Monday, January 30, 2006

PWC Chairmans Race UPDATED

From what I am hearing out of Prince William County it appears a big race is brewing for the Chairmanship of the county Republican committee. Right now the two choices for Committee members are current Chairman Brian Murphy, and Tom Kopko. I have spoken with various sources within the PWC party(both group A, and group B), and have discovered some differences in the two. Brian Murphy, whom I have met, looks thus far to be the front runner. He is liked more by the "moderates" of the party, and does not have a very unfavorable opinion among the more conservative members. He is supported by conservative Bob FitzSimmonds, candidate for Senate against Chuck Colgan. The highest elected PWC Republican, Chairman Sean T. Connaughton, did not receive an endorsement from Chairman Murphy..which to me shows a lack of vision. Even Eric Lundberg, neighboring GOP Chair, saw what a help Connaughton would have been..and made an endorsement. I understand that Mr.Murphy must have felt some fire on the right, but it looks like the fire came back anyways. Tom Kopko, the Group B candidate, is supported by the likes of Denny Daugherty and many of the other "all or nothing" Republicans from PWC. Kopko is reported to have been a big supporter of Steve Chapman in his race to unseat incumbent Republican Harry Parrish, and is reported by a couple accounts to refuse to even sign Connaughton's petition to get him on the ballot. Is this who the PWC GOP wants to lead their party!!??? Now I do find it a little fishy that FitzSimmonds and Daugherty..who were both leaders of the anti-Connaughton movement(or pro-Bolling)...have split on their endorsements. Could this be to ensure "anti-tax & anti-Connaughton" control of the party? I would urge some other PWC GOPers to come out of the closet in this race, and run for the seat. Great candidates like Kris Nohe, Jane Beyer, Alex Venegas, Anke Cheney and others are out there. PWC needs someone who can expand the base, or it will continue its turn blue. Quite possibly the best alternative would be Chairman Connaughton himself. Connaughton would bring world-wind of experience, and under his leadership I have no doubt the PWC would expand in numbers. With both Murphy and Kopko running, they would split most of the "group B" votes, while Connaughton would easily win "group A" and secure the chairmanship. No one else finds this all very coincidental=rumors of a run against Eric Lundberg, Heidi Stirrup running against Jim Rich, and "Group B" trying to take over the PWC GOP more than it already is! If anyone has any information on this race..send me an e-mail at chairman@vatars.org... your name will remain confidential. UPDATE: Scott Lingamfelter,Ken Cuccinelli, Bob Marshall have endorsed Murphy. UPDATE 2: An anonymous e-mail came to me stating that Brian Murphy has also raked up endorsements from Sheriff Glen Hill, Supervisor Wally Covington and School Board Member Milt Johns. These endorsements are HUGE. Sheriff Hill, and Supervisor Covington are right out of the Connaughton bunch, and have a wide-range of support from across the party, and even outside of the party.Looks good for Murphy-anyone have anything on Kopko? This race is looking very one-sided.

117 Comments:

At 1/29/2006 06:24:00 PM, Anonymous gopkdh said...

Connaughton for Chairman of the PWC GOP!!!

It hadn't crossed my mind but now that I think about it-----ITS A GREAT IDEA!!!!

 
At 1/29/2006 06:36:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

That's hilarious, TC. It demonstrates both inexperience and your pathological commitment to Chairman Sean.

You state that Brian Murphy "looks thus far to be the front runner.... [and] is liked more by the 'moderates' of the party, and does not have a very unfavorable opinion among the more conservative members."

Here's what some of your commenters have said about the state of the PWC GOP Committee under Brian's Chairmanship:

Anon 6:55 a.m. said "one of the reasons many people stopped showing up -- the PW Republican Committee and its leadership does not support the Republican candidates or cause."

Anon 10:55 p.m. said "The PW Republican Committee is down to 100 members out of a population of 350,000. That is .0004 % of the County's population. That says it all."

Here's what contributor Mitch said about the functioning of the Committee: "I am actually one of those former Committee members who left. And I left long before the meeting that refer to. I was simply fed up with group. Too much infighting and inconsistency to be worth the time and effort. I did come back briefly to attend the meeting you cite, and even recruited some others to attend. And, for the record, this effort was not about Sean Connaughton. It was about trying to revitalize and even save an organization that is at best becoming increasingly irrelevant and, in truth, dying. Many of those for whom that was their first meeting didn't return because they were disgusted by the tenor of it, and couldn't reconcile spending the time and effort in such a juvenile atmosphere. It had nothing to do with the outcome of the votes that night."

Then, you said that Chairman Sean "did not receive an endorsement from Chairman Murphy..which to me shows a lack of vision." Or recognition of a four-flusher. In a least value-laden mode, honoring the tradition that the County Committee Chairman not endorse in a contested primary.

And it is completely despicable to smear Kopko as your self-defined "Group B" candidate. You have smeared "Group B" as disloyal, self-serving, and underhanded. And you cite the fact that he supported Steve Chapmen in a primary challenge to unseat Harry Parrish. So it's disqualifying to support a primary challenger? One who received 45% of primary votes, including a majority of Republican voters in the County's portion of the District?

And gee, Denny and Bob are supporting different people. Let's see if we can't cast that in as conspiratorial tones as we can. Maybe they just disagree (they do, sometimes, you know).

As for your list of other potential candidates, only one (Jane Beyer) has the experience to justify a run. One (Vanegas) is unknown and untested; another (Nohe) is incompetent (couldn't even write a competent Call for a convention when tasked to do it), walked out of and (I recall, but may be wrong) quit the GOP Committee when a resolution she introduced was soundly defeated, and has the not-insubstantial responsibility to raise three children, including a newborn; the third (Cheney) has such contempt for anyone who dares to disagree with her as to cause the type of splits that you purport to worry about, and was an integral part of the sleazy primary campaign tactics of Harry Parrish that you have purported to condemn elsewhere.

And wouldn't both Beyer (Connaughton) and Nohe (Nohe) be subject to the same kind of irresponsible theorizing that you engage in regarding Heidi Stirrup and her campaign for Tenth Congressional District Chairman? Or are you counting on honorable behavior/unilateral disarmament from their opponents that they cannot expect from your "side"?

As far as I can tell, both Murphy and Kopko are running reasonable and rational campaigns about who is best to lead the GOP into the future.

Congratulations. You just turned it into an ideological war with an ill-informed post that seems more informed by your desire to smear than to have a reasonable discussion of the strategies and tactics necessary to move the GOP into the future.

 
At 1/29/2006 07:01:00 PM, Anonymous suedehead said...

The PWC party reminds me of the Palestinians, with a relatively secular group A (Fatah) battling a fanatical, self-destructive group B (Hamas). Believe me, Brian Murphy does the best he can with this group.

Anyway, what say you, TC? Like the analogy?

 
At 1/29/2006 07:03:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I knew this one would get under your skin Jim.

I am glad anonymous posters said those things..but I have spoken with many other members of the committee..who have told me otherwise.

And yes Jim. For Kopkos to work against his party incumbents..and then try to run for Chairman..that makes him a Group B.

What kind of uniter is he!?? To refuse to sign Seans petition-thats the real despicable act.

As far as your attacks on active members of your party, who only work to expand the base...that is also despicable!

Nohe is very competent, and your sexist comments about her raising a child are very unlike you.This is the 21st century-women can do the same stuff as men.

Even if you don't like them, that is why I believe Sean should run for the position himself. Connaughton-Chairman of the County..and Chairman of the County Party..

watch it happen jim..its a possibility!

 
At 1/29/2006 07:04:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

haha

I wont comment on my like of the analogy...

 
At 1/29/2006 07:22:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

"To refuse to sign Seans petition-thats the real despicable act." Based on what?!?! Your "is reported by a couple of accounts"!?!?

And it's hardly "sexist" to recognize that she has a full-time job, and that most women I know wouldn't take on such a responsibility shortly after having a child, even if they were competent to do it. As for her competence, how does your broad assertion overcome a specific citation of failure to perform, to which I would add her failure to grow the YRs when she was Chairman (granted, on that score, I have rather high standards)? But you keep up those accusations! It just further marginalizes you.

And what kind of "uniter" are YOU? You slander some of the most active members of the GOP, many of the leaders, as "extremists" and other favorites of the lexicon of the far Left.

As for Chairman Sean, I stated in another thread that I oppose on principle elected officials as party officials. There's certainly nothing about Chairman Sean which would cause me to change my mind on that.... to the contrary.

 
At 1/29/2006 07:29:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-

Cool it down.

I have had some "conservatives" from PWC read over the post..and they found nothing too upsetting with the post.

Are you just upset because Murphy took you off executive committee?

Do you want back on?

 
At 1/29/2006 07:46:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, TC I'd certainly be interested in knowing what "'conservatives' from PWC" you had read over it. Once again, claims of authority with no intention of demonstrating the basis for it.

Cool down? What makes you think I'm "hot"? I mean, aside from the fact that you "knew this one would get under [my] skin," calling my comments "sexist," and confusing specific criticisms with personal antipathy? Where did I say, or even intimate, that I "don't like" Jane Beyer? I said she "has the experience to justify a run."

