Wednesday, January 25, 2006

TC's Ramblings Continued

I wanted to begin another post to compile the conversations of a few posts below in which the same conversations are going on in the comment section. To respond to Rtwng Etrmist and Involved- I use the term "far-far-far right" because I prefer it to right wing, or conservative. I know without a doubt their is an ideological split within our party in Northern Virginia, but it is not along the lines of issues. The simple truth is that half of our party cares about it's constituents. Half of our party does what is right, simply because it is right. They run for office because they've lived a life of public service, and they care about the community they live in. These people are getting run out of our party. As I have mentioned with countless newspaper articles and polls on TC, many of these people are switching parties. They are fed up with all or nothing people, who have no solutions. I have facts on this, I have shown you polling numbers telling you how self-described Republicans jumped ship to vote Democratic the past election. You can cover your ears and say "lalala" but it won't make the facts untrue. Thepeople in group B will stab in the back, and literally run against people who have given them money and support. These people only state what is wrong, and have no way to fix the problem. A perfect example of these people is in the post below. The person at the Fairfax County Republican Committee who would write an anonymous letter bashing Chairman Eric Lundberg, but who wouldn't put their name to the paper. These people simply have no class,no respect, and will whisper nasty secrets in dark corners just to win elections. These people are ruining our party. Before the criticism comes my way, I have a few more things to get out there and say. I am getting tired of this second group of people criticizing and talking negatively about the first group, there is simply no reason too. The first group doesn't conspire to destroy you(group B) and take over the world, don't worry..it's only you all doing that. Yes, the first group might include some people who have voted for one or two tax-increases...Against a partial-birth abortion bill...or for sending abortion money overseas. But you people dwell on these votes FOREVER. True leaders make choices, they make decisions, and they help their constituents. I contribute the loss of interest at the Fairfax County Republican Committee to this second group of people, not to Eric Lundberg. I have seen some polls on Fairfax Republican Senators in '07, and we have problems guys. We could easily lose Devolites-Davis, Cuccinelli, and O'Brien if we don't get our act together. But part B doesn't care. They will primary other Senators across the state, and contribute to the Democratic take back of the Senate in '07. But we're the real victors right? Because everyone knows "I'd more rather have a Democrat than those squishy RINOS Chichester, Quayle, ect". I have been out there for two years talking to voters across the state for Connaughton, Kilgore, Harrington, Tom Davis, Craddock, Golden, ect...and people think the Republican party has turned to into a party of social issues. Our message isn't getting across to them because..wait...where is the message? We complain about fixing transportation, and don't like the tax-increase, but wheres the SOLUTION GUYS? The Party in Fairfax is dying quickly, and this will quickly reach into Loudoun and Prince William if we continue on this path. When our leaders have to worry about getting un-elected by group number two, we can not recruit good candidates to run. Don't get me wrong-I believe in Democracy, and I believe in the primary process...but JOE MAY!? Any of you(involved, A voter, Jim Young, ect.) who come on to all these blogs and complain about some party officials-why not talk to them? In all the time I have been around the Sean Connaughton, Tom Rust, Tom Davis crowd I have never heard them say negative words about their own party, but they get crapped on by Group B. They are the ones who are respected by the average public, you know..the voters who actually matter in elections. Congressman Tom Davis constantly doles out money to Group B, and gets nothing in return except name-calling. You all(group B) need his help and support, and then call him a squishy moderate for a few votes out of thousands, and the fact that he won't condemn people to hell for their views on abortion. Get over it, and stop picking which verses in the Bible you preach, read the whole thing..like maybe the part when Jesus says "Let he without sin cast the first stone" I was told a few weeks ago by an unnamed state central member that Tom Davis and Sean Connaughton were pro-abortion simply for their support of Harry Parrish. This is the logic of group B, and why I consider them "far-far-far-far right" and without lack of a better word crazy. As I continue to bust my ass for both groups, I continue to get called a squishy RINO, by group B. Message to GROUP B-Do you not understand you are running people into the arms of the Democratic Party? You are the sole reason for our losses in the past election, and you will continue to erode our support in elections. Stop blaming the loss in November on Jerry Kilgore, for "when you point a finger, there are three fingers pointing back at you". Eventually all of the people like myself who work for group B are going to wise up and stop helping you. I am considered a right-winger everywhere I go , except for when I am with group B, who seems to decide for themselves who is a "real conservative". Who is a real conservative then huh? Someone who talks a lot but gets no results? Someone who can outright lie about another person and distort their record? These people are real, Groups A and B do exist. I am not talking about all this to brew problems within the party. I love the Republican party, and love conservative values. I am talking about all this so that maybe we can come to our senses as a party, and begin moving in the "right". Because after all...there is nothing wrong with being "tooconservative". I am done.. It feels good to get that all off my chest. For readers down-state, this post just has to do with my problems with the NOVA party.

159 Comments:

At 1/25/2006 06:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMMMEEEEN!!!

 
At 1/25/2006 07:24:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

TC--

Can you tell me what is the difference between you and the "far far far right?" As far as issues are concerned?

Do you really believe that people voted Dem last time because conservatives were running? I know you say you can't blame Jerry, I agree we cannot blame it all on Jerry, but he was the top of the ticket and has to take some responsibility just as Golden, Craddock, Mason, black etc have to take responsibility for their loss. This was a special year, you cannot base your thoughts about the electorate on this year. I just posted on NLS that people are upset because of all the reasons R's have given them to be upset this year (Libby, Delay, Abramoff, Katrina, feelings about the war, wiretappings etc)

Has the party gotten better or stayed status quo since Lundberg got there? He cannot be blamed for everything, but where is this party headed? He has not given any leadership has he?

You are right, you have worked on campaigns and just talk about it, but the split is getting worse not better. The question is this, if you believe something shouldn't you fight for it? Where is the line of fighting for your values vs. inner party fights that will finish the R's off in NoVA?

You are completely wrong on one point. The Davis people badmouth the conservative wing just as much as the conservative wing does it to them...they are both wrong when they do it!

 
At 1/25/2006 07:31:00 PM, Anonymous Suedehead said...

TC is absolutely correct. I am also "that right wing guy" around friends and colleagues; until I'm around the Blacks, FitzSimmonds, et al.

I fear we will continue to lose elections until we stop savaging our own (Jim Rich) and remember that united we win, divided we lose.

 
At 1/25/2006 07:31:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

TM-As I stated above..I believe on issues there is little difference. It is all what both sides of the party want to make of it.

I am just as conservative as Mick Staton, Bill Bolling, or Jim Gilmore. I just go about fighting in a different way.

I believe,and KNOW (from doors) people voted for Democrats because of the perception of our party.

Lundberg has presided over Fairfax during substantial populaltion growth and demographic changes. He can not be blammed for the loss of candidates.

As for this"Where is the line of fighting for your values vs. inner party fights that will finish the R's off in NoVA?"

I dont know what you mean.

and my Davis and Sean, I meant them personally. Their staff as well.

 
At 1/25/2006 07:32:00 PM, Anonymous gopkdh said...

That's it right there TC.

You got it boy.

But will ANYONE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!?????

 
At 1/25/2006 08:35:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Spin it any way you want, Vince is dea on here. I know that some folks have argued that Jerry lost because he wasn't conservative enough and Bolling was, but that's just absurd. The truth of the matter is, long-time Republicans are abandoning the party. Whether it means they simply stay home on Election day or vote for Dems, That's the reality.

Part of it is the rhetoric and attack-dog style coming from the "real conservatives" in the party (whatever that means). It's made worse by some elected officials who flaunt laws and/or ignore the real issues and instead focus on telling the rest of us how to live our lives. In all honesty, when I consider what many in our State are doing and then look at what's going on in Washington, the sad truth is I'm starting to get a little embarassed to admit to being a Republican. I never, ever thought that would happen. But this party is becoming the party of hardline, with-us-or-against-us, anything-for-a-buck bigots. It's no wonder this is what we're seeing.

 
At 1/25/2006 09:35:00 PM, Blogger nova_middle_man said...

I feel that group B is the "older" Virginia. The strategy of group B is to run on social/religious issues carry the Valley and not worry about NOVA. There is a place for group B in the party and throughout rural parts of Virginia. There are pleny of good people in Group B

Group A are suburban and urban republicans that propably hold similar views on social issues as Group B but focus more on fiscal issues. There are some business leaders within group A that advocate for higher taxes from a businees/inferstructure perspective

Bottom line there is a Group B and a Group A but we are all still Republican. I think it is entirely appropriate and even healthy to have primaries between A and B republicans. The key however is that during the general we all work together. I would hope that an A republican would vote for a B republican in a general and vice versa before voting for a democrat or staying home.

On that note this A republican is helping out B republican Mick Staton for Senate and encourages all Republicans to do the same :)

 
At 1/25/2006 09:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bless you son - we love you.

Always understand thus us REAL religious conservatives understand and will always understand that we are a piece of work under creation. Those that oppose you do not and will never accept God -- they believe they are above it. Keep up the great work and keep away from the Young's, FitzSimmonds, Cuccinelli's, Black's and Daughterty's of this world because they will not share the next world with you.

Bless you.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:08:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I agree Mr. Cumstein,

I would add that the "real conservatives" would do the party a service if they stick closer to the basic issues and come up with some real ideas on how to solve the problems of the Commonwealth.

Social issues are very important, don't get me wrong, but there is a right way and a wrong way to promote values without the "live life my way" attitude. There are no set requirements for being a republican. We may disagree on extreme social issues (gay marriages, abortion, etc.) but we can all still be conservative when it comes to the true management of the Commonwealth.

I know of several long time Republicans that are questioning whether they fit in this elite group anymore. The slurs against the other party, the in-fighting, etc. is petty and childish. Voters are distracted by the political games to the point that they don't even know where candidates stand on the issues that matter. Extremism is ugly in any form and the "ordinary citizens" need to feel comfortable with the party again. We need strong, reliable, honest, hardworking "real people" candidates that really want to work to make a difference. Far too often, we're getting extremists who want to control every nuance of our lives, Richie-Riches that don't even know how we live, and money-worshipers that will sway with the dollar trees.

We need candidates that will talk about real ways to solve the problems of real people: health care, transportation, education, taxes, social security, etc. These are things that we can all support and work for.

I'm not saying abandon the social principles of the party by any means. I'm just saying promote the social values by living them instead of just shouting them.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:21:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Like I've said, the way to win for you guys is by running on finances and lower taxes, not abortion, gay marriage, religion, etc.

When you guys run on finances, I don't mind you so much. If you run on finances to get elected, and then push social issues once elected though, I'll hate your guts, so don't do it.

 
At 1/25/2006 10:54:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

Nothing wrong that can't eventually be fixed with patience and high quality candidates. Let's look for the guys that have accomplished something in their non-political lives, something that indicates that they have the skills, character and intellect to make Virginia a better place. If we keep putting up these types of candidates, some will get elected and we will begin to get "brand name recognition for good government" (that last phrase is not mine - I stole it from Sean Connaughton.)

 
At 1/25/2006 10:57:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Lucy-

Agreed.

 
At 1/25/2006 11:02:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, TC, that's certainly one person's view --- and his amen chorus'--- but it reflects an arrogance that I more frequently associate with the far Left.

You identify the people you support as the part of the GOP that "cares about it's constituents," the part that "does what is right, simply because it is right," those who "run for office because they've lived a life of public service, and they care about the community they live in."

Wow! So, by hypothesis, those who find your friends wanting --- i.e., myself and others --- don't care about their constituents, do what is wrong simply because it is "wrong," and run for office simply to satisfy their personal ambition and lust for power?

Sorry, TC, but that's either the most severe form of arrogance, or naivete. I'm not sure which.

And you say that such individuals are "getting run out of our party." Funny, but they seem more interested in running those you view as your intra-party rivals out of the party. Please don't lecture those of us that you identify as "group B" about stabbing people in the back; it was one of the people in "group A" --- Russ Potts --- who stabbed our nominee in the back by not only failing to run in the GOP primary, but by running in the general election against our party's nominee. And I would defy you to identify a single person who has "iterally run against people who have given them money and support."

You also fall into that old far Left tactic of describing as "no way to fix a problem" ways with which you disagree. And given that you allow anonymous comments, it is difficult to take seriously your criticism of someone " who would write an anonymous letter bashing Chairman Eric Lundberg, but who wouldn't put their name to the paper." Given your only-recently abandoned pseudonymity, how can you possible describe someone else as having "no class, no respect, and will whisper nasty secrets in dark corners just to win elections." You have a post just below in which you publish a rumor about a Loudoun County Supervisor that he specifically denies, yet I have yet to see an apology as prominent as the misstatement of fact.

Your "J'accuse!" tone is somewhat unjustified.

And as for your claim that the "first group doesn't conspire to destroy you," you were perhaps unaware of such an effort (successful) in PWC to deny the GOP nomination for Delegate to Sal Perch, in favor of Deborah Wilson, later convicted of felony election fraud because she didn't live in the district (Deborah was badly used, too, but it was by people you identify in group A). And I (among others) personally witnessed the efforts of the group A-types to maintain control over the Young Republican Federation of Virginia by fraudulent club chartering materials in 1993 (before contributor Jim Riley was involved) and illegal, underage delegates to its convention, high school students who had only five years earlier been expelled BY THE SAME GROUP!

And please, TC, PLEASE! Tell my how a Democrat Senate would differ significantly from the likes of Chichester, Potts, et al. And my primary problem with these individuals isn't their stand on "social issues." Their not good on social issues OR financial issues. Their simply tax-and-spenders by another name. The difference between them and Dems? That they'll at least say they oppose tax increases if another Republican challenges them in a primary.

You say the "The Party in Fairfax is dying quickly, and this will quickly reach into Loudoun and Prince William if we continue on this path." But you sure seem to be doing your part to help put a stake into its heart, along with your amen chorus. For God's sake, if you and "group A" consituted a majority of the GOP, bring your people out to conventions and meetings and take it over. Or nominate your candidates (like Potts, Chichester, Parrish, et al.)

Problem is, the people you're savaging DO go out and support the party's nominees even if they lose a primary challenge. Steve Chapman ring a bell? He was every bit as supportive of Harry Parrish after he lost the nomination to him --- and after he was slimed by Harry's campaign --- as anyone I've ever seen.

And please don't tell me that "group B" doesn't support Tom Davis. I have always supported and defended Tom, and when we've had disagreements, we've either resolved them respectfully, or agreed to disagree without getting personal. There's precisely one campaign bumper sticker on my car right now: Tom's (haven't found an Allen sticker yet).

TC, your kind of rhetoric is precisely the kind of thing of which you're accusing "group B." It give aid and comfort to the enemy. And it's difficult to imagine that your not attempting to do to "group B" precisely what you accuse them of doing: trying to run others out of the GOP.

 
At 1/25/2006 11:09:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-

I never said anywhere Russ Potts was in "group A", for he is not. I do not believe him to be conservative.

A Democrat Senate would have voted for a higher-tax increase, as well as impose their social views on the commonwealth, but if that's what you want..hey go right ahead.

As far as Tom Davis...I have personally heard people in "group B" slam him, and was not referring to you about that.

I am not trying to run anyone out of anywhere..what are you talking about? I was at a meeting last night and witnessed yet again another act by group B.

It is filled with power-hungry liars who will stop at nothing.

I would take honest, respectable Democrats over them any single day of the week, and am growing tired of constantly having to defend American patriots, and great citizens to the likes of you and others.

The group is filled with people so blinded by their own quest for victory they they will stomp on anyone, including each other to get there.

As far as Steve Chapmans support for Harry..I am sure he really appreciated that after his supporters told everyone he was a baby killer and smeared his record across the county.

What a big help, and healer that was!

Talk is one thing, action is another.

Anyone can see what's going on Jim, and your basless defense of the people trying to hijack the party is getting no where.

 
At 1/25/2006 11:29:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

You didn't say that "Russ Potts was in 'group A.'" Funny, but Rusty thinks he is. Apparently, Chichester and others think he is.

You "do not believe him to be conservative"?!?!? I thought it was me who set himself up as the arbiter of who is a conservative.

TC, here's a little flash for you: "group A" has its share of "power-hungry liars," as well. You paint with a despicably broad brush.

You are smearing an entire contingent of the GOP --- perhaps the dominant contingent --- by what are, at best, the actions (which I don't endorse, save for intra-party contests, with are entirely legitimate) of a few that you interestingly don't identify. Who among those you name are actually identified by other than a pseudonym? Me. And I defy you to identify any actions of the kind you condemn perpetrated by me. You want to challenge people's integrity, you damn well better do so. There are plenty of people who hate me (your comments make that clear); none has ever questioned my integrity, nor could.

I have identified specific instances of such committed by "group A," though, even though I do not paint all of "group A" with that brush. It would be nice if you would extend those of us you identify in "group B" the same courtesy.

 
At 1/25/2006 11:30:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

That should be "you damn well better do so with facts, chapter and verse."

 
At 1/25/2006 11:42:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

No Jim

You misunderstood my entire post.

I do not believe there is a conservative and moderate group..but a group a and group b.

Saxman would be A for example, as he is very conservative, and is not just interestd in his own self.

Some "moderates" like Potts would be in group B, as he only ran for Governor for personal gain, and to smear Kilgore.

I mentioned you because your one of the more obvious..but the post wasn't directed at you.

You atleast are always upfront with your opinions, even if they are off the wall sometimes.

I do not find you the type to gather in back rooms to discuss the overthrow of Eric Lundberg or Jim Rich. Unless I am mistaken...

