Sunday, November 27, 2005

The Last Craddock Connection

Dear Friends, The election results were hard to hear. In spite of the enthusiastic support of over X thousand voters in the 67th District, we were unable to overcome the Democrat tide that swept across the state. Our deep sense of disappointment isn’t so much for ourselves, but for the nearly one thousand of you who sacrificed so much – hours and of door to door and phone banking, mailings, coffees, letters (and phone calls!) to the editor, overwhelmingly generous contributions, signs … the list is endless. But as I stood before many of you in a packed room on Election night, I was confident in this knowledge: without a doubt, I have met and come to know the most wonderful friends a man could ever ask for. And I knew that it was not for lack of everyone of us giving it our all that we experienced this loss. Our party has experienced great challenges in the past year, but I know that with wonderful people like you, we will overcome those challenges, and forge ahead in the years to come, because we have the ideas and principles that work over time. As for Katherine and I, there is much work still to be done in serving our community. Our lives were full before the campaign, and now with a new baby on the way and an upcoming youth retreat, we are still as busy as ever. And, as with anything we do, any future plans will only be undertaken with much prayer and sound advice. Our home, and our lives, remains open to you – and we hope that you will feel welcome to continue on as part of our extended family. THANK YOU for believing in us from the beginning, for standing by us through victory and defeat, for sharing your belief in this campaign to your friends and neighbors, and for encouraging Katherine and I through hard times. We love you all so much and hope to see much of you in the future. Your candidate and friend, Chris S. Craddock Gary Reeses election wrap up can be found on NLS


At 11/28/2005 01:03:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Earth to Craddock:

Bush isn't responsible for your loss, you are. You ran the worst campaign you could have run. You insulted homosexuals and Africans, and then insulted our intelligence by insisting that you were misquoted.

And, in regards to your community service, I have only this to say: I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near you, at any point.

At 11/28/2005 01:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More spite from the Left!?!? That's a shocker!

Chris ran a great campaign, and despite the underhanded tactics of Corrupt Caputo, Chris maintained a honest campaign that stuck to the issues of the 67th.

In addition, throughout NOVA in particular, we saw Democratic voters coming out in record number, with as many as 85% of their supporters voting in an election where 43% voter turn-out seemed to be the norm.

Dems did a great job of turning out their base, but in an election where voter cross-over happened as a rarity it's foolish to come to such a dim-witted conclusion, Willis.

At 11/28/2005 02:51:00 PM, Blogger f mcdonald said...

From what I've been able to find out, Chris Craddock was misquoted. It is almost impossible to overcome something like that in the face of an extremely hostile media.

I wish him all the best and hope that he will stay in politics.

At 11/28/2005 03:15:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I'd like to see your evidence, Flora, that he was misquoted. Real evidence, not just "Well he's a good man and I don't think he could have said those things."

Anon- Why do you think Democrats went to the polls in record numbers, 85% in some cases, as you say?? Could it be because they were afraid of Craddock representing them??

At 11/28/2005 04:44:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Willis, the 67th House District was smaller than Fairfax County. Record Dem numbers were up all over Fairfax County... not just in Craddock's race. Your logic is faulty.

In answer to your 'prove he was misquoted' challenge, I'd suggest that you read the entire newspaper from the Africans quote. Once you get passed the first page (where only Caputo cronies are quoted) you'll notice another article where the teacher of the class makes it clear that these statements were misquoted and taken out of context.

If you'd like to check into the Washington Blade article, you only have to look at the context of how that statement was presented in the article. They don't lead into the question with any context, but simply take him out of context to achieve their desired quote.

I'd suggest that you do a little more research and have a little more class about yourself.

At 11/28/2005 06:17:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...


I have read both articles you refer to.

The teacher in question regarding the Africans quote was a Craddock supporter. She didn't emphatically state that the quotes were wrong. The article has been taken down so I can't reference it deliberately, but I remember thinking at the time that the defenses were very shallow and un-convincing.

Regarding the blade article, yes the headline was taken out of context, but the entire quote was reprehensible as well.