And why make it personal? Did Brian take me off the Executive Committee? Yes. Does that have anything to do with legitimate criticisms, i.e., the fact that he doesn't know how to run a meeting and has presided over a Committee that has been shrinking? I hope not. Frankly, it's good to have one fewer meeting a month to attend.

And do I want back on? Not particularly, though I would serve if asked to do something for which I am qualified, e.g., a role dealing with the GOP's agenda; Parliamentarian. I don't expect to be asked.

 
At 1/29/2006 07:55:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

"I would add her failure to grow the YRs when she was Chairman"

What are you talking about? Under Mrs. Nohe's leadership the Prince William YRs were at their zenith. The club hosted two very successful debates for the open 31st District House of Delegates race; the first for the primary and the second, with the Young Dems, for the general. Both events received tremendous press and I know for a fact that Mrs. Nohe was the driving force behind those debates. Membership was way up and members of the club held several seats on the state board. Mrs. Nohe was such an effective club leader that she was elected to be on state central as the YR rep. and was elected several times (I don’t know the exact number) as the 11th district rep for the YRFV. All of these FACTS seems to refute your statement, on what do you base it?

 
At 1/29/2006 08:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is Cucinelly endorseing people in county's he doesn't represent? He is the kiss of death.

 
At 1/29/2006 08:11:00 PM, Blogger Kris Nohe said...

Jim- There’s something I've never mentioned to you about the call to which you are referring (mainly because you and I don’t sit around and chat much). I sent it to RPV’s General Counsel after the executive board meeting and they told me that what I wrote was fine and that what you had demanded be included was much more detail than necessary. To be clear, they didn’t say that what you wrote was incorrect; they just said it was unnecessary. At the time, there was no need to go back and rehash the whole thing. You see, I, unlike you, look to the future instead of wallowing in the past. The call was passed and it was time to move on, but the whole experience taught me an important lesson: just because you are yelling loudest doesn't make you right and you should always check documents with RPV before you present it in a meeting. Now, I’m sure that you will call me a liar and demand that I produce an e-mail that was sent over 4 years ago to an account I no longer have, but, on my word, I am not lying.

Furthermore, I didn't quit the Committee when the resolution did not pass, nor did I storm out of the room. If you are referring to the resolution I put forward regarding the tax rate and the school board, I was late because I had another engagement, but I didn't leave or quit.

Your assertion that I could not accomplish the duties of chairman because I am raising three children is absolutely ridiculous. I think spending my days with the “under 5 crowd” would give me all the skills I would need for dealing with the PWCRC. The first thing I would do is give several people a well deserved time out.

Finally, Why is it accepted that a man can work a full time job and be chairman, but not a woman? Heidi has a full-time job, doesn’t she? Plus, she’s a mother! By your logic, her choice to run for chairman of the 10th is insane…and yet you support her in this endeavor, but use it as a weakness for me. What starts with hypo and ends with cracy?

 
At 1/29/2006 08:13:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It the race between spineless (Murphy) and useless (Kopko) -- with these guys the Prince William Republican Committee will get to be smaller than my son's Boy Scout troop!

 
At 1/29/2006 08:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This really does amuse me constantly.

Fairfax and PWC both eat their Chairs alive. Anyone who enters with any promise gets torn to shreds by those they surround themselves with. Lundberg is a perfect example.

Or, you elect someone who is a twat just because they dont piss either of the "sides" off.

When will you all stop eating Repubs and start trying to get them elected?

 
At 1/29/2006 08:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Under Murphy/Fitsimmons the Republican Committee has lost two-third of its members. Kopko/Daugherty will kill whatever is left.

There is only one choice -- Chairman Connaighton for Chairman Connaughton!

 
At 1/29/2006 08:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Danziger was the best Chairman!

 
At 1/29/2006 08:56:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

AMEN!!!! Go Danziger!!!!

 
At 1/29/2006 08:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Danziger. When he was Chair, the party was growing and coffers rich. Daugherty and Fitzimmonds packed the convention with a bunch of people and they beat Steve by one vote in 2002. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE EVER SHOWED UP AGAIN!!! The most embarrassing thing was hearing Daughtery and Fitzimmonds leading a chant of "Christs Will" knowing Steve was Jewish. The party is a disaster because of those bigots and fools. Go Steve!!!

 
At 1/29/2006 09:08:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I hope these claims can be proven guys...

Now I have been to PWC meetings, and I will admit they are in sad shape.

 
At 1/29/2006 09:10:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Steve is the man..I will admit that much.

 
At 1/29/2006 09:25:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Anom 8:59- You are right on about the chanting, but I remember it as "His Will." Same meaning though.

 
At 1/29/2006 09:30:00 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said...

Well if Bob Marshall has endorsed him....

PS. GOD I DISLIKE BOB MARSHALL!

 
At 1/29/2006 09:38:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"As for your list of other potential candidates, only one (Jane Beyer) has the experience to justify a run."

Wait a minute Jim, didn't you say that you were supporting Kopko? How can you possibly justify claiming that he has "the experience to justify a run"? He has done virtually nothing to positively affect the outcome of an election for a Republican in this county. Murphy's best qualification is that he is running against Kopko.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:01:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Danziger was wonderful!

I don't know how anyone (male or female) with a full time job can be the Chairman of a large unit and do a good job, but there are those who have done so.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:03:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

My understanding is that Kris Nohe did a good job as PWCYR Chairman. It was a later chairman who caused the club to fail.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:07:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

Oh, and by the way, to say that Kris Nohe is unqualified to be chairman because she has children may be the single most sexist thing I have ever heard in my life!

 
At 1/29/2006 10:09:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"It was a later chairman who caused the club to fail."

Yeah, that's exactly right. In fact, that "later chairman" was none other that Jim Young pissboy Steve Chapman

 
At 1/29/2006 10:16:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-

I wont be divulging into names.

It looks though is Murphy has all of these endorsements, and the support of most conservatives and "moderates" that he would be the presumed nominee...disagree Jim?

Mitchs wife-your woman has becoming increasingly hotter with every picture.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:16:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Mitch's wife:

Too bad you're married. You're a hottie.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:22:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say we start a "Draft Danziger" movement.

Though he is an elected official and might cath the ire of Jimmy Boy because of that.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:22:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

All you Draft Danziger fans..

Why dont you like Murphy?...that's a serious question.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:22:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mitch's actual wife is much much hotter.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:24:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

A YR mailing list of 600; membership of over 200; three elected member on the State Central Committee (none through the YRFV); numerous lit drops; two-year fundraising exceeding $15,000; annual fundraisers with: (a) six of seven candidates for statewide office (the seventh couldn't make it because of a blizzard) and keynoter Virginia's Republican National Committeeman; and (b) two candidates for the mostly hotly-contested GOP nomination in the country (Ollie North and Jim Miller; national press coverage); aiding Tom Davis' effort to beat Leslie Byrne in 1994; sign designed by our club as the cover of a Washington Post Sunday Magazine example of the '94 GOP takeover of Congress.

Oh, and recognition as Virginia's and the Nation's Best Young Republican club.

Matilda, if you want to compare resumes, the drinking club which was the YRs under the Nohe's pales by comparison, and even Jane Beyer would probably admit it.

I'm not going to call you a liar, Kris, but there were other insufficiencies that were apparent to the Executive Committee, which was why mine (which I would gladly have provided to you, had you the wit to ask).

Besides, Kris, you're not even a Member of the Committee any more, are you? Quit? Like I said, I might be wrong about that. But didn't you allow your membership to lapse.

As for Danziger, the "decline" in membership that some complain of began under him. He couldn't run a meeting any better than Murphy, and didn't have the wit to dismiss a Parliamentarian (yours truly) who recognized his deficiencies.

As for Anon 8:59's comment, I've never heard of any such thing, but I'm quite impressed by the anonymous allegation of anti-Semitism. The only thing more despicable that racism is false allegations of racism. Another page taken from the far Left playbook.

As for you, Kim, Tom has been a district chairman, and run a number of successful events. And I had nothing to do with YRs after 1996. What more did I have to prove?

 
At 1/29/2006 10:25:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

Thank you both. My daughter's boyfriend says that I am a "milf", which my daughter assures me is a compliment.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:30:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"Why dont you like Murphy?...that's a serious question."

First of all, he is Fitzsimmonds' personal yes man. He has basically endorsed Bob for Senate in '07 and he allows Bob to run roughshod over the meetings. Anyone that close to BF cannot be trusted.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:36:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Mitchs wife-

I didnt know someone of such beauty could be so angry.

Well if I had to vote between the two...I'd vote for Murphy.

I hope someone steps up to the plate though, because it's needed.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I said this in another thread, but let me say it again...

WHEN are you going to realize that NO ONE is impressed with your YR career at this point. Back in the day, that YR club was really good. No one has ever denied that as fdar as I can tell. But you peaked when you were 28, which is really quite pathetic actually.

WE KNOW that twelve years ago, you ran the COOLEST, most AWESOMEST, totally rad, YR club ever.

WE KNOW that twelve years ago, you volunteered for Tom Davis and he won.