 
At 1/25/2006 11:46:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Re-Kilgore--Like I have said over and over again, he would have been alright if he would have ran on anything (other than the death penalty). He did not take a stand on anything so stop with these other arguements. No one is going to vote for someone who doesn't take a stand on anything. He can't even say we told you so about Tim Kaines tax package because he did say he was against it (or for one for that matter).

Both sides slam each other and it should stop! TC included...which is this particular rant!

 
At 1/25/2006 11:50:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

too moderate-

The buck stops here.

I am not taking more from group B.

I will call them out from now on.

 
At 1/26/2006 12:07:00 AM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

TC,

Your message is EXACTLY why BlackOut was formed.

I can say without doubt, your observations are critical to the future of the party. I can say without doubt, there are a lot of "silent cheers" from within the party ranks.

We need to make sure those still "silent" have courage to challenge what is happening.

Join forces and fight the BBers

 
At 1/26/2006 12:18:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

TC, if your group "A" and "B" were not meant to be the moderate/conservative (or whatever you want to call it) split, you did a poor job of communicating.

Even though you couched it in obscure terminology and provided misdirection with lines such as "but it is not along the lines of issues".

For example, you included the following as a failing of group "B" towards group "A": Yes, the first group might include some people who have voted for one or two tax-increases...Against a partial-birth abortion bill...or for sending abortion money overseas. But you people dwell on these votes FOREVER.

All of those issues are the issues that the so-called "moderates" claim the so-called "right-wing extremists" are using to destroy the party.

That said, and I don't think I've ever said this to you before, you are a bit presumptuous to castigate half of your party for their supposed failings. You most certainly haven't been around long enough to really understand the history of the party, or who it is that got us to where we are today.

But it is not your age that is at issue, but your reasoning.

Nobody is getting "run out" of the party, although it could certainly look like that. We'd LIKE to run some people out of the party, like Senator Potts (who ran out of the party himself first), but the party moderates in the senate won't allow it.

Nobody ran Reese out of the party, he simply lost a primary (just like many people do every election). I'll let you put labels on what happened next, since you are so good at it -- when Reese disavowed Craddock and endorsed Caputo, who was running WHO out of the party?

I don't believe there were many conservatives voting for Poisson, or for Kaine, or for Caputo. But they are showing up at all the committee meetings, they are out knocking on doors. They are airing their differences in the appropriate forums. When they really think they have the better solutions, it is the conservatives that are putting up republicans challengers IN THE PRIMARIES where the fights belong.

It's the moderates who jump ship to run independent, or when they lose in the primary break their vows, their signed pledges, and endorse/vote for the democrat opponent. Or they simply quit, refusing to defend themselves to the people that elected them, and then endorse the democrats.

I showed up at the PWC committee the month the hoards of "moderates" showed up to join so they could "save" the party from the wacky right-wingers. I'm still there, and I don't see those "dedicated servants" around (we nearly missed a quorum the 3rd meeting after they all joined, before we could get them wiped off the roles).

That is a broad brush you are swinging, TC, and while you have been extremely active and hard-working, I think you should step back and look more broadly at the landscape.

Because if you run those "far far right" conservatives out of the party, if you ask them to drop out of leadership, to stop distributing literature, signing petitions, giving money, showing up at the meetings, making phone calls, putting up signs, and all the other things they do, your "group A" has no chance of keeping control of anything.

Last thing: I've said harsh things about Tom Davis. I've said them in e-mails I've sent him, I've said them in conversations with others. (any of you moderates want to defend him wasting government time and money hauling washed-up baseball players in front of congress to discuss the "steriod problem"?)

I would love to have a more conservative republican in his position.

But I also strongly support him, and work for his re-election -- in the general elections, where we pick the best person from the parties.

Your suggestion that a person who criticizes a candidate can't also support that candidate is simply wrong.

Not to say that there aren't conservatives who do NOT support Davis, just as there were moderates who simply couldn't support Black. But your party better be big enough for both those groups, and it better be strong enough to let them fight about it.

 
At 1/26/2006 12:18:00 AM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Jim Young your rants provide all the proof TC needs for his ramblings.

Your tone reflects the issue, your close mind is the problem. Stop listening to yourself and start thinking about what TC is saying. At the least admit, there are a LOT of party members saying the same thing. That alone should provide you pause for reflection.

 
At 1/26/2006 12:54:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

Critically Thinking-

By people getting run out of the party, I was referring to the speech at American University, and statistical information which shows that the AVERAGE voter is changing parties.

You all think of the activists..who are getting run out too...but it's the average voter who is being run out.

The average voters are obviously key to elections-considering they are the ones who vote!

and you are incorrect about if you "run those people out"

I do not want to run those people out.

The minority of radicalists who are trying to hijack the party in NOVA have smeared group A's records so much that the base honestly belives many of them to be lefty secularists.

If Group B was gone..the grass-roots supporters could take time to realize that Group B had lies about Group A's record, and that group A was actually pro-life, or anti-tax ect.

I am looking very broad, and I have made my conclusions, and have alot of facts to back it up. From newspapers, consultants, elected officials, and average voters. People know what's going on..Republicans are voting for others because our party has seemed to become all or nothing.


As for your moderate running independent theory...Michael Golden whom I like...ran against Dillard.

..and Russ Potts ran to the left of Kaine..and is no moderate.

Anyone else?

I have no gain in stating my opinions, and am not attached at the hip to any faction or certain person. I spend time with various people throughout the party, and even other parties. I believe to get a full analysis, a full consensus is needed.

The problem is part B, and yourself critically I do not believe have gotten a full view.

Have YOU stepped back and asked Tom about his views personally?

Come on here..there an obvious problem, and it's not coming from Group A

 
At 1/26/2006 01:00:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

Blackout-

These people don't reflect.

They don't even have facts to back up my statements, just blanketed unfounded emotions.

 
At 1/26/2006 01:52:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

Get your nomenclature straight. The more you go on on this the more confusing it gets. Is Group A moderates, or is it honest republicans? Is group B Conservatives, or is it lying republicans? I for one have experienced personally the lies of those in the party that have attacked the conservatives. Reese, Barry, Potts, etc. Despite your protests, Potts is still accepted by many in what you call group A.

"another act by group B.

It is filled with power-hungry liars who will stop at nothing."

There are people across the political spectrum that fit that description. Not just conservatives. My experience with conservatives is they tend to be the more honest though.

And before I forget, Anon you had better watch about throwing stones: "Always understand thus us REAL religious conservatives understand and will always understand that we are a piece of work under creation. Those that oppose you do not and will never accept God -- they believe they are above it. Keep up the great work and keep away from the Young's, FitzSimmonds, Cuccinelli's, Black's and Daughterty's of this world because they will not share the next world with you."

This is EXACTLY the kind of self-righteous nonsense used against good people on the right by the left. You claim you are religious and yet you put yourself in the judgement seat. Just what of anything do you know about any of these people makes them deserving of hell? I know one of them personally very well and I know he has compassion for all people and most certainly is very serious about his reverence for God. And btw would not force his religious views on anyone!

TC, once again, tell me who these people in Group B are that are crooks and liars, and power-mongers. I know they exist, but I only know those ones I know about and have mentioned here and other blogs. Please, tell me who I am missing this on so that I can remove my support from them. I certainly do not want to support liars and crooks who only care about power, and I mean that.

Finally, is it possible, just possible that part of the reason that conservatives are viewed as such horrible people is the dishonest, deliberate, misrepresentations of their views and records by the liberal press, Democrats, and their willing accomplices in the moderate wing of the GOP? I know you experienced this last fall in the Craddock campaign for an example. Of course in that kind of environment it is good reason for making sure we have candidates who can defend the issues well, but still these good people are also being slandered.

In the end, none of this is reason to give up on core values either, which is what of course the Left and those "moderates" who want to get rid of "conservatives" desire. Look at the records of some of these Republican "wingers" as they like to call them. Look at how they vote in the GA and govern. Are only social agendas being addressed? Budgets are in fact being passed, basic state responsiblities are being met are they not? Just because these people also bring forward important social legislation is not a reason to say that is ALL THEY DO as some would have us believe. What's more, it seems some common-sense legislation on non-social issues seems to get conveniently killed in committee by "moderate" charimen simply because the patron of the bill was not in that chairman's favor (even though we know committee chairmen despise "vendettas").

Finally TC, your last post sounds eerily like a statement made last fall by Gary Reese. I can't believe you really believe that.

All this blather going about Group A and Group B sickens me. I am not against "moderate" or even "liberal" Republicans as long as they make themselves clear on the issues and remain faithful to the party, but don't claim to be a conservative and then spit in my face when you get elected. Also don't be surprised when you get primaried if you don't represent the basic core principles of the party. Nothing personal. The same goes for conservatives (and I have personally experienced a very nasty primary against a conservative where there was no bile by the incumbant conservative afterward, in fact he supported the effort as a healthy part of party politics).

The real problem I have is the dishonesty and back-biting going on for gaining political power, and unfortunately while there are exceptions, from the Party perspective, most of that kind of behavior is coming from the "moderate" wing. Finally, again, please tell me specifically, by name, TC who you are talking about. Then perhaps we can have a good discussion about what the problem is. These broad-brush statements do nothing to help bring us together.

 
At 1/26/2006 06:25:00 AM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

TC is right. I'll give you two names to start with... Kilgore and Peace.

Both men may have had some good ideas. Did they get them across? No, they didn't.

Kaine basically just said the word "transportation" and the Kilgore campaign appeared to be based on trying to slur Kaine. I can think of 5 people who did not vote for Governor for the first time in their lives in this election. Who could tell what Kilgore's plan was for transportation, health care, etc.? He was, and still is, a stranger to many voters.

The Montgomery-Peace election in the 97th this week was the most difficult vote I've ever made. Montgomery is well known in the community as a hard worker who is truly committed to the citizens. He worked tirelessly to bring private funding to the schools, celebrated local military folks and he lives in a manner most of us should adopt. His opponent, Peace, did what? What are his plans, how has he helped his community? I would say that if Kaine had not stepped out with his tax increase, Peace would not have gotten as many votes as he did.

The party can NOT keep running like this. The workers, "salt of the earth", middle class of Virginia does not have the time or interest that many of you have to investigate the political candidates. We need a clear message from the candidates on who they are and how they plan to solve problems.

The Dems have the picture. They are bringing out candidates (well, other than Kaine) that are either well known in their communities as strong, hardworking individuals or they bring candidates that are strong in the business world (Warner). Either way, they appeal to the citizens more than the ranting lunatic ads we see on TV from the Republicans.

 
At 1/26/2006 07:04:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

lucy-

agreed.

There is nothing we can say to these people, they refuse to believe what is happening.

You and me bring up evidence from races, as do many other like minded Republicans.

But all they can comment back is.."YOU SuCK, and you are trying to help moderates, blah blah blah".

They bring back no evidence to back up their claims, as they never do.

It's okay..I have come to accept their existence, and will continue to work hard to make sure the Republican party is the the party of ideas and not one-issue voters who wouldn't have friends if they were in high school today.

 
At 1/26/2006 09:03:00 AM, Anonymous MOM said...

"It's okay..I have come to accept their existence, and will continue to work hard to make sure the Republican party is the the party of ideas and not one-issue voters who wouldn't have friends if they were in high school today. "

Well thank you for acknowledging our existence you arrogant, presumptious, myopic, brown-nosing little twit. In this thread you have demonstrated all of the characteristics and personality flaws required for you to successfully ladder climb from obscure campaign volunteer to chief of staff for some senator. I can just imaging a life-size poster of John Dean in your bedroom.

That you suggest we would have no friends if transported back to high school merely underscores your limited life experience. To suggest that any group is defined solely by the perception that it has a singular political agenda is myopic beyond reason.

You have attacked those with family and career obligations for not spending time in the trenches, toiling for the party on weekends, knocking on doors, etc. All hail the presumptuous wunderkind who can afford to spend his every free moment working for the party, jumping from campaign to campaign regarless of where on the perceived political spectrum the candidate falls. The absolute gall of your posts is stunning. Many of us have worked hard for the GOP for longer than you have been alive, you'll pardon our recent relative inactivity as it is difficult to fit campaign work into a schedule that includes work, commuting, social obligations, community service, driving the kids to soccer, football, cheerleading and horseback riding, helping them with homework, yardwork and the myriad of other distractions that blind us to the necessity of working 24-7 for the interests of the GOP. Never mind that we talk to and thus influence those we interact with daily. Wish I could work as hard as you, by the way when was the last time you went on a date that didn't involve a some local pol's social function? Similarly, is beyond the realm of possibility that you have been the receipient of a "swirlie" while at Chantilly.

You assert that there is an idealogical split in the party but that it is not about issues. Rather, you claim that it is about the levels of service and caring for an official's constituents. What an unadulterate pile of crap. By your own admission, members of "Group A" have reneged on their comittment to various core ideals. Is that your idea of service and caring? You preach the need for leadership and I don't disagree but leadership is not running on a platform and subsequently abandoning it when an office is attained.

You assert that you and the rest of the "self-proclaimed" conservatives are being chased into the arms of the DNC by the radical right. Truth of the matter is that many of you "self-proclaimed" conservatives don't know the meaning of the word and abandon the party and its core values when you get your nose bent out of shape. I would point out that those vile "Group B" conservatives you villify, as a rule do not abandon the party and support the the chosen candidate, albeit holding their noses at times, as the alternative, namely a DNC victory, is even more unpalatable. To paraphrase Churchill, the DNC has determined what you are now they merely need to establish the price.

What make this all the more laughable is that you accuse those who best represent the traditional core values of the party of trying to to hijack the party when in truth it is those who run on a platform and abandon the ideals that got them elected, who are guilty of trying to hijack the party.

You're tired of the criticism and negativity leveled at your unjustly maligned "Group A" that has never spoken negatively about their "Group B" brethren. Three things, 1. you vastly overestimate the size of "Group B", 2. leave out the possiblity of Groups C,D, E, etc. and 3. fail to realize that you have never heard "Group A" speak negatively about "Group B" because you are not in a position to hear it. Realize this campaign boy, no moderate GOP politician worth his salt is going to openly attack the conservative wing in the typical social or campaign functions you seem to attend. Moreover, it is unlikely that he would share those views or strategies with any but the closest and most senior members of his staff as it is a dangerous strategy. (pardon the lack of gender neutral prepositions)

Lastly before you start calling people out and quoting scripture about casting the first stone you would be well advised to heed some other trite advice, "Know thine enemy" and "If you can't run with the big dogs don't get off the porch".

 
At 1/26/2006 09:32:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

BlackOut 2005, that's quite an interesting post, particularly since Vince specifically said that "the post wasn't directed at you" --- 'course then he posts something like he did at 1:00 a.m. (isn't that past your bedtime, TC? I know it's past mine) which is little more than the kind of emotionalism that he purports to condemn. And I didn't think that it particularly was. Indeed, the main problem (to me) seems to be people (Vince, not among them anymore) cowering in anonymity and giving aid and comfort to the enemy by activities like yours. Your sniping at a hard-working and dedicated man like Dick Black --- whatever his flaws, he is a strong GOP supporter --- is precisely the kind of activity that's tearing the GOP apart. Your "no enemies to the Left" attitude is what is diminishing the value of the GOP name brand.

And as for your last post, TC. You allude ("one-issue voters who wouldn't have friends if they were in high school today") to the importance of a word that, I know, must seem extremely important to you right now, but you'll discover has very little value once you get into the real world: "popular."

Here's a word that means everything in the real world: "respect."

And MOM makes a good point, too: "You have attacked those with family and career obligations for not spending time in the trenches, toiling for the party on weekends, knocking on doors, etc." Well, I've done that, in the past, and don't do too much of it today. However, I spend my entire professional life working for the cause by protecting the rights of individuals who are forced to subsidize part of the Leftist coalition --- union- represented workers under forced- unionism contract --- from their paychecks. In so doing, I've developed skills (there's that "R" word again) that earned me a spot at Ground Zero --- the war room --- of the looming legal battle in 2004 over Ohio's election returns, had it materialized, sufficient to be called back on my way to the airport to return home at about 7:30 a.m. on the Wednesday after Election Day 2004. So please don't suggest that I or other movement Conservatives don't do enough for the GOP and its candidates. You know not from whence you speak.

 
At 1/26/2006 09:42:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

MOM's frequent references to "core values" is laughable. The problem that many so-called "moderates" have with current incarnation of the GOP is that it has hijacked the platform in an effort to add their own personal and religious beliefs to these "core values" at the expense of limited government and fiscal responsiblity. It's both hypocritical and pathetic. I'm sick and tired of seeing elected officials and their supporters alike abandoning the most important tenent of this party (lean, efficient and honest government that lets the people live their own lives and spend their own money) in an effort to further their own narrow and myopic (to steal your word, MOM) view of what a perfect society should be. If this party doesn't get back to basics fast and develop some sort of consistent and coherent message that the vast majority of Americans can understand and support, it's doomed to failure.

 
At 1/26/2006 10:09:00 AM, Anonymous MOM said...

It's not often that I agree with Mitch, but in this instance I think we share a common frustration, namely, "seeing elected officials and their supporters alike abandoning the most important tenent of this party (lean, efficient and honest government that lets the people live their own lives and spend their own money)". Where we might disagree, and this may only be a matter of differing priorities, is on who is abandoning those tenets and their motivations.

