Sunday, January 22, 2006

Down The Middle

In a primary between Bolling and McDonnell-I believe McDonnell would win overwhelmingly in NOVA and Tidewater, and would probably run at least 40-60 around the rest of the state. I believe McDonnell would easily defeat Bolling, unless... If Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell can't decide quickly between themselves who will be the nominee in '09 wouldn't it seem that a candidate could run down the middle and win? If a Northern Virginia "moderate" ran in a 3-way primary against these two, I believe they would have a chance of winning the nomination I want to make it clear I support Bob McDonnell for Governor, and would work hard to help him succeed in a primary against Bill Bolling...but encase a third candidate ran, here's my choices: 5)Senator Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis-seems to want to run for a state-wide office, has great monetary backing 4)Delegate Tim Hugo-a conservative with a vision. Delegate Hugo does not forget about who he represents 3)Delegate Tom Rust-executive experience as Mayor. Has a house close to mine on the Outer Banks. Great all around guy. 2)Congressman Tom Davis-Would bring much needed reform to Richmond. Great campaigner. Party uniter. The best candidate for Governor in '09 is....(drum roll).... 1)Chairman Sean T. Connaughton. No joke here guys. Chairman Connaughton continues to outdo expectations as Chairman of the PWC Board. His record of public service is unmatched by all the previous except Congressman Davis. He has previously run state-wide and has some sort of network to go off of. He has shown his great ability to raise money, and continues to champion conservative values across the county. A key attribute politicians continue to lack is leadership. Connaughton is the ideal leader. A man not afraid to make hard choices. He provides results for his constituency that can be touched and seen. Another reason for one of the above candidates is a possibility of a Warner run. If Mark Warner runs for Governor again the only chance our party has is one of the five candidates above. I believe both Bolling and McDonnell would easily fall to Warner, but with a NOVA Republican we can lessen our losses in suburban VA, while continuing to outperform in the rural areas.

81 Comments:

At 1/22/2006 09:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Warner v. Connaughton would be interesting. Most Kaine people would go Connaughton who will be the high tax candidate.

 
At 1/22/2006 09:18:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I havent seen Connaughton champion Warners tax increase...

warner also had nothing to show for his "tax-increase".

Connaughton has schools ,roads, more police to show.

 
At 1/22/2006 09:23:00 PM, Anonymous NoVa Scout said...

Way, way too early for this discussion. We can begin to talk after 2007 elections. I know that Bolling's six-year campaign for LG has some people thinking that you have to get out early, but let's get some context first. The context will be defined by what happens in 2007.

 
At 1/22/2006 09:30:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

It's just speculation NOVA.

I disagree though.

The best way to win a nomination is to run early. It's not just Bolling, McDonnell...Kaine..Kilgore..ect.

It's never to early to talk about the next election.

Your a Bolling fan right NOVA?

 
At 1/22/2006 09:36:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Please.

 
At 1/22/2006 09:45:00 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said...

I like how you gave the Davis family 2 chances :-)

PS. I think you are right because McDonnell is not as strong on guns and gays and enjoys regional support (so does Bolling, but who lives in Hanover County :-)).

 
At 1/22/2006 09:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm going to wait and see how the second week of the McDonnell administration plays out before jumping on his '09 gubernatorial bandwagon.

 
At 1/22/2006 09:58:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Come on anon-

Him or Bolling...

is there even a question?

 
At 1/22/2006 10:02:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

TC: I'm not saying it doesn't work - I'm saying it's not smart. You're right that running early seems to have success within a Party, but it often burdens the party with the wrong candidate for the 1 year horizon of issues within which the general election takes place. I think 2007 will be significant and that we won't really know what the topography of 2009 will be until we get past that. If folks have committed too early and inertia builds for particular candidates before we read the gauges of that election, we again may get saddled with the wrong candidates.

 
At 1/22/2006 10:17:00 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said...

Key to Connaughton win, quit trying to be a "moderate".
That all the opponents need to run in ads.
Also, you better start packing State Central bc Bolling and McDonnell are smart enough to know they want a convention.

 
At 1/22/2006 10:43:00 PM, Anonymous Chris said...

I am on record at my blog as supporting Ken Cuccinelli---however Sean Connaughton would be a great nominee. I was very impressed with him in the primnary to the point where I voted for him, and I still think he might have helped Kilgore in NOVA.

But one name not mentioned we should remember is George Allen. If the presidency doesn't work out, according to numerous sources, not the least of which is Rich Lowry in the National Review article on Allen, say that he will come home to run for governor again. He hates it in the Senate and has used it as a means of attaining the presidency.

If Allen does jump in, do Messrs. Bolling and McDonnell bow and run for reelection? An Allen-Bolling-McDonnell ticket would be formidable.