WE KNOW that fourteen years ago, you volunteered for Dave Mabie and he won.

WE KNOW that fourteen years ago, you wrote the bylaws of the PWCRC and served on the 8th and 11th district committees.

And we were impressed with you and all that you did twelve years ago... TWELVE YEARS AGO!!

We're over you.

Now get over yourself!

 
At 1/29/2006 10:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim- Kris was at the committee meeting last Monday night. I saw her there. In fact, I think she has better attendance than you over the last two years.

 
At 1/29/2006 11:07:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Mr. Young,

If you could hook back up with Ollie North and use all those big lawyer words to talk him back to Virginia I would be very impressed!

Can't we get him appointed to homeland security or something?

 
At 1/29/2006 11:08:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"Tom has been a district chairman, and run a number of successful events."

Anke has been a party activist for decades, and has run a number of successful election campaigns.

Alex has been a district vice chairman, an activist on many successful campaigns, chairman of a successful and well respected community organization, a PWC representative to a number of high profile organizations, has a masters degree and number of post graduate certifications.

Kris has been a district chairman, a YR chairman, a member of the 11th district committee, a member of the state central committee, and has run a number of successful election campaigns.

Tom was a district chairman whose "leadership" led to some traditionally strong precincts for Republican candidates falling to Leslie Byrne and Tim Kaine. He's a terrible candidate for chairman. Too bad Murphy's no better, just in a different way.

 
At 1/29/2006 11:11:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Gal said...

On Freddie's 10:01 PM comment:
I don't know how anyone (male or female) with a full time job can be the Chairman of a large unit and do a good job, but there are those who have done so.

This is indeed true. Being Chairman is not a difficult job if you have enough experience in working with elected officials, grassroots work, fundraising and convention delegates know that you take a stand on the issues. However so much time is wasted between putting out the fires/rumors, dealing with the factions within the Party, and dealing with opinions & name calling that is posted on the various blogs, that sadly this keeps qualified candidates from entering the race to get more Republicans elected and further the growth of the Republican Party.

Ideally, it would be great to find a candidate who owns their own business or is retired.

However, we should be grateful to those who are wiling to sacrifice their lives and at times, their livelihood for the sake of the Party.

 
At 1/29/2006 11:16:00 PM, Blogger Kris Nohe said...

Jim- I was standing almost right behind you at the meeting on Monday. I was there for the proud moment when the committee spent about 10 minutes debating the value of a single letter in the delegate registration form (should it be election or elections). I believe I only missed one meeting last year. I know you wish I would quit the committee, but continuing to repeat it is not going to make it true.

As for the call, it is water under the bridge. You think yours was better than mine. Fine, if it helps you sleep at night. But mine would have been fine too according to RPV. And that is the last I am going to beat that 4+ year old horse.

As for the YRs, I never attacked your club. WHOOOOO, you had a great club! Yippeeee for you!

So did I.

 
At 1/29/2006 11:40:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about YR's now. That crap is in shambles across the entire state.

 
At 1/29/2006 11:42:00 PM, Anonymous not marty nohe said...

As soon as Kris left... the whole thing fell apart.

 
At 1/29/2006 11:52:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Terrence Boulden is starting a YR in Reston, Seans going to speak there I hear...

He must be taking what he learned from PWC.

The YR Chairman moved to Budapest or something random.

Jim Young-is this true about the YRS?

 
At 1/30/2006 12:05:00 AM, Anonymous NOVA Gal said...

TC: Not sure if Rhea is back from Budapest, but she has taken back her Chairman's title of the YRFV.

There was a Reston Area Young Republican Club in the late 1980's to early 90's.

If the new Reston club is chartered, it will be interesting to see who the YR Representative will be on the Fairfax County Republican Committe's Exec. Comm.

 
At 1/30/2006 12:12:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

NOVA Gal-

I recieved this e-mail from her a week ago

HI VINCE-- thanks so much for the support.
it was a very difficult decision, as i have lived throughout europe
fofr 6 years already, so that i was done with it.
but now that i am back, i am so happy to be hear.
where in europe were you?
will be meeting up with the hungarian chapter of republicans abroad--
yes, there really is a gruop that meets out here!!

cheers,

Raea Jean Leinster
Chair, Young Republican Federation of Virginia
703-979-1003
"Common Sense for the Commonwealth"

why would a week vacation be difficult? I think she moved or something.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:22:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

TC, at some point you will realise that your "group A, group B" bigotry is offensive, devisive, and ultimately destructive. Further, your belief in your god-like power to separate the wheat from the chaff is arrogant and quite undeserved.

I was eating lunch at the Red Panda today, and a man at the next table asked if I used to live by Woodbine Preschool. When I said yes, he said that when he was a child, I used to go out and play football with him and his buddies in the field. That was 24 years ago. I couldn't believe he would remember me that long, I couldn't even remember that I had PLAYED football over there. 24 years is a long time ago.

I spoke with Murphy on the phone, and told him what I say now. I appreciate a chairman who does not take positions in intra-party struggles, because it provides every candidate and faction the belief that the committee is not choosing sides by executive decision. A chairman shouldn't endorse a candidate in the primary -- because the committee should work for ALL primary candidates equally.

TC, I know you have a fixation with Sean, I suppose working hard for a candidate brings that type of loyalty, and loyalty is a useful trait, but tends to cloud objective judgment.

OK, how about a more substantive complaint about your post. You say in your post "Kopko is reported to have been a big supporter of Steve Chapman in his race.."

I know you are a busy man, but it only took me TWO MINUTES to go to Steve Chapman's campaign web site and find that Kopko was Steve's Communication's director. In other words, you couldn't be bothered to fact-check your information, so you just asserted that he was "reported" to be involved. This is why in some cases the MSM complaint about blogs in justified -- people who think they are too important to have to actually do research.

IN case anybody doesn't understand that -- Kopko was definitely involved, he was on Steve's campaign staff. He was by Steve's side when Steve had to answer the scurillous allegations of voter fraud brought by the members of TC's "A" group, meant to stop Steve for having the audacity to think he would be a better representative than Harry.

(I predict that in March, when the remaining charges are dropped and Steve is free from all charges, that AC will be back pointing out that there are a LOT of reasons why guilty people have charges dropped).

And TC, is it so hard for you to understand that some people would actually prefer Bill Bolling to Sean? It sounds like you think those people should be thrown out of the party. I know you have said you'd vote for a democrat over Bill Bolling, so why can't you understand that others would vote for Bolling over Sean?

I will say that nobody works harder than Denny Daugherty to get republicans out to the polls on election day, and to promote our candidates. He's a little more "partisan" than I'd like even the district chairman to be, but he does the job.

We could spend a billion lines discussing why the PWC board has fewer people, who chased who out, whatever you want. It's much more complicated than blaming this or that person. There's a fight for the party between those who believe that the important thing is to get "R"s into power, and those who care about what those "R"s stand for.

And lest you misunderstand, the real fight is infighting of those who care about what "R"s stand for, because there are different ideas of that, and the more the committee fights over what that means, the more fractured it becomes. It isn't just the conservatives pushing ideology, all sides push their ideology. Those who want the committee to simply work for "R"s are torn between the factions. And there are others beyond these three groups who really only care about getting support for their own candidacy, or for their choice of candidate, and will work to bend the committee to that end specifically.

In other words, I can easily see at least 4, and possibly more, different groups of people (not the childish and cartoonish "A" and "B" groups).

Maybe it's telling, TC, that your post says you "discovered some differences in the two", and yet you did not devote a single line to any of the issues being discussed, instead choosing to focus on personalities and innuendos, before simply punting and saying PWC should find other people to run instead. Those of us actually IN PWC are trying to have a serious discussion about what direction our committee should go, and how we accomplish that, and that has NOTHING to do with who endorsed who, or what candidate had his ox gored. Meetings, activities, fundraising, mailings, GOTV work -- that is what a committee is about, and that is what we are trying to discuss.

It's hard to keep the discussion focused when outside agitators are using their newly-found blog popularity to stir up the hornet's nest to no useful purpose.

It is my personal opinion, TC, that you have jumped the shark. Not sure you know what that means, but you have become what you hate -- a hateful, rumor-spreading, divider, injecting himself into races he knows little of, with no clear purpose (other than maybe that which is revealed by the excessive bragging about page hits lately).

I visit democrat sites, filled with thier "I hate Bush" rhetoric. TooConservative has become a "I hate Jim" site (I bet Jim likes the notoriety) -- TC confesses to trying to get under Jim's skin. It's also an "I hate ideological people" site, and a "I hate anybody who opposes Sean" site.

I can't devine your motives, TC, but I can say that your postings regardign Sean are largely indistinguishable from what you would expect from a "true believer" following a cult religious leader. Meaning that if Sean was a cult leader, and you were his devoted follower, I can't imagine you would write anything different from what you write.

