Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Breaking News from the Fairfax GOP

Just got back from the Fairfax County GOP meeting, and boy does our party have some problems. Problems began when a mysterious flyer was sitting at tables stating that a 1,000 check would be given to anyone who would run against current Fairfax GOP Chair Eric Lundberg. Lundberg, who is closely tied with Congressman Tom Davis is considered a "moderate" by the far-far-far right of the party. This of course is not based on any of his political views, but instead his alignment with Davis. I have attained a copy of the flyer, and uploaded it...take a look. The big problem people had with the flyer was the fact that the coward wouldn't put their name to it. I scribbled down on the top of the flyer the name most people thought it was:Jack McKinney. While I agree the party hasn't been doing much growing in Fairfax(there were probably less than 80 people tonight from a county of 1.2million) it is despicable for someone to go behind Chairman Lundbergs back like this. The second most exciting party of the night was the war for leadership of the 10th district GOP. Although Jim Rich was out of town, he had a great following at the event. Fairfax GOP was definitely Rich country. Most people(including myself) were wearing Rich stickers, and many had signed Rich's support petition. Life was grand.... ...and then... Heidi Stirrup walked in with her daughter. She seemed to glance around the room, notice it was not favorable and then she tried to quickly leave. As she was leaving some Rich haters, who will go nameless, stealthily exited the room and conspired with her outside the cafeteria. I have uploaded Jim Rich's flyer. On a couple side notes Supervisor Mick Staton was around, great guy. He is very down-to earth, and knows the issues well. Michael Golden also made an appearance, and I was able to talk to him for a while. He's got a bright future ahead. It appears Jim Moran has a Republican challenger as well.

52 Comments:

At 1/24/2006 10:04:00 PM, Anonymous gopkdh said...

the right is trying to hijack the committee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
At 1/24/2006 10:26:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard Juanita Balenger will challenge Eric

 
At 1/24/2006 10:49:00 PM, Blogger blight pesticide said...

TC,

Was Mick Staton there pumping up Delgaudio's ambitions?

I wonder how Mick is going to repay Delgaudio for all the hard work he's been putting in for his Sen campaign

 
At 1/24/2006 10:51:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

If y'all consider Juanita "far right," then you are farther Left than I had imagined.

 
At 1/24/2006 10:53:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Juanita would be a good county chairman. Everyone knows her and she has a vast pool of institutional knowledge.

 
At 1/24/2006 11:11:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juanita!?? No way!

 
At 1/25/2006 06:28:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juanita has weak interpersonal skills. If she runs, I'll vote for Eric.

 
At 1/25/2006 07:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In consecutive sentences TC is excited about Golden's future, then mentions Moran will have GOP opposition.

Does this mean Golden will challenge Moran?

 
At 1/25/2006 09:21:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you mean you obtained the flyer? Or was acquiring the flyer so difficult that you really had to attain it?

 
At 1/25/2006 09:35:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wouldn't a $1000 ANONYMOUS contribution to a political committee be ILLEGAL?

I was under the impression that even in Virginia, we have to disclose our contributions over $250.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:04:00 AM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Campaigns for Party office don't have the campaign disclosure rules. You can raise and spend whatever you want, and you don't have to tell anyone where it came from or where it goes.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:15:00 AM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Juanita Balenger has wider experience then just about anyone on the Committee. She is also know for fair play. While certainly conservative, Juanita does not shut out anyone. Also, that Jim Young does not like her is a strong recommendation in her favor.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:26:00 AM, Anonymous Ruth Demont said...

Eric Lundberg is a complete class act and a superb leader. Not only should he be on the RPV's Northern Virginia Strike Force, he should co-chair it along with Loudoun's GOP Chairman, Randy Minchew. Rather than pretend that Fairfax is undergoing a demographic shift, Chairman Lundberg has squarely faced the issue and is taking proper steps to position the Fairfax Republican Party for the future. He needs to stay on the job. Juanita is a nice paralegal, but would be eaten alive by the fractious Fairfax GOP.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:34:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

Too Conservative,

Did you stay for the entire meeting?