The fact is (and anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively will realize this) that Craddock is an extremist with extreme views. He energized the Democratic base, so Caputo didn't have to.

Blaming his election loss on anyone other than Craddock himself is an attempt to distort.

At 11/28/2005 06:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your admitted faulty memory not-withstanding, you say that "the entire quote was reprehensible", despite recognizing that it was deliberately taken out of context. Are you really this stupid, or are you just kidding around?

In the same fairness shone to Chris I can take your last comments out of context and say that:

Willis made his extreme views evident when he stated that, "The Africans... were very... reprehensible."

It's all true. You said all of those words, and although this is clearly an extreme example of the literary nonsense that the Washington Blade is known for, I think it makes the point.

If you are foolish enough to accept a quote that is deliberately taken out of context as truthful then you also must accept my statement about you as true as well.

This just goes to how Conservatives are willing to be truthful and run honest campaigns, while liberals will do and say anything to further their agendas.

At 11/28/2005 07:49:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I see you didn't address my comment on his "Africans will have sex with anything with a pulse" quote. I guess you agree with my response there.

Your quote of me used ellipses (...) to distort. The Washington Blade didn't. Craddock claimed his quote was distorted, but he hasn't offered up any hard evidence that that was the case. You either believe him, or you believe the paper, which claims no distorting took place.

On its own, it would be hard to decide who to side with. Coupled, however, with his other "mis-quotings", to believe Craddock you have to check your common sense at the door.

I see you are willing to do that. Thankfully, I am not, and neither is the majority of the 67th district.

At 11/28/2005 11:53:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

He was misquoted.

I would hope you would get to know Chris before coming to make judgements on him.

He is a good man, who gives back daily to his community.

At 11/29/2005 12:03:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I know him well enough already. I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but these were repeated instances where he said incredibly stupid, and sometimes hateful, things. Not one time, but repeated instances.

Honestly, Chris, if you are reading this, you don't have to give back to the community. In fact, I would rather that you don't. I don't believe kids should be exposed to people like you.

At 11/29/2005 01:02:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

I am hoping to get some sort of written post from Chris shortly on the election. You can comment then.

At 11/29/2005 01:24:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Alright, I'll do that.

At 11/29/2005 09:25:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You're so bigoted against Chris (and conservatives in general, I suspect) with your own preconceived notions that impartiality, as well as any form of logical deduction, seem to be beyond your grasp.

You recognize that a biased paper has willingly taken quotes out of context, yet claim that it's the responsibility of the interviewee to report accurately on what actually happened. This makes sense to you!?!?!?

The bottom line is that you seem foolish enough to believe anything that the radical left tells you, so there no benefit in discussing anything with you. It's like talking to a liberal wall! Then again, liberals have never seen much value in following truth in the past… why should this be any different?

At 11/29/2005 05:26:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

For the final time:

I recognize that the Washington Blade quoted Chris Craddock as saying "Christians and Gays hate each other." I said the headline was taken out of context. All headlines, when they are quotes, have been taken out of context, that's all I meant.

I recognize that the connection quoted Craddock as saying "Africans will have sex with anything with a pulse." His defense to this quote was very weak. He said he had been misquoted, but multiple kids verified that he had, in fact, said exactly that. His comments were not only callous, but showed a remarkable lack of understanding of the true situation in Africa.

I also received numerous mailings from Craddock. In one, he implied that Chuck Caputo was part of the Italian mob and supported gang violence. In another, he said that he was forced to file a restraining order against a member of the Caputo campaign, who had been harassing him.

The first mailing is almost certainly not true, which is why he implied such things with the language he used, and didn't outright state them. The second, I have no idea whether it was true, but the tone of the mailing was very whiney and holier than thou.

I also know that Craddock's campaign manager was jailed on drug charges, and that Craddock has received an exorbitant number of traffic tickets in the past years, some for driving an unregistered vehicle.

Craddock has even said other things, like vaguely supporting guns in schools, that are downright insane.

So, which one of these statements are you going to attack?? Individually, their validity could be questioned, and Craddocks "I was misquoted" defense could work. There are simply too many here, though, for you to explain away.