 
At 1/30/2006 08:07:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

CT- Have to disagree with you about the Group A and Group B. TC is right on about this dynamic. What is really offensive is to have members of your own party lie about you and smear your reputation for their own gain, especially over interparty stuff. You are off base regarding people in the PWCRC fighting for what "R" stands for, many of them simply don't care or they would at least ask what someone believes before they tar them with the "liberal" or "squishy" brush. I have watched many people have their views completely distorted and falsified. Clearly, you have not found yourself in the crossfire of Group A and B, but from where I stand, Group A criticizes based on actions and Group B criticizes based on conjecture.

You are correct that there are people in the Committee who are not really members of these two groups. There aren’t many of those left, but they are there. The problem is that the animosity between Group A and Group B is so pervasive that no one from either group can trust someone who is not clearly in their camp for fear that they are working for the other side. There is a real “You are either with us or against us” mentality that over shadows any other group that you identify. It is like saying, “In America there are many political parties, not just two.” Technically you are right, but the two are so pervasive that smaller factions just aren’t players.

As far as the Steve Chapman situation goes, Mr. Chapman brought that on himself. Don’t forget he invited a reporter into his home, a home that had no sheets on the bed or food in the refrigerator and said, “Welcome to Pimp My Ride.” Furthermore, as his Communications Director, Tom Kopko should have stopped his candidate from making a fool out of himself by anticipating what the article was going to focus on and scripting some talking points for his candidate. Oh hell, he should have bought a container of milk for the fridge and made sure there were sheets on the bed. Maybe he could have even have produced some receipts for the work Steve was claiming to do on his new home. Even if he was doing it himself, he should have had receipts for the supplies. This kind of thing is basic Politics 101. If this press disaster is an example of his political prowess as someone in charge of sculpting a message for his candidate, then he shouldn’t be the Chairman of the PWCRC where he will be the Party’s spokesman for about 27 races next year. Clearly, this is someone (as Mr. Young would say) who needs to toil in the vineyard a bit longer before being put in charge of anything.

I do agree with you that there are people who are inclined to support Bolling over Sean, (even in his primary against Larry What’s-His-Name there were 20% of Republicans who voted against him), but the key is to look at why. Was it over policy or personality? Those in Group B accused Sean of raising taxes because assessments rose faster than he cut the tax rate, but Mr. Bolling did the exact same thing when he was Chairman of the Hanover Board. When asked about it, Mr. Bolling simply dodged the question saying that he was focusing on his work as a Senator and not as a Supervisor. Clearly there are people in this county, Republicans no less, who don’t like Sean, but the vitriol that was put forth against him by members of the PWCRC was a bit over the top (a little like TC’s support for Sean can at times be over the top).

I also agree that the Chairman should stay out of primary races and for that I applaud Brian, but that is about all that I can applaud Brian for. Which begs the question; if these two are the best that are available, why not go fishing for someone else?

 
At 1/30/2006 08:10:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Since Mr. Young seems to believe that I couldn't care less about the PWC Committee, I'll restrict my comments to more important matters, namely the discussion about my wife.

Yes, my wife is hotter than the picture offered by "Mitch's Wife." I'm not sure how she'd fair if NSL chose to put it to a vote. Of course, that would mean offering up a similar picture of her. In doing so, I would certainly provide proof to TC that, yes, "someone of such beauty could be so angry." As to the MILF comment, I'm sure that my real wife, daughter and her boyfriend will get quite a kick out of it. Though it's probably lost on many of the readers here and would likely offend some if they knew what it meant.

 
At 1/30/2006 08:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question really is: which Chair candidate will drive the Party into oblivion slower then the other since they are both disasters? I not sure, they are both equally bad.

The core problem is that the Party is now centered on the personal ambitions of three-time loser FitzSimmonds, government worker/hater Daugherty and the cast of hangers-on like Stewart and Chapman. becase the Party is now about people and not principles, it will fail. Hence, the continual drop in membership.

Things are bad and they are going to get worse.

 
At 1/30/2006 08:43:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Mitch-

I for one will say your wife is not a MILF. This statement is not due to her looks because she is much hotter than the pictured gal up top. Rather I fear you snapping my neck in half if such a comment were to ever come out of my mouth.

For now I will say that the real Mrs. Cumstein is a stunning woman and you sir should be proud.

Mr. JMS

P.S.- If anyone ever calls my wife a MILF other than me I will have to break out my karate kid skills.

 
At 1/30/2006 08:51:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Wax On, Wax Off!

 
At 1/30/2006 09:17:00 AM, Anonymous MOM said...

tool, n., 6. a person manipulated by another for the latter's own ends

CT, you give TC much too much credit, he is a simply a tool of others who use he and this forum to further their agenda. I have to give them credit, they were ahead of the curve with respect to the blogosphere. They merely load him up with some information (or misinformation) and tort him out with the understanding that the good little jungend will go out and dutifully spew it.

He has consistently failed to research his assertions or understand when he makes conflicting statements from thread to thread or even within a singular thread. You get no concessions and little rational debate from him as he has no original thoughts. Rather, you get emotional responses that repeat you're wrong, each successive response being increasingly shrill. The other frequent response is that he has spoken to many (insert noun here). I would love to see his phone bill and wonder how he manages so many conversations.

I can't accept that he has jumped the shark as he would have had to have some relevance first. Apart from the few frequent responders who take themselves far to seriously and those of us who use this forum for our own amusement, it has little relevancy and in truth, no impact.

Sorry TC, you're nothing but a presumptuous little fish hanging at the coat tails of others. You don't understand the politics or the process nor realize when to butt out. Naivete and sychophancy may be attractive qualities for some, those willing to make use of your desire but ultimately they will destroy your credibility and make you a pariah when your patrons move on without you.

 
At 1/30/2006 09:42:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

MR JMS:

Thank you for your kind words. The truth is, I have no problem with people saying this about my wife. I have total confidence in our relationship and, while my ability to defend her honor is considerable, I feel no need to use that ability when someone praises her for her appearance/attactiveness. Of course, were someone to disparage her publicly, be it on the topic of appearance or in the realm of politics, I can't promise that same committment to restraint.

MOM:

As to your comments about TC's honesty, accuracy and relevance, there is a very simple solution to your concerns: Don't read it. There are literally thousands of other blogs and sources of information that you can go to that will not offend your sensibilities. So just read those. There, that was easy.

 
At 1/30/2006 09:47:00 AM, Anonymous MOM said...

yap, yap, yap barks the other lap dog.

 
At 1/30/2006 10:02:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there any problem--be it political or policy--that you think Connaughton can't solve??? He seems like a good guy, but you want him to run for everything--Congress, re-election, state senate, governor, and now Party Chairman? Hell, why not President in 2008?

 
At 1/30/2006 10:20:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Anon 10:02- My point was not that everyone should support Sean for everything (God help us), which is, I think, what you inferred. Rather, to look at why those within the PWCRC so vehemently opposed him and so rabidly supported Bolling. I was using it more as an example of Group A and B situation. That race above all others, shone the light on clear divisions in the local Party.

 
At 1/30/2006 10:23:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you solve a problem like Connaughton?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Connaughton?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!

 
At 1/30/2006 10:39:00 AM, Blogger Hirons said...

Wow I really miss this mess in PWC! I may not have a dog in the fight, but I've gotta put my 2cents in.

TC - gotta agree - way too much for Sean to carry - Chairman of the county - state senate - congress - governor - maybe you can work on getting him Sainted. He would not be the best candidate for Chairman of the party (county or state). He has a habit of alienating folks who disagree with him and doing so very quickly. He's good taking votes that agree with him and moving forward quickly and aggressively - which is a good trait as an elected official, but not such a good one as a party leader. He'd divide the party even greater than it is now - which would not bold well for Republicans in PWC.

I've got to defend Kris with regards to her leadership of the PWC YR's. First the club was only in existence for one year (maybe 2) prior to her Chairmanship. She inherited a growing club and continued to grow it. My rein of chairmanship certainly didn't live up to hers. I attempted (I think somewhat successfully) to sustain it, but didn't grow it nearly as much as she did. I was a member of the club when JY was chair and he has a lot to take credit for as well. It was an active club when he was chair and deserving of the accolades it received. I always wondered why the club died so quickly in the later 90's.

The choice for chairman shouldn't be about if they are from these imaginary groups A or B. It should be about who could be the better leader to unite the party produce the activities that get votes for Republicans. Brian - while he has some leadership potential completely fumbled the chairmanship. Unless things have changed significantly over the last year he has allowed this debate between the "groups" to dominate the party rather than focus it on getting Republicans elected. Tom on the other hand, although he has the fault of having supported and worked for Chapman, did (can't speak for what he's done for the last year or so) have the passion for doing things that get people motivated to vote for Republicans. He was always filled with ideas of how to better the party strength, although may have lacked a bit in the execution of those ideas. It might be more interesting to think about whom as Vice Chair could compliment either of them to make them better a better Chairman. Someone who could execute the ideas of the Chairman for party activities and allow the Chairman to worry about and execute party unity. How did M.Wooten do in that role over the last two years?

 
At 1/30/2006 11:23:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading Hirons comments make me remember why he lost so badly to Jenkins ...