At the end Jim Rich had a lady (I didn't catch her name) stand up and briefly talk about Jim's service. She was nice, quiet, and to the point.

Then Heidi began speaking. She did a wonderful job! She pointed out some of the problems within the 10th district, as well as her solutions to those problems. She was very well spoken and surprisingly energetic (during an otherwise dull meeting). Needless to say, she received a very noticeably louder and longer applause than Rich's surrogate speaker.

At the end of the meeting she was mobbed by a sizeable group of people who were interested in supporting her and her candidacy.

I also didn't see the abundance of Jim Rich stickers that you saw. I saw plenty of Tom Davis and Mick Staton stickers, but no Jim Rich. Perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention. (Very possible)

 
At 1/25/2006 10:41:00 AM, Anonymous Freddie said...

What "proper steps to position the Fairfax Republican Party for the future." has Eric done? I've seen nothing.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:51:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

I live in Fauquier county too Jim, and I'll repeat it again here. What have you done for me lately?

 
At 1/25/2006 10:56:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

I've always thought that Eric was a good guy, but the flier brought up a couple good points about the decline of the republican party in Fairfax County.

If Eric, or anyone else, has a plan to change the tide of our party in NoVa, I'd be interesting in hearing about it.

FYI- Eric is seen as a moderate, but not because of his ties to Tom Davis. Eugene Delgadio stated above that he has continually supported Davis, and no one would EVER accuse him of being moderate on anything.

Eric's "moderate" position can be seen in his actions... among other things, this includes his recent endorsement of moderate Randy Minchew.

That said, being a moderate doesn't make Eric a bad chairman. However, the points made in the article are very hard-hitting. This should be interesting.

 
At 1/25/2006 11:18:00 AM, Anonymous Freddie said...

In the 2001 Governor's race the Republican received 44.90% in Fairfax County while statewide we got 47.03%. In 2005, we got 37.96% in Fairfax County while statewide we got 45.99%. We went from 2 points below the statewide percentage to 8 points below the statewide percentage. A demographic shift does not explain this quick a drop. Fairfax County is in deep trouble.

 
At 1/25/2006 12:36:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Involved-

There were stickers all over the place, you were not paying attention.

You are blind again if you don't feel theres some purpose in her running for the position.

It's strange involved..that you have the same ip address as another handle.....

 
At 1/25/2006 12:43:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Uhhh, freddie, I never said I didn't like her. I "don't like" some of the people with whom she has associated in the past, but she was never as vile as most of them.

I said she's not "far right" by any measure of that term, even the Lefty definition apparently popular here. I happen to agree with you on your other statements, save for "certainly conservative." So, since you remain safely anonymous, I am somewhat mystified as to what I could possibly have done to offend you, or to provoke the kind of smarta** post that you enterd at 10:15.... unless you're one of those vile individuals with whom Juanita has unwisely associated in the past, in which case, I can understand why you would want to remain anonymous.

I don't know "Eric" --- never even heard his name until today --- but the results in Fairfax suggest that a change is needed.

 
At 1/25/2006 12:45:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Jim Rich's resume was somewhat incomplete. He needs to add a couple of lines:

"Lied to the entire State Central Committee in 1994 in an effort to oust duly-elected State Chairman Patrick McSweeney."

"Supported fraud in the conduct of the Young Republican Federation of Virginia."

 
At 1/25/2006 12:51:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

How can you blame him for the problems Jim??

He helps candidates who can win. It's not his fault some far-far-far right people have won nomination contests.

Trust me-Eric Lundberg has worked hard for the party. He has set up great events, done great minority outreach, and under his chairmanship has hired a permanent Executive Director.

He can't stop the flow of people from other places into Fairfax.

He's not incharge of demographics.

You're county has had just as bad losses...should someone overthrow the PWC GOP establishment?

..oh wait...isn't it controlled by the "right" wing of the party?

Singing a different toon now huh Jim.