At 11/30/2005 09:40:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the Final Time:

The Corrupt Caputo ran on a platform of nothingness. Rather than focus on any of the issues of the campaign, Caputo simply continued to make up fictitious stories to attack Chris' character, Chris' wife, volunteers working for Chris' campaign, and finally even attacking Chris' mother-in-law.

To solidify this point, one would only need to read all of your prior posts and review all of your comments that show your blind devotion to the Caputo-generated attacks without saying anything about why you would prefer his opponent.

In looking at the voting trends in this district which favored all Democrats running in the 67th, and Fairfax County as a whole, one can see that most people didn’t fall for any of this crap, as you clearly have, and it didn't make very much of a difference in people's voting.

Caputo is likely to try and run on a campaign of lies again, when he's up for re-election two years from now... and I doubt that the rest of the 67th will be as foolish as you to believe these deceptions.

At 11/30/2005 07:37:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Yea, Craddock was just doomed to lose. Thats why the 67th had gone Republican in 8 straight elections. Plus, Craddock lost by 16%, and barely garnered 41% of the vote. That's pathetic, especially in a mostly Republican district.

Corrupt Caputo attacked Craddock??? In your dreams. I'm not affiliated with either campaign, but the onlt campaign that sent attack ads my way was Craddock. Craddock sent me so many mailings attacking Caputo's character, that I lost count.

I also witnessed Craddock campaigners ripping down Caputo signs and putting up Craddock signs. Sleazy tactics at best, and illegal.

If you want to attack me and not address my points, fine. Objective readers can decipher what that means in the end.

At 12/01/2005 11:24:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which would be a plausible argument if not for the fact that you just identified yourself as an complete hypocrite.

You claim to have never seen an attack from Caputo, and yet in the beginning of the blog's thread all you did was quote Corrupt Caputo's baseless attacks. If you're gonna lie, at least try to lie well!

Another fact, you'd like to ignore is how strong Democrat support was all over Northern Virginia. Typical Republican strongholds within Loudon & PW counties both went to the Dems in the last election. That's a radical swing from normal Republican voting trends in those areas.

And as someone who lives in the area, I saw first-hand Caputo signs stapled on top of Craddock's, as well as Craddock signs disappearing from one day to the next.

I'm sorry, but your revisionist history just won't hold any water. Caputo ran a campaign solely based on misleading smear-attacks, and he rode the Democrat Tide into victory. I can guarantee you that his vicious smear campaign won't win him future elections!

At 12/01/2005 02:18:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

The attacks I quoted here weren't Caputo attacks. They were Craddock attacks done to himself. The man was simply too stupid, arrogant, and bigoted to stay out of trouble.

Caputo didn't need to attack Craddock (and I didn't see any Caputo attacks). Maybe he would have had Craddock not self-destructed.

Don't say I've quoted a Caputo attack when I clearly haven't. That is a blatant lie, but I guess it is to be expected from a Craddock supporter.

At 12/01/2005 02:26:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Also, the makeup of Loudon and PW is changing drastically. Many new people are moving into these areas, particularly in Loudon. The change in voting patterns is partially attributed to this population increase.

The 67th district hasn't changed appreciably. What changed was the trust in the Republican candidate when Craddock was nominated.

You may have seen Caputo signs stapled over Craddock ones. I live in the area too, and I hardly saw any Caputo signs, ever. And, as I mentioned earlier, on one occasion when I did see Caputo signs, they were being torn down.

And bro, I'm not trying to revise history. Craddock got creamed by 16 percentage points in a Republican district. Obviously, people around here hated the guy and his slimey politics. This was proven by the election results.

YOU are the one attempting to revise history, by somehow trying to blame Craddock's loss on outside forces, and not Craddock's numerous, massive mistakes during the campaign. I'm simply re-iterating the obvious: that Craddock was responsible for his loss.

At 12/02/2005 10:24:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dems won districts which have been held by Republicans for years. Fact.

Dems showed up in record numbers throughout NOVA. Another fact.

In Fairfax County alone Kaine beat Kilgore 60% - 38%.