 
At 1/22/2006 11:06:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gophokie -

I don't think Connaughton ever says he's moderate; I think its all his crazy opponents who seem to make up new rules as to why he can't be a conservative, or at least their kind of conservsative. I have lived in different parts of the country and this region and Connaughton would be considered an ultra-conservative in every place except maybe Idaho, Utah and the hollows of Virginia. The impression I get is that because he doesn't say or do stupid things in the media he isn't considered a conservative to some. I know I wish I had him running the county here in Fairfax instead of Connolly.

 
At 1/22/2006 11:27:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

So for Sean to run for Governor in 2009, what should he do in 2007?

 
At 1/22/2006 11:38:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

TC: I think Mr. Bolling possesses the minimal requirements necessary to get from January 2006 to January 2010 without major mishap in fulfilling the responsibilities of the post of Lieutenant Governor. I suspect that there are many, many others about whom I could say the same thing.

 
At 1/22/2006 11:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is with this love fest for Connaughton? I wish someone in the know would give you the rude awakening you need. The guy is a slimeball. I could never vote for that man, no matter who his opponent was. I would either do a write-in or abstain from voting.

 
At 1/23/2006 12:00:00 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said...

11:06, I personally don't think Chairman Sean is a moderate; but this post is the "top 5 moderate governor candidates for 2009".
If TC wants his man to get the nod he needs to start referring to him as "Conservative Connaughton" and not "Moderate Connaughton".

 
At 1/23/2006 05:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Bolling, McDonnell and the Republican majorities in the General Assembly are slimeballs for telling us they are for lower taxes and smaller government then they fall over themselves to spend more money. Everyone of them that voted against Warner's tax package voted to increase the budget by $2 billion the following year from all the new revenues. That is slimy.

 
At 1/23/2006 06:04:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

It is exactly this kind of speculation that saddled the GOP with Kilgore in 2005. Just because a candidate stumbles across the finish line in a statewide race (and both McDonnell and Bolling did just that, at least Kilgore had had a decisive win), doesn't mean that they will be the strongest candidate for governor in four years. I don't know if Connaughton would be the strongest candidate in 2009, but the same can be said for McDonnell and Bolling. When the VA GOP begins these coronation processes, they shut off the possibility that their may be some other much more electable candidates out there. It is hard to plan for an election that is 4 years away when you don't know what the defining issues are for that race. That is unless you think they are going to be the same issues as for the race you just ran which means that none of the problems of today will be any closer to being fixed and, being the GOP is in the majority, you are responsible for not fixing them. Boy, "The Party Who Can't Fix Anything," that's the party I want to run for. Everyone just needs to cool their heels and work on the here and now.

 
At 1/23/2006 09:38:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, ya gotta cut back on the Kool-Aid. I'm sure you are familiar with the reference, but the actual reference pre-dates your birth by about a decade.

But I'm interested in your comment about "a record of public service is unmatched by all the previous except Congressman Davis.... He has shown his great ability to raise money, and continues to champion conservative values across the county." Sorry, but at least three of the four others mentioned beat him on public service. A couple of terms as a BOCS Chairman is hardly "a record of public service is unmatched by all the previous except Congressman Davis." As for "continues to champion conservative values across the county," he fails to do so on the single issue that he can most immediately and substantially impact: tax and spending issues.

As for Anon 11:06's comments, while I would wish, were I living in Fairfax, that "I had him running the county here in Fairfax instead of Connolly," I think we, and he, could and should do better in PWC. As for whether Chairman Sean is a "moderate," of course he never SAYS so; that's an almost sure loser in a statewide GOP primary. However, his profligate spending, and disturbing comments at a PWC Committee of 100 debate on public employee unions, indicate that he's not only a "moderate" on those issues, but a Liberal. And Anon 11:45 is a little unfair; he or she seems to forget the buffoon the Dems ran against Chairman Sean in '03, which was sufficient to cause virtually all Republicans to enthusiastically pull the lever for Chairman Sean.

However, all in all, I agree with the comments that it's waaaaay too early to be having this discussion, even in the blogosphere.

 
At 1/23/2006 10:05:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Young needs to get around a little - he has no idea how lucky he is in Prince William County. Open your eyes and shut your mouth and you might learn something, James.

 
At 1/23/2006 10:06:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Young needs to get around a little - he has no idea how lucky he is in Prince William County. Open your eyes and shut your mouth and you might learn something, James.

 
At 1/23/2006 10:17:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

Is TC ever NOT worshipping at the alter of Sean?

 
At 1/23/2006 10:30:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 10:05 (Sean?), you are correct: I am blessed. But it has little or nothing to do with Chairman Sean. Aside from that, your little personal attack was hardly worth saying once, let alone twice. And never anonymously.