 
At 1/30/2006 11:32:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, Wooten promised, when he was elected Vice Cahir, that he would put him self up for a vote of confidence three months later. I'm still waiting for that vote. Tragically, I would have voted to uphold his position at the three month mark. The fact that he lacked either the courage, confidence or honor to stand by his promise leads me to state that today, I would vote to remove him.

In the last few months, his leadership as vice chairman has faltered further. He has missed as many meetings as he has attended and, as far as I can tell, has taken no initiative to further the Republican cause outside of the meetings.

Mike Wooten is a generally nice person, and I suppose I like him, but I suspect that he either regrets seeking, or has been disappointed with, the committee vice chairmanship.

 
At 1/30/2006 11:35:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Hirons- Tom may have lacked A BIT in the execution of those ideas? Tom couldn't even get the polls covered on election with a Governor's race on the ticket. That is basic stuff! I don’t even think he was at a poll all day. And if you tell me he was manning HQ, then he is even worse than I thought. A District Chair should be working the longest, hardest day of any volunteer on Election Day not “supervising” from afar. You let someone who can’t stand on their feet all day man the phone and drive lit around, but if you are a District Chair who knows his job, at the end the day you should hardly be able to feel your feet because you have been standing for 14 hours and should be hoarse from asking, “Would you like a sample ballot?” Any less is a failure. All the good ideas in the world aren't worth a hill of beans if you can't execute them. His chairmanship of the Coles district has been abysmal. Point of fact, Scott Lingamfelter has endorsed Brian Murphy. This is an elected official who LIVES IN THE COLES DISTRICT!!!!! Also, Bob Marshall has endorsed Brian. This is an elected official with several precincts IN THE COLES DISTRICT!!!! Believe those whose political careers are truly effected by this man and then form your opinion.

What you said about Brian may be true, but you were way, way, way off base about Tom Kopko.

 
At 1/30/2006 12:08:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Thanks, Scott. 'Preciate the comments. Hope you can weather the attacks to come for daring to say some nice things about me.

You wonder why it died so quickly. The somewhat-abbreviated answer is that, like others, I chose my successor poorly. Nice enough person, but not capable of taking the reigns. The longer answer on that score is that she made the mistake of saying at a County Committee meeting nice things about a very partisan Democrat representing your then-district on the School Board, and alienated many supporters. That, and the YRFV was so resentful of our success and our demand for integrity in the state organization's operations that it worked very hard to kill it.

That YR conflict, and the fact that recent efforts have been a pale reflection of what we achieved is, I suspect, the source of much of Kris Nohe's animosity towards me, as the former it probably is the source of much of my animosity towards her. Even when I make an objective evaluation of specific failures, it is probably colored by the old YR conflict (which goes back thirty years, and on which AWC was on the right side, back in the day).

As for all of the rest of the bile in many of the posts, I'll simply stand by my earlier comments (how is suggesting that Kris might not want to do it because of personal obligations, but that Jane is objectively qualified, render me a "sexist" in any meaningful sense of the word?), and note that virtually all of the comments here are submitted by people too cowardly/ lacking in a record to treat it with any great importance. Besides myself, only Scott, Kris, Charles, creditably associate their names with their remarks, and it is only their comments that anyone should take seriously.

As for your question about Mike Wooten, sad to say, he has been somewhat disappointing, and I don't know why. His role, however, is exceeding limited, by virtue of the Party Plan. The problem starts at the top.

 
At 1/30/2006 12:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Young now accounts for 10% of the comments on this thread -- lay off Young and let the other 349,999 Prince William residents have a chnace!

 
At 1/30/2006 12:29:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

CT:

What does the Chapman comment by you do except back up my assertions above?

I understand some people support Bill over Sean, and I dont hate them for that.

I am working right now on Mick Statons campaign hard..and spent 3 months working for Craddock..your assertion is false.

I simply believe Connaughton personlifies where our party needs to head.

MOM-As far as being a tool..I am not sure of whom you speak.

I disagree with Congressman Davis and Chairman Connaughton on issues and whom they support sometimes....but overall I do believe in what they stand for, and how they conduct themselves.

I can assure you..I am not owned..nor is this blog.

If you wish to send me information, I will gladly post it up.

MOM/Hirons-Sometimes I mention Chairman Connaughton as an alternative, simply because he is an option. This is a blog, and crazy ideas can be posted on it..and we can talk them over as a blog.

I do disagree Scott though, and believe Sean would be an excellent party chair.

As far as a party divider you are mistaken. Anyone who wins county-wide by almost 70% in a general..can only be a party uniter. He can reach out to everyday Republicans to help build the party.

The people who disslike him..are all the same group who have personal agendas and stupid vendettas and little to back up their hatred. They disslike him for assessments, but like Staton for his.

I mean come on..the logic is flawed here. If people want to talk issues, than talk them..but saying one thing is a and the same thing is b..is rediculous.

 
At 1/30/2006 12:53:00 PM, Blogger Kris Nohe said...

Jim- If you think that ANY of my distaste for you is connected in anyway to the YRs, let me tell you, it is not. If my feelings towards you were a universe, the YRFV, the VYRs, and your club vs. my club combined wouldn't even equal as much a quark. I can't believe that you hold that as the reason for even part of your animosity towards me. I don't like you because you spread untruths about my family and friends. Now that is a reason to dislike someone, not some stupid YR feud.

And, as to “how is suggesting that Kris might not want to do it because of personal obligations, but that Jane is objectively qualified, render me a "sexist" in any meaningful sense of the word?”, because you sited the fact that I am raising three children as a reason that I was unqualified to run. Now you are saying that it would be a factor in me not wanting to run, but in your first post you listed it as a reason I should not be considered, not as a reason I should not consider doing it.

“As for your list of other potential candidates, only one (Jane Beyer) has the experience to justify a run. One (Vanegas) is unknown and untested; another (Nohe) is incompetent (couldn't even write a competent Call for a convention when tasked to do it) (NOT CORRECT) , walked out of and (I recall, but may be wrong) quit the GOP Committee when a resolution she introduced was soundly defeated (NOT TRUE), and has the not-insubstantial responsibility to raise three children, including a newborn (SEXIST)

It is stuff like this that makes me not like you Jim.

 
At 1/30/2006 12:56:00 PM, Anonymous marty nohe said...

"His role, however, is exceeding limited, by virtue of the Party Plan. The problem starts at the top."

Jim- I say this cautiously, because Mike Wooten is a friend of mine and I believe a friend of yours, and I don't want to come across as hyper-critical of him.

I believe that the Vice Chairmanship is what you make of it. Certainly, the Party Plan creates few responsibilities for the Vice Chairman, but it does not preclude initiative or creativity. During my short stint as Vice Chair, Steve and I worked very closely together and I had responsibilities that were not spelled out in the party plan. Steve had had a similar relationship with Becker, and I think that Corey later had a similar relationship with Bruce Baxter.

That was driven in large part to the fact that we all sought out that responsibility and created a role for ourselves. Certainly, we served under chairmen who encouraged the initiative, but the initiative was ours, not the chairman's.

Brian himself was only vice chairman for a month or two... not enough time to really have real affect in that role. When he became chairman, Faisil became vice chair and subsequently the role of the vice chair diminished to sitting at the front of the room at meetings. I wonder if that would have been the case if Ruth Anderson had become Vice Chair instead. I think not, as her personality would not have allowed her to be a seat warmer.

I haven't been as involved in the party apparatus since Brian became chairman, so I don't know which is the chicken and which is the egg here. But in any organization, dynamic people create a role for themselves if they want one. Whomever becomes chairman in April, I would strongly encourage dynamic people to run for vice chairman, as I think it is an asset to have someone dynamic in that position.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:02:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

A few observations here:

1. On the current incarnation of the PWC YRs: Marty, Kris and Scott were all great chairs. Marty really got it off the ground, Kris took it to the next level and Scott maintained it there. Steve Chapman tried to keep it going, but it definitely began its decline then. Part of the problem he faced was YRs moving up into senior party positions or winning elections as elected officials. The PWC GOP needs to find its "next Marty" who will take charge of the YRs and reinvigorate it.

2. On the state of the PWC GOP: Once a party cmte. gets as big as the PWC GOP did, it becomes an unwieldly beast. Danziger did a good job as chairman, but meetings could drag on a bit long. Murphy faces the same problem, but seems to be a bit more willing to step up and end debate sooner. Sooner or later, meeting attendance will decline. Many activists will still be around to help out on Election Day, but they don't like the minutiae of the monthly meetings.

3. On the Party Chairman's race: I've known Brian Murphy going back to the days when we were both in Alexandria YRs. He is probably the most unifying figure that we can have as chairman at this point. He called me about 2 weeks ago seeking my endorsement and received it. I don't really know Tom Kopko, so it was pretty much a slam dunk for me. Tom has some good ideas in his platform that whoever is chairman should take a close look at adopting, though.

4. On Mitch's (Real) Wife: Mitch married well. Don't you have to be over 40 to apply for MILF status, though? I don't think that she's there yet. I have no other opinion on this, though, since Mrs. Riley, Not O'Reilly is the sole focus of my attention.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:04:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Well Jim-

Now that people are on here to defend themselves..you seem silent.

Could this be because you are mistaken?