 
At 1/25/2006 01:21:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, TC, I guess that's the point. "He helps candidates who can win." It's not his place to make those decisions; the job of party officials, except in extreme cases (I'm thinking of David Duke; if you're thinking of Dick Black, then you really need to reconsider your party affiliation), is to conduct a fair and impartial process. That's why I advocate that Chairman should not declare themselves in contested nominating contests, and why I remained scrupulously neutral as PWC YR Chairman, back in the days when that meant something (also made it possible to fundraise from all candidates).

And TC, the GOP hasn't lost a single seat in PWC. We defended both Jeff Frederick and Bob Marshall successfully, against strong challenges. Our vote totals were down, but for Lt. Gov. and AG, the GOP candidates prevailed (as I said before, Jerry Kilgore was a drag on the ticket).

I can criticize a portion of the leadership of the County GOP for many things --- which, BTW, isn't "controlled by the 'right' wing of the party," except by Chairman Sean's "No-enemies-to-the-Left" standards --- but ineffectively defending incumbent Republicans isn't among them.

 
At 1/25/2006 02:01:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

You know what I meant Jim.

He helps Republicans.

He can't be held accountable for what our inner-party matches.

He works hard...and in the end does WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PARTY.

As far as Prince William-the GOP is beginning to lose its grip on elections, and on the people of PWC.

Considering you are more rural than Fairfax, I would consider the county 3-5 years behind Fairfax politically..and considering the signs in PWC, I believe it will continue on its quest to blueness.

It's the same formula as Fairfax..
inbcumbents begin to barely win...you can't seem to knock off Democrats(Colgan), the governor lost the election, Bolling squeaked by to a communist.

When you all feel the full brunt of demographics change..and Sean and Tom are out of congress and bos ...I would bet money on it Jim..you all will begin to tank.

 
At 1/25/2006 02:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lundberg hired a full time exec director? hardley.

he drove away one of the most qualified to ever help the committee with his mindless nit picking- michelle presson was doing awesome stuff at FCRC and lundverg drove her to quit

time for change

 
At 1/25/2006 02:26:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

TC,

Do tell, do tell. Am I right? Please share the insight from the IP addresses.

 
At 1/25/2006 02:38:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

And what tells you that, Vince? Your "vast experience"?

'Fact is, the PWC GOP --- like the national GOP --- started winning elections when we stressed stark and significant differences with the Dems (you probably don't remember '94, but I do, and I worked very hard for Tom Davis). Sure, there were still plenty of old-timers who wanted to, and still want, to go along to get along, but that strategy is neither very honest with the voters, nor very effective come election time.

It's kind of a chicken or egg situation, Vince. Sure, you could be right, though I doubt it. But if you aren't, then aren't your comments simply the beginnings of a self-fulfilling prophecy by which you rationalize perfidy? I certainly don't believe that you've practiced it, but you seem to be giving rhetorical cover to those who would. It seems to be "Change our principles," rather than "Change our strategy," to meet new challenges.

As for your comment that disaster looms when "Sean and Tom are out of congress and bos," it is beyond dispute that Tom has done much to build the party in PWC, and done so beyond his narrow, self-serving interest. As to Sean, he has done little to build anything other than his own little cult of personality (I don't know of anything he did for Jeff Frederick or Bob Marshall, for instance). If he can't control it or it doesn't serve his overweening ambition, he's not interested in it. That's why -- while many, including you --- equate the two ideologically, I like and respect Tom Davis, while having very little of the latter for Chairman Sean.

 
At 1/25/2006 02:56:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim -

They are not ideologically similar except for the fact they both care about their constituents, and doing what is right. Something manye elected officals from both sides of the aisle need to work on.

You're right I don't remember 1994. My point was that while I respect your past doings..that they are that..the past.

Are you going to come out and help Tom Davis get petition signatures?

I never stated we need to change our principles. We have great principles as a party..a strong faith in god, low-taxes, and strong social values...but different principles can be announciated different places.

For it is not giving up certain values, to talk about others.

Blackout-maybe soon, I don't like giving out ips because it hampers commenting.