 
At 1/23/2006 11:29:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

ha.

As for the comments on speculation..again...this is a blog...and I think it's fun to speculate.

Jim Young-public service is more than elected office.

Maybe his career as a VETERAN is what I was reffering to..you know...when people risk their lives so we can have the freedom to bash the exact people doing so?

 
At 1/23/2006 11:33:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Jim:

I have to say I still don't understand your comments regarding the Committee of 100 debate (which I attended) and the "right-to-work" question. Sean stated that he would talk to any and all parties involved in a question. Period. I think that speaks volumes about any leader, a willingness to listen to whatever anyone, including opponents, have to say and evaluate it as opposed to simply dismissing it out of hand. He never stated that he supported unions or gave any indication that he ever would. He merely said he wouldn't refuse them an audience. Suggesting any more from that debate is simply unfair and a distortion of the facts.

 
At 1/23/2006 11:40:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, you are correct; public service is much more than elected office. It's even more than service in the military. Sometimes, it's even fighting and taking risks for the right causes. That "public service" line is too often used by people to bash those who refuse to join their little clubs.

I really tried to avoid the most obvious rebuttals to your a**-ki... er, hagiography, but I think the credibility of your comment as a whole is summed up best by this excerpt: "Connaughton is the ideal leader." "Ideal leader" is an appellation I wouldn't even apply to the sainted Ronaldus Magnus. And the notion that he is "A man not afraid to make hard choices" is simply Liberal-speak for "tax increaser." In Chairman Sean's case, it's also an excuse for attempting to marginalize and/or attacking other Republicans.

 
At 1/23/2006 11:50:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-

You are wrong.

Its dissrespectful to compare the work or some political activist who knocks on doors, to someone who risks their life for this country.

The hard choices comment is true.What is going on in the House and Senate? The anti-taxers want lower taxes, but refuse to say what they would cut.

People spout off about transportation, but they raid the tranportation trust fund.

Many politicans are simply liars, who have a quest for greater power.

Connaughton is not. I am being serious when I say I believe him to be one of the most honest politicans I have ever met, and for you to come up with come cockamamie biased story to dissprove me is sad.

 
At 1/23/2006 11:53:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

No, Mitch, that's not all he did.

The question was this: “Virginia protects its workers with a Right to Work law and bars public employee monopoly bargaining. With these principles in mind, would you seek and/or accept the endorsement[s] of the Virginia Education Association and/or the Virginia AFL-CIO? Additionally, would you support any effort to impose a ‘meet-and-confer’ requirement on Virginia’s public employers?” I drafted this question, and as I recall, I did not know at the time that Chairman Sean had been endorsed by the Virginia Education Association, an endorsement which should disqualify almost any "Republican" candidate for further consideration in a contested nomination.

Chairman Sean’s answer was, to say the least, distressing, not the least because he never squarely answered the question (contrary to your representation). Your memory appears to be faulty; mine is refreshed by the fact that I happened to write a memo about it at the time. But you assert that he answered by saying that "he would talk to any and all parties involved in a question. Period."

But that doesn't answer the question. I asked a very specific question about a very specific issue which relates to the granting of preferred legal status to labor unions (i.e., while you have a right to speak, government officials have no obligation to listen to you, and meet-and-confer legislation creates an obligation of public officials to listen to union bosses) in the competition for scarce public resources, one with which any locally-elected leader should be familiar. If you don't concede that Chairman Sean wasn't familiar with the issue, then he's ignorant. If you do, then he evaded squarely addressing a fundamental "good government" question.

What he did answer was that his father was a “union man” in New York (not necessarily damning; his website indicates that he was a police officer), and then launched into various motherhoods about the GOP being a “big tent” (read: “We shouldn’t stand for anything”) and indicated that he is either too stupid to know the difference between rank-and-file union members and union bosses, or too dishonest to admit to supporting the latter’s agenda. I do not believe that he is stupid.

Chairman Sean also seemed to indicate his support for imposition of a preferred status for public employee union bosses vis-a-vis state and local governments. He also cited the “fact” that Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the NEA. While I assume that Reagan was never endorsed for President by the NEA, it has since been suggested to me that he may have been endorsed by the California affiliate for Governor, in the days before the extreme radicalization of the NEA, and it is that endorsement to which Chairman Sean may have been referring.

 
At 1/23/2006 12:02:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-
Seriously you are beginning to get into personal attack mode here.

Saying Connaughton's big tent comment means he doesnt stand for anything is so rude and dissrespectful.

There's more to life than political manipulation and tactics, and just because Connaughton doesn't sit around all day judging people for their sexuality, income level, or view on one specific issue doesnt mean he doesnt stand for anything.