Mitch may be quick to villify those such a Black who he might identify as a hijacker bent on adding his own personal and religious beliefs to these "core values". While I would suggest that some issues, lets take stem cell research for examples, given the role of the Federal Government have little relevancy at the state level and that posturing and debate about its relative merits or dangers is a waste of time, effort and money. If you want to debate the issue, run for Congress. Getting back to point, most would perceive me as just to the right of Mussolini, and philosophically opposed to abortion and gay marriage. That having been said I don't want my delegate, Marshall, to obsess on the morals and behaviors of Virginians, no, I would prefer he spent his time on issues like transportation that have an immediate impact on his constituency. As long as he doesn't advocate those issues, I can live with him and his many silly bills provided he abides by the fiscal tenets of the party.

Similarly, I (and presume JY without arguement) would villify Chairman Sean. In this instance however it has nothing to do with abandoning the most important tenent of this party to pursue their own myopic interests, no it is much simpler than that, we would villify them for purporting fealty while in truth abandoning those tenets.

Neither or these two "extremes" gets it, its all about the Benjamins in our pockets not theirs. (yeah there are things like freedoms, limited govt. but by and large its about the Benjamins)

 
At 1/26/2006 10:37:00 AM, Blogger nova_middle_man said...

so rally cry groups A and B

fiscal conservatisim is the key

where social (B) and business (A) issues have their place

fiscal conservatisim will win the race

 
At 1/26/2006 11:08:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Mom and JY, good posts.

Mitch, just who is the group raising taxes and growing government in VA? You won't find the "far-right" of the GOP doing that by and large. It is in fact the "moderates" in coalition with Dems that are doing this. Meanwhile they kill all the common sense proposals by the "far right" that might solve some of these problems more efficiently as you say.

Lucy, I fail to see how any of your post applies to this discussion. All I see is you thought those were bad candidates who either didn't have a message or weren't able to get it across. In the Kilgore case I tend to agree. However, there is nothing you said that is in common with the assertions of TC and others here who claim the "far far far right" only cares about political power and is full of liars intent on kicking moderates out of the party.

TC, you go on:

"But all they can comment back is.."YOU SuCK, and you are trying to help moderates, blah blah blah".

They bring back no evidence to back up their claims, as they never do."

Just what have you been reading here? You are the one making the accusations with no foundation. I have given you specific examples of "moderates" in the party who are solely bent on power, so has JY (although I cannot vouch for his) with at least anecdotal evidence. Where is your evidence? Where are your names? You mentioned McKinney, but even that you admit is speculation and has no evidence to back it up. For that matter I have no idea who this McKinney is or what position of power (elected or not) that he holds in the party. You continue to cast aspersions and yet give no evidence.

I for one have never said a negative word to you personally. so the "you suck" accusation is obviously wrong, and it offends me.

"It's okay..I have come to accept their existence, and will continue to work hard to make sure the Republican party is the the party of ideas and not one-issue voters who wouldn't have friends if they were in high school today."

Whether or not I would have friends in school today is irrelevant and probably says more about the lack of diversity and acceptance in the public schools than it does about me. I will say this, my daughter is in the public schools, has plenty of friends, and frequently debates many of the same issues we talk about here. She also would be considered similar to myself in political views.

Ideas: Agreed, that is what this is all about, ideas. I and conservatives like me, some elected officials (you and your friends would probably consider them in the "far far far right") lend many ideas to the public discourse on more than one issue. We support the basic core principles of the GOP that have been foundational to the party since at least Reagan. How can you say we are trying to hijack anything? You are unfortunately buying into the Left's kool-aid.

TC, I am quite baffled by your position here. I realize you are going through a difficult time now and possibly this has affected why you chose this moment to come out so personal and negative on this. I cannot tell. I also say this with the deepest of compassion in my thoughts for you and your family. I am not trying to use that fact against you in any way. I just have noticed a complete turnaround in your demeanor in the posts of the last day and it puzzles me. Part of being in the "big tent" so to speak is to disagree, but to disagree agreeably. I think you have lost track of that recently.

I would be interested again in hearing more specifics of who it is you think are these crooks, liars, and power grabbers. Please let us know. You have yet to put any names on them of note as far as I can tell. Also tell us why, specifically.

Additionally, and finally, I find your position in this ironic because you seem to have most of your angst here against social conservatives. From what I can tell by what I've read in your posts and the topics you tend to post on, you appear to be in agreement with the most socially conservative views and in fact spend more time posting about them that the other "conservative" issues. Yet you seem to be lambasting those same people you share beliefs with. Why is this so? Perhaps a discussion on issues and what you believe to be core issues for the GOP would be of service to this discussion. I don't mean just using trite terms like "pro-family" either. Lets have a discussion on core principles and the details of them. Then maybe we can get to the bottom of this. Otherwise, your direction the last couple of days here seems to me to be a total reversal of your previous tone and approach.

regards,

Far-far-far Rtwng Extrmst ;-)

 
At 1/26/2006 11:15:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

Too Conservative,

Do you notice how your statements seem to resonate with the Willis and Blackout bloggers. (Just scroll up to read their posts.) Willis is an unashamed liberal, and Blackout has actively worked against Republicans in favor of Democrats.

I just wanted to point out who your 'popular' crowd is becoming.

 
At 1/26/2006 11:32:00 AM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

I just finished the word count and have to announce (regrettfully)that James Young, MOM and RWE are simply killing the other side of this argument by a factor of about 100 to 1. If this form of communication required ink, we'd be out now.

 
At 1/26/2006 11:32:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, involved makes a good point. I don't WANT to be popular with the nihilistic Left. I WANT them to hate me, just as they hate everyone who stands in the way of destruction of the language, family, societal norms, and everything else standing as a bulwark to an all-powerful government.

Rush Limbaugh --- yeah, Mitch, I know you don't like him --- gave a speech when accepting the "Majority-Maker" award from GOP congressional freshmen shortly after the '94 elections. In it, he warned of the danger that caring about approval of the Liberal Establishment would pose to the GOP values that led to a Republican majority. You would do well to consider his words.

 
At 1/26/2006 12:24:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Jimmy boy,

"You want THEM to hate you" ?!?

That's a great way to get things done. Good luck pal.

Without using a lot of ink, the point is, there are others that don't have the strong view you have. It is not the place of an effective conservative to exclude people.

Face reality, you can't force people to be "your kind of christian" or "your kind of republican". Else, you end up on an island with no effective way of working with others.

Extreme views, lead to ineffective tactics, which leads to isolation.

Stop looking at anyone who doesn't think like you as the enemy. They are neighbors. Albeit neighbors with a different view, but still neighbors.

My view of a good conservative is one who fights to eliminate the intrusion from governments involvement in personal lives. You promote the exact opposite.

You can be in denial all you want but your views are getting overwhelmed. Face it, and adapt.

 
At 1/26/2006 12:25:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

NOVA Scout,

I'll take that as a compliment as we have been trying to engage TC and others in a substantive discussion. Substantive discussions take words. Unfortunately the other side has mainly been stooping to invective.

 
At 1/26/2006 01:18:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Thanks for the insult, blackout2005. If there was a way I could respond in kind without sounding racist, I suppose I would.

"That's a great way to get things done." Really, like what? Could you please tell us what we should want to "get done" with the nihilistic Left, which was the "them" to which I was referring? Watering down protections for the family and children? Legitimizing some perversion, and not other forms (oh, wait, that's all they SAY they want now)? Socialized medicine? Complete confiscation of all private property?

Churchill noted that "'Jaw, jaw,' is better than 'War, war.'" But there are some people with whom you shouldn't sit down --- Hitler; Mussolini --- and I number those who don't even speak the same language (i.e., marriage can be something other than an institution between a man and a woman) among them.

And stop attributing to me things I didn't say. I never said anything about "[my] kind of christian" or "[my] kind of republican." No one ever talked about "excluding" anyone, 'cept you and TC. You sound so much like the far Left, who suggests that those who don't support reparations really want have slaves, that it's difficult to imagine that you're not one of them. Once again, at best a pseudo- Republican --- one who lacks the guts even to identify himself or herself, causing me to doubt whether he or she is a Republican, or simply one of those sad pretenders who says "I'm a Republican, but I support [whatever lefty candidate or idea happens to be coming down the pike]," having never darkened the door of a Republican event or candidate --- simply makes it up as he or she goes along. I haven't followed your efforts, but until you identify yourself (maybe you have), I have a sneaking suspicion that your just a partisan Dem attempting to sow dissension within the GOP. Good work. You've succeeded.

You implore me to "Stop looking at anyone who doesn't think like you as the enemy." Of course, that presumes a fact not in evidence. I defy you to identify even a single occasion where I have directed to others the bile that has been directed at me. Among other things, my mental health has been questioned (nova scout). Then there's willis, who attacked my family. Oh, and let's not forget the number of supporters of the radical homosexual agenda who have attacked my sexuality. And here you are, with the belittling "Jimmy boy." Jimmy is my son. He doesn't post on the Internet. My only "enemies," as I define them, are bad, unsound ideas.

But here's a like suggestion for you and your crowd: Stop treating anyone who (you claim) thinks like you as the enemy.

Your view of a good conservative? If you opposed Dick Black, then it must be that you don't view as "the intrusion from governments involvement in personal lives" as confiscatory taxation, since he strongly opposed last year's tax hike. However, you apparently want higher taxes, abortion on demand, and a government powerful enough to change the language and defining marriage as something it's never been.

Tell me again how that's "conservative" by ANY definition?

And my "views are getting overwhelmed"? By who? Those here: you; a few other self-defined lefties, and an 18-year-old kid? I note how many of even the contributors here are staying out of this one. But you promote the illusion all that your little, insecure heart demands. I am not so presumptuous to make that assessment. And if you're citing your efforts against a good Republican as evidence, then I would respond by noting that it's my understanding that all that Poisson had to do to win was to go around blaming Dick Black for traffic, and that he wasn't telling people that he planned to go to Richmond to vote for higher taxes and homosexual "marriage."

 
At 1/26/2006 01:28:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Pardon me, Rtwng Extrmst, for wasting your time.

It was my impression TC was commenting on how the VOTERS were being pushed away by the in-fighting of the party.

JY,
What is your obsession with pseudos? We can't use our real names as our personal opinions may be taken as those of our employers. Using a pseudo doesn't make our opinion any less worthy than yours.

 
At 1/26/2006 02:24:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Involved,

You're incorrect.

BlackOut has worked to eliminate the likes of the Black Brigade. We have promoted HEAVILY for better Republican candidates to take OUT the BBers.

BlackOut is a bipartisan organization formed for just that goal; the elimination of BBers. Democrats being attracted to that mission should not be surprising to anyway. What is surprising to BBers, or ignored, is the fact a LOT of Republicans embrace the mission.

It has been BlackOut's goal to get someone to eliminate BBers. If Republicans can't do it, then so be it, let a Democrat do it. I am sure you won't agree but in the long run that promotes a stronger, back to basics Republican party.

JY,

You ask what types of things could we get done: well how about some roads, more efficient schools and better use of our safety resources. Sounds like a strong start to me.

And since you asked, I've been a republican all my life. My active involvement in the party started while working on both Ronald Reagan's campaigns. Including a roll as a manager at his Inaugural. Not that that matters, but I am not what BBers, like you, think. My involvement in BlackOut was as a REPUBLICAN.

That is what BBers don't understand, or except. Dick Black went down because he didn't get it either. He still doesn't and neither does Staton.

By the way, if you think you've been "pure" in your posts without throwing insults, you are wrong about that as well. I do applogize for the Jimmy thing, that may have been over the top.

 
At 1/26/2006 02:26:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

So you say, Lucy. 'Cept it's easy to disclaim that. My impression is and always has been that it's to hide baser concerns. CYA.

 
At 1/26/2006 02:32:00 PM, Blogger nova_middle_man said...

Blackout you are entitled to your causes and opinions. Democracy rocks after all

However, I find it hard to believe that a Republican would support Herring over Staton

Is your basic premise that government should exapnd and spend more money on education and transportation??

 
At 1/26/2006 02:33:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

JY,

I just re-read your post. Did I hear you correctly (?), or would you like an opportunity to clarify (?)...

Are you saying that Hilter and Mussolini are the equivalent of homosexuals?

"...But there are some people with whom you shouldn't sit down --- Hitler; Mussolini --- and I number those who don't even speak the same language (i.e., marriage can be something other than an institution between a man and a woman) among them."

And what the heck was your preamble about, "If there was a way I could respond in kind without sounding racist, I suppose I would."

"Racist", what in the world are you referring to.

 
At 1/26/2006 02:37:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Nova,

I first STRONGLY and actively supported Minchew. Check out our website for proof. Unfortunately, that didn't work out.

Staton I can't support and in my opinion the best and most cathartic candidate for the Republican party is a Democrat, not Staton.

Certainly, some will disagree with that. But I submit, I don't think I am alone. Hence, the substance of this entire dialog.

 
At 1/26/2006 02:37:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

Blackout, you contradict yourself. You claim that Involved's assertion, "Blackout has actively worked against Republicans in favor of Democrats" is incorrect yet later in the post intimate that you support liberals as valid options to your party's candidate, in fact you have posted their materials on your website.

I believe one of the points that we miscreants in "Group B" have been trying to get through your skull is that primary process is designed to deal with intraparty squabbles and differences but that at the end of day when the primary is over, the party has a candidate, a candidate that those of us in "Group B" will support regardless whether it was the one we wanted. Support that may come with less vigor or cash and may entail holding our noses while voting, but support nonetheless. Far more than you and many of your ilk have demonstrated.

 
At 1/26/2006 02:42:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

You implore me to "Stop looking at anyone who doesn't think like you as the enemy." Of course, that presumes a fact not in evidence.

Well, what does it mean to say that you hope "they" hate you?

What we're saying is that the core Republican values of small government and fiscal responsibility are not served by this obsession with homosexuality, etc. In case you haven't noticed, our culture has changed. The priorities of the Dick Black camp are, in reality, anti-religious freedom and anti-business.

You can insist that the party's core values demand that we change the culture back, but those are really *your* core values, not the party's.

 
At 1/26/2006 02:54:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Blackout,

You went after Black, and as NLS showed in his analysis, you had absolutely NO IMPACT on the election. (Contrary to your statements that are devoid of any proof, in actual votes.)

Next, your organization of liberals went after Staton.

There is nothing "Republican" about your motives nor your intentions. The only saving grace is that your actions have proven you to be useless and tired as your rhetoric.

However, I'd like to again identify that you and your paltry group of liberals have no problem in attacking a sitting Republican, during a general election. The republican party needs you, like we need a hole in the head.

Again, TC, these are your supporters, who agree with your self-describe "ramblings". Remind me again which group is destroying the party?

Getagrip,

You can't be this stupid. When you see a majority of the bipartisan house and senate vote to protect traditional marriage through a constitutional amendment, and even tax-and-spend Kaine agrees not to veto it, do you really think that you stand in the "majority" on this issue?

Maybe when all of Virginia's residents go to the polls in November and vote to protect families, then you'll figure it out... but I wouldn't bet on it.

 
At 1/26/2006 03:06:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Catharsis = change, and it's quite clear that blackout2005 wants the GOP to change. Into what? Apparently, Democrats. But I appreciate your frank admission that you violated your oath as a participant in Republican activities by stating that you do not support Staton. 'Tis a pity that you lack the courage of your convictions and refuse to reveal your identity so that the Party can police its own.

We've already go Dems, blackout. It's dishonest and wrong to call yourself a "Republican" simply because you and your friends can't get elected as Democrats.

And no, I didn't say "that Hilter and Mussolini are the equivalent of homosexuals." At the risk of repeating myself, I said:

Churchill noted that "'Jaw, jaw,' is better than 'War, war.'" But there are some people with whom you shouldn't sit down --- Hitler; Mussolini --- and I number those who don't even speak the same language (i.e., marriage can be something other than an institution between a man and a woman) among them.

But you go ahead and smear me anonymously, if you want. It really is what you seem to do best.

And as for you, getagrip, the only people who appear to be "obsess[ed] with homosexuality, etc.," are those who favor the radical homosexual agenda. It's not an "obsession" to resist when under attack. Indeed, only those who are sympathetic to or supportive of the attack could possible characterize resistance as "obsession." I understand your desire to belittle that opposition, by I --- for one --- am not going to let you get away with it by ignoring your condescending rhetoric.

And it's not about "chang[ing] the culture back," except to those who support the agenda, which you apparently do, but have not/will not admit. It's about maintaining the culture, and the values of 5000 years of civilized society.

 
At 1/26/2006 03:10:00 PM, Blogger nova_middle_man said...

Blackout:

I supported Minchew as well but I am a Republican. How does supporting and voting for a Democrat help the Republican party. The time for party debate is during a primary and during the general we should line up behind the Republican candidate.

Minchew understands this and fully supports Staton. If you are a true Minchew supporter join Minchew myself and all other Republicans to fight for Staton.

 
At 1/26/2006 03:15:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

That's exactly the spirit, nova middle man. I'm telling you: these people are NOT Republicans. They're opportunists who call themselves Republicans only as a path to personal political power. "Membership" --- such as it is --- in the GOP is a compact, and agreement to subscribe not to a uniform set of immutable principles, but to accept the outcome of internal processes and band together after the nominating process to support a[n always imperfect] nominee who is more acceptable than the other party's guy. blackout2005 spits on that compact, and those who make it. He --- and those who share his attitude --- should be unwelcome in the GOP.

And before anyone else says it, yes! Those type I AM trying to exclude.

 
At 1/26/2006 03:21:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

"'Tis a pity that you lack the courage of your convictions and refuse to reveal your identity so that the Party can police its own."