It is not me who doesn't want to change the strategy Jim , I do. It is the group on the "far-far-far right" who consider themselves conservative who would rather live in the 1850's and run our party into the ground.

What ambition do you speak of? Have you talked to Sean or anyone close to him recently about his plans? Do you know his plans?Has he announced?

Unlike the far-far-far right who run simply for power and personal gain, Sean runs to help constituents.

Let's get our party on track Jim, without changing Principles.

 
At 1/25/2006 03:33:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"michelle presson was doing awesome stuff at FCRC and lundverg drove her to quit"

Wait a minute... Michele Presson was offered an opportunity to be chief of staff for a member of congress and thgat's why she quit the FCRC gig. Unless you assume that the nex position is a step down, or that Eric got her that job, then its unfair to say that he "drove her to quit."

 
At 1/25/2006 03:40:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Now, as someone who has live in Prince William County longer than most of the contributors and commentators here have been alive (certainly longer than any of them have lived here), I believe I have some credibility analyzing what turned PWC into a solidly red county. Aside from the enormous, and systematic, growth of the Republican Party here since we cracked it open to people who were not in the "club" (that's the phone booth club) back in the mid-seventies, the Party began to run credible candidates who were willing to do what it took to get elected for more and more offices. It had nothing to do with merely stressing stark differences with the Dems...frankly, in most cases, there was little if any difference. It was strong candidates getting out and going door-to-door...volunteers going door-to-door...in general, a Party getting organized and down into the grassroots introducing themselves to an electorate that, for the most part, had little contact with politics or politicians. The Republican Party actually began to give them a reason, and real person (instead of merely a name or face from the newspaper), for whom to vote. If you go back into the election reports far enough and then move forward into the 90's you'll see that, when we fielded credible Republicans for more and more offices, we won more and more elections until (wonder of wonders), we were suddenly a "red" county before anybody even knew what that meant. Prince William County, as most of Virginia, generally tended to vote Republican nationally but not locally...that's what got turned around.

 
At 1/25/2006 03:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juanita Reads Too Conservative

 
At 1/25/2006 03:47:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Freddie- Juanita is not "known for fair play." This is the woman who tried to have two votes on State Central at the same time. She would be awfil for Fairfax.

 
At 1/25/2006 04:00:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

TC,

You couldn't have it more wrong.

Conservatives run with ideals that are core to our party. Moderates run for power, and base their votes upon whichever way the wind blows.

In regards to who I am, I'd rather you not reveal that. If you're going to research every blogger on your site, or just reveal the names of those who disagree with you, then you may notice a deficiency in the number of people who would want to be associated with you.

I seem to remember you being anonymous for quite some time, until you chose to reveal yourself. I’d ask that you afford others the same choice.

 
At 1/25/2006 04:30:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

"Conservatives run with ideals that are core to our party. Moderates run for power, and base their votes upon whichever way the wind blows."

Involved, I couldn't agree more with this definition. The unfortunate thing is that so many people who claim to be the arbiters of who is conservative and who is not are arbitrarily labeling good Republicans...good CONSERVATIVE Republicans...as moderates, and even liberals, simply because they don't happen to agree with them 100%. It's truly a sad state of affairs for a party that I have always considered the voice of conservatism AND reason (the two terms not being mutually exclusive as some people are insisting), ever since we took the Republican Party away from the liberals after the 1973 Graves Mountain Lodge meeting (anyone remember that...anyone remember their roots?).

 
At 1/25/2006 05:29:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Awcheney,

You can't uphold some conservative ideals, and then ignore the rest, and assume that you're a conservative, regardless.

It doesn't make you less of a republican, but it flies in the face of what it means to be a conservative.

It has become "cool" to claim that you're a conservative in our party, even if you have nothing in common with any real conservative ideals.

The problem is that some moderates want to dilute conservatism to fit any definition that they want it to be. They may love raising taxes, killing babies, or destroying marriage, etc. This doesn't mean that these people aren't republicans, but it certainly doesn't make them a conservative either.