What irks me so much is when people who have no substantial records of public service bash people and create lies around a candidate.

Connaughton has been branded by people who are scared of his record, scared of the popularity he has with average everday people, not just people who work for specific-push button issues.

Your logic is so flawed. You are no in the mainstream Mr.Young, or even close to it..even amoung conservatives.

How is it a bad thing that Connaughton is deemed "okay" by the VEA? They didnt write a magazine artcile supporting him, or send out mailer. He just supported our schools more than Bill Bolling.

Seriously Mr.Young, it is simply insane to try and make that a negative.

To call Sean stupid is something else entirely.

Connaughton who went to Georgetown,has dedicated his life to helping people and has proof to show for it.

Why is it you can sit there and judge someone so much, but have no proof behind it? You and your cronies just hate the man for being better than you all, and having a better record.

Your hatred for someone you barely know needs to end. Part of me almost wishes Sean stops helping the republican party in Prince William, so that you can see how quickly it goes down the toilet when it is only run by one-issue far-far-far-far right people who don't even have skills to communicate with the average voter.

Please get over it Jim Young.

 
At 1/23/2006 12:13:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

even though you took back your stupid thing..you still inferred it

 
At 1/23/2006 12:17:00 PM, Anonymous gopkdh said...

your post was uncalled for jim

 
At 1/23/2006 12:18:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, I don't worship at the alter of military service, and neither should you. I respect those who serve, even REMF's or people who served their active duty in the Coast Guard, because there is ALWAYS the chance that you will get shot at when you put on the uniform (like those at the Pentagon on 9/11). But you appear to want to use it as a club to belittle those who don't share your beloved Chairman Sean's resume. And I believe that the greatest "public service" is keeping the power of government in check. It doesn't take putting on a uniform to do so (James Madison was perhaps the greatest of the Founders, and he never wore a uniform), nor even collecting a check from a government payroll.

I am mindful of involved's 10:17 comment, and you should be, too. It is not the obligation of the "anti-taxers" to identify where they would cut; it is the obligation of those who would use the force of government to extract money from those who earn it to justify their spending. That's the ultimate difference between a conservative and a liberal. Conservatives believe that the obligation is upon those who would take our money to justify it adequately; liberals put the onus on those who believe that the government is taking too much. Your comments suggests that you are the latter, and I'm unsure as to whether you are simply repeating something you heard from Chairman Sean, or just repeating talking points.

And aside from that fact, you confuse limiting spending increases with cuts. I know that Chairman Sean likes to ignore the following fact, but that shouldn't be your excuse: in 2003, the PWTA Taxpayer Protection Pledge demanded that spending INCREASE not more than the factor of population growth and inflation. See. INCREASE, not cuts. Chairman Sean couldn't even sign onto that.

And as for your comment that "Many politicans are simply liars, who have a quest for greater power. Connaughton is not," you are simply wrong, because he lied at least twice (that I know of) in his statewide campaign. He claims to have "lowered taxes"; he did not. He merely lowered property tax rates in an era of rapidly increasing values, resulting in an average tax INCREASE of 50% over his first five years in office. That's not bias; that's fact. Even your fellow contributor Riley has admitted it, if I recall correctly. And if taking a higher portion of their money from taxpayers, or seeking higher elected office, isn't "seeking greater power," I don't know what is.

As more evidence of his dishonety, when he lost a straw poll on the Lt. Gov.'s race at the last PWC County GOP Convention, his first instinct was to lie about it, and claim ballot-stuffing, which was simply not true. I wasn't involved in running the poll, but I was asked to help count the ballots after it was completed. Each delegate voting voted once, and his or her name had been checked off. When I had asked if my young sons could cast ballots (with Dad's help, of course), I was politely told that each delegate could vote, and only once each (even though it was a fundraiser for the YRs). When the ballots were counted, there were slightly fewer cast than the total number of delegate in attendance. Yet when Chairman Sean didn't get his way, his first instinct wasn't to say, "Well, gee, we didn't get our people out to this Convention," or note that he has some fence-mending to do with the most committed Republicans in his County. No, his first instinct and act was to lie, and to do so boldly, in the process slandering those who had apparently embarrassed him.

Why don't you ask your buddy Chairman Sean about it? I can probably get you the press clipping quoting his misrepresentation, and can certainly refer you to the other individuals involved in the count. You can either check it out, or simply dismiss it as a "cockamamie biased story" because you don't want to now the truth (to quote a movie line, perhaps "You can't HANDLE the truth!"). Those who were there (only about 70 people attended the convention and voted) know the truth, which can be found out, if you really want it. 'Course, you might have to ask those who Chairman Sean has "attempt[ed] to marginalize and/or attack[]," but if you simply dismiss them, then your less intellectually honest than I had thought.