I wonder what Sean Connaughton would say to you if he could post on this blog..maybe he would mention how you have distorted and lied about his record as well.

As for the PWC YRs I attended more than 3 meetings within the past year..and it was down to 10 people attendning or so

I could only imagine Chapman and his predecessors had done a better job.

I support you Kris Nohe!

 
At 1/30/2006 01:08:00 PM, Anonymous marty nohe said...

Vince- Go to class!!

 
At 1/30/2006 01:09:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Marty-

No school today, teacher workday.

and I just dropped another course.

I am down to only 4..

so one day I go into school from 930-1

and the next i go into school from 730-11

thus..why I post all the time.

I support your wife for president against Hillary.

and Sean for vice.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:15:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Teacher Work Day indeed!!! Just the teacher's union squeezing out a day without the burden of educating students. Stop the Unions!!!! (that's for you Mr. Young)

Vince- Get a job! :)

 
At 1/30/2006 01:19:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, Kris, there you go again. Even though you didn't issue the initial slander of "sexist" (that was TC and Kim ... er, "Mitch's Wife"), you now seem to defend it.

I never said you were "unqualified" to run because you're caring for three children. That has nothing to do with your qualifications, or lack thereof, though you appear to slander Committee members with whom you disagree as needing a "timeout." My implication was that you would choose not to, even if you do harbor such delusions of grandeur, because you do. That is different (you've certainly heard of the concept of having a "full plate"). You'll note that the majority of the sentence at issue speaks not at all to qualifications of any of the three discussed.

As for the rest, well, Kris, I said I might be wrong about whether you walked out, and you corrected me. Thank you. My recollection was faulty, though I do recall some rather ill-advised comments made by you AFTER you lost the vote. And you think you're competent. I think you're not.

But as to the source of your "distaste," well of course you deny it. But that fails to explain why you didn't trouble yourself to contact any of the three people (myself; Jane Beyer; Tony Guiffre) who could have, and would have, helped you prepare that Call had you the wit to ask.

Arrogance and incompetence are a truly dangerous combination.

As for your comment, Marty, we have more accord than I have with your bride. I, too, was quite careful in my comments about Mike because yes, he is a friend and a man I respect. My only dispute is your comment (with apparent approval) about the seating arrangements for the officers. No one but the Chairman and the Secretary (possibly, but not necessarily, e.g., if disputes are expected, the Parliamentarian, too) should be in the front of the room. The VC and the Treasurer don't belong there. They should give their reports (the VC, if any) from the general membership, since they have nothing to do other than that, other than to look at the side of the Chairman's head. The current seating arrangement strikes me as self-promoting, when any self-promotion should be achieved by deeds, not the seating arrangements.

In fact, MY wife was once Vice Chairman for a short time (it may have been only six months) replacing Gerry Cleary. She never sat in the front.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:20:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Now we're talking about if the Vice Chairman sits up front during the meetings. This discussion has degenerated into triviality.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:28:00 PM, Anonymous marty nohe said...

Brenda, Corey and I would have a tight race for the title, "Shortest Vice Chairmanship".

I think our different views on the Vice Chairmanship are that of style, not substance. I don't really care where people sit. But I do care about what they do, and I think we can agree on that.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:29:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Marty and Kris-

Do you all have a stand on the Chairman race?

How about you JY?

 
At 1/30/2006 01:46:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Vince, I didn't post for 56 minutes, and I "seem silent"?!?!? Before someone else says it, it only seems that way.

Oh, Vince, lay off the Kool Aid. You say that "I wonder what Sean Connaughton would say to you if he could post on this blog..maybe he would mention how you have distorted and lied about his record as well."

There you go, again, Vince: painting with a broad brush with no reference to any facts whatsoever.

Between the two of us (Sean and I), nobody "lied and distorted" about Chairman Sean's record except Sean himself. "Lowered Taxes". That's what his campaign website said. He only lowered tax rates, while taxes went up, on average, 50%. That's not a lie, and that's not a distortion. That's what happened to the average PWC homeowner under the first five years of Chairman Sean's term.

You know, the funny thing is, that was only his most public lie, and the others probably wouldn't have taken on as much importance for me had he not made that one. And it was a very simple fix. All he had to say was "Lowered Tax Rates" to be truthful. But he couldn't even do that.

But I wish Chairman Sean would get on ('course, maybe he is already, anonymously). Maybe then he could tell us why he lied about the PWC YRs straw poll at the 2004 County Convention, which he lost badly (70%-30%). He claimed there was ballot stuffing, and people voting twice. Perhaps he could tell us about the cellular telephone conversation he had with Hector Quintana after their plans to pack a meeting of the newly-constituted County Committee meeting a month later failed. Maybe he could tell us how many of those $30 membership fees his campaign paid for. Perhaps he could justify the gag rules his operatives tried to impose on Committee members a few months later (rules which, if advanced by pro-Life Republicans on the issue of abortion, would provoke a hue and cry). Or how about his $300 donation to a teachers union (the PWEA)?

Why don't you "Ask the Chairman" about these matters?

And Jim: do you think any part of the "decline" of the YRs under Steve had anything to do with Chairman Sean's embarrassment over his loss of that straw poll? You're an honest man (unlike Vince, you have previously conceded that Sean raised taxes).

 
At 1/30/2006 01:54:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

this straw poll:
My fellow Prince William Republicans,
>
> Prince William Area Young Republicans will be conducting a straw poll
> at Saturdays convention. Every person attending will be given a ballot

> to vote anonymously for a Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General
> candidate in the 2005 election. The YRs will have a table to collect
> the ballots. We will be accepting $1 donations per vote. A press
> release will be sent out to local media with the results. See you
> Saturday.
>
> Steve Chapman
> Chairman
> Prince William Area Young Republicans



Where anyone could pay by voting one dollar again and again.

With Steve Chapman as the leader...

that's a fair assessment Jim.

You didnt respond to my how is it tax-raising when Sean did it..but not when Staton comment.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:58:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Riley -

"Once a party cmte. gets as big as the PWC GOP did, it becomes an unwieldly beast. Danziger did a good job as chairman, but meetings could drag on a bit long. Murphy faces the same problem, but seems to be a bit more willing to step up and end debate sooner. Sooner or later, meeting attendance will decline. Many activists will still be around to help out on Election Day, but they don't like the minutiae of the monthly meetings."


In 2003 the Committee could not find enough volunteers to staff the polls let alone do lit drops!

In politics, size matters. The fact is that the Committee has gotten so small that we are being laughed at by the rest of the State.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:00:00 PM, Blogger Hirons said...

W.Matilda - Thanks for the update on the Kopko record. Like I said I couldn't speak for his record or actions over the last 1.5 year. Sounds like perhaps as the Coles representative on the BOCS Marty might have and obligation (probably too strong of a word) to take a stand in the race. What say you Marty?

JY - okay now I've got to flip on you. Sean did lower taxes - I know this is getting completely off topic - but for his first two years on the BOCS, my real-estate taxes did go down. So at least that gives him the avoidance opportunity of being called a liar. (while true - stated as tongue and cheek). Truth of the matter is my neighborhood - having been a new neighborhood took some time to catch up on assessments. Year 3 and 4 of his Chairmanship my taxes did shoot up 60+%.

Anon 11:23AM- Can't wait to have the opportunity to see Anonymous on the ballot some day.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:02:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Young -

I thought Connaughton won Prince William County by two-thirds of the vote in the Republican Primary in 2005?

Why do you constantly lie about the straw poll? I voted more then once (I paid $5), and even then less then 70 votes were cast.

It seems that it is you who is out-of-the-Republican Mainstream in Prince William County.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:03:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Anon 2:02 -

Do you have proof of these 5 votes? Did they give you receipts? If not, I suspect you'll simply be accused of lying about it.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:24:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he gave the money to Chapman, he used it for his new digs or "Pimp my Ride"!

 
At 1/30/2006 02:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a good question would be: "why would any competant, enthusiastic, credible candidate for Chairman of the Committee want to sign up for this at this point?" Committee meetings are miserable, either because they are boring or we're all trying to kill each other. Membership is dropping off because we are not welcoming of new members (or old members), and if they manage to stay a while they are turned off by all the fighting. We don't accomplish much. All the real productivity I have seen has been directly through individual campaigns, and not the party infrastructure, with the possible exception of some of the Operations committee efforts in the last election (but let's not start to argue about the RPV involvement there...). Why would anyone want to be subjected to wrangling all of these factors? Anyone who would put their name in the hopper probably a) is crazy, b) doesn't even understand the magnitude of the problem, or c) is an enthusiastic glutton for punishment. You can put Murphy and Kopko in any of those categories, I'll leave it up to you to decide. One of the above posts did get me to thinking, though... Ruth Anderson might be an excellent choice. She would fall into the "enthusiastic glutton for punishment: category, but she might have enough gumption to turn things around. Kopko's record is lackluster, and Murphy has had a tough time. Between the two, give me Murphy. But if there were a third option, I would have to seriously consider it.

 
At 1/30/2006 03:37:00 PM, Anonymous gopkdh said...

