall). I guess that's considered a 'pro-choice' position nowadays, by right wing radicals. I'm still the same conservative that I have always been."

So, (a) we did discuss it, as you offered it up gratis; and (b) you expressed what some would call a pro-choice position.

Now, I happen to agree that abortion is not a federal issue, but I also think each State should bar it, except in defense of the life (not health, an exception large enough to drive a truck through) of the mother. Your comment indicates that you don't. If my conclusion is incorrect, feel free to correct me. But I've found that those who complain the loudest about my observations are those who cannot refute them, because of their accuracy.

As for the notion that I "loudly contend that the history of the Republican majority in the Commonwealth began with you in the '90s," in fact, I am too much of a student of history to have applied to me your caricature (one in which you're the hero, of course), and yes, I read long ago "The Dynamic Dominion." In fact, since we're dropping resumes, I was quite close, in college, to Frank Atkinson's grandmother, the Grand Dame of Hampden-Sydney College. But while the "arduous process" began in the 60's, the greatest successes were realized in the 90s, when the Leftist tilt of the Democrats became more pronounced and when GOP candidates emphasized their superior differences on policy matters.

But Anke, you challenge my "credibility, what there is left of it." Yet you misrepresent yourself twice in your first paragraph. Then, you address issues utterly irrelevant to my point. In particular, you seem to need to defend yourself for supporting Harry Parrish, which was an honorable position, and you fail to make the distinction between that support and your despicable attacks on Steve Chapman and the campaign's lies as to the source of the attacks, which were not honorable and were, as I understand it, sadly inconsistent with your history.

I addressed only your caricatures of your opponents in your "recent experience (past 2 years)." They, too, misrepresented fact, in your continuing effort to demonize those whom you hate, probably because they are those you can't control.

And who is it who lacks credibility?

At 11/16/2005 04:30:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Insofar as my position on abortion, I DO consider it a state issue (as I do gay marriage) and I believe that taxpayer funding of the act is reprehensible...that has always been my position. Now, insofar as the courts have made it a federal issue, it is in the courts where that must change...and, hopefully, will (sorry, I had forgotten that I touched upon it in those personal emails of mine that you so rudely published on your website, without my permission).

Insofar as my credibility, I believe that speaks for itself and has been hard-earned over many decades. I have nothing to apologize for with regard to the Steve Chapman affair. I've addressed that quite enough and still know him to be guilty (you, as an attorney, should know that there are far more reasons for "throwing a charge out of court" than actual guilt or innocence, especially in a case so publicly political...let's see what happens in March). It's quite irrelevant to either the past or future of the Republican Party, which you and those like you have endangered. You seem to live to incite...throwing invectives at people like Sean Connaughton and others who have put themselves out there, on the line, calling them RHINOS rather than trying to work with them for the growth of the Republican Party and the furtherance of those issues which you probably share. You have challenged MY history with the Republican Party which I do, indeed, take as a personal affront!

Ask anyone that I've ever worked with...I don't "hate"...but ANGER, yeah, that's another story

At 11/16/2005 04:42:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Oh, by the way...Frank Atkinson and I (though not "close") were friends and allies back when HE was in college. Not name-dropping, merely stating facts.

At 11/16/2005 05:31:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...


Not only is he not charged, he is not guilty. He did nothing wrong. The evidence that he did something wrong is weak, and countered by evidence he did nothing wrong.

Now, if you want to offer here testimony under oath that proves your point, go right ahead. But in the civilised community, you don't just call people guilty of something without proof.

A trial would have given evidence, but that trial was cancelled. People threw out charges against Steve, and before he had a chance to refute them in court, that chance was removed.

All that is left is these nebulous "claims" that something was amiss, and people occasionally insisting that he was "guilty" without providing any evidence to that effect.

It is a demeaning position, one that isn't worthy of civilised discourse.

The march charges will go away. That is my prediction. Then of course we will still here that he is "guilty", by the same people throwing around the same charges.

At 11/16/2005 05:47:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Anke, hurts to be caught in a couple of lies, doesn't it? But then, that's not the first time, either. I published your e-mails (distribution of which you did not limit, much like Ken Hutcheson) because they revealed you as dishonest. You have, in various posts and comments, stated that "the [Parrish] campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman other than reporting them when they came to our attention."

Well, here's a news flash, Anke: "reporting them when they came to our attention" is "[some]thing to do with the charges against Chapman"! Likewise, you make pretensions to opposition to ad hominem attack, while engaging in blunderbuss attacks upon "Chapman and his dishonorable tactics and lies," without ever identifying them.

If you know your history at all, you'd know that I spoke publicly in favor of Chairman Sean's election, twice, as BOCS Chairman, so please spare us further demonstrations of your ignorance on the subject of whether I have "tr[ied] to work with them for the growth of the Republican Party and the furtherance of those issues which you probably share." But my record also speaks for itself, as the election and/or reelection of people like Dave Mabie, Michele McQuigg, Jeff Frederick, Bob Marshall, and Scott Lingamfelter with my support attests. Of course, while I don't know your position on Scott's initial primary race, I do know that there are quite a few people whose animosity for me traces back to my refusal to climb on the Buck Waters tax-and-spend bandwagon. You remember Buck, don't you, Anke? He's the one who endorsed Democrat David Brickley over Scott in 2003, a depth to which I've never heard that you've sunk.

How many people times do people like Sean, [some of] those here, and other self-styled "moderates" have to piss in my face and those of other Conservatives before you recognize that we are the wronged, not the wrongdoers?

But perhaps most hilarious is your claim that I and those "like" me "have endangered" the future of the GOP. For someone who wasn't even involved when the GOP was winning elections while I was intimately involved in its management and leadership, that's a pretty bold assertion. 'Course, maybe it's the vicissitudes of age, harkening back to a Virginia GOP which was go along to get along, and in the permanent minority.

And BTW, you really need to check your facts. "RINO" is an appellation that I've used in my blog four times only: as applied to Russ Potts (twice); John Chichester; and Jim Dillard. A fifth time, I commented that Kenny "Klinge's recent activities demonstrate that he is or has become the kind of Republican that inspires monikers like "Repubmocrat" and "RINO" (for Republican In Name Only)," in a posting about the sleazy activities of the Parrish campaign with which you are so familiar.

At 11/16/2005 06:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Update: (for those who don't have the time to read these really long posts)

JAMES YOUNG is currently spanking AWCHENEY in this political pissing contest.

Will AWCHENEY remember long-forgotten friends who can help her revive her failing arguments? Only time will tell...

At 11/16/2005 07:31:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

There is one thing that James Young and I can agree upon (probably others, if he wouldn't be so intent upon inciting anger rather than pursuing dialogue)...the anonymous posting by people who suggest private or "special" knowlege. It is extremely annoying and, if this is what I am to expect from supposedly long-forgotten friends, then perhaps they should stay forgotten.

At 11/17/2005 09:41:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

In the spirit of looking for agreements where they are to be had, I endorse awcheney's 7:31 post. Anon 6:14's post smacks of the kind of comments that PWC activist (and former Taxpayers' Alliance Chairman) Ella Shannon makes, and usually attaches her name to, in the Pot. News: attack by innuendo. Anonymous attack by innuendo is an offense which should be subject to what, in the criminal law, would be subject to heightened penalties.


Post a Comment

<< Home