There are some good moderate republicans out there, who represent districts that a conservative would be hard-pressed to win, even in a primary. But you can't expect to change the definition of conservatism to fit whatever you want it to be, just because you like the title.

 
At 1/25/2006 05:33:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

AWC,

I've been to Graves Mountain Lodge. Nice place, although I wasn't there in '73, I was only 9 then. However, I didn't know it had such a history in the GOP.

Also, it must have been an exceedingly small core group of people as GML is not that big a place.

TC,

You seem to be getting a little loose with your accusations and terminology:

"It is not me who doesn't want to change the strategy Jim , I do. It is the group on the "far-far-far right" who consider themselves conservative who would rather live in the 1850's and run our party into the ground."

Wait a minute, just before this you listed a bunch of very nice principles that are core to the GOP that I think uniquely represent conservatives in our party ("a strong faith in god, low-taxes, and strong social values"). Just who is this "far-far-far right" and how do they differ from those principles you mentioned? FYI you forgot limited government btw as one.

The reference to the 1850's is puzzling. Are you accusing core conservatives in the party of wanting to bring back slavery???? If so, I am quite offended! The only ones in this country that I can see who want to assign a group of human beings as property is the pro-abortion crowd.

"Unlike the far-far-far right who run simply for power and personal gain, Sean runs to help constituents."

Again, who are these "far-far-far right" in the party? I find most of those who get trashed by the left and the press as "far right" to be committed to core GOP principles and values. Perhaps they are in fact "far-right" and not "far-far-far right". In that case, wouldn't it be obvious who the "far-far-far right" is? If the press so easily lambastes the "far-right", I would think there would be a daily diatribe about the "far-far-far right". Or is the "far-far-far right" some secret conspriatorial kind of organization like the CFR or the Bildeburgers?

Back to the power-hungry issue. Conservatives I know are so committed to their core principles that at times their principled stances threaten their ability to hold on to power. Doesn't sound "power-hungry" to me.

My experience is that it is the "moderates" in the party who tend to be interested in power for power's sake which is why they so easily change their core principles at the slightest hint of "demographics change". In fact the only core principle I can point to with these "moderates" is "flexibility is king".

TC, I thought you were more intelligent than to stoop to these kinds of accusations. Again, please tell me who do you consider to be "far-far-far right" in the GOP and we'll see if they are just power-hungry.

I consider self-styled "moderates" (who claim to be conservatives when they think it will benefit them) people like Reese, Chichester, Potts, Barry (Warren), and Warner (John) to name a few to be the "power hungry" crowd. They stop at nothing including changing their stances completely in order to make political points. Who do you consider "power-hungry"?

Finally, posts like your previous one do nothing to bring people together in the party. They make you sound like a person who suffers from the same ailment you are complaining about (accusing those you disagree with to not be an acceptable part of the GOP). There is plenty of room for moderates in the party. If I were in his district I would probably vote for Tom Davis. I probably wouldn't work hard for him or give him money (as there are others I agree with more fully that I can do that for, and I have limited time and money), but I wouldn't sell out the party in opposition to him as some self-proclaimed "moderates" in our party do to conservatives. I might even primary him if I thought I could get a good enough candidate who more fully agreed with my positions, but I would do it within party rules, and when it was over, if I lost, I would back him as the winner.

Please, one last time, set the record straight clearly and openly on who you think the "far-far-far right" is.

On the other hand, if you do, perhaps I might have to change my name to "far-far-far Rtwng Extrmst". ;-)

 
At 1/25/2006 05:55:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

We can discuss your blog name change at our next "secret conspriatorial" meeting, Rtwng!

I just appreciate that we've appearantly changed our club's name from what was formerly known as the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" group. Once Hillary found out about us, that name started getting old.

 
At 1/25/2006 05:56:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

sorry... using a 'spell check' would have been helpful during that posting!

 
At 1/25/2006 06:03:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Nice post, rtwng. Couldn't have said it better myself. It gets back to the issue I just raised on another thread: the "name brand" issue. Now that "Republican" is a valuable name brand, there are those who have very little commitment to "Republican" values --- and I assume there is such a thing, and I don't think anyone disputes that --- who want to assume the mantle as the path to personal aggrandizement. Would the other commenters here dispute that assertion? Would you, TC? Anke?

