Tuesday, January 31, 2006

We Can Grow, or We Can Continue To Lose

Let me begin thanking all of the new readers of TC. Today was our highest day ever with over 3,500 views bumping our total over the 100,000 mark. On the race: Supervisor Mick Staton ran a hard-fought campaign, and I believe he was beaten because of the following- 1)A More Energized Democratic Party 2)The oppositions success in linking him to the "Far-Right" 3)A Lack of Republican Ideas I know how hard Supervisor Mick Staton worked to get elected. I saw him a couple times throughout the day today, and have seen him working hard over the past few weeks. Throughout the race I have grown to respect Supervisor Staton, and believe him to be an honest man who believes strongly in a set of conservative principles. The Democratic Party was more energized today, as were they in November. I saw at least two Democrats for every one Republican out in the field. While the Democrats had every poll covered from open to close, we had gaping holes. I am willing to accept criticism for my 2nd thought, but I have no doubt that the Herring campaigns linkage of Supervisor Staton to his father-in-law played a huge role in his loss. While Staton tried to connect with the voters on transportation and education, the opposition's linkage of him to the far right made all his issues seem futile. As far as the ideas of the campaign, I am not sure I fully understood them. I received mailer after mailer bashing Herring, but saw little on Staton's platform or plans for the future. As Herring painted him as a "Republican Tax-Raiser" at the doors, Staton's mailers just didn't do the job. While some may disagree, I believe Supervisor Staton has a good record on the Board of Supervisors, but I do not believe he stressed this enough. What Does This Mean? 1)The End of "Conservative" Republican Dominance in Northern Virginia 2)A Need for A Change in State Party Leadership 3)We Are Going To Lose the Senate in 2007 Regardless of how the far-right will spin it, with the loss of Supervisor Mick Staton, the era of Delegate Dick Black and Senator Ken Cuccinelli is over in Northern Virginia. I do not say this as a bash on those two, but simply state it as fact. Senator Cuccinelli was one of the main backers of Staton. He believed when he got to Richmond Staton would vote with him-Jay O'Brien, and Mark Obenshain. Dick Black, Eugene Delgaudio, Ken Cuccinelli, and Chris Craddock were the driving forces behind the campaign. With the loss of Staton, new blood is needed in Northern Virginia if our party is to survive. The loss in this race had NOTHING to do with a split in our party. Congressman Tom Davis sent Staton workers, and Chairman of the Loudoun GOP Randy Minchew worked as if he had won the nomination. All sides came together on this race, but now it is time to win. A loss of Governor, Slim Slim Slim Win Over a Communist for Lt. Governor, Re-count for Attorney General, loss of seats in NOVA, Continuing Primaries By the "R.I.N.O far-far-far right", 3 of 4 special election slaughters, and uncontrollable runs against well-liked party chairs=this all sums up our party currently. I had been hearing a lot lately about the failure of Chairwoman Kate Obenshain Griffin, but I haven't bought in..until now. Recently two unnamed state-central members told me that they are going to call for the removal of Chairwoman Kate Griffin. I am beginning to believe this might be needed. She simply can not control the party, and is doing nothing except breeding discontent amongst the two factions. She has made no public announcement supporting Jim Rich, the choice of Congressman Frank Wolf, when she herself was accepted because she was Senator Allen's choice. She has spoken publicly slamming the Republicans who voted for Warner's tax-increase, and has seemed to be going on a "witch-hunt" for these. Considering they made up 40% of the Virginia Legislature, this was a very, very bad idea. We are seeing the consequences of this now, as our party continues to shrivel up state-wide. Chairwoman Griffin is behind much of this VCAP primaring business. If Chairwoman Griffin is not to "get involved" in interparty races up here, I urge her to stay out of many(not all) of these nasty and pointless primaries. As far as this public stunt of a NOVA Task Force(to be held on Thursday), while many of its members are distinguished leaders, the absence of the only NOVA Republican to reach some success running state-wide recently(Sean Connaughton) is a big hole. Regardless of ideological thoughts and personal vendettas-we should all agree that Chairman Sean knows what it means to win in NOVA. If some change does not happen quickly, I believe the removal of Kate Obenshain Griffin might be needed. We need a party uniter, not a party divider. The results of this race have yet again exposed our weaknesses in Northern Virginia. The loss of every-single precinct can not be attributed to Tom DeLay, or "Jerry Kilgore's Coat tails". As I have been telling you all for weeks that we would lose this seat, people continually commented to me that "November was different" or "you're being pessimistic". While I do believe national Republican corruption might have some impact, it does not cause a Republican to lose 61-39. We are going to lose the Virginia Senate in '07. I was told tonight at the party that the loss was because of "voters view the Republican party as the party of John Chichesters". This is very naive. No one at doors complains about Republicans being tax-raisers, they complained about Republicans being wackos. Polls constantly show us voters agreed with the increase, and to blame to polls on "wording of the questions" shows a lack of responsibility. Again I say we do not need to water down values. We need strong conservative candidates-who know what issues to mention. Senators Ken Cuccinelli, Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis, and Jay O'Brien will all lose in '07 unless drastic measures can be taken to ebb the tide in Northern Virginia. Even though a Herring campaign worker told me "Randy Minchew would have had the race locked up" I disagree. While I believe Chairman Minchew would have done drastically better, I honestly believe he still would have lost the race. The spread is just too much. To win back this seat in '07(Minchew, Craddock, Staton) we need to once again become the party of ideas. Northern Virginia Republicans can learn from Supervisor Staton's loss. We can grow stronger by discussing the mistakes, and making sure to correct them. We can use it to win elections again. ...or... We can blame the loss on national politics, and continue to lose. Which one will it be Republicans? I don't know about you-but I am SICK of losing.

94 Comments:

At 1/31/2006 11:11:00 PM, Blogger Ryan said...

powerful man, very good point. We cant afford to lose more seats in Virginia, the dems are taking more control of fairfax. we need to stop blaming Bush and congress for our losses. we also need strong leadership in our party. Im going to stop ranting now.

again very good post.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:17:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

TC,

Excellent observations. Also, thank you for taking my call today.

How about looking at the pathetic representation encouraged, nurtured, and promoted from within MY party, the Republican party.

It is difficult not to gloat. BlackOut lobbied hard to get Minchew into the election. Unfortunately, the cleansing is not happening from within. Minchew would of provided an election on issues. Unfortunately it turned into another spanking for the Black Brigade.

Is BlackOut proud, I'd prefer to say, "we told you so", again and again.

We'll comment more later, but I'll give you a big hint. If the Republicans don't personally kick Delgaudio out of this hemisphere it will be the last chance for any type of rebuild. It will be a total melt down.

The future is in the Republican's hands. We'll see which, so call Republican's take the helm and get things back in shape.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:18:00 PM, Anonymous Stephen said...

Which comes first: principle or party? I prefer the former. So did Reagan, in declaring that the Republicans ought to paint with bold colors, not pale pastels.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:23:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Stephen-
As you mention at your site"This funding disparity has larger implications. As party moderates frequently speak about the need to run moderates to win, they set up those conditions by failing to support conservatives. This is particularly true in the Virginia State Senate."

This is very far from the truth. As I mentioned in my post about, your "party moderates" (which was a link to my blog) is not accurate. I am not a moderate for one.I supported Mick, and worked my ass off for him. So did Randy Minchew, Tom Davis' crew..and others.

If we are considered the "moderates" than I believe you are mistaken.

Principle before party. but we can have principles, without be "all or nothing" its simply more pragmatic.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:24:00 PM, Anonymous kateobenshainsucks said...

REMOVE KATE OBENSHAIN NOW!!!

 
At 1/31/2006 11:27:00 PM, Blogger GOPLite said...

TC,
Ive been saying the same thing for some time now..the fights and the splits within the party will not help us in the future..Its time for the younger Generation of Republicans to take over the party and bring it to the level it should be.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:28:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TC, Thank you for this post. You make many good points.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:28:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

My jaw dropped when I read this:Two questions now arise: how should conservatives punish the establishment for failing to support their candidates, if they should at all, and how do we go about repairing the rifts in the party’s wings.

It’s something I’ll have some thoughts on later. For the time being, I simply want to assert that Staton lost not because of his ideology, but because the party is both dysfunctional and failed to support the candidate.

that is some kool-aid drinking talk there. I worked this area, and saw who helped.

In fact the opposite happened. Randy who is NOT moderate...but a VERY conservative leader...helped Staton out ALOT. Over 11 hours the past weekend. There was no inner-party problem here in the campaign, and I would believe Kellie DeRouen , Micks CM, would attest to that.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:29:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

-The last comment was directed to Stephen Braunlichs post at http://www.savethegop.com/

 
At 1/31/2006 11:35:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC, to some extent you are not helping here.

While I agree we need to come to some middle ground as a party, we should not have to give up our ideals to do so.

I also do not know how you can group Ken Cuccinelli with the likes of Black and DelGaudio. He is a completely different person than that kind of over-the-top persona, and while Black and Cuccinelli were political allies they are completely different in their demeanor and approach to communicating with constituents, legislating, and campaigning.

You say conservatives are viewed as "wackos", yet you seem to agree with these "wackos" on their policy positions. If this is the case, why do you think that the public views them thus? Is it just the Black/DelGaudio painting by the Dems and the Press?

Conservatives in NOVA have to understand that not only the Dems are trying to caricature them into "wackos" despite the fact that most support the same Republican issues that have been there since Reagan, but the local Press in NOVA now willingly smears them as well in coordinated mass publishing to that effect. I know you experienced this in the Craddock campaign (someone you call part of the Group A).

I personally think a post by "Steve" on the Staton concession thread here tonight was actually quite interesting and he may have a point as well.

Bottom line, Republicans need to find a way of successfully beating back the lies put out by the Dems, the press, and the sore-primary-loser moderates in the party who would rather see Dems in office than conservatives.