What the Hell is that supposed to mean? That anyone who claims to be a Republican but has voted for or may consider voting for a Democrat is cast out? That such villians should not support or vote for Republicans? That I should expect a letter from the state or national committee saying "Thanks, but no thanks?"

Please tell me you're not actually suggesting this. That is, of course, unless you really don't care at all about Republicans winning elections.

 
At 1/26/2006 03:27:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

JY,

The current trend makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in the Republican party, your wish has already been granted. Again, that's what the debate is about.

(He bangs on his head again)

By the way, the word was cathartic = adj 1: emotionally purging [syn: psychotherapeutic] 2: emotionally purging (of e.g. art) [syn: releasing] 3: strongly laxative [syn: evacuant, purgative] n : a purging medicine; stimulates evacuation of the bowels [syn: purgative, physic, aperient]

I am beginning to wonder if you are even reading for content, or just reading for attack vectors.

 
At 1/26/2006 03:41:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

"Well, TC, that's certainly one person's view --- and his amen chorus'--- but it reflects an arrogance that I more frequently associate with the far Left."

I had (some time ago actually) said that I would no longer respond directly to Mr. Young's posts, but I believe that I must at this time, given that I believe his "schoolyard bully" diatribes have, in no small part, played a substantial role in causing Vincent to express something that has been bothering him in a far more emotional and explosive manner than he ordinarily would have. I agree with Rtwng that he (Vincent) is not expressing himself during this very emotional time in his life in quite the same way that he might otherwise. Everyone who is a regular reader of this blog knows very well that what I have quoted above from this string of comments is virtually a compliment compared to Young's usual attacks on Vincent and others on this blog. I particularly love the way he bandies about the term "slander" with regard to anything that anyone says about him while, often in the same post, he will indulge in such personal diatribes as, "You sound so much like the far Left, who suggests that those who don't support reparations really want have slaves, that it's difficult to imagine that you're not one of them. Once again, at best a pseudo- Republican --- one who lacks the guts even to identify himself or herself, causing me to doubt whether he or she is a Republican, or simply one of those sad pretenders who says "I'm a Republican, but I support [whatever lefty candidate or idea happens to be coming down the pike]," having never darkened the door of a Republican event or candidate...", actually one of his milder ones.

I've met Vincent, spoken with him at length and carried on an email correspondence, and I find him to be a most impressive work in progress. He is, in many ways, mature beyond his years but he still has that idealism of youth that believes people could actually be capable of a certain level of perfection, which leads to a huge letdown when he discovers that it just isn't so. Perhaps the biggest mistake he made was coming out from behind his pseudonym after pressure exerted by Young and thereby admitting his youth. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has noticed how that put a bulls eye on his back for the likes of Young and MOM (whose pseudonym I, as a mother, find insulting), leading many of TC's posts to take on a bit of a more emotional tone. He went from an up and coming, respected blog master to a 17 year old high school kid who, if you didn't agree with him, could just be put off as an immature youth (right MOM and Young). It's tough to lose your idealism in this way.

Part of that idealism is also the idea that the Republican Party, which he has so long respected, is the party of honor, integrity, and reason...which would never eat its young. Now, that is not a literal term. It's been around for a lonnnggg time and refers to how we have a tendency to fight amongst ourselves with far more vigor than we fight the Democrats, especially when we're on top. Terms like, "the end justifies the means" are just not in the vernacular for a young man with high ideals. I believe Vincent's "group A" (or is it B?...sorry, but I'm with Rtwng; this A/B thing is a little confusing) is actually those who believe that the end justifies the means and that honor and integrity have no place in those means. That has nothing to do with whether one is a conservative, moderate, or liberal...it has more to do with being a "mensch."

 
At 1/26/2006 03:43:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

Is it the current trend that makes them uncomfortable or a lack of principles that allows them to jump from party to party as the political winds shift during a mid-term election.

Who needs an attack vector when you, a self-proclaimed Republican, post his opponent's literature on your website, intimating support for the opponent while directing cynical and sarcastic commentary at your party's candidate. Again, I was no great fan of Black, primarily because of his apparent lack of tact and grace but had I been in his district I still would have supported him as the alternative could not be viewed as either in line with the tenets of the Republican Party or perhaps a lesser evil.

 
At 1/26/2006 03:50:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Mitch,

You are right on! Specifically, the republican pledge stuff is a total ruse.

I was encouraged by MULTIPLE good standing party members, to just sign it, grin and go about my merry way.

In fact, more insightful is Delgaudio's claim that, "Drivers of cars with "Kaine for Governor" and "John Kerry for President" stickers will brazenly sign pledges to the Republican party. It won't be the first time. (They will be barred by law come June 30 from doing this)"

What the heck does that mean, by law the Republicans are going to shut out "non-koolaid drinking Republicans"?

Oh, and for the claim the canvas/primary is to clear up differences, this drivel from Delgottago came out before the canvas. Great that's a wonderful way to open up the tent. To me it's a bunker mentality.

What if Black ran and won this canvas. Would you blindly pull the level for that character? Your answer tells it all.

 
At 1/26/2006 04:01:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Mr Blackout:

"You ask what types of things could we get done: well how about some roads, more efficient schools and better use of our safety resources. Sounds like a strong start to me."

Just how do you expect to get more efficiency in schools from Mr. Poisson? He will likely just raise your taxes and say to you, "our schools still need more money". I suggest you look at a recent thread over at Bacon's Rebellion on the subject. He provides an interesting view of the SOQ's and how they are used to guarantee more money (no efficiency).

It seems to me you probably had alot more of a problem with Mr. Black and his strident nature than anything else. For if you really believe your above statement, the chances of achieving those goals reasonably and without waste were much better under Mr. Black than under Mr. Poisson.

We will see how Mr. Poisson votes over the next couple of years, and if he really supports efficient education, I will eat my words. Will he propose legislation for school vouchers? This would infinitely improve efficiency. I doubt it though. He will probably just try to increase the money flow from the taxpayers to the VEA.

 
At 1/26/2006 04:05:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

AWC,

While I agree that the tone of many posts from many bloggers here gets a bit over the top, I will come to JY's and Mom's defense in this. They always bring forward ideas to support their issues and tend not to just use outright invective. TC has unfortunately totally trashed (perhaps by a confusing presentation) a whole segment of the GOP without any facts to back it up.

 
At 1/26/2006 04:08:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Mitch,

Policing aside, I think the bigger question is why would someone sighn the pledge knowing full well that they had no intention of supporting one of the candidates if they were to win. That is unethical. This will continue to be a problem until Virginia gets smart and requires voter registration by Party.

 
At 1/26/2006 04:15:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Mitch, I'll just assume that you're not a member of an official Republican Committee, or a participant in Republican nominating processes. The Party Plan of the Republican Party of Virginia provides --- because our estimable representative refuse to allow registration by party affiliation --- that participants must be willing to "express in open meeting, if requested, their intent to support all of its nominees for public office in the ensuing election." It's not my rule; it's the RPV's. I'm not suggesting it; I'm stating it as fact.

As for you Anke, your sanctimony is as appreciated as it is graceful. I'm a "schoolyard bully" because I honestly engage the argument that Vince invited. I wonder what your sleazy tactics against Steve Chapman on behalf of Harry Parrish make you? Indeed, one familiar with those tactics would find much more in Vince's post applicable to you and Kenny Klinge than to anything I've ever done in 15 years of activism.

And as for your comments about Vince, he apparently wants to jump out and hang with the big dogs. Admirable. You, however, want to patronize him by using his youth as a shield when the room gets a little hot. Well I, for one, think he can take it. I may twist his tail a little about his youth (and only the humorless could be offended; certainly Vince doesn't seem to be), but I'll give him all the respect that earns by his deeds.

You criticize me for noting the arrogance of TC's comments in my first post, but you fail to note what I called arrogant: the attitude that Vince's part of the GOP is the part that "cares about it's constituents," the part that "does what is right, simply because it is right," those who "run for office because they've lived a life of public service, and they care about the community they live in," while the other guys don't care about their constituents, do what is wrong simply because it is "wrong," and run for office simply to satisfy their personal ambition and lust for power.

It's funny, Anke. You seem more offended (certainly you spend more time attacking me) by me than you do someone like Blackout2005, who is, at best, an individual who has betrayed his pledge and attacked Republican nominees. And BTW, you might have noticed above that Vince said (11:42) "the post wasn't directed at you." 'Course, it's little surprise to anyone who read it that someone like you would read it as such.

Your post reminds me of the old saw. You must know it, Anke, because you embody it: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

And finally, as to Blackout2005: I have no doubt that you bang on your head. 'Splains a lot.

 
At 1/26/2006 04:31:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Rtwng Extrmst:

Fair enough. That's why I don't believe in pledges of that nature. I patently refuse to sign anything that requires me to leave my intelligence and/or freedom of thought at the door.

I feel the same way about the various anti-tax pledges out there. Does that mean I support higher taxes? Hell no! I support limited government and efficient spending. But I'm not going to sign some piece of paper that asks me to predict the future and how I'd deal with it.

Jim:

To answer your question, no, I am not a member of any Republican committee or participate in any nominating processes. I was at one time, but I acknowledge that it would be unethical to be a member of such a committee and at the same time be open-minded about supporting a candidate from another party. Therefore, unless either the party changes its rules or I have a stroke or something, I won't sign any such pledge.

I consider myself to be a Republican. When asked by others about my party affiliation, that's what I say (though I find myself cringing far too frequently). If the party or its members prefer that I not, fair enough. Just say the word. I can just as easily support the candidates I choose (who will likely be Republicans) without ties to a party I'm becoming less and less proud of being associated with.

 
At 1/26/2006 04:35:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

"I also say this with the deepest of compassion in my thoughts for you and your family. I am not trying to use that fact against you in any way. I just have noticed a complete turnaround in your demeanor in the posts of the last day and it puzzles me."

Rtwng, this in large part prompted my response. I've always felt that you were fairly reasonable and even-handed in your posts (as I stated in a previous string), but this quote, "They always bring forward ideas to support their issues and tend not to just use outright invective," is untrue. You have only to go into the archives to see what I'm talking about. Take note that the individual "MOM" was, until shortly after TC came out, "OMOM." I suspect he changed it to attempt to distance himself from the rantings of that time. MOM, btw, is an acronym for Marty's Oversized Melon, meant to disparage Marty Nohe, the PWC Coles District member of the BOS. That, also, should tell you something.

 
At 1/26/2006 04:41:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, Mitch, I'm glad to hear you're intellectually honest. That's certainly more honorable than some. Leadership imposes greater duties, and until we register by party, for what it's worth, I support the pledge.

As for "pride" in anything, I have trouble associating that word with someone whose name I do not know. Anonymity/pseudonymity denotes a different status.

 
At 1/26/2006 04:51:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

"I suspect he changed it to attempt to distance himself from the rantings of that time."

I see your research skills are as lacking as your reading comprehension skills. The reasons for the change were quite clearly stated and in no way designed to distance myself from anything, yourself excluded.

BTW, I may be a bit hazy on this as I don't recall the initial impetus for the moniker but I do recollect some acceptance, at least initially, of that moniker and similar ones by Mr. Nohe who seems to have a sense of humor quite unlike you. In time the impetus faded and the moniker no longer applied and was changed in part in deference to Mr. Nohe. I would also note that I can find no comments denoting your offended sensibilities with regard to other monikers including one of my personal favorites (with all due apologies to JY because it just made me laugh the first time I saw it) JY's Saggy Ballsack. Guess your rules only apply to card carrying members of "Group A". Save your sanctimony for someone who might actually care and stop trying to obscure the current topic which seems to be getting away from your point of view.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:15:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

I remember those heady days (no pun intended) when those monikers were flying back and forth. Names like "Marty's Ear Wax" and "Marty's Back Hair." As I recall, Marty wasn't particularly offended and even posted psuedonymously himself using one of them. And the ballsack one? Priceless! Not because it was directed at Jim Young, but because it was not only funny and left me with an unfortunate mental image I won't soon forget.

I still find it amazing that some find my pseudonym offensive and/or believe that I intended such in using it. Did so many bloggers really not see Caddyshack?

 
At 1/26/2006 05:19:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Woah-

I am here in Little Rock, at the hotel...and it took me 15 minutes to catch up.

My feelings on this have nothing to do with my loss. I am upset yes, but they are different.

I believe Ms.Cheney said it right..it does frustrate me sometimes seeing people and politicians do things that I would never have orginially guessed. Seeing our own party lie sometimes, is something we never learn in government class.

Rtwng-I never said ANYWHERE who is in group B. It is not half of the party, and again you are misunderstanding me. This is not moderate vs conservative...

I have given you statistics about thousands of average voters have been voting for democrats because of problems caused within. I have uploaded flyer, and continued to give you facts about who is actually running against who here.

It's not group A hurting Group B.

Mitch-I agree with you COMPLETLEY.

As I stated above, I love our party...and work hard for it. I want to see us win....and I have ZERO doubt that our biggest problem right now is from within our own party. These one-issue all or nothing people are the ones who are ruining us.

They are also the ones who are losing elections up here in NOVA. Look who won, and look who lost.Normal, average people are sick of them.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:22:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

TC: 15 minutes of reading, zero comprehension, doesn't bode well for freshman lit classes.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:27:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

MOM-

It is you who did not comprehend my post.

You continue to think I am talking about moderates and conservatives, which I have continually stated is not true.

I didnt get a response from you on the moderates running independent thing..anything to say MOM?

 
At 1/26/2006 05:33:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-

And my "views are getting overwhelmed"? By who? Those here: you; a few other self-defined lefties, and an 18-year-old kid? I note how many of even the contributors here are staying out of this one. But you promote the illusion all that your little, insecure heart demands. I am not so presumptuous to make that assessment

I have never gotten as many supportive e-mails as I have in the past day about my post. I have never had as many unique hits, and I have never had as many people coming in from e-mails.

While it's the same 4 of you all trying to defend your side...there is an entire world of Republicans who understand what is right.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:43:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

"'Tis a pity that you lack the courage of your convictions and refuse to reveal your identity so that the Party can police its own."

I agree with Mitch on this one..come on guys, your rhetoric just is not in the mainstream..even within the Republican party.

I will state here that I would vote for Chap Petersen over Dick Black. I would vote for Chap Petersen over Bill Bolling.

I care about bettering the area around me, and producing results, and sometimes the best candidate is on the otherside.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:45:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Sure, TC, and one has to wonder where all those e-mails and anonymous hits are coming from. Unless you publish, we have only your word. And frankly, on something like your little rant, your word just don't make it.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:48:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Then, TC, by virtue of the rules of the RPV, you cannot participate in official Party meetings or nominating processes. As noted above, that's not my rule; it's RPV's.

And if you equate "bettering the area around me, and producing results," with the "candidate is on the otherside," then you're not a partisan, or probably much of a Conservative (though I might agree with you theoretically, were the match Chairman Sean and Chap Peterson). I've made my opinion on Chairman Sean clear.... but I still pulled the lever for him in 2003.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:49:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-

You rant more than me..about dumb stuff like Connaughton and straw polls.

Surely you dont expect me to publish mail.

As far as hits, you can see our counter.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:51:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Rant? Let's see, a specific instance of Chairman Sean's lie (in response to your claim that he's sooo honest) backed up by facts is a "rant," but a grotesque, self-serving, "I've got a secret" comment is not.

Surely, I do. When you reference it to sustain your claim of wisdom.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:54:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

TC,

I re-read your "Ramblings" post once again, and I don't see who you could be talking about if this is not a conservative vs. moderate split in your A vs. B writings.

From reading the posts above it seems that I am not alone in misunderstanding your actual intention.

You start by clarifying that those who are conservative have been labeled as being "far-far-far right wingers" - BY YOU. Then you divide the republican party into two groups. One you clearly favor, and one you clearly don't.

I know you've attempted to clarify this, but could you be a tad clearer? Who is an A? Is it all republicans who vote for the republican in office? Does group B consist of only those who run against other republicans in a general election?

Your recent posting leaves me even more puzzled. You constantly claim to be "conservative" then you start calling conservative "far-far-far- right wingers", AND THEN I think you just said that you'd vote for a Democrat instead of a conservative republican.

If you're not talking about conservative vs. moderate, then the postings above seem to show that we are all pretty much lost on what you are actually trying to discuss. Please help us out.

 
At 1/26/2006 05:56:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Theres no point in arguing this..

You know my opinion.

Just know Jim..I am not alone!

I am going out to a steak restauraunt on the Arkansas River.

back later

 
At 1/26/2006 06:01:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

rtwng,

This isn't about Poisson. I would submit Republicans now have a chance to put a reasonable and effective candidate up for the 32nd.

We had a chance this past time around, but were too afraid of the incumbency, and the BBers to even attempt.

So, is Poisson the answer, no, but he was the answer to get things back on track. It's just going to be the long way.

Chances are good your questions will lead to good fodder for the coming election. Let's just hope it is a better republican candidate able to provide a viable and more acceptable choice.

 
At 1/26/2006 06:02:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Involved-

It is not about Moderate and Conservative...as I have said time and time again, it is about results.

It is about honesty, integrity, and running for office for the right reasons.

It is about public-service, true conservatism, and less government.

I even gave you names...Russ Potts=group B, while Chap Petersen Tom Rust Chris Saxman=group A.

It's my own categorization, it's okay if you don't understand it.

I created this post because I was unhappy calling them the far-far-far- right anymore. Because they arent. These people aren't even conservative. They are simply powerhungry liars.

I was given a rationale last night for the person placing the anonymous flyer against Eric.

