Thursday, January 12, 2006

I'll be the first to bite....

Okay, I'll be the first one to bite. With most moderate and conservative Republicans (at least in the blogosphere) agreeing that the State Senate's "Gang of Four" have ostracized themselves from the GOP and deserve legitimate primary challenges in 2007, the question now arises -- Who? There is already a line of challengers awaiting Potts should he decide to run again (his claims that his run for Gov. would be his last notwithstanding). But what about Chichester, Quayle and Hawkins? 28th District (Chichester) Fauquier County (Part); Fredericksburg City (Part); King George County (All); Lancaster County (All); Northumberland County (All); Prince William County (Part); Richmond County (All); Stafford County (All); Westmoreland County (All) 13th District (Quayle) Chesapeake City (Part); Franklin City (Part); Hopewell City (Part); Isle of Wight County (Part); Portsmouth City (Part); Prince George County (Part); Southampton County (Part); Suffolk City (Part); Surry County (All) 19th District (Hawkins) Campbell County (Part); Danville City (All); Franklin County (All); Pittsylvania County (All) Why let VCAP have all the fun? In fact, if conservative and moderate Republicans can come up with one single candidate that they can both accept in each of these districts, the more likely it will be that these incumbents can be taken out in a primary. If the party is going to take the Senate back from these self-promoters, this has to start now.

11 Comments:

At 1/12/2006 04:33:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Riley! I love it...moderates and consevatives working together...thats crazy talk...crazy enough to work :)

 
At 1/12/2006 04:37:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Ebony and Ivory, man. Ebony and Ivory. Working together in perfect harmony. Side by side on my keyboard, oh Lord, why can't we?

 
At 1/12/2006 05:30:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Jim, I wish you were correct, but there are plenty out there who are defending the actions of the Gang of Three.

 
At 1/12/2006 05:57:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

JY--

You and your naysaying has no place in this conversation :)

The train is moving, consevatives, moderates lets get on board and maybe, just maybe this can be more than a one time thing...it would be almost like we are a politcal party!

 
At 1/12/2006 07:12:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Chichester is retiring on account of his wife's health.

 
At 1/12/2006 11:29:00 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said...

I will believe it when I see it freddie

 
At 1/12/2006 11:48:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

The simple facts, on a thing like this, are that it is almost impossible in the RPV to enforce any form of party discipline. It comes down to a matter of personal honor and integrity. When, a few years ago, an active Republican and member of the School Board couldn't support the GOP nominee for his district's supervisor, he had the integrity to resign his membership. Did I agree with his non-support? Certainly not. But at least he had the courage of his conviction and surrendered (albeit temporarily, but for the relevant period) his office as a Republican Committee member. What is really sad is that I can think of only one instance of such integrity.

 
At 1/13/2006 08:17:00 AM, Anonymous pwcrightwing said...

Jim makes a good point. The example he noted happened in 1999. In 2003, another active Republican and member of the School Board couldn't support the GOP nominee for her district's supervisor, but instead of resigning, chose to seek (and received) the GOP endorsement for school board.

 
At 1/13/2006 12:32:00 PM, Blogger Hirons said...

pwcrightwing - I believe I know the 2003 instance you are speaking of. And I think I am a pretty good authority of the situation, and I would not characterize it in the same light as the 1999 reference.

There were shenanigan’s but it was more everyone doing what was in their best interests to maximize their votes, as oppose to blatant support or non-support of an opposition party over their own. I would not have expected anyone to have resigned their party membership over anything in '03.

In 1999 it was more of the school board member had no interest in supporting the Republican nominee, and did want to publicly support the Democrat.

 
At 1/13/2006 01:35:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Glad you cleared that up, Scott. I thought I knew what pwcrightwing was talking about, and my recollection was that the individual to whom he or she refers didn't oppose the party's nominee as much as just not do anything for him. And when you are running your own race, how does one make the distinction?

 
At 1/13/2006 02:13:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Now that we have that cleared up, how about getting back to figuring out who will oppose Chichester, Quayle and Hawkins?

Names, people. Time to start recruiting!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home