I think also the party in NOVA particularly needs to do alot better in recruiting polished and accomplished candidates. This goes directly to the problems in the party organization today, and yes, I am always willing to consider leadership changes at all levels, but answer me this, who has more impact in recruiting candidates for office in Fairfax and Loudoun? Would it be Kate Obenshain? Or would it rather be Eric Lundberg, Randy Minchew or even, dare I say it, Jim Rich?

As to moderates, I fully support their efforts within the party. If they can get moderate nominees, more power to them. They just need to remember that they too will need conservative votes to win in NOVA so they are going to have to tow the line somewhat as well in not demonizing conservatives and being willing to support some conservative social issues. If there's one thing for certain, social conservatives believe their issues are important and they do vote that way. If they continue to be demeaned and ignored by the moderates, even if moderates do win primaries, they as likely to lose as the Black's and, potentially, DelGaudios.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:36:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Rtwng-

Don't twist my statements.

I NEVER said to give up our ideals.

and I said our party as a whole is viewed as wackos. That includes the likes of Sean, Tom, Tom Rust, and others.

Kate-considering we are losing state-wide.

and again Rtwng-my point exactlly.

Some of these people you consider "moderates" arent!

Moderates would vote centrist..while people like Tom and Sean..who are great examples of how to win in NOVA...they are called moderates. When THEY ARE NOT. Look at voting records, read speaches.

Black and Cuccinelli are more than political allies.

While I like Senator Cuccinelli, I do not believe he will be able to win election again

 
At 1/31/2006 11:37:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TC,

Good points, but....

"A more energized Democratic Party..."

More energized than the Democrats have been in the past? Certainly.

More energized than Republicans? Well, obviously, but the more relevant point is the most embarassing turnout. Less than 14%?

Do you realize Herring's percentage is almost identical to Mimms' win over Candy Cassell for this seat in a special election in '98? Yet the total number is not significantly different? 20,000 votes today to 18,800 votes in this district which has nearly doubled since then.

The people get the government they deserve. We deserve to be punished for this abysmal support of a worthy candidate.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:39:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Stephen,

No one is asking anyone to question principle or party. There are good candidates that just seem to go all out on a few issues (mostly 2 issues) and nowhere on many other important issues. They make the party appear to be only interested in gay marriage and abortion. There are many important issues that are all important to achieving a better Commonwealth.

I'm not saying this is the case in this particular election because I don't live in the area and I'm not overly familiar with the candidates. I have heard more than a few voters in this race mentioning the "extremes" of Mr. Black. Right or wrong, fellow Republicans have an impact on those running for office.

I'm saying that in the last year or so, the increasingly extreme, narrowly focused campaigns are causing us to lose votes.

There's more than one way to meet our moral objectives without looking like homophobic zealots.


TC,

Congratulations and thank you for a hard day's work. Even though the campaign didn't end in victory, your efforts were huge and deserve our thanks.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:50:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

They can tone down on the rhetoric, and start producing for their district.

Tom is moderate on abortion.
nothing else.

Sean is not moderate on anything.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:50:00 PM, Anonymous blightpesticide said...

You're not getting it! Everyone is NOW at least saying Black and Delgaudio are tied together. That's progress.

What is not being said is that Staton lost because HE was tied to Black and Delgaudio. Fair or not, he'll never be able to escape that.

The BBers are too extreme, totally paralyzed by their social views, and a total turn off because of their exclusionistic tactics. A majority don't like them because they are vicious if you don't agree with them.

I see a pattern. One that happened after Black's defeat. A bunch of rationalisation. Tears on the wrong wounds. A classic case of denial. Denial leading to serious barriers to analyzing the truth.

People want good governance, good debate, and good joint-party solutions. Not a bunch of wackos and their agendas.

Admit it, they are the poster chilren of the local republican party. They are the easy targets. The Republicans need to put the likes of Black/Staton/Delgaudio on a milk carton and be gone with them. It needs to be public and it needs to be sincere.

Then and only then can the party start hoping for a resurrection.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:50:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

So if we don't need to give up our principles in NOVA to win, what do you suggest people like Sen. Cuccinelli and Sen Obrien do to win? I for one see Chairman Sean and Tom Davis both taking quite moderating views from the traditional Republican platform. Are there issues they should shy away from? Is it persona? What is it if it is not issues?

Lucy,

Please clarify: "looking like homophobic zealots.". Is this the public persona of people like DelGaudio and Black? Or is it simply supporting traditional marriage as an issue. One of those I would agree with you on, but the other I believe would be just as destructive the the success of the party in NOVA as recent events.

 
At 1/31/2006 11:53:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Clarification on my last paragraph above:

One I agree with you on and is fixable, the other if abandoned would be just as destructive to the Party in NOVA as recent events.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:02:00 AM, Anonymous Chris said...

Amen, brother. TC, I was one of those people calling for Kate Griffin's removal last month. Your right, what is happening in NOVA is really depressing. But I think it all depends on what your definition of "Conservative." I think conservatives can still win in NOVA, what happens is that Republicasn in Virignia seem to think that "Conservative" is a word defined by social issues. Instead, we need conservatives who will fight for fiscal issues. Democrats have won in NOVA on social issues. Its how Craddock went down, Golden, Staton, and Black. If a conservative Republican in NOVA could go an entire campaign without mentioning abortion, he could win.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:05:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Couple of questions:
Why did McDonnell pick someone from a district that was not safe GOP, knowing that the party could lose the seat?
And why did Mims accept, knowing the same as above, that his party would have a difficult time holding his seat?

I like Bob McDonnell a lot: I supported him in the primary and the general, and traveled to another county to observe during the recount. I also have a lot of respect for Bill Mims and think he was a great pick for Deputy AG, but I just question why this decision makes sense. Now we've lost the Senate seat and I believe that the Democrats will have a very good chance of winning the Senate in 2007, or parity.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:05:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

Rtwng-

For some reason-my response came out before your question.

pesticide-

Staton was not a power-hungry wacko.
I had a long conversation with Delgaudio tonight.
he told me to "get a vicectomy" .

he is actually a smart guy, and i wonder if he jokes about this gay stuff..

I mean..I know he doesn't. But it just sounds better to me, if I can believe that he's not obsessed.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:06:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

They will win in '07 because well be stupid, and spend money primarying incumbent GOPErs instead of spending money holding seats.

I agree I don't know what Mims took it..he had to know what was going in.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:20:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I'm loving this.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:26:00 AM, Blogger jujhpkjuhpkjh[pkij said...

Two things come to mind to help the GOP in state elections:

1. Do a better job of showcasing how we are offering relevant solutions to the challenges facing the Commonwealth. There are a ton of good ideas amongst the GOP Delegates and Senators. We must do a better job of selling those ideas as opposed to selling catchy slogans.

2. Keep our fights off of the front page of the newspaper. It is natural that the House and Senate will disagree on issues. Honest debate and deliberation would produce no other result. Unfortunately, our heartfelt differences have produced a situation where there are realy two GOP's in the legislature, perhaps four -- House conservatives, House moderates, Senate conservatives and Senate moderates. Our intraparty and interchamber differences need to be settled in-house so that our legislators are not boxed into postions where they cannot present a unified political front. We have to remember that at the end of the day, we are all on the same team.

The two points are certainly tied together.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:29:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Chris:

" If a conservative Republican in NOVA could go an entire campaign without mentioning abortion, he could win"

You are wrong. If a candidate who is fiscally conservative will not mention abortion, he/she will lose. Social conservatives will stay home in droves as they view this a basic issue and Republicans whether you like it or not, need those votes to win in NOVA as well. We either get together on the fiscal issues and accept candidates with thoughtful social conservative issue positions, or we also lose.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:32:00 AM, Anonymous blightpesticide said...

TC,

If I take your word (I am not necessarily agreeing with you) that
"Staton was not a power-hungry wacko" (I assume you are referencing papa Black)...you must at least admit he was very successfully tied to the Black Brigade.

We'll have to different as to whether he really was a BB member. I go on the statements made by Staton's campaign manager, and also the loud deafening silence from Staton to public distance himself from the BB. If he said something to you privately, he made a big mistake, he should of said it from a mountain top.

I think he will for ever be tied to the BB.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:38:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very interesting analysis of why Republicans are losing in Northern VA. As a proud former Loudoun Democrat active in politics who lived through years of domination by the GOP (starting with Mims special election win over Jean Brown to be followed by Black’s special election win over Candy Cassell), I offer a different perspective.

The problem for NoVa Republicans is part message, part messenger.

The current GOP nominating process yields a message that is incoherent babble coming straight from the talking points of the Eagle Forum, Public Advocate, and other collections of inside the beltway wing nut philosophy. The issues that matter most to the average folks in Loudoun are education and transportation. As a highly educated electorate, they understand you can’t say you are for more schools and roads, but no new investments. Attacks on the DARE program and high school plays are seen for political theater and it becomes difficult then to associate the GOP with serious public policy. Loudoun voters don’t favor taxes increases, but regularly support $100M+ bond referendums for new schools, police, and fire services. They also expect competent government and are not amused by rantings that appeal to a narrow core. This strategy may have been successful when the early development of the exurbs was largely white flight, but diversity of thinking and the electorate now moving into Loudoun is more like Fairfax and inner suburbs.

The more pressing problem is the messenger. Uber conservatives like Black, Delgaudio, Stanton, and Farris push out sensible moderates like Bob Gordon, John Andrews and Randy Minchew. I know Randy very well and he is very honorable person. His thoughtful approach to public policy would have been better received, especially compared to the knee-jerk Stanton, although not likely overcome the message problem or a superior Democratic candidate like Mark Herring. Moderates in the GOP will need to retake their party and recruit sensible candidates and until this happens, you can expect these kinds of results. The GOP needs to recruit and successfully nominate more of the likes of Tom Davis, Sean Connaughton, Tom Rust, and Joe May to be successful in Loudoun.

BTW, this is the first time I’ve visited this blog and I was amazed out how quickly results were reported (instead of at the SBE site). I’m impressed with the range of comments and thoughtful replies. Too Conservative - Keep up the good work.