This person told me that the flyer was okay to be there anonymously because he could get in trouble if he put his name on it.

..that was my exact point.

We are all smart people, and we are not in kindergarten here. If we have a problem, instead of stabbing someone in the back and telling lies in backcorners...how about we confront the problem and work it out instead of smearing someone elses name and record?

It is not Group A who does this, but group B.

Now I am really leaving.

 
At 1/26/2006 06:07:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

If you are saying Group A is just honest GOPers and Group B are power hungry, lying, crooks, I can agree there are two groups. However, the makeup of those groups would be people from across the political spectrum (liberals, conservatives, moderates, one-issue voters, multi-issue voters).

I would also state that group B is a VERY small contingent of people and even a VERY small contingent in elected office (from both parties mind you). So much so as its not worth mentioning.

However, that logic is not what I read in alot of your postings where you constantly referred to the "far-far-far- right". I suggest you go back and clarify your posts.

I still have a bit of a problem as you say the following in your last posting.

"These one-issue all or nothing people are the ones who are ruining us."

Which issue are you talking about? Would it possibly be those who respond to any attempts to add fiscal sanity to our public shool system as attempts to "destroy public education"? Could it possibly be those who call "bigot" anytime someone doubts whether homosexual marriage is a proper thing in society? Is it pro-lifers? Is it Pro-choicers? Is it Pro-homosexual rights people? Who???????

If this is not about political ideology (conservative vs. liberal vs. moderate), then what is this "one-issue" you seem to be blaming all these losses on?

I still have a further problem with your logic though. At one point you are only saying you are against the "power hungry liars" and in another you say the problem is "one-issue voters". Are all "one-issue voters" also "power hungry liars"?

The real truth is there are no "one-issue voters". Everyone has a myriad of issues that are important to them. It's just a matter of degree.

Earlier someone posted that all that is needed is to "focus on fiscal conservatism in order to win". Sorry, but that won't hack it. Here's my logic. Almost all social conservatives I know are also fiscal conservatives. People that stress their fiscal conservativeness usually do so because they are socially liberal (not socially indifferent). There's the rub. You won't get an argument from about 99% of social conservatives about fiscal conservatism, but try to run a fiscal conservative who is also a social conservative and watch the fiscal conservatives start calling them "extremists" and jumping ship. If all you truly cared about was fiscal conservatism, you wouldn't give a rat's behind about whether or not your delegate was pro-life or not as long as he kept spending and taxes low. and government small and efficient

So here's what I think you are saying. Social conservatives are costing the party victories. Well, that's one perspective. Unfortunately, social conservatives are that for a reason and we view our issues as bedrock principles that we cannot move away from, much as we do the same on fiscal issues.

There are liars and cheats in every political demographic. That is not the problem. The problem is getting along and finding a way to achieve common ground as Republicans without tearing eachother apart all the time in the general elections.

Take Dick Black as an example. You may not like his way of talking or his stance on homosexuals and abortion, but if you care most about fiscal conservatism, in Loudoun you should have been on his team. The only reason to oppose him and especially to support the Dem would be if you support Social Liberalism. This of course no one at Black-out would admit to you, but it's true. The real problem here is not just an "obsession" from the right with homosexuality and abortion. The problem is also that same "obsession" from the left, only from the opposite perspective. How do we find common ground on this in the party? I dunno, but I do know there are alot of people in the GOP in and ourtside of NOVA who feel social AND fiscal conservatism is critical to our state (and country) remaining a good place to live. They are not going to change.

Perhaps if the social liberals feel the same on social issues, they will continur to have to pick their bedfellows. Is fiscal conservatism more important to you? Then become a Republican and put up with us "far-far-far right " loons and win elections. If social liberalism is more important to you, then become a Democrat and turn Virginia into Massachusetts.

 
At 1/26/2006 07:41:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

The winning margin on word contributions by Mr. Young's team has now expanded to 200:1, despite efforts by AWCheney, Mitch and a few others whose pluck cannot match the Brobdingnagian, emetic word production of the Young Team. Give it up, guys. You've been avalanched. Jim's even pulling out the 39-17 straw poll vote (my memory's hazy, but the order of magnitude can't be far off). Jim: tell us the exact numbers. And then ask us if we care.

 
At 1/26/2006 07:46:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Nova,

Do you have something of substance to add to the conversation, or are you simply interested in showing your disapproval of those who do?

 
At 1/26/2006 08:37:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

A few random observations:

1) It took exactly 72 comments before Jim Young invoked his Source of All Evil (aka Chairman Sean). Gotta be a record. The meds must be working. I say up the dosage.

2)Vince - The fact that you'd vote for Chap over Dick Black or Bill Bolling may be the single greatest glimmer of vote for our future that I've witnessed in a very long time.

3) Nova Scout - I would much prefer to state my case in a few, carefully chosen words than to waste my breath (or fingers) in a vain attempt to confuse the reader into thinking I've stated a coherent thought. In other words, word counts don't count for much, except in high school research papers. Word!

4) Vince (TC) is correct, this is about results more than anything else. The divide here is in what each of us considers results. I believe that one group views "results" as electing conservatives who will work vigorously to pass and support only those laws that conform with the conservative (fiscal and social) point of view. The other group views "results" as progress and good governance And, no, they aren't necessarily the same thing. It's the difference between those who believe that if everyone would just think and act the way you do that everything would be great and those who realize that that is both impossible and unnecessary and strive to move the entire nation forward, not just those who agree with them on every issue. So, it isn't about "conservatives" vs. "moderates," it's about stubborn and inflexible idealism vs. practical realism. Don't get me wrong, we need ideals. But let's face it, kids, this world we live in today is about a real as it gets.

 
At 1/26/2006 08:39:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

to respond to Rtwng-

all-or nothing is a better term than one-issue. I should have used it.

As far as Dick Black , if I lived in Loudoun no I would not have voted for him, and that does not make me a social liberal. To disslike Dick Black is to disslike how he conducts himself. He conducts himself like a man who is out to get homosexuals. Is it just me who finds it rediculous that our elected officials spend time parading around like ministers? That is not his job in the VA legislature.

If I lived in his district I would have recieved his mailers about the "radical homosexual agenda" and would have gotten sick of hearing about it. There's more to life than that. I believe he was not the strongest Republian candidate for that seat, and maybe now we can get somone in there who will work harder to get out transportation money..and not support people for state-wide office who are against the districts they represent.

As I have stated before, I am a very religious guy. I attend McLean Bible Church...put all my faith in god...and will probably be attending a Baptist university next year to continue religous studies.

But I realize that to be a Republican, is to accept people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal into our tent. We need all of these people to help grow our party, and gain more seats.

Delegate Dick Black makes our party look bad..there's no way around it. When your own colleages have problems when you send them fetuses..something is a problem.

He represented Loudoun County...they didn't want to hear about gays in Richmond.

 
At 1/26/2006 08:42:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

Involved:

Are you talking to this NoVA? (there are a lot of them around these days. I'm thinking of becoming "The Artist Formerly Known as NoVA" or just "Scout"). I disapprove of no one who has added substance, but haven't seen a lot of it here. the substance to word ration is very, very low. Instead, I see a lot of entropy, insecurity, envy, nastiness, pettiness, bad temper, prejudice, shallow thinking.

To answer your question directly, I personally have little to add of substance to this thread at this moment. It's just too weird and I don't see how to get it back on track. Besides, I've got to help my 13 year old with her algebra.

TC, a very young man, wise beyond his years, posted that there's a huge problem within the Party. A fair number of you have proven him right, even by disagreeing with him. I've got about a half century on TC. I want to encourage him so that he's still working hard for political liberty and civic competnece a half century from now. I pray that at that time he's not getting bogged down in personal spats or ugly disputes of no real consequence.

I'm fighting this battle in other fora. I'm looking high and low for electable Republicans in Loudoun, Prince William, Fairfax and Arlington. That will be the base for future leaders of Virginia. Virginia, if it gets its head screwedon straight, can be the base for future leaders of my children's America. I want people who are three dimensional, who know something about the history of the country and the state, who love liberty and respect diversity, who can show me that they have done productive things with their lives outside of politics, and who reject the politburo culture that seems to pervade some elements of our party.

That's my teeny-tiny best effort at substance. Whatever little I have to add is said in far fewer words than whatever little you and your buds have to add.

We're still losing on the word count. Damn!

 
At 1/26/2006 08:45:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

BTW: I'm math challenged. It isn't as bad as I said. Instead of a half century on TC, I've only got four decades. Man, I feel so young (as opposed to feeling Young, an awful thought for him and me, I'm sure).

 
At 1/26/2006 08:48:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

NOVA-

I am not trying to get in personal disputes..and have not singled people out.

 
At 1/26/2006 08:52:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

TC,

You said:

[To respond to Rtwng Etrmist and Involved- I use the term "far-far-far right" because I prefer it to right wing, or conservative.]

[Any of you(involved, A voter, Jim Young, ect.) who come on to all these blogs and complain about some party officials-why not talk to them?
In all the time I have been around the Sean Connaughton, Tom Rust, Tom Davis crowd I have never heard them say negative words about their own party, but they get crapped on by Group B.]

[Congressman Tom Davis constantly doles out money to Group B, and gets nothing in return except name-calling. You all(group B) need his help and support, and then call him a squishy moderate for a few votes out of thousands, and the fact that he won't condemn people to hell for their views on abortion. Get over it, and stop picking which verses in the Bible you preach, read the whole thing..like maybe the part when Jesus says "Let he without sin cast the first stone"]

[This is the logic of group B, and why I consider them "far-far-far-far right" and without lack of a better word crazy.]

And now you're telling us that this posting had nothing to do with Conservatives or Moderates, and group B = Russ Potts?

So Russ Potts is a member of the "far-far-far-far right"? And conservatives are all like Russ Potts as well?

 
At 1/26/2006 08:55:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Involved-

You are trying to make something out of nothing.

I am telling you what I meant. Wouldn't only I know what I meant?

I am not going to explain it again

 
At 1/26/2006 09:01:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

ummm, wow.

 
At 1/26/2006 09:25:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Rtwng Extrmst,
It's not social conservatives that are costing the party victories. It's the holier-than-thou social zealots.

My suggestion to bring the party together on fiscal conservitism and basic party beliefs instead of constantly banging heads over gay marriage and abortion was an attempt to find a common thread to keep the pary TOGETHER. Nobody is asking anyone to give up their bedrock values. You can lead people to water by living examples of good values, not by bullying and not by labeling people that don't agree with you as "Unworthy to be Republicans".

 
At 1/26/2006 09:32:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Oh boy, nova scout! I have a "team"! There's a news flash! Didn't know myself.

 
At 1/26/2006 09:51:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Some voted against Dick Black because of his social views. But, Dick Black lost because his convictions blinded his effectiveness.

Black was a total joke. Republicans should be embarrassed it took a democrat to get rid of him.

He was extreme and ineffective.

Those who keep nurturing his ego with pats on the back are only encouraging more Democratic victories.

 
At 1/26/2006 09:57:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Scout,

You're my hero! Hope these other block heads don't hold that against you.

:)

I find it interesting no one picked up on your logical post.

 
At 1/26/2006 10:07:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

In eference to NOVA Scout I'll try to be brief:

1. TC you are rambling and changing terms as you go along. You need to be clear or you will continue to make things worse.

2. No one is saying there isn't a problem in the party, only that vast numbers of us shouldn't be expected to check our views at the door if we want to be in the party or be candidates of the party. Winning is not more important than our principles if we have to give them up in order to win.

3. Dick Black: my impression of him is he is "old school" even if he was right on the issues. People like him and DelGaudio are not public servants when they publicly belittle them. Even if they are supporting good policy when doing so. However, this does not mean you bolt the party and run to the Dems because the style of one candidate or another bothers you. You stick it our until you can replace them within the party rules or thy retire. I say this even though I agree with Dick Black on most issues, and btw I don't see a model of a fetus as some horrible thing to give to someone.

Finally TC, you have painted a picture that I find completely misrepresentative. While I believe in my principles (socially and fiscally conservative that they are) I am not an "all or nothing" person and neither are most people like me that I know in the party. We are however completely tired of people who get elected saying they agree with us only to abandon us once they get into office and then try to claim that we are the ones who are to be feared. These are the "squishy RINOs". Not Tom Davis. You can call Tom Davis alot of things, but RINO is not one of them.

So, let's stop casting these aspersions and try to realize that people including candidates are imperfect. Perhaps if we all spent some time trying to get to know our elected officials we might not so easily try to pilary them. That goes for all sides in this. However, I do have to say trying to somehow describe Chap! as a conservative who wants smaller government is a bit of a stretch. I do not intend to post anymore on this thread except to say I wish people would stop smearing alot of good people on the right as if they somehow want to destroy you. They are thoughtful, caring people. We may differ on some issues, but there is no conspiracy here to hurt anyone.

Last of all, I have failed in my attempt to be brief (apologies AWC). In closing TC I'll let you know I attended MBC for for over 7 years. It's a great church and if you have found a home there you could do far worse. Not a sermon, just a thought... ;-)

 
At 1/26/2006 10:09:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC, I forgot one thing. You may be surprised to find out (if you didn't know) that one of the most vile and hated members of the far-far-far right once was a member of MBC also. That being Mr. Mike Farris. ;-)

 
At 1/26/2006 10:12:00 PM, Blogger Hirons said...

TC - Wow - you really got some folks fired up here.

I couldn't even make it through all the comments. I decided to start at the end and work backwards. Made it about halfway. Hope I'm not restating anything that's been said above. At least my contribution here will help this post break 100 comments - again!

I don't mean to throw you under the bus, but don't you contribute to some of the disagreement within the party? You rant (lack of better term) about Bill Bolling -event say here that you would vote for a Democrat over him. Unfortunately that doesn't do much for the party. I know there are those out there who fight and bicker, call names, and work against the party in the name of conservatism but does that justify you and me to do the same? I know I've been guilty of it in the past, and hope to right some wrongs by putting that behind me and focus on the goals of the party (i.e. turn the other cheek).

With regards to elections, I, perhaps at a fault, am a Republican above all else. I think the party finds stregthn in numbers. I see it most important to elect Republicans. During primary races I try to work for candidates who have similar visions as I do and focus on issues important to me. However, after primaries is about working for the Republican to see to it that Republicans get elected. Unfortunately in doing that it brings titles like Rino and squishy, because others take the view of if their candidate doesn't win a primary a "lesser" Republican who win the primary should not be elected.

Bottomline is if we want to be united party we can't let ourselves be distracted by minor flareups and a few distractors. We have to come together and see to it that as many Republicans as possible get elected. Those of us who can must not have anger towards those who don't want to play nice.

Honestly I think Jim Young, although I would say he has had his faults during general elections of attacking or coming close to attacks on Republican nominated candidates, is a good example of someone who does make his positions well known and let's you know if he disagrees with you, but at the end of the day he does always help to get Republcians elected. Yes I've even witnessed him working to get Sean Connaughton votes! (Sorry to out you Jim!)

 
At 1/26/2006 10:30:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Scott-

This is not a minor event.

These people are systematically trying to take over our party.

Look at what they are doing in the 10th, Fairfax, PWC, and what they are trying to doing with the legislature.

..and I will state again.

I would vote for Chap Petersen over Bill Bolling.

He is horrible for our region, and a bad choice for governor.

 
At 1/26/2006 10:31:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

..and if you look...

its the same 4 folks getting fired up..when somehow over 2500 people have visited this post...

 
At 1/26/2006 10:36:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

'Preciate the facts, Scott. I've actually blocked any memory of that out. ;-)

And BTW, I assume when you reference "during general elections ... of attacking or coming close to attacks on Republican nominated candidates," I assume you're referring to my column. I presume you recognize that my duties as a columnist were to be more than a mere cheerleader for GOP candidates. Unfortunately, by the time I was fired, the Pot. News wanted a cheerleader for Chairman Sean.

 
At 1/26/2006 10:45:00 PM, Blogger Hirons said...

Jim - Yes on column - so I've got to give you credit again you're right about the distinction of responiblities.

 
At 1/26/2006 11:37:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

And no, I didn't say "that Hilter and Mussolini are the equivalent of homosexuals." At the risk of repeating myself, I said:

Churchill noted that "'Jaw, jaw,' is better than 'War, war.'" But there are some people with whom you shouldn't sit down --- Hitler; Mussolini --- and I number those who don't even speak the same language (i.e., marriage can be something other than an institution between a man and a woman) among them.


So to clarify, you said that anyone who advocates equality for homosexuals is the equivalent of Hitler and Mussolini. Thanks for clearing that up.

You all have been busy this evening. That'll teach me to go out for a beer.

TC says: It is about honesty, integrity, and running for office for the right reasons.

It is about public-service, true conservatism, and less government.


Bingo. It's about good governance. If partisan loyalty trumps good governance, frankly we have no business in office. I would love to hear the justification for the opposite view. You must be kidding.

Here's a case in point, from RE: Take Dick Black as an example. You may not like his way of talking or his stance on homosexuals and abortion, but if you care most about fiscal conservatism, in Loudoun you should have been on his team.

No, because his "stance on homosexuals" was not only cartoonish, but aroused the opposition of the business community. If you are fiscally conservative, you had better also be pro-business and pro-economic developement. If you think you can be those things and be anti-gay, you are living in a fantasy world. Again, *your* core values are in conflict with what I always understood to be Republican values. You will see soon enough what the business community in Virginia (you know, the economic engine) thinks of the dishonest "marriage amendment."