Good update TC

I already supported Murphy but this confirms it.

 
At 1/30/2006 03:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that at the last committee meeting, Kopko made a motion regarding some trivial issue (just to be a gadfly), and the motion failed for lack of a second. Rather than gadflies, I heard crickets. I thought that was ominous for Kopko's run at chairman.

 
At 1/30/2006 03:43:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Has anyone asked Ruth if she would be interested in running for Chairman? I think she would be great. The same could be said for Jane (I've heard a rumor that she might actually jump in to this thing.)

 
At 1/30/2006 03:44:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Who likes this Kopko guy then..

who's left to endorse?

Corey Stewart?

 
At 1/30/2006 03:48:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Steve Chapman likes Kopko. Where does he live these days? Dale City or Manassas?

 
At 1/30/2006 03:48:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Let's see, people I remember seeing wearing Tom's sticker at the meeting were (and I might be getting this wrong, if so please correct me) Steve Chapman, Trent Barton, Denny Daugherty, Bert Buscher, Bill Gallagher (I think), and I think I am missing one or maybe two more. That was about it, and Steve Chapman can't even vote for him.

 
At 1/30/2006 03:53:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

anonymous

Where does he "live" or where does he actually live.

Theres a big difference on those two.

WM-So basically no one support him.

Does Corey have any pull at the committee?

 
At 1/30/2006 04:00:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Perhaps Juanita Balenger should move to Prince William and run.

 
At 1/30/2006 04:07:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I have spoken with Ms.Balenger-
..and right now she is not running for Chairman.

 
At 1/30/2006 04:07:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

That's in Fairfax County. It's not too late to move to somewhere else. Perhaps a former Delegate candidate can offer pointers on quickly shifting residences for purposes of running for office.

 
At 1/30/2006 05:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Young -

You said this:

"Or how about his $300 donation to a teachers union (the PWEA)?"

I just went to VPAP and can't find this contribution. Are you sure you didn't mean he gave the money to buy votes from Steve Chapman at the YR Convention?

LOL!

 
At 1/30/2006 05:27:00 PM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Connaughton LG website section on taxes:

# Lowered the tax rate 45 cents per $100 valuation;
# Lowered tax rates on business equipment;
# Expanded senior citizen tax exemption programs; and
# Adopted a tax cap that precludes the average real estate tax bill to 5.9% regardless of the rise in average assessment


Where does it say he lowered taxes vs. tax rates?

His commercial said:

"Cut property tax rates six straight years"

What say you Mr Young? You pointed me to his website and it actually said the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim.

 
At 1/30/2006 05:29:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 2:02 calls me a liar, anonymously! Priceless!

My understanding was that Steve had a list of delegates, and checked each name as they paid and voted. I offered to pay an extra 2$ so that my young boys could vote, too. I was politely rebuffed by Steve Chapman. I was shown the completed list. So it is you who is lying, Anon 2:02.

Of course, Mitch, it is no coincidence that this individual promotes his lie anonymously.

And that's funny, Anon 5:10. Not as funny as being so unsophisticated as being incapable of recognizing that "Virginia Education Association (Prince William Chapter)" is the Prince William Education Association, but pretty funny!

 
At 1/30/2006 05:43:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

no comment on the connaughton website still jim..

or the support of the same people who hated sean on staton..

flustered?

 
At 1/30/2006 06:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow.

Looks like Jim Young caught Connaughton sponsoring the "Read Across America" campaign -- the scoundrel.

Jim, keep up the good work, hate to have them kids reading too early, you know.

 
At 1/30/2006 06:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait a minute, big fella.

All the time you have been screaming to the blogsphere about this big straw poll and now you admit that: (1) you had to pay to participate (2) delegates who did not pay did not get to vote and (3) you tried to have your kids stuff the ballot box (but were stopped by the heroic Steve Chapman who was concerned your $3 check would bounce).

Young, you are a pathological fibber. Please try and be a better role model to your kids or they may grow up to be like you!

 
At 1/30/2006 08:36:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

Please, do not call Chapman heroic. Please refer tohim as "Jim Young pissboy Steve Chapman".

 
At 1/30/2006 09:35:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

this must be some sort of milestone - You appear to have about twice as many comments as there are active members of the PW GOP Committee. Something's out of sync here (although the prospect of new picture's of Mitch's wife would probably keep me reading for another 50 or so comments, no matter how much nonsense I had to plow through).

 
At 1/30/2006 11:07:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, I can't access the Connaughton website (other than "Thanks, now support the ticket"; and I do have better things to do than constantly monitor your rumor-mongering and shadings). Perhaps you can provide a link. But I specifically remember Connaughton's website having a claim --- in a heading --- of having "Lowered Taxes."

Anon 6:17, if you had the guts to reveal yourself, I'd have to consider legal action. I "admit[ted] that... you had to pay to participate"? Didn't know it was a big secret. Apparently it was a fundraiser. Pretty standard practice. When did I say otherwise (i.e., where's the "fib")?

According to you, I also "admit[ted] that... delegates who did not pay did not get to vote." Again, what was the secret? What you fail to recognize is that virtually every delegate to the convention did so, according to the tally sheet kept by Steve Chapman. But I suppose he's a "liar," too. Truth be told, I was fairly skeptical of the straw poll. That's probably one reason why I was asked to help count the ballots.

And finally, you say that I "admit[ted] that ... [I] tried to have your kids stuff the ballot box." Yes, I didn't think too much of the significance of the poll (unlike Chairman Sean, who later lied about it). And yes, I was stopped (incidentally, I've never bounced a check in my life) by Steve Chapman, which later became significant when Chairman Sean (who showed up only for a short time, and wasn't even a delegate to the Convention) claimed that there was ballot-stuffing.

What exactly do you think you've proved, aside from juvenile belittlement?

You Connaughtonites are amazing. Smears, betittlement, and insults is all you have to offer for those who fail to share your view that Chairman Sean is the Second Coming. When specific facts are presented, you just dismiss them. Probably why most of you keep your identities secret.

 
At 1/30/2006 11:19:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

http://www.connaughton4ltgov.com/platform.shtml

Theres the link..
find it.

 
At 1/31/2006 12:07:00 AM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

Why is that goofy straw poll such a sore point with Mr. Young? Those things are fundraising devices for the local parties. They're meaningless. They really ought to be discouraged in any event. In most of them, you pay to vote and one or more candidates organize voting blocs to run up their totals. Fairfax tried to have one a little later and all the candidates just said no. As I recall there were about 50 or 60 votes in the PW exercise. Bolling won something like 39 to 23 or something like that. It's totally meaningless. And, as someone said above, Connaughton whipped Bolling handily when the votes counted in the primary in Prince William. What's the point of all that nonsense? If it's that the PW Committee, tiny and meaningless as it is, has several people on it who don't like Sean, I guess we knew that. I've always felt that reflected well on Sean.

 
At 1/31/2006 01:12:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Waltzing Matilda at 8:07am said:
The problem is that the animosity between Group A and Group B....

If I understood TC's A and B groups, "A" doesn't have animosity or hatred, just group B. Your "A" and "B" is more like the two factions of his group "B", or my "R"s that fight over ideology.

I oppose the personal attacks just as you do, but that isn't confined to the conservatives in the house. I've heard hateful things said. Heck, the hateful things are printed right here in this very thread.

As far as the Steve Chapman situation goes, Mr. Chapman brought that on himself.

I know Kopko wasn't happy with that performance. But that had NOTHING to do with the filing of unproven charges against Steve, which involved a different residence and the Manassas Park 2004 election, NOT the 50th district election. Nobody suggested he wasn't validly living in the 50th district.

I'm not arguing for Kopko, or against Murphy, but against those smearing the candidates with personal attacks, or advancing bizarre conspiracy theories.

Mom, at 9:17 am, said:
CT, you give TC much too much credit, he is a simply a tool of others who use he and this forum to further their agenda.

I have no evidence of that. I believe he posts for himself. I am arguing what he is saying, not why he is saying it.

hiron at 10:39am said:
The choice for chairman shouldn't be about if they are from these imaginary groups A or B. It should be about who could be the better leader to unite the party produce the activities that get votes for Republicans.

Well said. That's the discussion we should spend 100 comments on, not this stupid pissing contest. But you get what the leader asks for, and the comments here, while of limited value, follow clearly the direction of the original post.

It might be more interesting to think about whom as Vice Chair could compliment either of them to make them better a better Chairman.

I'd rather put that person in as chairman (not agreeing with your assessment of the two, just saying that I don't see the vice chairman as a way to overcome shortcomings like this). I tend to think ideas are self-standing; if Tom has good ones, I only want to know if Brian will promise to evaluate and implement them.

anonymous at 10:32am said:
First of all, Wooten promised, when he was elected Vice Cahir, that he would put him self up for a vote of confidence three months later. I'm still waiting for that vote.

I could well be wrong, but I remember that 3 months after the vote, he stood up and reminded us of his pledge, and he was "reaffirmed" by acclaimation by the committee. Anybody else remember this?

TooConservative at 12:29pm said:
What does the Chapman comment by you do except back up my assertions above?