And BTW, I've never raided the transportation fund, nor endorsed the actions of those doing so.

 
At 1/23/2006 12:30:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

Pithy, James. Pithy. You sure know how to boil things down to a few well-chosen words.

 
At 1/23/2006 12:34:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

"In Chairman Sean's case, it's also an excuse for attempting to marginalize and/or attacking other Republicans."

James Young 11:40

Are you seriously attacking Sean for attacking fellow Republicans?

No...really...is that what you, James Young, are doing?

TC: I think Sean is great, but I think you are building the man us just a little bit. He is not without flaws and he has made some poor decisions, both in policy and politically. To quote Leo Buscaglia, "Never idealize others. They will never live up to your expectations.”

 
At 1/23/2006 12:44:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, I fail to see how anything I said was "personal attack mode," unless you consider identifying a politician's evasion of a question to be a "personal attack." On the other hand, your accusations of petty jealousies and hatred are beneath what you appear to be aspiring to be. And as for your second, briefer post, no, I didn't mean that Chairman Sean is "stupid." The only alternatives apparent to me are that Chairman Sean was stupid or he was lying, and I don't think you get a law degree from Georgetown or a job with Troutman Sanders (where I had a few friends working while in law school) by being stupid. Sadly, the only other alternative (which must disturb you mightily) is that Chairman Sean wasn't on the up-and-up, a fact evidenced by his evasion of the question.

As for your suggestion that I was "rude and disrespectful" to Chairman Sean, he gets what he gives, and I've never gotten any better treatment from him. And I don't respect people who don't tell the truth (see above). While Chairman Sean is talking about a "big tent," like most who use the phrase, he has busily sought to marginalize and/or attack those who are already in it. As for saying it means "We shouldn't stand for anything," that is hardly an assessment unique to me.

And I fail to see how it is "insane" to make endorsement by the VEA a negative. The VEA is part of the NEA, one of the most radical "mainstream" organizations in America. It endorses abortion on demand, "children's rights" in the Hillary sense of the term, the radical homosexual agenda, a nuclear freeze, and many other items which I don't doubt you would oppose. For the NEA and its affiliates, it is never just about "support[ing] our schools." And I am in a position to know just a little bit more about it than you.

That having been said, I'm delighted to hear that Chairman Sean "doesn't sit around all day judging people for their sexuality, income level, or view on one specific issue doesnt mean he doesnt stand for anything." Glad to hear it. Neither do I. When I do make judgments, and comment upon them, it is based upon what people do and what they think. I assume that Chairman Sean does the same, with the addition of considering what they can do for his political ambitions.

And you say you're irked by people "who have no substantial records of public service bash people and create lies around a candidate." Who are they, and what are the lies? If you're attacking me for having "no substantial record[] of public service," then I'll differ (I was gonna "beg to differ," but I don't beg). I have tens of thousands of clients around this country --- most, public employees --- from whom I have never collected a dime in fees who would dispute your intimation. So I'll repeat the other question: what lies? I've given you specific proof --- chapter and verse --- on two specific lies that I know were told by Chairman Sean. I don't know of any more, and I have not disseminated some of the seedier rumors that others have tried to float with me, because I have no proof, and they aren't even really policy. But if one of your standards is also dislike of "political manipulation and tactics," then I guessed I missed your criticism of Chairman Sean's effort to seize control of the PWC GOP Committee after his embarrassing loss of the straw poll. Maybe it's just because you weren't blogging then.

And as for being irked by people "who have no substantial records of public service bash people and create lies around a candidate," I suppose that there are plenty of people who are irked by those who have no substantial record of any kind who set themselves up as some kind of political authorities and shield for a candidate who can't defend his own record as he would like it characterized. I'm not one of them, but you can probably see where I'm going with that.

 
At 1/23/2006 12:48:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Aw, c'mon, nova scout. My comment on the Transportation Fund was the epitome of pith.

 
At 1/23/2006 01:04:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I thought you didn't mind "fudgepack mountain" Young's "conservatism", TC??

Now, you are fighting with him only a day later??

Interesting.

 
At 1/23/2006 01:08:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I'm guessing my nickname for Mr. Young is getting old right about now.

For that reason, I will be retiring the nickname, and will only bring it out on special occasions.

 
At 1/23/2006 01:19:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"My comment on the Transportation Fund was the epitome of pith."

No Jim, it really wasn't. you may have intended it to be pithy. You may even have mistaken believed that it was pithy. But it wasn't really, and it certainly doesn't qualify as "the epitome of pith".

You may be the epitome of something, but it's not pith.