There is no contradiction between fiscal conservatism and what you are calling "social liberalism" (you mean fairness? Respect for the inalienable rights of every human being, as set out in our Bill of Rights?) except in your head. This is, indeed, about results, and great damage is being done to the party that will become evident too late for some of you.

 
At 1/26/2006 11:39:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Critically Thinking -

I can't believe you said this:

"I showed up at the PWC committee the month the hoards of "moderates" showed up to join so they could "save" the party from the wacky right-wingers. I'm still there, and I don't see those "dedicated servants" around (we nearly missed a quorum the 3rd meeting after they all joined, before we could get them wiped off the roles)."

The big votes that night were whether whether Republican Committee members should attack other members in public (a Jim Young favorite) and whether Republican Committee officials should be allowed to endorse Democrats and Libertarians (which Rick Hendrix, Denny Daugherty and Jim Young did). Once the Committee said that it was okay to do these things, the Republican Committee of Prince William ceased to exist as a body. That is why everyone with morals walked away except for people like you that think it is okay to be two-faced.

 
At 1/26/2006 11:54:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

This comment will respond to TC's response to my comment.

TC, I guess I was objecting to your term "run out of the party". There are people being run out of the party. But "run out" has the meaning of being forced against your will. The voters are leaving voluntarily, so I simply didn't understand that reference to them as being "run out of" the party. Nobody forced anybody to vote Democrat, they did so because they liked the democrat more than the republican. But since I understand now what you meant, we can move on.

Certainly there were people who voted republican before, who now voted democrat. I don't think it is a trend, but certainly being in power makes it harder for a party to gain traction, because frankly power requires governance which requires decisionmaking which makes people mad. Also, the end of 2005 was a bad time to be a republican, since it was the time of a major battle in the war for america, a battle which seems to be swinging back toward the good guys now but was not going so well in early november.

As regards to A and B, I'll accept what you say you meant about that, although how your statement in your response about how if "B" go away we might find that "A" was actually pro-life or anti-tax sure seems to suggest that SOMEONE was thinking A was moderate, even if they were wrong.

And while I'll probably agree with you about how the pro-life/pro-choice, and frankly the whole "religious/moralist" area is probably much fuzzier than the absolutists would like it to be, I think the pro/anti tax is a lot easier. I'm not anti-tax, but I can see by voting records who is on what side of the issue, which for me is this: Is your first concern how much money you take from me, or is your first concern how you could spend that money if you had it?

My guess is your views about the moralist argument is clouded by your close association with Sean, who I happen to believe (without much proof one way or another) has been somewhat unfairly maligned on that issue. Frankly, I find little interest in pushing that issue.

There was Katherine Waddell who also ran as an independent. Didn't mean to make a big point of it. I'm sure a conservative has run as an independent at some time, just this election was otherwise.

Nothing I said should imply that I question your sincerity in your opinions, I just question the validity of your opinions.

I don't generally get to chat personally with elected officials, but in any e-mail to a representative there is an opportunity for that person to respond in order to give their opinion. And I'll listen to anybody who will send me an e-mail, even democrats. Although I am unlikely to be persuaded by them.

Tom is not my kind of republican, but he is a republican, and preferable to a democrat (except for those who espouse the long-term theory that by throwing out the party people you don't like, you can attack the democrat in the next election with someone you do like. I note several "republicans" hear have suggested that is what the Dick Black race was all about, and I've seen conservatives say the same thing about moderate incumbents (for example, on the national scene, the debate still rages in Pa. about the Arlen Specter/Pat Toomey race).

The moderates hate it when the conservatives suggest it, but the moderates don't seem to mind the tactic when used against the part of the party THEY find disagreeable.

I'll have more new thoughts in another post.

Did you get the count, NS?

(PS: I think they should BAN the letters "g" and "q" in those anti-spam filter things, I never get them right -- this is my THIRD attempt to post this)

 
At 1/27/2006 12:13:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Regarding social and fiscal conservativism, most of our social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives, so that argument won't wash unless, as another poster said, the real problem is the desire to support social liberalism (which is fine, but was never a republican party platform).

That said, I like a more libertarian bent myself, so while I strongly support Marshall, AND I actually personally agree with the goals of many of his bills, I wouldn't vote for them, because I just don't think government should be that involved in our lives.

But since the truly "radical" stuff that Black and Marshall proposed was never seriously considered (and if it was it wouldn't be "radical" anymore now, would it), I think it is GREAT that the strong social conservatives of our party had a couple of representatives that stood up for them, and let THEIR voices be heard.

In a representative republic, there is room for all voices -- and the mix of representatives will tend to filter out those which have minority support, in favor of those who can persuade the majority to their position.

TC, your comments about Chap (and Mitch, your agreement) have a basic flaw, which maybe I can explain. You both confess to being republicans, which I presume means you believe that republican ideals are to be favored over democrat ideals (if not, you would simply be independents).

But Chap Peterson doesn't share our republican ideals. If he did, he could easily join the republican party (and if he won a primary, he'd have my vote). Why doesn't Chap join the republican party? I have to assume it is because HE believes that the democrat party ideals are preferable to republican ideals, and if given unfettered power would work to advance those ideals at the expense of the republican ideals.

So, how can you support a person who publicly professes to be opposed to the ideals you supposedly support, and be AGAINST a person who publicly professes to be FOR the ideals you supposedly support?

If you want to argue that your choice would be based on your belief that the republican is LYING about adherance to principles, I could understand you staying HOME, but Chap isn't lying about his LACK of adherance to those principles.

Now, if you want to argue that the important thing is character and personality -- honesty and the desire to serve consituents -- then I would say you need to get OUT of party politics, because that is merely a useful side-effect of the true purpose of a representative in our government.

Before you get upset, let me explain -- a republican serves his constituents best by adhering to principles of government they he knows will, in the long run, provide the best situation for his constituents. If I didn't believe that the republican party principles would lead to that outcome, I would never be associated with the party.

In fact, the number one reason I won't vote for a democrat is because, no matter how good the candidate seems to be, the very fact that a candidate would associate with a party whose principles would most certainly leave our county, state, and country much worse off than we are now is a disqualifying characteristic.

It wasn't always that way, but the modern democrat party has "jumped the shark", and until saner heads can grab the reigns and bring them back to a saner place, voting for candidates who promise loyalty to the democrats is an insane and destructive course.

For all I know, Chap might be a great guy, but if he was really a great guy he'd be a republican.

 
At 1/27/2006 08:21:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

I am posting this only because Getagrip responded specifically to one of my comments.

My only point was that if you were a fiscal conservative and social indifferent, you should have supported Black. No one would accuse Black of being fiscally liberal.

Obviously the businesspeople you speak of are/were more interested in promoting socially liberal causes than in fiscal responsibility. To some extent I am going out on a limb here because Poisson has not had much of a voting record. However, I doubt he will oppose any of the current tax increase proposals which will do nothing to help business (except a number of road developers and maybe the VEA).

 
At 1/27/2006 09:22:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

getagrip references "what you are calling 'social liberalism' (you mean fairness? Respect for the inalienable rights of every human being, as set out in our Bill of Rights?)"

So you want to argue about what's "fair"? Please! I worry about what's constitutional, mainly, and there's absolutely no basis for suggesting that there's a legitimate constitutional attack upon the institution of marriage. Homosexuals have the same constitutional rights as the rest of us, including the constitutional right to practice their perversions in private. It is hardly "unfair" in any meaningful sense of the word that they should reap the whirlwind when they make their private perversions public.

And what I'm saying is that those who advocate for the homosexual special "right" to be free from being judged on their behavior are due the same regard as Hitler and Mussolini arguing for Aryan superiority, i.e., none.

As for you, anonymous, you don't know what you're talking about. None of those issues was raised that night; it was strictly about the election of inferior Committee officers. As for "whether Republican Committee members should attack other members in public (a Jim Young favorite)," if you had any concept of truth, you'd know that I was much more frequently the TARGET of such attacks, not the perpetrator of them. Hardly a "favorite" of mine. Of course, thin-skinned public officials who stray from GOP orthodoxy (to the extent that there is such a thing) were frequently targets of criticism and disagreements, which of course, their sycophants always characterize as "attacks."

As to "whether Republican Committee officials should be allowed to endorse Democrats and Libertarians (which Rick Hendrix, Denny Daugherty and Jim Young did)," you are misrepresenting the truth again. None of the people you mentioned have EVER "endorse[d] Democrats and Libertarians." That is a bald-faced lie, which is perhaps why the liar chooses to remain safely anonymous.

'Course, I can name a number of so-called "Republicans" who have "endorse[d] Democrats and Libertarians": John Warner and some others in PWC in 1994, endorsing independent Marshall Coleman over Ollie North for the Senate; Rusty Potts in 2005, running as an independent against Jerry Kilgore.

And BTW, TC: I discern (perhaps wrongly; please correct me if I am) that you oppose Republicans running in primaries against other Republicans, at least when it's someone you don't like (I'm thinking of Steve Chapman against Harry Parrish, specifically). But your hero, Chairman Sean, sponsored Marty Nohe's run (and before that, an independent's, Tom Burrell, who later dropped out, and I've got the e-mails he sent me to prove it) against PWC Mary Hill (R-Coles). Doesn't your failure to criticize (or disagree with, or attack) Chairman Sean for that render yours a principle of convenience?

 
At 1/27/2006 09:56:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

jim young, I know for a fact that Tom has given money to certain state senators, who are the leaders of group b, who then turn around and work against him inside the party. i know because i have been on both sides. i was turned off by the divisiveness of the the group b people and felt that i only had a place with the group a.

my own experience went as this, i volunteered when i first started college on a state senate campaign of someone in group b. said candidate asked for money from tom. a few years later, i was asked by said candidate to take a position that would be purposefuly disadvantageous to tom.

this was a calculated move by asking me to take this position in the party because group b senator knew i was conservative and expected me to vote against tom on certain inner-party issues.

i honestly considered taking part, but only because i was interested in the actual position and having a place in the party. the more i though about it however, the more i knew that i did not want to be a pawn of the group b and alienate myself from the solid relationships of those in group a.

this is an example of the back stabbing that vincent was right about. we have both seen it with our own eyes and even felt guilt for being involved in a party that hurts one another.

i have been out of high school for almost 5 years now, but never since i graduated from robinson and sitting at the fcrc meetings did i feel like i was truly a high schooler again.

 
At 1/27/2006 10:00:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

"But your hero, Chairman Sean, sponsored Marty Nohe's run (and before that, an independent's, Tom Burrell, who later dropped out, and I've got the e-mails he sent me to prove it) against PWC Mary Hill (R-Coles). Doesn't your failure to criticize (or disagree with, or attack) Chairman Sean for that render yours a principle of convenience?"

(Queue load buzzer sound...)

Wrong answer, Jim. But thanks for playing!

On more than one occasion, you've complained about folks trying to rewrite history. That's exactlly what you're doing here. Sean did not get involved in Marty's campaign for Supervisor until AFTER the primary with Mary Hill. The whole point was that Marty prove that he could win the primary on his won, which he capably and admirably did. Once he'd secured the nomination, yes, Sean did become an active supporter. But suggesting otherwise is just patently false.

Having said that, I disagree with entire notion that anyone should be safe or exempt from a primary. If you're doing your job in representing your constituents, it shouldn't be an issue. Furthermore, we need new blood and should encourage potential nominees to get their names and ideas out there. It would certainly be nice if these things could be done with a bit more civility, of course. I didn't even have a problem with Chapman running against Parrish. I think Steve is a moron and would habe been a horrible Delegate, but Harry deserves competition as much as the next guy.

 
At 1/27/2006 10:20:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

Thank you neocon.

I know you have worked hard for the party, and I know how incredibly right-wing you are. You and me have hour long conversations about how conservatives need to take over he county, state, and national political scene.

But it seems who the VA Republicans deem to be conservative are not.

We are losing elections, and critically...while people may be "voluntarily" leaving, there are also "moderate" republicans who are being literally pushed out.

..and you consider a primary not a push..but it is.

I agree with primaries, because sometimes people need to be checked, but in many instances primaries are not warrented.

It seems as many examples as we give you guys..you refuse to see the light.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:06:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

neocon22, that's a pretty bold charge to make anonymously. And so what? So long as they support Tom as the GOP nominee, they have fulfilled their obligation under the Party Plan. You seem to suggest that Tom can buy unconditional loyalty on all matters by contributing to other Republican nominees. If Tom believes that, then I would be sorely disappointed, since it seems one step removed from bribery. However, the Tom Davis that I know --- and helped get elected against Leslie Byrne --- is more understanding of the political process and of the differences (and you fail to identify what would be "purposefully disadvantageous to Tom"; some things that you might identify as such I would probably view as being in Tom's long-term interest) that naturally arise, even among friends, than you appear to be.

The problem I have with TC's Group A/B analysis is the broad brush strokes with which he paints, since I've been around long enough to personally witness every sleazy tactic that he attributes to "Group B" practiced by those he would doubtless put in "Group A," and more so, detailed in my first post above. Indeed, all of the whining by the self-righteous, self-identified "Group A" types strikes me as little more than an extension of the same tactic: complain about unfairness because you can't win internal party battles fought fairly and honestly.

As for you, Mitch, that's cute. I understand that, for Chairman Sean's sycophants, truth is frequently the "wrong answer." However, you concede by artful phrasing what you generally deny. Sean was at war with Mary for years, and while he may not have done anything publicly (and I would dispute that; I was told, concededly second hand, but from someone trustworthy, about a little dispute they had in a men's room at the Lincoln-Reagan dinner, pre-primary; once again, specific facts trump broad denials) he certainly sponsored any opposition to her that he could. Maybe your claim is true ("Sean did not get involved in Marty's campaign for Supervisor until AFTER the primary with Mary Hill"), but only as far as it goes. There are plenty of other things that Sean did to "sponsor[] Marty Nohe's run" other than being formally involved in his campaign.

And I note that you don't dispute the fact that Sean tried to run Burrell as an independent, which is the greater offense, nor could you. Given the e-mails that he sent to me, I doubt that even Chairman Sean would dispute that.

As for TC, you answered my question: "in many instances primaries are not warrented." Really? When are they "not warranted"? When you deem them not to be? Sorry, but any incumbent who pulls less than 60% of the vote in his party's primary against a young, first-time candidate that Mitch calls an "idiot" has problems which clearly "warrant" a primary challenge.

In my first post in this thread, 'lo these many posts ago, I said the alternatives were "arrogance" and "naivete." Sadly, it is abundantly apparent that it was the former, not the latter. Your "We're good, pristine, and civic-minded; they're evil, stingy, and self-interested" analysis is not only arrogant and self-serving, but it is not even justified by history.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:13:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

One thing to add to "Indeed, all of the whining by the self-righteous, self-identified "Group A" types strikes me as little more than an extension of the same tactic: complain about unfairness because you can't win internal party battles fought fairly and honestly."

It's certainly legitimate and appropriate to argue about whether the ideological direction of the GOP is having an adverse affect at the ballot box. But charges of the type made by TC here, in addition to simply being false, diminish the importance of rooting out real dishonesty and violation of rules when they, sadly, sometimes occur in internal party activities.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:23:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Whatever, dude.

I'll take my first-hand, straight-from-horse's-mouth information over your "concededly second hand" gossip every day of the week. And I'll let the readers judge for themselves who to trust on this. I may be "hiding in pseudonymity," but I'm close enough to the situation and individuals involved to know what I'm talking about. And if the fact that I don't disclose who I am means that some choose to dismiss what I say? Whatever.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:33:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

"Whatever, dude" [Read: You caught me, so I'll just be dismissive]

And a correction, Mitch: your first-hand shading of whatever Chairman Sean told you to say/benefits Chairman Sean. It's positively Clintonian.

Close enough? Prove it. All that you prove with your post is your ability to shade the truth. As I said, just because Chairman Sean "did not get involved in Marty's campaign for Supervisor until AFTER the primary with Mary Hill" does not mean that there weren't plenty of other things that Sean did to "sponsor[] Marty Nohe's run."

'Course, God knows, we can't allow proof that Group A types engage in precisely the type of behavior that TC condemns in Group B types. Might reveal his "principle" to be one of convenience, used in lieu of an honest debate on the issues.

And I note that you still don't deny that Chairman Sean sponsored Tom Burrell's abortive independent run.

 
At 1/27/2006 12:26:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

RE: Obviously the businesspeople you speak of are/were more interested in promoting socially liberal causes than in fiscal responsibility.

No. You are missing my point entirely. It was the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, Realtors associations, etc, that lobbied against ridiculous Dick Black bills like the one to overturn the VHDA decision to make housing loans to unmarried partners. Think that's not radical? Virginia was the *only* state to have such a restriction until it was unanimously voted into the ashheap of history. The insurance parity bill was strongly supported by the business community because (who knew?!) letting the market dictate business practices is .. good business.

You are presenting fiscal issues and social issues as if they operate independently, but they don't. Backwards social policies are bad for business, the two are intimately connected. Bad representatives like Dick Black don't care.

 
At 1/27/2006 12:38:00 PM, Blogger Tom James (aka Brave Hart) said...

You folks have to forgive JY he's been under a lot of stress lately.

With realization of the world no longer being flat and He's no longer the center of the universe.

I have the name of a good doctor JY, who may be able to get you a prescription for medication to help you cope, until you can absorb all the reality thats' crashing down around you.

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

As I've said elsewhere, Tom, if your picture's accurate, you're too damn old to have to be told to "Grow up!"

And your dimestore psychology is certainly no more valid than my medical advice. But thanks for being the exception that proves the rule about wisdom and age.