Presuming that this cryptic comment means "Didn't your research simply show that I was right to say 'Kopko is reported to have been a big supporter of Chapman'": I did your work and provided actual facts to replace your passive suggestion. Being a staff worker is more than just a "big supporter". My point was that a little work could turn your gossip post into something useful.

I am working right now on Mick Statons campaign hard..and spent 3 months working for Craddock..your assertion is false.

My first inclination was to point out that I never "asserted" that you didn't work hard, or work for campaigns. Then I surmised you were comparing yourself to Denny to refute my claim that "nobody works harder".

I guess now is a good time to say that I like to use common english phrases where the phrase has a meaning beyond the literal translation. These sometimes make english a hard language for ESOL people, but I like them. "Nobody works harder" is one such phrase, which does not literally mean that there is not a single person who wouldn't be judged to be a harder worker. Instead, it is an idiom meaning that the person referenced is a very hard worker who could not be expected to do much more than they do. Since Denny has a full-time job, I doubt he works as many hours as people who are employed by campaigns or have more free time. But Denny gives up many hours of his free time. He's out their on weekends, he's at all the meetings, he's working with the committee of 100, he's a very involved person. I've done a few events with him, not nearly as many as he does.

Which was just to say that he would be a hard person to replace, and before we run him out of the party we ought to make sure we will be able to replace him (and the others like him who also fit the category of "nobody works harder", as commonly understood).

I, on the other hand, have not worked on any campaign, and only rarely get out to pass out literature. I did waste 6 hours checking off ballots as part of the disastrous "call people 17 times, make them hate us, and then hover over the poll workers collecting names so we can pester the people again -- never mind that half the names are voting for kaine"). BTW, in order to earn the right to trash that program, I even got my WIFE to show up and do that work, so I could go outside and hand out stuff (where, contrary to assertions, people were showing up and asking "who is running, who should I vote for").

I simply believe Connaughton personlifies where our party needs to head.

A careful check of my posts would show that I've said little about Sean. I don't agree that Sean is the best model for our party, but I can't think of any politician currently in office in our area that I would hold up in that regard, so this isn't really a negative for Sean from me.

As far as a party divider you are mistaken. Anyone who wins county-wide by almost 70% in a general..can only be a party uniter

Actually, 70% may more indicate his appeal across party lines more than his ability to strongly espouse conservative republican ideals. While in the long run I expect that those pushing true conservative principles will acheive greatness and win the support of many people, I would not expect a true conservative limited-government message to appeal to much more than 55% of the voters.


The people who disslike him [Sean]..are all the same group who have personal agendas and stupid vendettas and little to back up their hatred.

This is falling back to ad-hominem, baseless, meaningless, and useless attacks. Contrary to your assertions, many people will not support Sean because they do not support his positions on issues, or because of their opinion of his character and trustworthiness. They may be incorrect, but their beliefs are based in reality, with some evidence, not simply the delusions of insane hate-filled sycophants.

I mean come on..the logic is flawed here. If people want to talk issues, than talk them...

I hope that a majority of my words are discussion of issues. I want to talk issues, like the issues of what PWC committee should do to enhance it's ability to get republicans elected to office.

Gossip and innuendo is entertaining, but I don't think I have the time for it.


So every "A" person supports Sean? Maybe that is the definition of an "A" group member.

 
At 1/31/2006 09:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic that the PW Republican Chair will be selected on April Fools Day?

 
At 1/31/2006 09:58:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

CT- "I, on the other hand, have not worked on any campaign, and only rarely get out to pass out literature."

You certainly have a lot of oppinions for an armchair warrior. If defining what the R stands for and keeping the party conservative is important to you, why not work for what you say you believe? Sorry if this sounds harsh, I don't mean it to. But it is a legitamate question.

 
At 1/31/2006 10:06:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

TC: You referred me to a platform (i.e., promises). I was more interested in this page, http://www.connaughton4ltgov.com/achievements.shtml, where Chairman Sean has a section under the heading "Lowering Taxes." For reasons explained ad nauseum elsewhere, this heading is disingenuous, since --- with an ad velorum tax --- lowering the rate has little meaning when value increase outpace the reductions.

And I agree, nova scout: straw polls are meaningless. If Chairman Sean had said that, and left it at that, no one could have argued with him. What isn't explained is why Chairman Sean thereafter felt the need to lie about it and smear those involved. Apparently he and his campaign thought there was some meaning to it. Probably because they're "meaningless," except in the sense of creating perceptions, and it created a negative impression for him.

And Anon 9:15, you were not the only person to notice this. It was mentioned at the County Committee meeting. Probably better to hold the general election on that date.

 
At 1/31/2006 06:57:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

James: I think they were reacting to Bolling's misuse of the results. Bolling literature ballyhooed the result, never mentioning the pay-to-vote elements or the double-digit (combined) number of voters. anyone reading bolling's lit would have assumed that PW Republicans had handed a rebuke to Connaughton and had overwhelmingly endorsed Bolling, even though the numbers were well under 100 (if memory serves). The primary vote showed Connaughton retaining his perennial popularity among Republicans in his County.

Building on rare areas of agreement, perhaps you and I can make the case that the RPV should lean hard on local committees to swear off these blasted straw polls for money. It really enervates the process and puts a lot of pressure on candidates to divert funds and energy to activity that doesn'thelp get the Republican message out to the ultimate targets: the voters.

BTW: I was struck by critically thinking's notion that Connaughton's 70% victory margins might reflect his weakness as a "true conservative" because a "true conservative shouldn't be able to draw more than 55%. Tell me that's a joke, please. Are we conservatives supposed to search out candidates who don't win by too much, and who don't draw across party lines? That's surely a recipe for accomplishment. Ronald Reagan just did a two-and-half gainer under the sod.

Any more pictures of Mitch's Wife?

 
At 1/31/2006 08:35:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Gee, nova scout, I wonder how you can surmise that about the Bolling campaign, since it doesn't seem apparent at all (I was the one being slandered, after all: "Young, you are a pathological fibber")? So how could you surmise that, unless you cast aside your pseudonymity in favor of temporary anonymity to create the false impression of strength in numbers? Curiouser and curiouser. Either that, or you are just trying to salvage an untenable situation.

And the primary vote demonstrated that Chairman Sean remains popular among GOP primary voters in his home County, a group which clearly included some Democrats, and that he is substantially LESS popular among them than Bolling is among his.

I see no reason to do away with such straw polls. It allowed the YRs to raise some money (I know some people hate mere mention of it, but BACK WHEN I WAS YR CHAIRMAN, we just sold snacks and sodas at the County Convention), and it gave us to see Chairman Sean in his natural condition: lying through his teeth.

I disagree about their effect. Had Chairman Sean cared at all about the condition of his own home County's party, he would have turned out enough delegates to have cleaned Bolling's clock (based upon the election returns), which he did a month later in a failed effort to hijack the Republican Committee. He chose not to, because he doesn't care about the condition of the GOP except to the extent that it serves his personal ambition.

And what's wrong with suggesting that it's OK for a conservative to get only 55% of the vote? Assuming every voter casts his ballot on ideology (an unrealistic assumption), I'm not sure than I want an office-holder who draws more than 50% + 1 of the voters. And why should we expend funds to get any GOP candidate 70% of the vote. Isn't it more sensible to get a lower (winning) percentage and expend the excess funds on candidates who are having a tougher time of it?

 
At 1/31/2006 09:08:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JY Said -

"He chose not to, because he doesn't care about the condition of the GOP except to the extent that it serves his personal ambition."

Well, gee, maybe he just thinks the PWC Committee sucks (which it does). At this point, comparing the GOP and the PWC Committee is like comparing an apple and, well, a rotten apple.

 
At 1/31/2006 10:40:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

James: the words in that first paragrpah look like English, but I can't make heads or tails out of it. what is that?

 
At 2/01/2006 09:10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He chose not to, because he doesn't care about the condition of the GOP except to the extent that it serves his personal ambition."

You are funny Young. Connaughton leads the GOP to a sweep in 2003, the County is a model of good governance, and he bankrolls half the campaigns.

What has he gotten in return? Constant attacks and personal insults by people like you. I don't think he realized just how evil you and your cohorts were until that Convention and he tried to get the Committee to do two things: (1) stop attacking Republicans publically and (2) Republican leaders should not be endorsing Democrats and Libertarians. That is PARTY BUILDIN!

Young, you have helped destroy this Party and its ability to govern. Thanks for the losses.

 
At 2/01/2006 10:54:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Coward 9:10, what have you ever done for the GOP?

As for "constant attacks" and "personal insults," I criticize Chairman Sean when he misrepresents facts. If that is "constant," it is hardly my fault. As for "personal insults," attack his hairstyle or fashion choices would be "personal attacks." Noting when he misrepresents facts and raises taxes are "policy criticisms." Grow up and learn the difference.

 
At 2/01/2006 10:56:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

As for "personal attacks," Coward 9:10, few non-politicians are the subject of as many personal attacks as I have been on this website. Unless your "principle" is one of convenience, I'll expect you to leap to my defense the next time one is made.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:06:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go home and leave us alone.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home