PS: I’m also looking forward a future Caption Contest about Tim Kaine’s eyebrows.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:38:00 AM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

TC,

That's very funny about Delgaudio.

Could you share anything else he said, or was he just in a jovial mood? Any comments about the election? Turnout? Justification for his candidates defeat?

I'd find that very interesting. Others may too.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:49:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, if Mark Herring can move a few blocks and win a District, maybe Randy Minchew can take an apartment in Ashburn. He's the best match up against Dave Poisson.

Otherwise, Poisson will have that seat as long as he wants it.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:53:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

When your party chairman runs for office and loses in the primary, it is hard to win the election. But this was a special election. The democrats didn't get 10% of the vote. But the republicans got worse.

In a special election, it makes no difference what the candidates are saying. I can guarantee you that there are WAY more than 7500 republicans in that district who would sign on to everything Stanton said he would do. Maybe he couldn't win a real election, but in a special election its just about getting 20% of your side out to the polls. We didn't do that.

In a special election, it's all about having identified your voters and getting them to the polls.

Loudoun County has now FAILED in two consecutive elections to get their voters to the polls. November could be seen as an anomaly, or even a repudiation of Black's social beliefs (or his childish antics). But when the winner gets fewer votes for Senate than the highly conservative Bob Marshall got in his house race, you can't say it was political ideology.

No, it's time to face the facts. The Loudoun committee has lost the ability to turn out republicans votes. That is what we need to fix. The democrats have outspent us by factors of 10. In november, we had the guy running for DEMOCRAT on our republican GOTV list. We had many others who were clearly democrats on our list. Our lists are largely outdated, and we need to fix that. Because the democrats have millions of dollars in Soros and other money to do the job.

It could well be that, had we not had a primary, the republican might have won. You could imagine that having a primary turned off the half of the activist base that supported the losing candidate. But I note (in a rare agreement with TC) that the margin of loss was so great that it is unlikely there were that many republicans who were identified but refused to come out simply because Minchow didn't win.

I think Minchow shouldn't have run for office, because he was the sitting committee chair. But I don't think the problem was him running, I think it was the inability of the committee to find and deliver republicans.

I know our committee sent people into the county to help out. We wouldn't be able to do that in a normal election, and a county committee should have the foot soldiers for their own county.

I don't blame conservatives for Kilgore losing, I've blamed his awful death penalty ads which turned a winning issue into a loser, I blame his bizarre rejection of the VDLC, and his "prevent defense" campaign. I know a few conservatives who said they wouldn't vote for him, but most conservatives were out in force for him -- but we don't make a majority in the republican party, especially in Northern Virginia.

I think TC may be right about the state commitee as well, they didn't seem to support this race, they seem a bit out of touch. I don't mind that they haven't taken a position in the Rich race, I think they should stay our of it, but any time you are losing elections it makes sense to look at the people leading the party apparatus.

Oddly, this is the first leader that TC has mentioned as having responsibility, he's actively supporting the incumbents in two counties and a district, and is opposed to the opposition in the third county (although I think in that case he would support an alternate candidate).

Oddly, the only county where he supports looking for a new chair is Prince William, which is the only county in the area that held all of its republican seats.

 
At 2/01/2006 01:34:00 AM, Anonymous Chris said...

Rightwing Extremist,

I did not mean statewide, I meant in NOVA. When you meet a substantial amount of social conservatives who can elect politicians in NOVA, please introduce me. The problem for conservatives IS social issues--NOVA is moderatly liberal on social issues and moderatly conservative on economic issues. Thats what that statement meant to reflect.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:01:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

I constantly see people invoking Reagan in their argument that there should be exclusivity in the Republican Party and I know, for a fact, that he would have been totally opposed to that concept. The real problem here is not moderates or conservatives, or even liberals...it is growing intolerance. None but the intolerant are suggesting that anyone should be giving up their principles to accommodate others.

TC made this statement, "Polls constantly show us voters agreed with the [tax] increase." Although it may or may not be true, I disagree...and have always disagreed. I never supported any of the tax increases and spoke to a number of our elected representatives about it. I didn't agree with them, though I understood their reasoning, but I saw no reason to vilify them for what I viewed to be one mistake which did not define them in their role as Republicans and effective leaders. (Now there are people such as John Chichester who are not only repeating their mistakes but flaunting them...that's quite beyond the pale.) I also have not, nor will I ever, support any tax cuts without commensurate spending cuts. I know it's weird, but I always thought that government had an obligation to balance their checkbook just like everybody else...particularly since they're using everybody else's money.

Because of this, and the fact that I do not believe every issue to be black and white; because I am a Constitutionalist (and have always been) and believe in the rights of the individual, which the government has an obligation to protect not trample; and because I believe in limited government interference in the lives of the citizen (based upon Constitutional obligations)...I have been called a moderate...a RINO...and even a liberal.

I have often been ashamed to be a Republican in recent years. The Party has become unrecognizable, and not because of issues (I have absolutely no argument on that front with the “far, far” right...I respect their opinion just like anyone else's)...but I have a REAL problem with the intolerance that gives the Republican Party the APPEARANCE of being the party of bigotry, homophobia, and narrow dogma. TC is right…that party will not continue to win elections.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:47:00 AM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Rtwng Extrmst,

Public persona.

I don't want gay marriage or abortions. I would imagine most Republicans would agree with that to some degree or another. But I think when our party comes off looking like we hate the people that make either of those choices or we are infinitely "better" than those people, it makes us look like hypocrites. Even when we are extremely passionate about those two very important issues, I feel me must also pay strong attention to other considerations (fiscal conservatism, transportation, health care, etc.).

I honestly believe the Dems have a really good chance right now to blur the lines between the parties. The Democratic party has the corner on the "good will toward men" part. They prefer more taxes to get to it but they do fight the fight for "how much can your gov't do for you". They're moving into the fiscal "run it like a business" part (Warner).

Republicans must show that we are still the party for great values AND great economics AND great governing.

 
At 2/01/2006 06:03:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Criticallythinking is such a hoot! It was the Loudoun Committee which is losing elections, of course, that Committee is dominated by the Black faction that nominated the candidate and ran the campaign.

The Party is losing because it nominates candidates who are not mainstream, who have no life experiences and skills, who talk down to voters, and who are more interested in power then community service.

Oh yeah, one more thing. The constant threats and attacks on "moderates" have turned these peope away from the Party and its candidates. In Northern Virginia, at least, the tipping point has been reached as more and more "Republican" voters turn "independent" and eventually turn "Democrat" because we do not give them any choice.

We will lose Cuccinelli, OBrien, and Davis next year, and the only chance to pick up a Democrat seat (Colgan) will be lost with a candidate like Bob Fitzimmons.

 
At 2/01/2006 06:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Critically Thinking should focus a little less on the "critical" part and a bit more on "thinking?"

 
At 2/01/2006 07:02:00 AM, Blogger Hirons said...

The Sky is falling - The Sky is falling!!!


Okay - I can't disagree with most of the post, but let's not pull the fire alarm for a lit cigarette. Let's be methodical about change, before we get what we ask for - total anarchy.

Maybe change at party leadership would be a good thing, but the D.s are making stronger inroads because they are stealing the issues of growth and transportation away from us. That spells a drop in NOVA R. representation. We have to beat them on the issues not with pretty faces.

 
At 2/01/2006 07:04:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

The VA Republican Party needs to run on more that GOD, GUNS and GAYS. Right now these are the only issues that the GOP in VA are known for. These issues are important, but not more so to your average voter than Transporation, Education and Public Safety. That should be the lesson of all of these recent losses. Don't give up your ideals, but run on a platform that energizes people and the 3G just isn't doing it anymore.

 
At 2/01/2006 08:16:00 AM, Anonymous eileen said...

What happened to Mosby's Ghost? He's been awfully quiet lately.

 
At 2/01/2006 08:28:00 AM, Anonymous MOM said...

"Supervisor Mick Staton ran a hard-fought campaign, and I believe he was beaten because of the following-
1)A More Energized Democratic Party
2)The oppositions success in linking him to the "Far-Right"
3)A Lack of Republican Ideas"


"What Does This Mean?
1)The End of "Conservative" Republican Dominance in Northern Virginia
2)A Need for A Change in State Party Leadership
3)We Are Going To Lose the Senate in 2007"

These comments and other similar are part of the story but you're hitting all around the real target. Truth is, Loundoun, both in the case of Black and Staton, was an anomaly to a great extent.

The losses in Loundoun can be attributed to the candidates themselves and I would argue the county party leadership.

Specific idealogy aside, Black was viewed as a "wacko" not for the content of his views but because of his aberrant and at times uncivil behavior, attributes that turn off some of the most ardent party supporters. As his son-in-law, Staton, despite being more polished, could not escape the baggage of his father-in-law. Moreover, Staton carried additional baggage from his tenure on the Board. To ignore the discord in Loundoun over many of the development projects he has supported is to ignore the primary issue for most Loundoun voters, namely, the impact of current and future development. In an effort to distance himself from past positions, Staton attempted to say all the right things about development and transportation. Unfortunately for the candidate, it is nearly impossible to distance oneself from recorded votes, public statements and 45% of his campaign contributions coming from developers. That notwithstanding, I do not place the blame on Staton for running, that is his right.

The true focus should be on the county party leadership for not recognizing or worse ignoring the candidate's baggage. There comes a point at which social idealogy must take a back seat to fiscal idealogy and pragmatism. Were the differences in core conservative values between Minchew and Staton so great that the perceived social "negatives" of Minchew outweighed the baggage of Staton. Perhaps a better question is why there wasn't a better choice. The leadership in Loundoun needs to take a long hard look at itself and determine whether there is too much of a focus on their own self-interests and just whose agendas are steering it. As I've said before, core conservative "social" values need to be a part of the platform for any Republican in a NOVA race to maintain the core conservative wing of the party, candidates merely need to strike a balance when it comes to the rhetoric and the fiscal/pragmatic issues that most impact the electorate. It is one thing to support those core social values and another, as in the case of Black, to make them the primary focus.