 
At 1/23/2006 01:21:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Willis, go back to class.

 
At 1/23/2006 01:22:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"Now, you are fighting with him only a day later??"

Son, some of us have been fighting with Jim Young since you were in diapers.

 
At 1/23/2006 01:27:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

And WM, I'm not "attacking" Chairman Sean for attacking other Republicans; I am only noting that he does so, which either: (a) disturbs those who would place him on the fast track to beatification; or (b) is OK with those who would place him on the fast track to beatification, so long as he "attacks" the [far] right people.

But why would you call my comment an "attack"? Is every criticism an "attack"? Or is it only an "attack" when it comes from someone with whom you disagree?

 
At 1/23/2006 01:28:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Kim, er, MW, that's certainly an interesting comment since, if that IS you and not Kim Delaney, I don't think I've ever laid eyes on you.

 
At 1/23/2006 01:36:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

Would you prefer Dana Delaney?

 
At 1/23/2006 02:04:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

I prefer the lovely and gracious Mrs. Young. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

 
At 1/23/2006 02:06:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

"Son, some of us have been fighting with Jim Young since you were in diapers."

Well, I'm assuming TC isn't in that category, since he was sitting around in his mother's ovary when I was in diapers.

 
At 1/23/2006 02:18:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

"...it is the obligation of those who would use the force of government to extract money from those who earn it to justify their spending. That's the ultimate difference between a conservative and a liberal."

Now, are we to assume that you will now be accusing Staton of being a liberal? Just asking.

 
At 1/23/2006 02:38:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Uhhh, anke, I haven't said anything about Staton at all, so what's your point?

I'm making the same point that I have before: those who say that opponents of higher tax rates and/or collections should "tell us where you would cut" are both dishonest --- frequently, we're merely advocating a cap on government spending --- and betraying their Liberal/spendthrift presumptions. If, by your response, your putting fiscal conservatives on the defensive, then you cannot legitimately call yourself a fiscal conservative.

The appropriate answer to "tell us where you would cut" is a question: Why is that new publicly-funded golf course more important than my child's braces/health insurance/toys/private school tuition?

 
At 1/23/2006 02:51:00 PM, Anonymous jimyoungsasatanist said...

JIM YOUNG YOU SATANIST!!!!!!

SO CONNAUGHTON DOESNT STAND FOR ANYTHING!?

WHAT DO YOU CALL HIS CHURCH INVOLVEMENT? HIS KIDS ATTENDING CATHOLIC SCHOOL?

 
At 1/23/2006 02:56:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Young hates Sean Connaughton because in the few minutes he had to respond, Connaughton didn't answer a convoluted question Young posed during a debate on an issue no one cares about. Am I missing something?

 
At 1/23/2006 02:58:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Young -

What "new publicly funded golf course"? I haven't gotten to play it yet!

 
At 1/23/2006 02:59:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

I use Chairman Sean's personal information for neither criticism nor praise, JYAS. I limit my comments to Chairman Sean's public statements and policies. For what it's worth, I'm delighted for his children that they do. Too bad not all of his constituents are wealthy enough to choose private schools, and that perhaps even some have had to remove their children from private schools to pay their increased property tax bills.

And I never said Chairman Sean didn't stand for anything; I said he "launched into various motherhoods about the GOP being a “big tent” (read: “We shouldn’t stand for anything”)" on a specific occasion. And he certainly "stands for" something. My impression is, primarily himself.

 
At 1/23/2006 03:05:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

That was by way of example, Anon 2:58. Insert anything you want that isn't as important as your child's "braces/ health insurance/toys/private school tuition."

And Anon 2:56, I don't "hate Sean Connaughton." I wish I could paraphrase Peggy Noonan, and say "I hold him in contempt. There's a difference," but even that would be too strong.

As for my question, apparently Chairman Sean thought it important enough to shade his answer and throw an attempted pander or two in. Please don't attribute your indifference to an important public policy question to everyone else. But thank you for demonstrating why you would want to remain anonymous.

 
At 1/23/2006 03:20:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasn't Ronald Reagan a union president? Are you calling him liberal?

 
At 1/23/2006 03:25:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

James: did you ever consider the epigram business? You could take these short, wise sayings of yours and then have lapidaries using tiny little tools and magnifying lenses condense them onto the sides of mountain ranges. There must be a market for something like that.