 
At 1/27/2006 01:05:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

""Whatever, dude" [Read: You caught me, so I'll just be dismissive]

And a correction, Mitch: your first-hand shading of whatever Chairman Sean told you to say/benefits Chairman Sean. It's positively Clintonian."

I'll use another of Mr. Young's frequent arguements here. "Assumes facts not in evidence!" "Chairman Sean" has not adivsed me in any way on how to respond to this question. In fact, Sean Connaughton has never asked me to say anything that has ever appeared on this or any other blog. Never! (Read: Not Once!) Further still, we've only had the briefest of discussions about blogs in general. You're making a major erroneous leap when you suggest that.

The fact of the matter is, while I support Sean whole-heartedly, I'm very close friends with Marty Nohe. And I was one-the-scene during the primary and general elections of 2003 and discussed these things with him often. My information on this comes from Marty directly and only Marty, who, of course, is the candidate in question. Granted, we haven't revisted this in quite some time, probably because it's completely irrelevant and a total waste of time.

As far as Connaughton supporting a Burrell run as an Independent? I honestly don't remember and, quite frankly, couldn't care less. If, after the primary, Sean had decided that Burrell would be a better candidate than Marty, good for him! He didn't, of course. But I find it hard to understand why you're directing this question to me. I've already stated that I'm not some mindless automaton that screams party first, intelligence be damned. Hell, I was pleased as punch when Ruth Griggs decided not to endorse Corey Stewart. And she took her lumps for it, but certainly not from me. I also happily supported non-PWCGOP-endorsed School Board candidates like Lucy Beauchamp and Mike Zeiders.

So please, Jim, don't make assumptions or try to read my mind or motives. The fact that I'm anonymous would seem to that a very difficult proposition at best.

 
At 1/27/2006 01:28:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Get-a-grip. You actually prove my point. The specific industry reps you mention made a decision to support "socially liberal" policies (those of Mr. Poisson in general) over the fiscally and socially conservative policy of Mr. Black.

Now, you can argue the merits of that legislation. I for one would not have promoted or supported legislation like that, but be that as it may, in this case, the business community made a decision based on a social issue. In the long run, they may find they could have lived much better under the representation of Mr. Black after they see Mr. Poisson in action for a while.

 
At 1/27/2006 01:39:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Now, this will really be my final post on this:

TC and NEOCON continue to broadbrush accuse a whole segment of the party "Group B" as being the problem while "Group A" is supposedlly full of virtue and light. However, in doing this in such general and fuzzy terms not naming names (except one, McKinney) and referring in general to the far-far-far right wing, they do a great disservice to, and leave the impression of evilness on a whole group of people that I call "social conservatives".

NEOCON even goes to the point of using the example of an "un-named Senator" to further smear. Please people, you are not proving anything by doing this other than you are willing to spread gossip and instigate bad feelings! I suggest you do one of two things:

1. If you are not willing to be open and specific in your accusations, keep your opinions quiet and work within the party to express your views on issues and try to gain support for them, or

2. Keep on fighting as you are, but at least name names and be specific about what EXACTLY your concerns are. At least AWC, Mitch, and JY are willing to write so that everyone knows what they are talking about.

'nuff said on this one. BTW anyone willing to have a substantive discussion about issues and candidates who will help the Republican Party win, I am more than happy to oblige, but please stop with this secretive conspiratorial innuendo.

 
At 1/27/2006 02:08:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Mitch, in this context, the slash denotes the alternative: that is, "your first-hand shading of whatever[: (a)] Chairman Sean told you to say[; or (b)] benefits Chairman Sean." For whatever reason, your assertion was not true, and you tried to evade the issue by artful phrasing. So I never asserted that Chairman Sean told you what to say; I was asserting one of two plausible alternatives. A third suggests itself: that your saying it because the truth suggests that Marty needed Sean's support to win.

And if it's " completely irrelevant and a total waste of time," why are you talking about it? Perhaps because the truth belies TC's assertion of the magnanimity and pristine records of those in "Group A," especially his beloved Chairman Sean?

And that you couldn't care less about Chairman Sean's support of Burrell demonstates two things: (1) that you're not a partisan Republican; and (2) that you aren't paying attention to TC's point. Number 1 is, of course, just fine, for you. However, when Chairman Sean sought and received the GOP nomination, he assumed a partisan burden to support all of the party's nominees in the ensuing election. In short, he was fully prepared to break his pledge. Now you may justify that fact on any grounds you want, but I believe that honor and integrity demand that one either keep one's word, or not give it (surrendering the benefits that come with it) in the first place. It's of a piece with misrepresentations he's made. And if you are not disturbed by the fact that he was violating his pledge, well then I'll just guess that "A Man for All Seasons" is not on your list of favorite movies. Another one of those surmises, to be sure.

 
At 1/27/2006 03:22:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

You are going to accuse neocon now on lying?

Why would she do that?

We don't lie on this blog, and maybe she didnt want to name the Senator because she has morals, and doesnt want to go on a witch hunt.

Ya'll cotinue to try and dissprove what we say..but can't prove what you say...

and Jim-

Sean did NOT HELP Marty in his first primary..why don't you ask him huh instead of talking a whole bunch of crap you don't know.

While I disagree with Seans decision in that matter, in the end he still didnt help him.

and Jim-

primaries are not warrented in situations where the incumbent is ACTUALLY conservative.

When the same group of people try to primary and smear an incumbent simply so an entire crew came come into power..that is unwarrented.

It hurts our party Jim, and you to say otherwise if rediculous.

 
At 1/27/2006 03:51:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

"primaries are not warrented in situations where the incumbent is ACTUALLY conservative."

I see that the trip to Hope has even more fully indoctrinated you in the mindset of the Clinton's, the Soviets and the "Because We Said So Corp.", namely, it's only legitimate/illegitimate when it suits our purposes.

Among the several potential causes of a primary, is dissatisfaction with the incumbent (whatever his political bent). It can driven by an organized group of party members or occasionally an individual candidate running in opposition to the incumbent's position, history, ideals, etc. To discourage such a dynamic is far more than un-American.

There are past models in which opposition to the incumbent was either heavily discouraged or banned. Of the three that come most immediately to mind, one ended with Il Duce hanging by his heels from meat hooks in a town square, the second ended with a bullet and a cyanide capsule in a Berlin Bunker (despite the many novels that claim the suicide was a sham and the Fourth Reich imminent) and the third proved an abject economic and social failure that left decaying nuclear weapons systems on the market or the bottom of the sea as its legacy. There are of course several other models you could observe but I understand its very cold in North Korea this time of year.

 
At 1/27/2006 03:52:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

1. "You are going to accuse neocon now on lying?"

I assume you are referring to my last post since I mention NEOCON. I did not accuse ANYONE of lying. I accused you both of being "fuzzy" and "boradbrushing" in your accusations. For the most part I have not been asserting anything either other than that you are not helping any situation by making vague and confusing accusations and not telling us the specifics. If you want a discussion that is minus invective, please tell us (and this must be the 100th time I've asked) specifically who makes up "group A" and who makes up "group B" (give us names and/or political issue positions). Additionally, give us specifc examples of how group B is so bad (naming names) while group A never does these same things. Anything short of that is just gossip and non-productive!

Your continual avoidance of my request only tells me that while you want to complain, you fear being totally honest about what you're talking about because someone might either call you on it to correct you or you might get a bad rep with some of these people.

"Ya'll cotinue to try and dissprove what we say..but can't prove what you say..."

TC, of course I cannot disprove what you say because in total, you have been saying nothing at all. Just making vague, secretive, conspiratorial assertions. All I've been doing is asking for explanations and clarity in your posts. Until I get that, I cannot discuss their merits. I can only make assumptions, and of course you know what making those gets you.

 
At 1/27/2006 03:56:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

"So I never asserted that Chairman Sean told you what to say; I was asserting one of two plausible alternatives. A third suggests itself: that your saying it because the truth suggests that Marty needed Sean's support to win."

So let me get this straight: You're using the presence of a "/" between those statements to suggest that you "never asserted that Chairman Sean told you what to say." Do you honestly expect anyone to buy that? And further, are accusing me of some kind of "artful phrasing" to evade the issue? Give me a friggin' break! And your suggested third alternative, that I'm "saying it because the truth suggests that Marty needed Sean's support to win." may be the dumbest thing I've seen you put in print. Anyone breathing oxygen back in 2003 knew that the winner of the GOP Primary in Coles would win the General against Vic Bras. Hell, I remember Marty being concerned that we'd all get too complacent knowing how little a chance Bras would have. I'm sure he appreciated the support from Sean. But couldn't win without it? Please.

"And if it's " completely irrelevant and a total waste of time," why are you talking about it?"

Uh, hello!!?? McFly!!?? You brought it up in the first place! Why, in 2006, would I or anyone else care to revisit this except someone on a witch hunt looking for nice strong rope to lynch someone with? Good luck with that.

"And that you couldn't care less about Chairman Sean's support of Burrell demonstates two things: (1) that you're not a partisan Republican; and (2) that you aren't paying attention to TC's point."

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! You're absolutely right. I'm not a partisan Republican. I thought I'd made that abundetly clear. I support Republican candidates and consider myself a Republican. But I'm not going to pledge to support every candidate with an "R" next to their name. And if Sean Connaughton or anyone else chooses to do the same, do you really expect me to think ill of them? And, please, don't try that old "he broke a pledge" crap. Politicians do it all the time, sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes not. Show me a politician who never backed out on a campaign promise or made a compromise to get things done, and I'll show you a politican who lost every election in which they were a candidate. Not that that's a good thing, but it's the reality of the system we live in. That's why I disagree with the whole "pledge" concept, especially the tax pledge. Based on your logic, I'm sure you didn't vote to re-elect Bush as President, as he's completely backed out on his promise of fiscal restraint, among others. Or did you? That would be a bit hypocritical, now wouldn't it?

 
At 1/27/2006 04:04:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Within our representative democracy, and more to the point- within the Republican Party, we have primaries to decide all of these issues.

So to further the agenda of all you moderates and liberals who complain about the mean conservatives that are either in office or else seeking the party's nomination- all you have to do is VOTE.

If more republicans agree with you, in that the party should kill babies, or destroy families, or raise taxes, or whatever liberal ideals that are near and dear to you... then they will vote and keep that icky conservative from representing you.

This is the legal and proper way to do things. It is the way that the system was created in order to settle such matters. So, if your buddy Jim Rich is opposed, vote for him. If it's Eric Lundburg, vote for him. The ability to vote is your right as republicans.

However, what you seem to be asking for is that all of us follow your twisted views because you think it will help us to grasp power, as a party. It's not going to happen.

You can cry about losing power or whatever else, I don't care. A conservative is not likely to become a squish, simply because you really REALLY want them to. So, you can support who wins these contested races, or you can continue crying about the fact that your moderate demi-gods are being opposed, and will likely be removed. Neither will change the course of this, and if this means that you want to defect and support Democrats, then I'd submit that you, Potts, Dillard, and Reese were never all that much of an actual republican to begin with.

 
At 1/27/2006 05:00:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Involved:

What are you, new? You do realize that TC worked like a madman (which, of course, he'd have to be) for Chris Craddock, right?

 
At 1/27/2006 05:09:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, Mary Hill and her supporters would dispute your assertion re: Sean and Marty. And you are sophisticated enough to know that "help" frequently is other than being "involved in Marty's [primary] campaign for Supervisor," and does not mean that there weren't plenty of other things that Sean did to sponsor[] Marty Nohe's run."

And wholly aside from that issue, even if old Mitch doesn't mind the fact that Sean supported an independent candidate --- and as he is not a member of an official Committee, that is certainly his privilege, so I don't understand his insulting rhetoric -- I would think it would, and should, offend someone like you, who has frequently supported the GOP nominee who had beaten candidates you supported in the primary, to your credit.

As for me, while close to the election I endorsed Mary Hill in print, I did so noting her self-created problems, and was equally critical of her support for Chairman Sean's spendthrift budget.

And one more thing, TC. You criticize me for not talking to Chairman Sean. That goes both ways. Chairman Sean never asked me for his support, and only once attempted to persuade me to his point of view (regarding the Burrell imbroglio). And I view that act as dishonorable. It's one thing to support an independent where there is no Republican nominee, and another to give aid and comfort to an independent against a GOP nominee.

 
At 1/27/2006 05:35:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe you guys have this much time for this.

 
At 1/27/2006 05:37:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

RE: "..the business community made a decision based on a social issue."

You just seem determined not to get this. No, they did not. They made a business decision. They aren't successful in business because they make decisions based on social issues. They are in a position to be influential on legislation in the first place because they base decisions on a good business model.

In this case, they oppose legislation that makes them treat their gay and lesbian employees unequally because they know that to be a bad business model. It is in the best interests of employers to retain the best possible workforce, and that means having the largest possible pool of talent to hire from, and also not having good employees driven from Virginia because they can choose to live someplace that doesn't treat them like second-class citizens.

That is why the Chamber of Commerce and employers lobbied for the insurance parity bill, and why Delegate Dillard patroned it in 2004. The decision could not be less based on a social issue, unless the social issue is free market capitalism.

 
At 1/27/2006 05:46:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Mitch,

I saw it first-hand. What's your point?

 
At 1/27/2006 07:11:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

So to further the agenda of all you moderates and liberals who complain about the mean conservatives that are either in office or else seeking the party's nomination- all you have to do is VOTE.


Involved-You are a presonification of what group B is.

You continually call me and other posters liberals and moderates...when I am anything but one.

You and MOM don't get what I am saying about primaries.

Obviously anyone can primary whomever they want, I have never suggested taking that away..or even to reduce primarying..I am simply stating that it is stupid to primary people to further a persons own career, or to have an entire group of people come into power.

Take the people who primaried last go around. They were finacned by the same group of people...the Paul Josts of the world...who can't even win office themselves(Jost ran in a primary against Jo Ann Davis).

There was NO POINT in primarying Parrish and May. It was absolutely stupid. Why primary intrenched incumbents who are beloved by both sides of the aisle? Why not spend time focusing on fewer certain candidates that most of the party disslikes...aka Reese.

These people also distorted records..which hurt us later on...as it takes Republicans time to heal even within from primary wounds.

While going d2d for Craddock...I ran into many people who were unhappy with the way he handled the primary..this hurt us.

I am simply saying...it is stupid to primary people who disagree on only certain votes like Joe May.
...and to get a man like Chris Oprison an import from California was even stupider of VCAP.

This is commonsense guys...these people are not all squishes.

Just because you label people like that involved does not make it true.

and Jim...you are wrong, wrong, wrong , wrong.

Sean Connaughton was not fully behind Marty Nohe in the primary..whicn you would have realized if you ever talked to either of them.

As far as them talking to you..I know they both have alot to do..being involved in their churches, community men, and elected officals...how about you e-mail them...

want Seans e-mail?

 
At 1/27/2006 07:13:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Mitch-

You dont understand some of the dynamics here..

Involved saw me helping Craddock alot...and was a big big help on the campaign as well.

How stupid is that...fellow Craddock helpers callign me a squishy liberal?

It's whatever.

 
At 1/27/2006 08:33:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Too Conservative,

I thought that this 'group B' was about Potts, not about conservatives, and not about me. Interesting how that keeps moving back and forth.

I would like to point out that I have never accepted money from Tom Davis, as us in group B have been accused, although I did vote for him while he was my Congressman.

[I am simply saying...it is stupid to primary people who disagree on only certain votes...]

Umm, I'm pretty sure that that's actually the main reason why you primary someone. If you see them voting for the largest tax increase in VA's history, that's a pretty good reason.

If you can't handle a primary then politics probably isn't the best place for you. And if you can't win a republican primary, as an incumbent, then you probably shouldn't be in office any longer, either.

I'm pretty sure that Tom Davis puts up a new person to primary Ken Cuccinelli, every chance he gets. Is Tom in group B as well? Of course not... he's a moderate, and they can do no wrong.

[Why not spend time focusing on fewer certain candidates that most of the party disslikes...aka Reese.]

I just started laughing when I read this one. TC, YOU supported Reese in the primary! Have you forgotten this already? I'm not saying that you didn't try to make up for it, but please don't act as if you saw Reese as needing to be primaried when you were one of his workers. However this, in addition to your apparent distaste for conservatives, kinda helps with you earning the whole liberal/moderate classification.

Reese was primaried for the same reasons as May and the other tax hikers. Had he not shown his true colors during the race I'm sure you'd be singing his praises right about now.

TC, as everyone else seems to realize, your "Ramblings" are more of your own personal manifesto against conservatives. It doesn't make much sense, it can easily be refuted, and even the author seems to be confused about it's meaning, but it's pretty clear what you were trying to get across.

 
At 1/27/2006 09:33:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Involved-

Who realizes that about my ramblings?

My support of Gary Reese in the primary stemed from my belief that he would be able to keep the district for Republicans.

If you remember, Chuck Caputo only promised to run if Gary lost..and thus..we would have had one more Republican in the legislature.

I never passed out one thing for Reese, never got him a single signature..and in fact...gave out literature for Chris Craddock at the Fairfax Fair.

I was too busy fighting another fight with the Lt.Governor primary to support him. After the loss...I worked hard for Chris, and even personally expressed my displeasure with Gary's endorsement to Gary in person.

As everyone else talked crap behind his back..I went up to him directly and spoke with him.

Involved-As I have stated before I support conservatives. I stand behind the Rev. Robertson regardless of his sayings, I stood behind George Fitch, and then Jerry Kilgore.