The electorate in NOVA is far to educated to believe that the PRIMARY function of elected official at the state and local level is purveying the core social values of the party. That is an issue more for Congressional and Presidential elections wherein the candidate actually has a substantial impact, although given the manner in which both parties have botched "social" legislation, it is increasingly an issue controlled by the Judiciary.

Lest, anyone believes this is a diatribe against the "far-far right", it is not. I would suggest that the flip side of the coin might rear its head in PWC in the near future. It is not difficult to envision the Dems hammering "moderates" Connaughton, Nohe, Covington and even Caddigan on the impact of development in the county. The only two who have insulated themselves are Stewart and to a slightly lesser degree Stirrup. Similarly, the oft expressed issue of property taxes will also impact those same candidates along the same lines. Again, through their opposition to fiscally irresponsible issues supported by the others, Stirrup and Stewart are the only ones who have insulated themselves. To wit, the county party leadership needs to grasp that potential and understand that it can not simply be a personality cult for the chair.

 
At 2/01/2006 08:28:00 AM, Anonymous marty nohe said...

"We have to beat them on the issues not with pretty faces."

I'm so glad you feel that way, Scott. I totally agree. Of course, then again, if our goal was to win with pretty faces, I'd be toast.

 
At 2/01/2006 09:10:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

MOM- You had me until you started down the Stewart road. What has he done to mitigate the effect of growth in PWC? And, I am not going to believe you if you start in on the "He votes No on all growth," because, if the rest of the board voted like Stewart, our tax rate would be through the roof paying off all the law suits that developers would win agains the county. We need real change in how we approve growth, and, because of our screwy way of doing things in VA, that change has to come from Richmond. If you really want to control growth, you would support Kaine's proposals to give cities and counties more control and more LEGAL latitude to say NO.

 
At 2/01/2006 09:23:00 AM, Blogger GOPLite said...

Marty and Scott
Not only do we have to beat them with Issues but we have to present our issues better...
You can have the best cut of steak, And all the fixin's but if you serve it on a trash can lid ..its just not the same

Ive read on this Blogg attacks on Chairman Connaughton and Congressman Davis and I stand puzzled on why we attack Republicans that are actually doing good things for our party we bury them we name call , but those same people put on pedestals those people who are hell bent on burying our party with infighting and nasty comments ..these are the people who are serving our steak on trash can lids..If I were to be a person looking for a party and I heard the likes of Jim Young I would run into the arms of the Democrats..we are not focusing we are not thinking and we are losing our voice in Northern Virginia, Connaughton and Congressman Davis and even Supervisor Nohe who in POLITICS I admire are the kind of people who we need to build our party around not complainers and do nothings!!

 
At 2/01/2006 09:31:00 AM, Anonymous MOM said...

I'm not saying he says "no" to all growth or that "no" is always the proper answer. Until there is some change in Richmond that mitigates the Dillon Rule, "no" can not always be the answer but a qualified yes can suffice in many instances.

What Stewart and Stirrup seemingly realize is that "no" is an appropriate response in many instances particularly as regards rezoning applications. Municipal bodies are empowered with substantially more leeway on those issues than by-right usage for example. That leeway, when exercised properly, can force inadequacies to be addressed or applications to be denied on easily defended grounds. Unfortunately the board's counsel and planning staff don't seem to understand that or are too close to the developers.

Unlike the other board members, I don't buy in to the premise that the denial of inappropriate rezoning applications will result in successful litigation by developers. They may threaten and posture but how often do they actually litigate the denial of a rezoning application and how often do they actually prevail? The answer is they don't. Rather, they usually pull the application off the table prior to denial and try to rework it or wait for a change in the makeup of the board. The expense of that type of litigation as well as the delays it creates in development is too prohibitive and would destroy the anticipated profit margin on most development.

 
At 2/01/2006 09:33:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

CT-

Your comments were thought out, but I believe mistaken.

I was at the Loudoun GOP meeting where a 2500 check was cut to Staton. People from the committee worked hard for him.

Minchew worked hard for him.

pesticide-take my word. Supervisor Staton is a good guy.

Ms.Cheney-As always, well thought out comment. I did not mean by my poll comments that we should just up and support tax-increases, we shouldnt. But we shouldnt send out mailers and tell people at the door that we were against it.

..because the majority of people werent.

MOM-good comments as well..but also a little mistaken.

The Loudoun GOP had no stake in this. They are there to support candidates-they did. Give money-they did.

This"The true focus should be on the county party leadership for not recognizing or worse ignoring the candidate's baggage"

I hope you are talking about the state-party,because the Loudoun GOP ran its Chairman in a primary.

So he obviously recognized something...

 
At 2/01/2006 09:39:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think something that is real weird is the strange similarities between this special election (1/31/06) and the special election when Mims first won this district (1/20/98):

1/20/98 Special
Mims (R) 61.8%
Brown (D) 37.3%

1/31/06 Special
Herring (D) 61.6%
Staton (R) 38.3%

Isn't it odd that Mims and Herring both first won special elections in this district by almost identical percentages -- almost exactly eight years apart, and the partisan breakdown inverted almost exactly.

Also, interestingly, in 1998 there were 18,822 votes cast in the special election in this district, while 20,090 were cast yesterday, which reflects an increase of only about 1200 votes!

See:
http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/Election/results/1998/Results-SpecJAN-20-1998.htm

http://sbe.vipnet.org/index.htm

 
At 2/01/2006 09:41:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Ok... My thoughts...

First, when we inoke the memory of Reagan lets remember something. He made three runs for President and every sinlge time he asked a MODERATE to run as his Vice-President. Why? Because he knew he had to unify the party. Once the nomination process is over we just work together to gel the ideals of the party into a message that suits both candidate and constituient. This requires leadership.

2.) I remember meeting Speaker Gingrich back in the day and inquiring to him why the party seemed to spend so much money getting or defending RINO's in the House. His respons, "Our conservativ agenda won us the majority, but it is the moderates of the party that maintain that majority. Without them we can not govern." Lesson- If you aren't in power you get NOTHING. Have all of the principles you want, but the minority party(especially in Richmond) is a bad spot to sit. Remember, before the 1960's GOP members of the General Assembly used to watch matinees at the local theater because they did not matter. A freshman Del. in Richmond has more senority and power than the Minority leadership.

3.)We live in a two-party democracy. Our governing system in and of itself is about compromise. Having only two parties means we have to compromise internally as well. I do this everytime I go to the ballot box and vote for a pro-life candidate. Why do I do it? Because the GOP candidates are better than the Dems even though we disagree on that single issue.

You will never get anyone in life that is 100% with you'll the time. If you do call the Police and your doctor because you have a siamese twin and you were seperated at birth without anyone knowing. The key is who is the best fit out of the options. Until we see a change in the party system that is how it will be if you EVER want to see the conservative agenda advanced.

 
At 2/01/2006 09:53:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 930,

Interesting observation. Let's not forget Black won his special election against Candy Cassell.

Also, look at the contribution reports. Straight down the line for Herring are party donations. On Mick's "small" list it was unknowns, and outsiders.

I read this differently, it isn't that the party didn't support Mick, it's that they didn't like him. Maybe that is a healthy sign.

 
At 2/01/2006 10:14:00 AM, Anonymous getagrip said...

Black was viewed as a "wacko" not for the content of his views but because of his aberrant and at times uncivil behavior

I don't think so. That's only part of the problem. The ideas suggested here about toning down the extreme public personas and trying to not look like far right whackjobs, and talk about the issues that voters care about are exactly what Staton did. Cuccinelli will have a big makeover, too - it's already started. I don't think it's going to work. As mom points out, "it is nearly impossible to distance oneself from recorded votes [and] public statements.."

It is one thing to support those core social values and another, as in the case of Black, to make them the primary focus.

It's not just the style that's a turn off for educated voters, it's the extreme positions themselves. People like "t" who have such animus toward homosexuals that they think they should have no civil rights at all, and the people who think that contraceptives are the same thing as abortion are a miniscule sliver of the voting public. That sliver is not getting bigger. Running candidates who are going to legislate according to those views, even if they do so with civility, and display a veneer of bread-and-butter issues, is not going to be a winning strategy. Most people don't agree with those positions - period.

 
At 2/01/2006 10:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While not a member of the Loudoun Republican Committee, I am one of those Republicans definitely right of center who has had to suffer with Dick Black as my delegate and Eugene Delgaudio as my supervisor. I am a conservative, pro-life, NRA member and almost anywhere else in America would be honestly appraised as a solid conservative. But, Black and Delgaudio would consider me a “squishy moderate”, would likely call me a RINO, and would tell me to my face that there is no room for me in the Republican Party. You want to know why Staton lost every precinct in Eastern Loudoun County that George Bush carried in 2004? That’s why. You cannot blame the Loudoun Republican Committee. They worked their tails off with essentially no help from the Republican Party of Virginia. However, Staton could not escape his visable endorsements from noted homophile Supervisor Delgaudio, former delegate Father-in-law Dick Black who likes to pass fetus dolls around the General Assembly, and former GOP delegate nominee Chris Craddock who told us the week before the election that AIDS was caused by Africans having sex with animals. I also think that Michew’s candidacy brought out Republicans to the primary who would have sat out this election otherwise. These Loudoun Michew Republicans, at his urging, all voted for Staton. Without them, Staton would have lost by even greater margins.
But, that being said. The Loudoun GOP really does need to get a voter ID program going pronto now that it knows what kind of Republicans cannot win here anymore.

 
At 2/01/2006 10:48:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Wow, GOPlite, I hadn't even commented here (been in court) yet you had to attack me.

"If I were to be a person looking for a party and I heard the likes of Jim Young I would run into the arms of the Democrats."

"the likes of Jim Young." Why don't you tell us where you disagree with me, and then maybe your comment would have some authority? Otherwise, it sounds a lot like what it is: just a personal attack rendered by an anonymous coward.