I used to think that there was some societal good in your being able to work out this peculiar Connaughton fixation of yours (I'm sure there's a technical term, but I'm damned if I know what it is) in the blog world. It didn't cost much, we're all pulling for you to get well, it saves medical bills and visits to professionals, and it probably makes you feel a little better. But I do weary of it and I don't think it's getting any better. Frankly, James, think of this as an intervention. We're not seeing progress. And we ARE concerned. Prince William is a big, dynamic County, Connaughton is a very interesting political commodity and personality, but the County isn't THAT important, Connaughton's defects, as perceived by you, aren't THAT captivating, and you're way down in the weeds on the level of detail virtually any sane person wants to address. Trying to work it through in public just hasn't been as successful as many of us had hoped. You really ought to take this private and seek competent care. We'll support you in that decision.

 
At 1/23/2006 03:33:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

nova scout, perhaps you could explain to me how it is a fixation to relate facts regarding Chairman Sean to individuals who post things like "Connaughton is the ideal leader." It seems that your belitting attacks about "fixations" are limited to those who tell the truth about someone ... -- well, I was gonna say "upon whom you have a fixation," but I won't stoop to your level --- you support. With all due respect to TC, that seems to elevate Chairman Sean to Delphic oracle status.

As for your comments, well, I'd like to take a page from you, and suppose the blogosphere does provide a healthy outlet which allows Chairman Sean's sycophants from the trouble and expense of securing land, hiring architects and engineers, and building a shrine to him. But then, I'd be stooping to your belittling level.

For someone who frequently tries to persuade us of his bona fides, vast credentials, and the wisdom that comes with age --- all while safely hiding in anonymity, perhaps to prevent us from learning the truth, though your vocabulary, if nothing else, impresses --- your posts are frequently quite peurile.

 
At 1/23/2006 03:35:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Nova Scout -

I have a, this problem, and it involves, well, ... "down there." It is really itchy and burns allot. Can you tell me what is wrong and how to cure it?

Thanks in advance for you medical opinion.

 
At 1/23/2006 03:40:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

anon- drink more water.

 
At 1/23/2006 03:43:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim Young-

Do you agree without Connaughton the PWC Republican party would falter?

 
At 1/23/2006 03:50:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC --- Not at all; I don't believe in cults of personality.

If you're familiar with the history of the GOP in PWC, we had already achieved a BOCS majority in '95. The only seat taken away from the Dems in '99 was Kathy Seefeldt's, by Chairman Sean. Throughout the entire decade, Democrats did not beat a single incumbent Republican, and only held onto their seats by virtue of the power of the incumbency. Indeed, the only non-incumbent Dem to win during the 90s in PWC was Lee Stoffregen, who succeeded a Democrat in '95, against now-Supervisor Wally Covington, a lawyer with no law-enforcement background.

However, I would agree that the GOP in Prince William County would be much stronger if Chairman Sean would work with us, rather than against us. Then he might earn some of the respect you seem to think I owe him.

 
At 1/23/2006 03:56:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

A couple of more comments, 'cause I think they address the issue.

First, I harken back to just after Chairman Sean's first election, when the PWC County GOP Committee was fully prepared to take formal action against Maureen Caddigan (R-Dumfries), who had formally endorsed and worked for Seefeldt. Chairman Sean came to the meeting and asked us to refrain from doing so. We acquiesced (unanimously, if I recall correctly) to his request. We did so simply because he asked. My recollection may have faded somewhat, but Chairman Sean has never done anything within the GOP to build the kind of party which will continue beyond his efforts. And if my experience teaches me anything, it's because a party like that won't reflexively do his bidding.

Second, there may be one or two BOCS candidates who would suffer somewhat were Chairman Sean not there. I suspect there would be some dispute over who they would be, so I'll keep my opinions to myself as to which ones could have trouble.

 
At 1/23/2006 04:01:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

All right, I can't resist the any longer. The banter in this thread merely underscores what some have noted for quite some time, namely, that this blog is rapidly becoming more juvenile and irrelevant (assuming it had some relevancy at a point) due to the increased sycophancy and decreased intellectual capacity of the average respondent and a minority of the publishers. Those adults among the latter really need to reign in that minority as they have a negative effect on your credibility not only in the blogsphere but I would suggest also in physical reality.

That having been said and understanding that I am neither a medical doctor nor did I stay in Holiday Inn Express last night, I offer the following:

Mr. Young: sit back have a nice scotch, I would suggest 18+ yr old McCallan, and let the children throw sand in their sandbox. At some time, their parents may return and chastise their obnoxious offspring.

Willis: enough, if you want to continue to observe the world, please do it quietly, if not, get a job like the rest of civilized society. Nobody likes the weird kid who lives in his mother's basement.

Nova Scout: I would suggest a scotch for you as well but merely for therapeutic reasons. You're wound just a little too tight.

TC: Simply, broaden your horizons. You would be surprised at the depth of other options beyond your limited experience. (I still can't get over the "falter" question. Oh by the way, the answer is a resounding NO)

Mitch's Wife: One word, MIDOL

 
At 1/23/2006 04:05:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

MOM- no ma'am

 
At 1/23/2006 04:52:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Mom-

You may personally think that...but actually this blog continues to grow in readership..

so on a big scale..you are incorrect.