I worked for Golden, Craddock.

I am pro-life, and against gay marriage.

While you may try to state my unconservative credentials..I have not seen you around anywhere except at the recent FCRC meeting.

I continue to fight the fight, but your fight seemed to be over after Craddocks loss.

Your comment on primaries is also false. Read my earlier comments..I said I agree with primaries, but that I did not believe all of them were warrented.

Reese for one...did not even vote for the tax-increase that mattered.

While he did support an earlier one, which failed...he did not vote for the actual increase.

Reese showed us who he really was after he endorsed Caputo..but I would much rather have had him in there than Caputo. He would have protected the sancicty of marriage, and contributed to our leadership in the House.

Caputo does neither.

In the end all we mattered to do, was give the seat to the Democrats.

I have little faith we will be able to regain it.

These are facts involved. These can not be disputed.

 
At 1/28/2006 01:32:00 AM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Yawn!!





Oh, by the way, while you folks were chit chatting, Herring won the race. Hope you solved your issues.

 
At 1/28/2006 02:14:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

TC, even I don't support Robertson.

I missed the anon 11:39 response to me before.

I was not a member of the committee, having been just brought that month (meaning I would join at the end of the night).

The big votes that night were for the officers (other than chairman), and the large influx of new members was clearly an attempt to sway that election by people on both sides.

I had printed all the resolutions for the night, and was prepared to make an impassioned speech against most of them. I never had a chance since I was not a member.

But the idea that you should be removed from committee office because another organization you belong to endorses a democrat was absurd, and still is absurd.

I think it sufficient that officers resign if they cannot support every republican in the county in a general election, and that they offer the services of the committee equally to all republicans running for office.

And the idea that we should stay "publicly" silent about shortcomings of others I wasn't as concerned about. I personally try to follow that rule, but to codify such a concept (especially with the wording of the resolution) would have been a disaster, opening up our proceedings to monthly resolutions over what was 'public', what was an "attack', and what was a 'member' -- we'd have turned into a mutual retribution society instead of fighting to get our people elected.

When i saw your line 'I can't believe", I actually thought you were going to call me out because I missed the meeting on monday.

I'll ignore your unpleasantries.

 
At 1/28/2006 06:55:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the point was when a member of Republican State Central as well as officers of the local committee set up a front organization that is comprised of only themselves and then go out an endorse and campaign for Democrats and Libertarians, that is a bad thing and leads to the lack of confidence and support for the Party. You think it is okay but that it one of the reasons many people stopped showing up -- the PW Republican Committee and its leadership does not support the Republican candidates or cause.

 
At 1/28/2006 06:51:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

I have come to the conclusion that you mean well, but that you are digging a very deep hole here at least if this blog gets any decent readership. I'd like to talk with you sometime and try to figure this all out. If you are interested, I will email you my email address.

 
At 1/28/2006 07:33:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

I was perfectly happy to let this thread die, but there you go again, Anon 6:55 (who I assume to be Anon 11:39): just making it up as you go along. You claim that "a member of Republican State Central as well as officers of the local committee set up a front organization that is comprised of only themselves and then go out an endorse and campaign for Democrats and Libertarians." Of course, your accusation is both historically and operationally false, as least if you are referring ("a front organization"? For what? People who believe in the Republican principle of limited taxes?) to the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance. The organization was set up in about 2001, by, inter alia, Ella Shannon.

Furthermore, no one whom you described "campaign[e]d for Democrats and Libertarians." For those who did so, we noted their taking of our Taxpayers' Protection Pledge. But we only endorsed and campaigned for those we believed were sincere. Neither I nor any of those you describe has ever "endorse[d] and campaign[ed] for Democrats and Libertarians," and I defy you to demonstrate that they did.

And BTW, you claim that "one of the reasons many people stopped showing up" is because "the PW Republican Committee and its leadership does not support the Republican candidates or cause." The PW Republican Committee and its leadership keeps the GOP running in this County. And even assuming arguendo the truth of your claim that the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance does not "support the Republican ... cause," since when did "higher taxes" become a Republican cause?

The primary reason "many people stopped showing up" is because, juvenilely, they didn't get their way on the one thing they cared about: hijacking the Committee for Chairman Sean's narrow and self-serving purposes.

 
At 1/28/2006 09:46:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

rtwng...sure

e-mail me at chairman@vatars.org

 
At 1/28/2006 10:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous 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.

 
At 1/28/2006 11:13:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, first thing, my recollection is that your numbers are off. But why don't you enlighten us, Anon 10:55? What, exactly, does it say? That County Republican elected officials haven't done anything to build the GOP? That County Republicans are disenchanted with a GOP-majority Board of Supervisors that seems incapable of limiting taxes and spending? That County Republican elected officials are out of touch with the grass roots? That only 100 people in the County can manage to make one out of three meetings to maintain their membership, given the hours that they spend in traffic and in working overtime to pay Chairman Sean's tax increases?

I'm not asserting that any of the above questions reflect the facts, but they are certainly equally- plausible alternative explanations for any theory you mi ght put forward to explain this fact.

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

If those numbers are correct, with 7 magisterial districts in PW that means that there are around 14 per district. In other words, there are 14 per 50,000 people! Or, to look at it another way, there is only one Republican Committee member per 3500 people. Given the County's continued population growth, these ratio's are getting worse not better.

James Young, Critically Thinking, MOM, etc., might want to stop throwing rocks at others and look at yourselves for why your Committee is becoming irrelevant and, more importantly, dying.

 
At 1/29/2006 09:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Young -

Shouldn't you disclose that you are an officer of the PWTA, the organization you defend?

Didn't that organization with its ten members (all members of the PW Republican Committee) endorse Davon Gray, a Democrat, and Robert McBride, a Libertarian, for Supervisors over Republican candidates?

Did not the PWTA have posters printed that were posted at polling places listing its endorsed candidates, including those opposing Republican candidates?

Did not the PWTA have flyers made up listing its endorsed candidates, including those opposing Republican candidates?

Is the head of the PWTA Richard Hendricks, a member of State Central and did he not write letters to the editor asking people to vote for PWTA endorsed candidates?

Why did James Young personnally endorse Robert McBride in 2003, a Libertarian candidate who called for the legalization of drugs?

Why did Robert McBride write in 2003:

"McBride would like to correct the record. He does not serve on the board of the Taxpayers' Alliance, though he is an active member and volunteer. In past races, McBride has even helped that organization to post signs promoting other candidates who have signed the taxpayers' pledge.

Aside from that mistake, as well as a handful of misunderstandings about the Libertarian Party, I was pleasantly surprised and impressed to see Mr. Young offer such a glowing review of my qualifications as a candidate."

James Young = RINO

 
At 1/29/2006 11:56:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

I was also willing to let this thread die, but one of Jim Young's comments deserves a response:

"The primary reason "many people stopped showing up" is because, juvenilely, they didn't get their way on the one thing they cared about: hijacking the Committee for Chairman Sean's narrow and self-serving purposes."

I'm curious as to what you base that supposition on. 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.

Maybe some reacted in the manner you suppose, Jim. But I know for a fact that many did not. So, in the future, when you're trying to paint this type of picture, you may want to put down the spray paint can and use a finer brush. You seem to be painting over a considerable amount of facts.

 
At 1/29/2006 12:36:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was also at both meetings and it had nothing to do with Connaughton. The party has become an embarrassment - with party leaders constantly in the paper attacking anyone who disagreed with them. My breaking point hit when those same people started to openly support Democrats with letters to the editor, flyers and posters. When the Party found this behavior acceptable, I realized this organization was too sick for me and I left. I am actually surprised there is still 100 members, but that number will shrink again after the remaining hyenas start attacking each other after the next Committee Convention.

 
At 1/29/2006 02:48:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Yes, Anon 9:41 (and apparently 12:56), I am a Board Member and organizer of the PWTA. Not much of a secret.

Unlike your identity. Why do you hide in anonymity? Because you are actually a RINO, as you inaccurately accuse me of being? Or is it simply because you're a gutless coward who fears the consequences of serial slanders?

As for "the PWTA hav[ing] posters printed that were posted at polling places listing its endorsed candidates, including those opposing Republican candidates," that is false. We only printed posters and flyers and had them at polling places where we thought it would positively influence the outcome of the election; as I recall, Gainesville (John Stirrup) and Occoquan (Corey Stewart). My recollection is that the Dumfries District was not one of those places, though Democrat Davon Gray --- unlike Maureen Caddigan --- took the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. So your assertion is either misinformation or a bald-faced lie.

And I never "personnally [sic] endorse[d] Robert McBride in 2003, a Libertarian candidate who called for the legalization of drugs." Your quotation of McBride says no such thing, either. Your assertion is a bald-faced lie, one that you doubtless make with the protection of anonymity. In fact, I endorsed Corey Stewart. I stood with him in the GOP primary, and in the general election. You must be confusing me with Ruth Griggs, the retiring Republican Supervisor who DID endorse McBride.

What I said about Robert McBride (in my column), and what provoked his letter correct an inaccuracy, was as follows:

"Now, I can’t say that McBride is a friend (perhaps especially after this column is published), though he is an acquaintance. We serve together on the Board of the Prince William Taxpayers’ Alliance. And I respect him as a man of conscience, consistent positions, and uncompromising values. I agree with many of them.

"But Mr. McBride’s intellectual and well thought-out principles have led him politically to the Libertarian Party, where we must part company. I cannot abide a political party which is ambiguous about abortion (though many Libertarians declare themselves to be pro-life, the party takes no position), and isolationist on foreign policy. Libertarianism goes too far down the path to license, and therefore diverges from the path of ordered liberty bequeathed to us by the Framers."

As for you, Mitch, I don't believe you. And since you stand behind a pseudonym, it is impossible to identify other reasons that I may be aware of that you did so. Perhaps you were involved (on the losing end) of the "infighting" that you condemn. Perhaps you precipitated some of it by standing up for higher taxes, contrary to Republican principles. Perhaps you're someone like Jim Cech or Rene Fry (I suspect the latter, based upon your comment that "I did come back briefly to attend the meeting you cite"), who only showed up at the GOP when they wanted something (the GOP endorsement for School Board) that they couldn't get, and like petulant children, never bothered to show up again when they couldn't get it.

And what I base that supposition on is in the fact that the main issue that night was election of inferior Committee officers, the fact that there was a group of individuals running who had well-established records and particpation with the Committee, and a group that clearly had the backing of Chairman Sean who, while not there, was represented by the now-departed and unlamented Hector Quintana. And the only "juvenile" behavior demonstrated at the meeting was committed by those who didn't get their way and thereafter attempted to disrupt the meeting.

As for your assertion that the County GOP Committee needs to be revitalized, is "dying," and/or "increasingly irrelevant," you might be right. I suppose it's a matter of perspective. But there are two groups that such a happenstance serves: Democrats, and those who oppose Republican principles. And at the moment, I fail to see a distinction between the two.

The question is, as someone who purports to care about the GOP, why is it that you seem to take such delight in such a happenstance?

 
At 1/29/2006 03:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

McBride Corrects the Record Regarding James Young Column
Oct. 1, 2003

The Robert McBride campaign would like to thank Mr. James Young for the kind words he expressed in his October 1 column, which appeared in Potomac News.

Young wrote: "Now, I can't say that McBride is a friend, though he is an acquaintance. We serve together on the board of the Prince William Taxpayers' Alliance. And I respect him as a man of conscience, consistent positions and uncompromising values. I agree with many of them."

However, in the interest of accuracy, McBride would like to correct the record. He does not serve on the board of the Taxpayers' Alliance, though he is an active member and volunteer. In past races, McBride has even helped that organization to post signs promoting other candidates who have signed the taxpayers' pledge.

Responded McBride: "Aside from that mistake, as well as a handful of misunderstandings about the Libertarian Party, I was pleasantly surprised and impressed to see Mr. Young offer such a glowing review of my qualifications as a candidate."

James Young = RINO

 
At 1/29/2006 06:13:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Thank you, Anon 3:53, for pulling that letter. It demonstrates that Anon 9:41 (and apparently 12:56) is/are lying, since "kind words" are obviously not an "endorsement." As for the comment that it was "a glowing review of my qualifications as a candidate," that is nothing more than the campaign's spin.

 
At 1/29/2006 10:18:00 PM, Blogger Tom James (aka Brave Hart) said...

Thanks again Mr. Young for helping me make my point!

If you the brilliant litigator you propose to be. Why do you spend so much time calling people names and arguing on blogs? All the brilliant attorneys I know are very good time managers, and waste very litle of it, because their time is so valuable.

If you really believe in all of your issues, wouldn't they be better served by your making more money to finance them, rather than wasting time with all us losers?

 
At 1/30/2006 08:31:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

"As for you, Mitch, I don't believe you."

That's it? That's the best you can do? My understanding and thoughts on this matter don't agree with yours, so I must be lying? My response to that, after careful consideration, is: So What!
As I've stated ad nauseum, my intent is to simply of my thoughts and opinions so that readers can take them for what they are. I'd sooner bang my head against a brick wall than to try and convince you, Jim, of things that fit into your neat little paradigm.

"The question is, as someone who purports to care about the GOP, why is it that you seem to take such delight in such a happenstance? "

Where's the logic here? If I did, in fact, take "such delight" in this, wouldn't it be easier and more expedient to simply do nothing? To just stand back and watch it die? No, I do care, which is why I choose to comment, in the hope that something can be done to revitalize it. Again, you need to think these notions through a bit further before grasping at the motivations of others.

 
At 1/30/2006 12:25:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Mitch (or Rene) as long as you continue to hide in pseudonymity, there's nothing that you say that can be taken seriously. That you would simply show up on that single occasion, and walk out and not return when you didn't get your way, speaks volumes about your commitment to the GOP and the principles for which it stands. Based on your other comments, it's pretty readily apparent to anyone that you don't agree with the latter.

Shaun Kenney reflects comments that I have made in the past about whether we have a GOP which is a vehicle for the advancement of a set of principles, or whether it is merely a vehicle to obtain and maintain political power. I want a party that is the former. You apparently want one which is the latter for people you deem (for reasons that remain shrouded in mystery, but would probably become apparent were your identity known) worthy.

Sadly, now that the GOP has become a successful, majority party, there are those in the latter group (B?) who will attempt to use it to satisfy their personal ambitions. It's no wonder that some insist on demonizing people who actually believe in something other than their own political power.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:09:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

First of all, my name is not Rene. In truth, I've never even heard of Rene Fry. And, I've only heard of Jim Cech from your previous comments.

As far as my being taken seriously, though, you assume that I'm looking for some elusive credibility on this and other issues. We've been down this road so many times in the past that I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. My opinions are my own. Most I base on experiences I've had with others discussed on this and other blogs. Others are based on my life in Prince William County, which spans almost thirty years. At no time have I ever asked for your agreement or consent on anything I've said. I choose to continue using a pseudonym and let the readers (all of them, not just you) draw their own conclusions. If you choose not to take me seriously because of this, so be it. The truth is, many readers here dont't take you seriously, and you;ve gone to great lengths to make sure that these people know exactly who you are and what you stand for. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. People are going to believe what they want to believe and are going to filter what they hear based, at least in part, on who's doing the telling.

As far as the GOP goes, again, I think it's becoming too exclusive in terms allowing variety and peaceful coexistance when one chooses to hold moderate views on one or more specific issues. I have a problem with that and choose to speak my mind about. I believe that, if this is allowed to continue, the party will lose support and, thus, elections.

As to my ambition and thirst for power, the simple fact that you've never come close to guess my identity should give you at least some idea that I'm not in this for personal benefit or glory. I'm simply taking advantage of this forum to speak my mind and, when I feel it's necessary, defend those friends that I support when I believe they are being treated unfairly.

 
At 1/30/2006 05:38:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Mitch, that I've never come close to guessing your identity (Jim Caddigan?) is probably more of a reflection of your irrelevance than anything else.

And "too exclusive"? And I've supported plenty of people with whom I have major disagreements on one or more issues, as has every activist I know, so please don't lecture me about "allowing variety and peaceful coexistance when one chooses to hold moderate views on one or more specific issues."

To the contrary, it is you who seem to have a problem with "allowing variety and peaceful coexistance when one chooses to" support a Republican candidate in an internal nominating contest when you support someone else. And what your so-called "moderate" friends are doing is trying to demonize those who don't hold your views. You wouldn't know "tolerance" if it kicked you in the pants. Like our friends who support the radical homosexual agenda, though, it is not "tolerance" that you seek; it is acceptance.

 
At 1/30/2006 08:49:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Jim:

You're really beginning to bore me. You talk a good game for a while and then you just lose all sense of reality and logic. I'm fine with you resorting to calling me irrelevant. Once again you choose to ignore the very simple fact that I don't want or need your approval or respect. What I find hillarious is your suggestion about tolerance. Is this type of illogical thinking what you learned at Hampden-Syndey? Glad I turned them down.

 
At 1/30/2006 11:15:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Glad to hear you "turned down" Hampden-Sydney, Mitch. They made too lucrative an offer to me (full ride). You wouldn't have fit in too well, anyway. You see, with an Honor Code, things like anonymous slanders are frowned upon.

 
At 1/30/2006 11:48:00 PM, Blogger Tom James (aka Brave Hart) said...

Mr. Young you really would be well served the seek medication. it would definitly improve your quality of life.

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

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/31/2006 10:08:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

And where is your medical degree from, Tom?

As for the quality of my life, it's fine. Unlike some, I don't look to government to improve it. THOSE are the people who could use some medication though, of course, my degree is in law, not medicine.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home