 
At 2/01/2006 10:55:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Anon:

"Chris Craddock who told us the week before the election that AIDS was caused by Africans having sex with animals"

I'd be interested in some verification on that. If it in fact is true, which I highly doubt, it would drastically change my perception of Chris.

 
At 2/01/2006 11:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Rt Wing Extrmst,

Here's your Craddock article:
----------------------------
Craddock Comments Elicit Both Outrage, Denials
By Bonnie Hobbs, CentreView
October 27, 2005


Chris Craddock


At the center of a firestorm this week is Chris Craddock, the Republican candidate running for state delegate in the 67th District, after comments made last week to a Westfield High AP government class about both gays and sex in Africa.
Some students were so incensed by what they heard that they contacted Centre View because, although they're too young to vote, they wanted the general public to know how they felt.
Teacher Cynthia Szwajkowski's class is doing a project on the 2005 Virginia election, and Craddock, 27, was invited to address her students, Oct. 14. They then questioned him about his stance on topics including abortion and sex education.
"When we asked him about gay marriage, he said he believes nobody's born gay — they turn gay," said senior Natalie McLarty, 17. "He said, in his experience, from the gay males he's known, there are three ways to become gay: You don't have a father figure in your life, you have an abusive father figure or you have no loving support in your family."
"I was extremely offended because one of my relatives is gay, so that's an assumption he's making about my family," she said. "I don't know where he's getting his statistics, but I know a ton of people who are gay, and they have father figures and love and support in their family. He's young, and I don't know where he's getting these old-fashioned concepts."

REGARDING SEX education, McLarty said Craddock said schools should teach that abstinence is the right choice until marriage, rather than providing information about condoms. "So I asked him, 'If we don't teach sex ed in school or give information about birth control, where are kids going to get this [knowledge]?'" she said. "Because, even if you do wait 'til marriage, you still need to know about birth control and protecting yourself against STDs and AIDS."
McLarty said she added that, if people aren't educated about this, then "like in Africa, we'll end up with a huge number more of STDS and AIDS cases."
She said Craddock told the class he had a friend who'd studied in Africa and told him the reason there's an AIDS epidemic there is because "Africans will have sex with anything that has a pulse."
Added senior Erin Peterson: "He said, in some tribes, part of becoming a woman was having sex." She, too, said she heard the "pulse" comment and was surprised that he'd say such a thing: "I'm African-American, so I was a little shocked."
Planning to major in International Relations in college, Peterson said she's researched this issue, too, and "a lot of studies say one of the reasons HIV turns into AIDS [in Africa] is because they're so poor and malnourished and can't afford medicines."
She said she was at the candidates forum Westfield's PTSA hosted the previous night, Oct. 13, but Craddock seemed "more relaxed and comfortable in front of us. A lot of people in our class knew him because they volunteer for him, so it seemed like he wasn't worried about offending us. He didn't have a speech prepared and was very open. But I didn't see him saying that kind of thing to the audience [of adults] the night before."
Peterson said she was also astonished by his comments about gays. "I thought it wasn't appropriate for him to generalize the whole gay community like that because these aren't the only reasons people are gay," she explained. "I think it was OK if it was his personal opinion, but I didn't think it was appropriate to express that in public — especially since he's a politician."
"I don't think he'd want to exclude the entire gay community, or people who have friends who are gay," she said. "It didn't make sense. It doesn't seem like it was a very smart way to win votes."
Senior Kate Villars said she was "appalled at how incorrect I think his views were. To say people were gay because of their relationship with their father was, I think, a completely inaccurate generalization."

REGARDING CRADDOCK'S remarks about sex in Africa, Villars said, "I was completely taken aback. Our entire class — Democrats and Republicans alike — you could hear everybody gasping. There was complete silence; no one knew what to say. I went home and told my parents, and they were completely in shock."
Villars said she didn't support him, anyway, because "he's so right wing and socially conservative." And after he spoke to her class, she said, "I lost a lot of respect for him."
Likewise, senior Vish Apte, 17, a Democrat, "didn't think much of" Craddock before hearing him speak. Afterward, he said, "My opinion of him deteriorated even more." Regarding the gay comments, Apte said, "I was shocked that he put it out there like that and didn't leave it open for debate or any other suggestions."
He said the African sex comments "came out of nowhere. I thought it was a cheap attack." Apte said he then turned around to look at the two black students in his class and "felt pretty ashamed for them."
Previously, said McLarty, "I thought [Craddock] must have something going for him because he beat the other guy [Del. Gary Reese (R-67th) in the Republican primary]. But he wasn't a strong speaker and was kind of circular in answering questions. And he was completely offensive and out of line. I don't want people who hold opinions like he expressed to have a part in the government that's creating the country I'm going to grow up in and be part of."
Senior Matt Banick said students in his class are extremely interested in politics and many are volunteering on the campaigns of Craddock and Democratic contender Chuck Caputo. So when Craddock spoke to them, he said, "Everyone got riled up and he got caught up in the moment."
Regarding the African comment, said Banick, "The other mistake he made was quoting a source, but he didn't correct this broad, cutting generalization. So, to me, it doesn't make him a racist. It makes him seem ignorant about this issue."
He said he's not working on anyone's campaign and doesn't particularly favor either candidate. But as for Craddock's comments to his class, said Banick, "This is something everyone's got to know about. It makes him seem too impulsive — like Howard Dean in last year's [presidential] election. You've got to have control. If you're going to go into politics, you've got to think about what you're going to say, no matter where you are."

 
At 2/01/2006 11:44:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Craddock was accused of making remarks to a group of high school students that AIDS in Africa was not preventable becasue in Africa, people "have sex with anything with a pulse". The local paper picked up on it and his supporters defended him. Later, the paper spoke to him directly to allow him to set the record straight. In that interview, (keep in mind this is the interview, not the accusation made by the high school student) he said...

"Sex runs wild in Africa. One of my best friends went to Africa and got her doctorate from Johns Hopkins [University] studying the AIDS culture in Zimbabwe. And she said one of the main reasons [there's so much AIDS there] is that sex is just rampant in Zimbabwe. Read any study that deals with the problems of AIDS in Africa and you'll see that... I said sex runs rampant over there and that insane amounts of unprotected sex produces HIV... I was not talking about anybody here or black people [in general]. I was talking about a specific circumstance. If you have sex with anything with a pulse, AIDS is going to spread."

Did he say that Africans have sex with animals? No.

Did he say that Africans will have sex with anything with a pulse? It seems so.

Do animals have a pulse? Yes.

Could a reasonable inference be made leading one to believe that he thinks Africans have sex with animals? You decide.

 
At 2/01/2006 11:45:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

Any more thoughts on the Staton race?

 
At 2/01/2006 11:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the whole article...

A legion of Chris Craddock's friends, campaign workers, relatives and other supporters want the world to know he's not biased or prejudiced toward anyone.

They've all sprung to his defense in response to what some Westfield High students have said about comments he made to their AP government class, and so has he.
"I feel like everything I'm talking about is being twisted into something I didn't say," said Craddock, the Republican candidate for the 67th District delegate seat. "I can't believe that people are trying to paint me in a corner this way."

Multiple students said that he told them people become gay because of three, specific reasons and that, in response to a birth-control question, he said the AIDS epidemic in Africa spread rapidly because Africans are so promiscuous.

But Craddock said these students have it wrong. "When they asked about sex education, I said I think abstinence should be what we teach. I believe that giving out condoms to kids would be a mixed message."

"I did throw out some things that I see out there," he added. "I don't know that I phrased it like [those students say I did]. I don't believe people are born gay. I've got a lot of friends who are in that lifestyle, and I think marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Craddock said he believes "there's a lot of different factors" why a person might become gay. "I don't want to speculate as to the factors," he said.

Regarding his comments about African sex, Craddock said, "Sex runs wild in Africa. One of my best friends went to Africa and got her doctorate from Johns Hopkins [University] studying the AIDS culture in Zimbabwe. And she said one of the main reasons [there's so much AIDS there] is that sex is just rampant in Zimbabwe."

"Read any study that deals with the problems of AIDS in Africa and you'll see that," he said

In teacher Cynthia Szwajkowski class, said Craddock, "I said sex runs rampant over there and that insane amounts of unprotected sex produces HIV." Furthermore, he stressed, "I was not talking about anybody here or black people [in general]. I was talking about a specific circumstance. If you have sex with anything with a pulse, AIDS is going to spread."

But to brand him anti-gay or a racist, said Craddock, is simply wrong and as far from the truth as can be. "That's not at all what I believe or how I said it," he said. "That's not who I am or what I stand for."

When Centre View asked him if he believes that having an abusive father, no father figure or no loving support in one's family could cause someone to turn gay, he replied that these elements "could be" a cause. Then he quickly added, "I'm not saying they're the only reasons."
Craddock is a youth minister, and he said he and his wife have counseled people "involved in a lot of things, and I think there are countless factors involved in all these issues. I believe that the best situation is between a man and a woman." He also said that, because of the health risks, he doesn't believe a gay way of life is the healthiest lifestyle.

"My remarks about gays were not meant to be insensitive or upset anyone, by any stretch of the imagination," said Craddock. Laughing, he added, "I would have never said that there are [just] three ways [that people become gay] because there's an infinite number of factors that shape all of us. That's absurd."

Szwajkowski, the teacher, said she heard Craddock's remarks about how some people become gay, but said, "He added a qualifier, saying it wasn't his issue as a state legislator. And his comment about AIDS in Africa was in the context of how abstinence should be the focus of sex ed in the schools."

"This is a very verbal bunch of kids, and they were really trying to pin him down on his approach to sex ed," she continued. "I appreciate his coming in and being direct with the kids. [Political candidates] are more candid with kids [than they are] in a more public forum."