You can try and ignore how Corrupt Caputo spread a message of hateful attacks all you want. However it was his mailings and his campaign workers that were distributing the lies to voters every day, including on election day.

Did you notice how you still haven't said anything about why Caputo was a good candidate? I wonder why that is? Maybe it's yet another example of how Caputo's hateful campaign impacted you!?

Your blind devotion to liberals is a great example of how out of touch you are with reality. However, Caputo's message of "Vote for me, because I'm not the guy that I've been spreading lies about" won’t work for many more elections, and I think you'll see how quickly he will be dismissed from office, as soon as he begins to cast votes in the General Assembly!

At 12/02/2005 01:50:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I haven't said that Caputo was a good candidate because, guess what, he wasn't!!

Caputo is a 67 year old retiree who ran as a favor to his party. He didn't expect to win. He vacationed in Italy in August, when most serious candidates are busy campaigning.

Fact is, though, anybody short of Satan would have beaten Craddock in this district. His hate speech was evident even to his supporters, and would have brought his campaign down regardless of who his oppoent was.

At 12/02/2005 02:33:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you need to re-read my posting above? Is there something about a high Democrat showing at the polls on election day that is just to confusing for you to understand? I'd draw you a diagram, but this blog only allows text messages.

Here, let me post it again, since you're clearly a tad 'slow':

Dems won districts which have been held by Republicans for years. Fact.

Dems showed up in record numbers throughout NOVA. Another fact.

In Fairfax County alone Kaine beat Kilgore 60% - 38%.

The fact that you would consider Caputo's insidious lies, about Chris, to be truth; just shows how foolish you truly are! I guess you've gotta check your brain at the door to be allowed in the Liberal ranks, these days.

At 12/02/2005 05:08:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I've already responded to every point you made, but I'll respond again, since you seem to be a bit dense.

Nobody, you included, has given any reason for me to NOT believe that Craddock said the things he was quoted as saying. Or, any explanation excusing the egrigious acts he committed.

All you have done is continued to rant and rave about some liberal conspiracy, headed by "Corrupt Caputo", to spread vicious lies about Craddock. If believing that makes you feel better about his beat down this past election day, thats fine by me. But don't expect rational people to agree with you.

Unfortunately these days, it seems that saying things repeatedly is validation enough to many people. I'm not one of them though, so if you plan to coninue this argument, bring some facts to the table please.

At 12/05/2005 11:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, let's go through this:

Find me ONE person who heard the Africans comment, the way it was stated, who was NOT a Caputo supporter.

Find me a transcript of the Washington Blade interview that doesn't take Chris' comments out of context.

These are impossible tasks, because they were nothing more than lies. Everyone else in the class said so, including the teacher who was there, and the Blade quote was deliberately taken out of context in order to hurt Chris.

It's just too bad that you liberals have resulted in name calling, after realizing how out of touch you are with the American people.

We all saw a higher Dem turn-out in the last election, with Republicans being complacent for all sorts of reasons that the talking-heads are discussing. I can guarantee you that this will not be a trend!

At 12/05/2005 03:06:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

The burden of proof is on you, bud. I've made my argument, you haven't refuted any of it, and have changed the subject and counter-accused me rather than address my points.

I don't blame you though, because you can't win this one.

It must hurt to lose.

At 12/06/2005 12:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You haven't proven a thing.

I didn't start spouting lies and half truths without having any information to back it up. While that's pretty much been your calling card.

I haven't said ANYTHING about your hero Caputo that I can't back-up.

See the difference? Or is this beyond your capabilities to comprehend as well?

At 12/06/2005 02:08:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Yet another lie. I haven't been a Caputo defender anywhere in this argument, yet you call him a hero of mine.


At 12/06/2005 06:00:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are repeatedly using Caputo's talking points that were in Caputo's mailers, and were given out at the polls by Caputo's supporters.

You can call yourself whatever you want. However, your words show you to have all the earmarkings of being Caputo's Poodle!

At 12/07/2005 06:32:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Caputo and I must think alike, then. I'm basing my arguments entirely on what I've seen of Craddock.


Post a Comment

<< Home