And WM makes a good point about Juanita. I'd forgotten about that. However, I don't know if that is not merely attributable to a misreading of the Party Plan. I'm not sure one can derive from that a lack of commitment to "fair play." I wouldn't dispute some of what Anke says about the growth of the GOP in PWC, either, since the YRs were part of that grassroots effort back in the day. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss utterly the distinctions in philosophy, either.

 
At 1/25/2006 06:09:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

"Also, it must have been an exceedingly small core group of people as GML is not that big a place."

Rtwng, it sounds like you presuppose that it would take a group large enough to fit into the Richmond Coliseum or, in other words, a convention to create a re-alignment of conservatives into the Republican Party. In fact, in those days a great deal depended upon quality rather than quantity...a concept which may have become lost on the young. Now, you get people such as Mills Godwin, Dick Obenshain, Tom Bird, and others such as them, from various factions of both the Republican and Democratic Parties who were interested in a union of conservatives under one roof and you'd be amazed at what could be accomplished. Perhaps it was a small group...that had far larger ties. I wasn't there personally (I knew some of the people who were there) but I was a part of one of the many groups that helped to make it happen over the course of the next 5-6 years...keeping in mind that the meeting itself was a culmination of years of previous work and negotiation by those people who made it happen, and others, at GMT. It's a shame that such core groups can no longer be brought together. People no longer seem to want to seek common ground...they're far more interested in focusing on those things which separate us, so separated we will be.

 
At 1/25/2006 06:24:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Involved, I expect that you are a bit young to remember how, and who, made it "cool" to be a conservative.

 
At 1/25/2006 07:04:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

AWC,

I meant no such implication. Just that it was probably a good core group just as you mention, and because of the size of the lodge.

Ronald Reagan made it "cool" for me to be a "conservative". In fact, before him, I was probably a moderate Democrat. I suspect he too was a source for many in the country as a whole, but I suppose there were other earlier stars. I am a perfect example of the old adage:

"If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart, and if you are mature and not conservative, you have no brain" or some such paraphrase.

 
At 1/25/2006 07:23:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

move this to the top post

 
At 1/25/2006 09:22:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Juanita wouldn't be bad for the position..I am just not sure if now's the time.

 
At 1/26/2006 01:25:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

So, what was in the flyer that you thought was incorrect? Were there more than 250 people at the meeting? Have republicans been winning supervisor's races? Did you get a newsletter last year?

How did the fairfax GOP races go in november? Does the chairman get letters to the editor, or editorials, in any local papers?

Seriously, do you disagree with ANY of the statements in the flyer?

An anonymous flyer spelling out facts is not cowardly, it is in fact in the HIGHEST PRINCIPLES of our DEMOCRACY. Whose name was attached to Common Sense? Whose signature was on the Federalist Papers?

An anonymous flyer that said "we need to get rid of "x", because he is having an affair with his secretary, would be scurillous indead. But when a political piece is unsigned, you should simply evaluate it on the facts.

So I say again, what is factually wrong? Is it wrong to offer financial support for what you think is right?

I presume that this commitee has a vote for chairman scheduled. Why is it "going behind the chairman's back" to drum up support for an opponent in a scheduled election?

This is why we have elections in a democracy, so people can debate issues like the ones in the flyer, and decide who would best represent them. Or do you think that a person is entitled to the chairmanship simply because they are sitting in it?

(DISCLAIMER: I usually read all the comments before posting, but this attack against democracy, complaining about a flier, was too much for me to bear).

 
At 1/26/2006 01:34:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

I'll tell you what, TC:

It's strange involved..that you have the same ip address as another handle.....
Blackout-maybe soon, I don't like giving out ips because it hampers commenting

You do that, and I might be tempted to write about how some bloggers feel free to violate common blogger ethics when they can't win an argument on the merits, complete with an example.