Craddock said he was "outraged" by the student comments and emphasized that, last year, his father-in-law donated his kidney "to a black woman in our church who's like family to us. And my wife's best friend married a Nigerian and is now living in South Africa with him. So to say I'm racist is ridiculous. I have black kids volunteering for me."
After Craddock told others that Centre View was planning an article about his visit to the class, many of his supporters called and tried to prevent it from being published. However, all his other supporters were polite and earnest. A woman named Ann Baker said she has minority children who've been mentored by the Craddock family and "he's been there for them and absolutely helped turn their lives around. And I have never, ever seen one moment of bias toward them, in any way."

Inece Bryant, of Alexandria's Kingstowne community, is Craddock's wife's aunt. "I'm also black," she said. "And he's not a racist. The same comment [he made about sex in Africa] could be applied to AIDS all over. He also recognizes that AIDS affects innocent victims, as well, such as those who get it from blood transfusions."

A man named Gary Victor said, "I'm interracially married and know Chris quite well. He is not a racist; that's a cheap shot."
Campaign worker Kerri McGarvey, a Westfield senior, said Craddock's neither racist nor homophobic, but is "open and supportive" of everyone.

Westfield senior Angela Alfano also weighed in. "I have no idea what happened in that classroom — I wasn't there," she said. "But I've worked for his campaign and he has a diverse group of students working for him. He treats everybody with respect, and we don't want this [controversy] to ruin his campaign."

Kim Purdy, a member of Craddock's church, said she's a single mother of a Hispanic son, and Craddock's never shown him any prejudice. "He's loving and nurturing to him," she said. "And he's really helped and supported me through tough times."
Kristen Lester of Fairfax said he's a longtime friend and has never shown any hint of prejudicial beliefs. And Jackie Lloyd of Centreville's Sully Station community said the same thing. "For anyone to even remotely suggest that Chris is biased or racist against anybody is just outrageous," she said. "He's fair to everyone and believes everyone deserves the same respect. He's a truly wonderful man, and I'd hate this to hurt him."

 
At 2/01/2006 11:57:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

The problems here are directly linked with our leadership.

If you're running a company and the work being done under the guidance of some of your managers is lacking, then you would need replace the them.

We may need someone to replace Eric Lundburg and Jim Rich, in order to breathe new life into the Republican activism of NoVa. We've seen some huge losses under their watch.

The only way I can see possibly supporting Eric would be if he were to come up with a comprehensive plan that would change the tides, along with a reason for not enacting the plan sooner.

That said, I somewhat agree with you, TC, in that we may need to look at the problems within our state leadership as well. However, I'm saying this for same reasons I see replacing Eric and Jim. -Not because of any of the conspiracy theories you mentioned.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:04:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rtwng. I thought you were very informed. Indeed, that is exactly why Chris Craddock lost--that kind of nonsense.

Doug in Mount Vernon

 
At 2/01/2006 12:08:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Involved-

You are incorrect, and are speaking the line of the far-right who has no right to talk about NOVA anymore.

You all have had your day. You've had your candidates, and you've had your losses.

It's Group A's turn now, to take back NOVA for Republicans and conservatives.

The new life that needs to come is not from replacing Minchew, or Lundberg. It's new candidates, new ideas, and a new approach to campaigning.

Minchew and Lundberg have worked hard, and I believe them both to be visionaries who might have come alittle too early for the party to handle.

This is a state-wide problem, but nice try to spin it on the NOVA GOP Chairs. Under Obenshains leadership we are losing across the state.

Now in NOVA-we have an excuse to take power away from her in Richmond, and focus it back on us, and back on winning elections.

Don't blame this on them.

I didnt see you out once involved-or was I mistaken? As they busted their butts, where were you?

Where was Chris Oprison? Steve Chapman? As "moderates" from Tom's campaign came out to help...where were you?

12:01 PM

 
At 2/01/2006 12:21:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Anon and Doug,

I read that article when it first came out and only someone wanting to portray Chris untruthfully would assume Chris meant that. If you had any common courtesy you would have contacted Chris himself for clarification before you continued to smear him. Your hatred for this man is obvious. You prove my point about smears. He says nothing about animals and if you check the context, not even his accusers implied that. Why not take the advice in the thread above and lets have serious issues discussions instead of smears.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:31:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

I'm sorry, but your illogic continues to go on. How can you possibly lay all the blame for this on the State Party officials. Last time I checked, local candidates come from local party committees and local elections are by-and-large locallly staffed. FYI I have seen posts that show outside committees supported Staton's efforts, and in a special like this, perhaps more help should be expected. However, it is up to the local committees to oragnize that help by getting the word out and organizing with the other committees. I noted that several of whom I believe you would consider "far far righties" were heavily involved. You are to be commended for your involvement, but the local party and its committee chairmen at the local level deserve just as much blame if not more than the state committee chair.

I also continue to be confused by your use of terminology. You talk about the Group A's being your group to save the party from the "far far right". However, you are on record as saying Chris Craddock is part of Group A. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't agree that Chris is as far right as you get. Stop with this name-calling and let's get down to fixing problems and winning with good candidates against these new dems in office.

Steve on your other thread has some good facts to show that there are funding issues within the party in the the leadership is not supporting our conservative candidates as dems are theirs. Let's look into that and see what can be done.

Involved raises a good point about our party local leadership, that should be addressed as well.

More time spent on these actual issues rather than spreading rumors about people trying to primary Frank Wolf is to me where we should be going. After all, if you think Dems won't continue to paste "extremist" and "supporter of Black" on every republican candidate, including Wolf, you are dreaming. That is working for them now and they will continue to use it thoroughly in NOVA until we find a way to get the truth out.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:32:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I do not lay blame completley on party officials RWE-but involved was incorrect in his/her statement on the local party chairs.

..and I am not name calling..simply stating the facts.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:38:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

Unfortunately they are facts only you can understand because you are using terms that are totally confusing and lacking in meaning. You say this is about issues, yet you will not clearly define what you DO mean. Until you give us a complete list of who is "Group A" and who is "Group-B" ("far-far right Wingers", we have no way to know what you are talking about.

And I for one believe using that term :far far right Wingers" is name calling no matter who you are using it to describe.

 
At 2/01/2006 12:45:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Sorry, I meant to say "you say this is NOT about issues"

 
At 2/01/2006 12:57:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

"You are incorrect, and are speaking the line of the far-right who has no right to talk about NOVA anymore.You all have had your day. You've had your candidates, and you've had your losses.It's Group A's turn now, to take back NOVA for Republicans and conservatives.The new life that needs to come is not from replacing Minchew, or Lundberg. It's new candidates, new ideas, and a new approach to campaigning."

THUD (sound of head banging wall), THUD (ibid), THUD (ibid)

You little...., (stop, breathe deep, count to ten). All right I will try to put this politely, who are...., "F" it, I don't do polite.

You presumptuous, divisive little troll, who are you to suggest to anyone that they're out of line or that their day has past. What do you base that on, your vast wealth of life experience, high school level of education or unique ability to stick your nose so far up "your candidates" posteriors that you tickle their tonsils.

Loudoun was an anomaly and Craddock was done in by the press. In both instances it was the messenger (rightly or wrongly) not the message. It is not so much choosing the "right" candidate as it is avoiding choosing the wrong one.

If the message was so wrong, how do you explain Marshall's win. The demographics of his district are no different than the 33rd. Are his core social values the same as Black/Staton, the obvious answer is yes. Does he grandstand and submit bill after bill that doesn't stand a change, again yes. Does he make an utter ass of himself with loud, boorish statements, ahh, the difference.

His constituents may not care for his purported "obsession" with moral issues but they are willing to accept it because he at least gives the impression that he is attempting to deal with those issues they really care about, ie: transportation. I may not agree with some of his statements that take credit for certain improvements but he does make them, his constiuents read about them and by and large accept that he is at least attempting to address their interests.

This is where the party leadership and by that I mean the county party leadership failed miserably. I understand the good old boy network and the sense that hard work and party loyalty need to be rewarded but under present circumstances, Loudoun needed another choice and I don't necessarily mean Minchew. If it wasn't apparent before the Black campaign, it should have been crystal clear after. At some point, someone in a leadership role should have sacked up and approached Staton and told him it probably wasn't a good idea for him to seek the nomination and to take one for the good of the party. By selecting Staton with all his baggage (deserved or undeserved) all the leadership did was trot out a sitting duck for the Dems to shoot at. That is not the role of the leadership, if you don't have the balls to stand up and make the hard decisions then you shouldn't be in that position. You can place some blame on the state party leadership for not providing more guidance or prodding but ultimately it is a local issue and responsibility.

 
At 2/01/2006 01:28:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

MOM- WHOOO Big Guy! You're going to give yourself a heart attack. How is it wrong for TC to say that there is no place in the party for the far-right wing but it is fine for the far-right wing to say there is no room for moderates? Pot...Kettle...anyone?

Now perhaps you know what it is like to be on the other side of the little tent. It gets you mad, doesn't it? You don't like it, do you? Well, guess what "do something" Republicans (I won't call them moderate because their not, but they are getting something accomplished by not insisting on an all-or-nothing mentality) have been told that there is no place in the party for them for several years now. They are called squishes or moderate or liberal. No one asks what they believe, but tars them with the "squishy brush."

I hope this has been an eye opening experience for you.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:01:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

I don't recall saying there is no room in the tent and I don't propose throwing out the "moderates" as that serves no purpose. Similarly, I don't get "mad" over the issues, I do however, get incensed by stupidity and the penchant of today's youth to presume that they know all and see all from their perch in the child seat. That having been said, the real problem is a lack of leadership, no strike that, effective leadership at the local and to some degree state level. Some ask for solutions not the problem but you have to identify the problem first. The solution is both easy and impossible. In order to correct the course of the party you have to reel back in the disaffected that brought the party to the heights it enjoyed until recently. That however, will be a difficult task. You need to bring back in those Republicans who didn't weather the attempted fundamentalist takeover in the eighties, those Republicans offended by the Ollie North debacle, those Republicans embarrassed by special interests groups and Abramoff, etc., etc. That's the task at hand, not excluding from the tent but rather bringing back in those who walked out.