Now i agree the banter between some commenters needs to stop.

You know jim young dont you?

I have heard you were at a board meeting a couple weeks ago.

 
At 1/23/2006 04:56:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

Willis, you haven't been around long enough to know this, and it is certainly an undertsandable mistake, but you shouldn't call MOM "ma'am" becasue "MOM" is a male and hence could better be referred to as "sir". "MOM" doesn't mean "Mom", as in "mother" (although there may be some on this blog who think that he is a "Muthah"). The psuedonym "MOM" is an acronym for "Marty's Oversized Melon", which is a reference to the size of Prince William County Supervisor Marty Nohe's head. To be clear, it is not a figurative reference to his ego: "MOM" actually has a problem with the physical size of Supervisor Nohe's actual skull.

In case you have never met him, I should point out that, in this literal sense, Supervisor Nohe's head has, to me at least, always seemed pretty normal in it's size. [In the figurative sense, Supervisor Nohe's head may be big, but it has never seemed any bigger than that of any other politician... smaller than that of some of his collegues to be sure. To the extent that it is figuratively "oversized", I suggest that this is just an occupational hazard.]

 
At 1/23/2006 04:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone have "mitch's wife's" telephone number? I think she's buutifullll!

 
At 1/23/2006 05:00:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

TC, you're fishing. I don't know JY, wouldn't mind sitting down and discussing a few issues with him over a bottle of single malt. Havn't been to the board in quite some time, just to far to drive, I can stay at home and get the same effect as my kids can raise my bloodpressure just as quickly as the chairman.

As regards the blog's popularity, readership may be up but that may be the wrong metric. You might want to look at the number of unique respondents and determine if the number over the past month or two has decreased.

 
At 1/23/2006 05:01:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

MOM as well as many of the other regular commenters on TC, are simply Prince William County "republicans" who hate the title of the blog, and can't understand how it can be called too conservative when I support people like Tom Davis and Sean Connaughton.

They are grown men who like to sit at home and make anonymous comments on public servants with great records, and rip on 17 year old students.

MOM-did i not accuratley portray you?

 
At 1/23/2006 05:01:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Mitch's wife..

do you want to join tc?

 
At 1/23/2006 05:14:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

"MOM-did i not accuratley portray you?"

Actually, no. I usually "rip" them loudly, publicly and generally to their face or at least in a forum where it is without question who "ripped" them.

I have no problem addressing those with "great records" in such a manner, as if and when I am forced to respond in that manner, I do so with the knowledge (as I have said before) that I am right (until proven otherwise). The difficult thing for both you and they is that I am rarely proven incorrect because I rarely take an entrenched position that requires the aforementioned behavior without substantial research and documentation (and shrilling screaming "you're wrong" with no substantiation for your position or holding your breath till you turn blue will not make me incorrect).

Responding to this blog is merely a way to amuse myself and kill some time while waiting for material at various times during the day.

Oh, Mitch's Wife, better make that a double dose.

 
At 1/23/2006 05:34:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Kim, or MW --- Notice how TC invited you to join right after you posted a picture?

 
At 1/23/2006 06:05:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

He likes older women.

 
At 1/23/2006 06:08:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

MOM- I'm the best thing that's ever happened to this blog. TC would be foolish to remove me. I create angst, and angst creates viewership and buzz. I'm sure TC knows this, too. Young is in the same category in this regard.

 
At 1/23/2006 09:51:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"Notice how TC invited you to join right after you posted a picture?"

You have to admit... I'm pretty hot.

 
At 1/23/2006 09:54:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"Does anyone have "mitch's wife's" telephone number? I think she's buutifullll!"

Anon 459: Give me a call sometime. My number is 703-321-8510.

 
At 1/23/2006 10:04:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I called that number

It's the national right to work.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW.

MITCH IS MARRIED TO JIM YOUNG!

 
At 1/23/2006 10:19:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I knew there was more to that "fudgepack mountain" than met the eye.

Self-hatred, perhaps.

 
At 1/24/2006 09:50:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Don'tcha just love the way that the far Left makes personal accusations of perversion against those who oppose their efforts to legitimize perversion?

I suppose that Conservatives opposing the radical homosexual agenda could respond in kind, but someone has to be the adults.

 
At 1/24/2006 12:00:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

James Young, an "adult".

I just spit water out of my mouth.

 
At 1/24/2006 05:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I just spit water out of my mouth."

Too bad it didn't shrt out your keyboard.

 
At 1/24/2006 06:41:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Too bad.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home