Which is actually a polite way of telling you that trying to attack your readers by threatening them, or revealing information about them, especially when they are simply disagreeing with you, rather than spreading false rumors and vile personal attacks (which seem to be quite tolerated here so long as the recipient is a "far far right winger"), is just the kind of childish thing I'd expect from, well, a child.

And coming from a person who kept their identity secret until recently, I find it humorous that you are faulting a commenter for keeping their identity hidden, or even having two identities.

Much less complaining about an anonymous flyer, and calling it a "cowardly act".

Did you think running your blog anonymously was "cowardly", or do you reserve that for people you disagree with?

 
At 1/26/2006 01:40:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Too Conservative said in his post:
Heidi Stirrup walked in with her daughter. She seemed to glance around the room, notice it was not favorable and then she tried to quickly leave. As she was leaving some Rich haters, who will go nameless, stealthily exited the room and conspired with her outside the cafeteria.

Involve replied:
Then Heidi began speaking. She did a wonderful job! She pointed out some of the problems within the 10th district, as well as her solutions to those problems. She was very well spoken and surprisingly energetic (during an otherwise dull meeting). Needless to say, she received a very noticeably louder and longer applause than Rich's surrogate speaker.

At the end of the meeting she was mobbed by a sizeable group of people who were interested in supporting her and her candidacy.


You can argue about who had more stickers all you want. But there is no way both of THOSE statements could be true. So which is it, TC? Did Heidi step into the room and turn and run for her life, or did she give a speech?

If she DID give a speech, you owe her and all your readers a public apology here and in a separate post.

You might think about apologizing for the "Rich haters" "stealthily leaving the room" comment as well. Because it sounds like they were not at all "stealthy", if "involved" is telling the truth.

You know, a blogger only has his credibility. If you can't get the facts right, what's the point?

 
At 1/26/2006 01:47:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

"I meant no such implication. Just that it was probably a good core group just as you mention, and because of the size of the lodge."

Sorry Rtwng...guess I was feeling a bit defensive. Having often found myself under attack for relating my own past experiences I jumped too quickly to the wrong conclusion. I should have known better. We may not agree 100% on everything but I have found your posts to be generally even-handed and reasonable. You tend to be one of the few who recognizes the occasional need to "agree to disagree," addressing the issue in dialogue rather than the personality in diatribe.

 
At 1/26/2006 01:57:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

You know, I've got to start working my way from the older to newer, rather than responding to the latest stuff first. It's like I'm travelling back in time reading this stuff.

BTW, TC, I believe there will be a real election for the PWC chairmanship, just as there was before. But at least the candidates I worked for all won. How did YOU do in the last election? OK, that was a bit harsh, but you trying to fault PWC is surely calling for a pot/kettle/black reference. We held all our seats, even if we couldn't pull Kilgore out of the muck he caused with those death penalty ads.

That said, we probably need some stronger leadership here as well. When you are all done trying to paint everything into your "moderates good, conservatives evil" picture, you might wake up and realise that the GOP has been resting on its laurels for the past few years, spending more time debating how many things we can name for Reagan then on how we can continue to sell the conservative message that was once key to our party, that of fiscal discipline, limited government, and personal accountability.

I don't care if my chairman is a "moderate", a "conservative", or a "liberal". I want them to be dedicated to getting EVERY ONE of our nominees elected to office, and to building up the ranks of volunteers.

 
At 1/26/2006 06:06:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

highest principles said:

You are shooting the messenger and ignoring the message!

 
At 1/26/2006 06:58:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

critically..

enlightening, enlightening.

Sometimes, it's not worth responding whenc comments are "without merit" as you say..

I have a plane to catch to Little Rock, so I'll try and respond later.

 
At 1/26/2006 12:57:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

AWC,

No problemo. The way words have been flying around here the last day or so, it's understandable.

Also, Anon,

What message? It's been nothing but unfounded accusations and talk about polls. I agree with Criticallythinking in this. We do not need to abandon our ideals, but we probably need to do a much better job in communicating them.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home