It's a trend that's continuing and I'll use my father as an example. A thirty year vet with multiple tours in the Pacific, Korea and Nam he has had it with TC's heroes Davis and Wolf with regard to the various bills regarding the "Survivor Benefit Plan". Having co-sponsored similar legislation, both failed to sign the discharge petition for the Senate Bill. I wonder if they realize just how active an enraged military retirement community can be, particularly when the issues regard to the survivor benefits provided their spouses wherein death is a result of service related causes. So no, I don't advocate pushing moderates or anyone else that constitute a portion of the party's core toward the door, its simply not pragmatic.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:15:00 PM, Blogger w00t said...

There is this technique which is taught in some schools about competition in the commercial world. If you apply it successfully, you will outmanuver the competition and they won't even know what ACTUALLY happened. Done right, you will leave their various departments (groups) looking at the data and pointing their fingers at each other about who is to blame or who did not do their task adequately. Marketing will blame sales for not executing. Sales will point fingers at Engineering for not producing a product quickly enough for the market. Engineering will say that Marketing doesn't supply specs clearly enough. It goes on.

What really happened is that their competition simply outdid them and they could not see that they were being out-strategized. They thought they were being beaten on price or advertizing or design or selling - which they were but those were the symptoms and result of being out-strategized.

The origin of this technique is John Boyd. Go look up "Military Strategy (John Boyd)" for a better explanation.

The fact is that Republicans in Loudoun/NOVA need to be honest with themselves and do a root cause analysis. Do not PRESUME that anything caused a candidate to lose (or to win) - justify it. Use numbers to back it up. Traditional wisdom must be questioned because it may now be wrong. Put your personal feelings aside and let go of past grievences. Only then can you begin AS A GROUP to look at the evidence or start gathering evidence to understand what happened. Getting a post election voter survey done would be a good first step.

If you cannot do this, then you are doing exactly what your opposition wants - to flail around in ignorance and confusion while being angry, upset, proud and depressed all at the same time. Yes, there may be fault to be found but to conclude it with partial information and without an objective analysis of all relevant facts and counterarguments would be foolish. You decide what you need to do.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:20:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Waltzing:

Get real... These "squishy moderates" as you have been referring to them have been out to remove the "far right wing" from the party for decades. I remember being soundly accosted by one at the 1994 party state convention because I dared to support Mike Farris and dared to say that I was disappointed in Sen. John Warner for his comments on the man. Say what you will about Farris, but he was the party's LG candidate and Warner did everything he could short of running an independent to get rid of him (and you all know what he did in 1996). This kind of intolerance has existed for a long time AGAINST conservatives in the Party. So please, spare me the "other side of the little tent" analogies.

I have been patently clear about the fact that we should not be looking to purge anyone from the party based on their specific issue beliefs. I have questioned whether some really should be in the party if they are in opposition to everything we stand for.

I have also been very vocal on here and other blogs that one group that certainly has no place in this party is the elected officials who run saying they are a candidate who believes one way on issues only to get votes, but then once elected completely reverses him/herself. Look no further than the Potts' and Reese's of the Party for that, and they are not "moderates" they are liars.

As to TC's comment:

"You are incorrect, and are speaking the line of the far-right who has no right to talk about NOVA anymore.

You all have had your day. You've had your candidates, and you've had your losses."

Just who sounds like they are trying to be exclusive now???

And this from a guy who says Chris Craddock is the example of the "fresh faced Group A". Not the far right? I like Chris, but he most certainly is as "right" as you get on issues.

MOM is rightly frustrated with TC, and I think showed tremendous restraint as someone who probably has alot more experience in this stuff than I.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:24:00 PM, Blogger valleyconservative05 said...

Too Conservative: What great analysis! I agree with most of your detailed analysis although I do have one major disagreement and that has to do with Kate O. Griffin. Let me tell you that Kate has very little to do with the VCAP people and what they did in the primaries. VCAP is more in league with Bolling than anyone else so fuss at Bolling if you want to and not Kate. Don't get me wrong because I really like Lt. Gov. Bolling and his anti tax stance but he struggled mightily to beat the most liberal Lt. Gov. candidate in the history of Virginia. Yes, he did win but the margin was way too small. In reality a less abrasive candidate would have blown Byrne out of the water. Voters saw Bolling as the lesser of two evils. Kate cannot babysit these VCAP folks all the time. VCAP needs to go ahead and disappear into the sunset, at least in NOVA.
When you take a long look at what Kate has to deal with and what the RPV has been through in the last couple of years it is really amazing. Kate should be the face of our party right now and instead she is being villified by disgruntled extreme far right conservatives for not being conservative enough.

On another sujbect: It was not the brightest idea to bring in Jim Gilmore to help Staton campaign. Gilmore is currently hated with a passion in NOVA. Gilmore's Virginia rehab campaign is probably not going as well as he expected it to go.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:27:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

M.O.M

my question to you-

why do YOU think you are right all the time? I worked the Craddock race for 3 months, and worked the staton race hard the last couple of days.

I've talked to the voters..and while the papers did have alot to do with Craddocks loss..it wasnt everything. I think even he would admit that.

. By selecting Staton with all his baggage (deserved or undeserved) all the leadership did was trot out a sitting duck for the Dems to shoot at.
-every argument you try to make is null after that comment.

The leadership ran against Staton..literally..so you are very mistaken

I like the troll comment, it's a first!

First Delgaudio tells me to get a vicectomy..and now you call me a troll..I love it.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:50:00 PM, Anonymous blackout2005 said...

At some point, someone in a leadership role should have sacked up and approached Staton and told him it probably wasn't a good idea for him to seek the nomination and to take one for the good of the party.

Um. The real "leadership" is Black, et al. That's the problem, and why Loudoun Republicans will continue to lose until they jettison these clowns, or show them their place. They seem to think that because Mike Farris has set up shop in Loudoun, they own it.

It is not so much choosing the "right" candidate as it is avoiding choosing the wrong one.

By "not choosing the wrong one", do you mean not choosing one who isn't stealth? Do you mean you need one who has to hide the fact that what they really stand for doesn't represent the views of the community? That communist Byrne did take Loudoun, remember.

 
At 2/01/2006 02:57:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Rtwng-

I am not being exclusive. Statons ties with Black were abig part of bringing him down.

Now other candidates will be tied to these people.

We need a new wave of Republican candidates now.


w00t-I did not say there is no room in the party for far-right wigers. All I said, and I'll say it again, is that in NOVA it is time to stop depending on the Black crew to win elections.

We need to step out of our myopic box and look more broadly-or we will surely continue to lose elections.

M.O.M-why don't you share who you are with everyone, so that we may assess as rtwng says "experience"

 
At 2/01/2006 02:58:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

I'm considering stopping posting at all to your blog (something I'm sure some of you will rejoice about). The reason being is you are being completely illogical in your approach. You continue to make vague and confusing attacks on one group of the party, claiming they should just "give up" and support the other group. However, you are so vague as to not let us know who you are really talking about, while continuing to claim "it is not about issues". This to me only serves to continue to allow all sides to make their assumptions on "who the bad guys are" and then continue the blood letting. This gets us nowhere, is unproductive, and only serves to create an atmosphere for lots of posting to your blog.

I have asked you to be clear over and over again and yet you just refuse. You seem to me to be a person who wants the Party to win, actually seems to be in favor of almost every conservative issue (social, fiscal, or otherwise), works diligently for the Party, and yet continues to dredge up these bad feelings. I see no purpose in it, and without a change to the tone of your blog, I will just have to "skip it". I've got better things to do. I hope things do change and you become more "productive in the blogosphere" for the party you claim to care about.

 
At 2/01/2006 03:10:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Rtwng Extrmst, email me (AWCheney1@AOL.com)...I'd like to get together and talk, if you are conducive to the idea.

 
At 2/01/2006 03:10:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Clear-

Delgaudio-Black in Loudoun.

Rtwng-I wish you could show up to some of the meetings, and see who really is dredging up bad feelings.

I report the dredging, and my opinion.

Aka-Heidi Stirrup telling people she didnt know Jim Rich was running.

AKA-Supervisor Delgaudio telling me he was sorry his opponent was an open homosexual

AKA-people smearing eric lundberg behind his back to me.

These are event that have happened right wing. I am trying to balance it out

 
At 2/01/2006 03:11:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

Blackout, you and TC should get a room, you're opposite sides of the same coin. He claims the leadership ran against Staton while you assert the "leadership" is Black, arguendo, they supported Staton. Well, which is it? It really doesn't matter because either way the leadership or lack thereof resulted in disaster; either they couldn't effectively steer the nomination process or they controlled it, in either scenario the "wrong" candidate, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, was selected.

TC, how does a statement regarding the realistic shortcomings, attributes that provide immense fodder for the opposition, of a candidate render an entire arguement null and void. Again you have little in terms of historic reference or successful campaigns (see Reese, Connaughton, Craddock, Staton)on which to base your assertions. Oh, please don't bore me with your extensive volunteer efforts, been there, done that and I certainly wouldn't have done it in rumpled clothes, ever hear of a shirt and tie. You don't seem to grasp the simplest concepts such as image at the polls or the ability to comprehend that others are actually agreeing, albeit in part, with you.

Blackout, a parting shot, you blame the Black leadership but don't seem to be willing to do anything constructive about it. Rather, you rant and bellyache about the Black Brigade accomplishing nothing but the advancement of Dem candidates. When faced with a similar situation, albeit on a smaller stage, I took the initiative to correct it. Most viewed it as constructive, some still view it as destructive but the dynamic and representation was changed.

 
At 2/01/2006 03:35:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

I've been to meetings. Believe me, this kind of stuff goes on from all sides. That is EXACTLY why I think you should get off this soap box and just concentrate on doing what is right yourself. If you want to come out against those people, have at it, but don't use the vague "group A' and "group B" references. It leaves open too many questions making people think there's some sort of conspiracy.

 
At 2/01/2006 03:47:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 2/01/2006 03:49:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's cut through some of the crap and posturing. I HUGE first step for changing direction is to neutralize some of the viciousness that exists inside the party. I'll give you a few other names that haven't been discussed. Dale Myers and John Nicholas. These behind the scene puppet masters need to be tossed.

 
At 2/01/2006 03:53:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

MOM-

Everyone was united behind Staton in the end.

Rtwng-You have me mistaken. I love our party, and I love conservatism.

I am a Christian Right kind of guy.I just don't believe you're seeing all aspects of the party.

Check your e-mail later tonight.

 
At 2/01/2006 04:11:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

mom- your name calling and implied obscenities is what is driving the wedge in the party. this is a day when we need to regroup and think together, not have people be name-called for simply stating the facts that the sepcial election was a disaster.

next, i know vincent very well, and he works on the hill and is often seen at the polls in a shirt and tie. however, if he were dressing like a teenager, thats BECAUSE HE IS ONE. lighten up, this is not 1857. vincent's hours spent at the polls and signing has probably surpassed in two years, that of 40 years old's lifetimes. and he does go to school and he does have a job.

 
At 2/01/2006 04:58:00 PM, Blogger w00t said...

tc,

My comment was in general to all, not directed at anyone. I meant that anyone, regardless of where they are within the spectrum, that cares for the Republican party in NOVA needs to see what is being done to them as opposed to what they are experiencing. The Dems have run great psyops on the Republicans and look at the level of damage that has been done. You're tearing each other apart in full fury and conviction. What more could the Dems ask for? I guess my thesis doesn't connect so I won't bother trying anymore.

 
At 2/01/2006 05:12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

W00t--

You flatter us as though we have planned it all from a little voting booth in the back room of all your meetings!

News flash--this is ALL on you guys, we Democrats have just been out governing well, recruiting good solid candidates, and trying to present reasoned issues and platforms in all races.

Guess what? It worked!

When you all go back to doing the same, I would bet you'll stop imploding and win back a few races. But only if we end up screwing it up will you get that chance. And if Democrats have proven one thing, it's that we're not as stupid politically as you've said we are.

Good luck, this tug n pull is what makes American democracy function, so whatever happens, nobody give up.

Doug in Mount Vernon

 
At 2/01/2006 05:40:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Great post Woot. I like the psyop ref.

 
At 2/01/2006 06:46:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Two anonymous people said I should think more, but agreed with my assessment that the loudoun committee was to blame. I think they assumed I had a position about WHAT was wrong with the committee, which I don't.

I'm an outside observer, and don't know exactly what happens in the committee -- but any time you can't turn out 20% of your party for an election, you have a problem with the committee.

It's not all Loudoun's fault, the state committee better get it's act together as well -- money was needed here, and it should have been flowing into the district, like it was for the democrats.

TC, I also think you misinterpret my remarks. I didn't say the committee didn't work hard for him. Not sure what good a check was on 9pm the night before the election (except to cover already incurred expenses) but my point wasn't a lack of support, or a problem with the nominee.

The problem is that the committee apparently didn't have the ability to get out, walk the streets, and drag 15,000 republicans out to a vote. I'm not saying they didn't try, or work themselves to death, just that it wasn't successful, and you have to look to the committee.

I think many of our districts and counties have trouble with their voting lists, and we need to spend serious money fixing it.

We are a RED state because we worked very hard to MAKE it a RED state. we aren't ENTITLED to being a red state, or to winning an election.

In fact, it is part of the democratic process that anybody can win a race. Better to lose delegate races, and short-term senate races, than the 4-year senate terms in november.

Further, TC, I would have been happy with either candidate winning the primary, and have no complaint about how the loser supported the winner -- it was a perfect example in fact.

But I keep going back to the basic issue -- we lost an election where you only needed 13,000 to win. There were absolutely 13,000 people in that district that would have been happy to vote for Stanton, if they had known there was an election, known who was running, and known there was a real race that could be lost.

 
At 2/01/2006 06:57:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Mom at 12:57pm:

I think one reason the loudoun committee couldn't tell Stanton to bow out is because the person who would have done that would be the chair of the comittee.

But the chair of the committee was too busy RUNNING for the position to be able to stand back and be the disinterested, objective observer who could have told Stanton to back off. And if he had tried, it would have been seen as self-serving, since he was running for office.

If there is one obvious rule that should always be followed, if a person who is a LEAD in the committee wants to run for office, they should RESIGN that lead first.

 
At 2/01/2006 07:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think one thing the democrats do better than we do now is blog management.

They show up on blogs that will have them, stir things up, but better for them get supposedly savvy operatives to tell secrets and reveal strategy and tactics. They ask questions and raise points to see which criticisms of republican candidates will resonate with the republican electorate.

Then they get candidates, get their message together, and off they go whipping us.

Where are the left-wing blogs where campaigns are dissected in place?

It's like a football team setting up a blog to discuss what's wrong with their plays.

 
At 2/01/2006 08:12:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"We are a RED state because we worked very hard to MAKE it a RED state. we aren't ENTITLED to being a red state, or to winning an election."

What's with the "we" stuff? In an earlier post, you admitted, "I, on the other hand, have not worked on any campaign, and only rarely get out to pass out literature."

Why don't you go with, "We are a red state because MANY OF YOU worked very hard to make it a red state."

 
At 2/01/2006 09:30:00 PM, Anonymous Ruth Dement said...

Dear Critically Thinking, Do you honestly believe for one second that had Loudoun GOP Chairman Minchew had asked Mick Staton to forego a run for the Mims senate seat that Staton (or his father-in-law, Dick Black) would have listened? Let's face it: the Black-Staton family held their intra-family convention and determined who the GOP nominee should be, sort of how the Kennedys used to do it for the Democrats back in Massachusetts. Had Chairman Minchew (as a non-candidate) advised Staton that he could not win due to Staton's Black-Delgaudio baggage, he would have been laughed at and told that the "Real Chairman" of the Loudoun GOP was Dick Black not himself. So, Minchew showed some real leadership by jumping into the fray himself knowing full well the mud that the Black-Staton-Degaudio would throw at him. A whole bunch of centrist Republicans here in Loudoun and in Fairfax really admire Minchew for doing what he did and for running a class campaign.

 
At 2/01/2006 10:06:00 PM, Anonymous blackout2005 said...

Thank you, Ruth. That was exactly my point. Minchew did the best he could to exercise leadership by mounting a primary challenge to the Black machine. It's unfortunate that the party didn't get behind him.

 
At 2/02/2006 10:39:00 AM, Blogger w00t said...

Just to throw more fuel into the fire. Back in 1995, Dave Olsen ran as a Republican against Waddell and lost. Waddell got 54.9% or something like that. Olsen's campaign was managed by Bob Kunkel and most gave Olsen a zero chance because he had no name recognition, no public service of note and never ran for any office. There was hardly any money coming in from state level because of all of the above "obvious" reasons. Somehow, Olsen got that close for a low budget, no name, unremarkable history first timer. The Republican party was very surprised at the results and supposedly George Allen was quite upset that Olsen's campaign did not get more money as that may have been able to make the difference.

 
At 2/02/2006 12:49:00 PM, Anonymous DalgaudioOut said...

Delgaudio's gotta go!!! He is the very public face of the GOP in Loudoun and beyond--with his arm waving, vitriolic yelling, and that stupid orange baseball cap, he's out there being the laughing stock of the local community and NOVA Republicans. But he's not going anywhere until someone sane, from either party, challenges him next time around. He's the nut-case poster child for extremist politics. Get rid o' the guy!

 
At 2/02/2006 05:14:00 PM, Anonymous 10th District (Loudoun) Conservative said...

TC

Partly agreed; partly disagreed. It's too early for obituaries but a good time for concern. Minchew and Staton won a good primary campaign and I don't see the results having been significantly different in the general had Minchew won. This wasn't about Staton being too conservative for the 33rd.

We didn't get our message out as well as we could have perhaps. In the papers, Mick lost his name -- he became "dick black's son-in-law". But, had Staton lost the primary, Minchew would have been labeled "the developer's attorney." The Dems were energized and out for blood.

Why weren't our people energized? Because they believe their leaders have compromised and that demoralizes the base. When Republicans don't stand for principles they can expect to lose elections over the long term. TC, you say that you didn't hear this going door to door. I did. I don't know how many doors you went too but I worked in November & the special and voters have to be motivated to get off their tails and go to the polls. I heard more than a few say that it didn't matter what they did because "both sides were raising taxes," "nobody's doing anything about illegal immigration," "transportation's still a mess," etc.

Voters are watching and they do care about principle. They care enough not to vote when Republicans in general compromise. And, yes, if you want to blame any VA Republican for our problems, it isn't Kate (who has stood firm on principle), it's folks like Chichester who would rather raise taxes than do the responsible thing and prioritize spending.

 
At 2/02/2006 05:20:00 PM, Anonymous 10th District Conservative said...

Oh, by the way.
Take blackout's Republican credentials with a grain of salt. To whatever degree individuals associated with the site may have been Republicans at one point, I cannot comment, but they are now a front group for the guerilla wing of the Democratic party.
Read their site and then try looking for who pays their bills. See if the names Eileen Levandowski (LCDC communications chair) and Jonathan Weintraub (LCDC treasurer) ring any bells.

 
At 5/08/2006 04:17:00 PM, Anonymous Dean Settle said...

10th District (Loudoun) Conservative said...

"This wasn't about Staton being too conservative for the 33rd. "

"But, had Staton lost the primary, Minchew would have been labeled "the developer's attorney."

So, based on two totally different points, which is more accurate?

The voters do not like conservatives who embrace developers...

Or voters do not like conservatives who emrace developers?

The writing is on the wall....
I do not think that voters in most of the Loudoun County east care about developers or even land conservation, but be damned sure that you register the fact that they are tired of paying developer's slack on proffers and not seeing their commute get better for all the money they paid out.
THAT is where the Republican effort sounds like a broken record.
You can tell them that you're serious this time about curbing development and the associated taxes... but you're singing the same old song and they know the verses all too well.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home