Sunday, January 08, 2006

Why?

Regarding the 10th District Republican Committee I have confirmed that Heidi Stirrup will be running against current Chairman Jim Rich. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Jim Rich and Congressman Frank Wolf are close friends with ties going back years. The only reasons I can imagine for this are that Rich is not "conservative" or the more plausible one..that John Stirrup might primary Frank Wolf from the right. We all know how squishy and liberal Congressman Wolf is-he has a more liberal voting record than Tom Davis(gasp!) Note to the "right-wing" of the party- Are you all getting lazy? There's more Republicans with lengthy public service records to primary! Let's get going so we have time to find candidates to primary Davis, Devolites-Davis, Rust, Callahan, and Supervisor Frey. Can't forget about Supervisors Nohe, Caddigan, and Covington..because sometimes in Board Meetings ....they vote with Connaughton! They must be liberals! Frank Wolf does not help in primaries, and has been good to stay out of skirmishes within the party, so why go after his man?

46 Comments:

At 1/08/2006 06:01:00 PM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

I stated it on some other post, but I will say it again here. The only Republicans that the "self-appointed guardians of conservatism" are interested in are Republicans they are trying to remove. These people aren't for getting people elected; they are for getting people un-elected.

 
At 1/08/2006 06:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem stems from the complete lack of leadership from the top. Most elected Republicans keep their mouths shut because they are afraid they are next and guess what? They are because the definition of "real Republican" and "conservative" changes to fit the next target. Those who stand up to them are vilified, like Connaughton, but I bet he sleeps better at night.

This is all about power and as soon as they are successful in making the Republicans the minority party these people will disappear and move onto something else.

 
At 1/08/2006 06:56:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

Heidi Stirrup still has her feelings hurt that Steve Danziger beat her for a State Central seat a few months ago.

 
At 1/08/2006 07:37:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

So the real question is WHEN will John Stirrup run against Frank Wolf?

Is he going to run in 2006 or wait until 2008? If he runs in 2006, he hurts his and Heidi's credibility because her move goes from being ambitious to being egomaniacal... people will see right through her. Plus, I think that the 10th district committee has already made a decision regarding what kind of nominating contest the seat will have, so Heidi won't be able to effect that anymore than she already has. But John Stirrup seems SO BORED as Supervisor that I think he would love to have an excuse to leave office early.

On the other hand, if he waits to run until 2008, Heidi will be able to angle for a convention and John will be able to spend the next two years campaigning, at least a year of which will be spent as Supervisor, so he will have a bully-pulpit. But that also gives Frank an extra two years to prepare for the "Stirrup Dyanamo."

As a BIG fan of Frank Wolf (he is not my congressman but I prefer him to Tom Davis or JoAnne Davis, I hope that doesn't make me a RINO), my hope would be that John waits until after the 10th district convention to make a decision, Heidi loses to Jim Rich and John Stirrup realizes that he is outmatched.

If John does run this year, I hope that he does not step down as Supervisor (unless he wins, of course.) If he steps down early, there would be a special election and very few palatable candidates. I hear that Steve Danziger might want that seat and I suppose that MIGHT be able to get behind Don Richardson, but other than them, I'm not sure who's left that isn't downright scary.

Martha Hendley?
Gary Friedman?!?
Burt Busher?!?!?
Elena Kunkel?????
Ed Wilbourne??????

It's like watching a horror movie just THINKING about it!

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

Let's see what Jim Young has to say on Monday between the PWC GOP Chair race and the 10th District Chair race. Should be interesting.

He'll have a lot of catching up to do on Monday morning.

 
At 1/08/2006 08:29:00 PM, Anonymous 10th District Conservative said...

Vince,

This is no coup. This is competition. It is good for our party and Jim Rich should not fear it. Challenging Jim Rich is not challenging Frank Wolf. I know and respect Congressman Wolf. I would be most intrigued to see Mr. Rich stop hiding behind the Congressman, to whom I am as loyal as is he, and defend his record when it comes to growing the Republican party in the 10th.

Anon @ 6:25 has it all wrong. In my experience conservatives are some of the hardest working and most ideologically consistent individuals in our party. Every group has its self-serving contingent, but most of my conservative friends are in this for the future of the Commonwealth and their children & grandchildren. We work for our party in election after election and our views continue to be ignored in favor of the democrat-lite philosophy that is prevalent in some parts of Richmond & around the state.

 
At 1/08/2006 08:34:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

I don't know of any plot to take-out Wolf. He's a strong conservative, with the support of most people in conservative Christian Circles.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who's a true conservative oppose him, and I think you're barking up the wrong tree with that idea.

That said, I think that Jim's situation is much different. Keep in mind that only Republicans will be voting in his election.

 
At 1/08/2006 08:36:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

How is this good for our party?

What would be good..is if power hungry people didnt try to hijack the system.

Why the competition then?

Can you 10th district conservative tell me WHY she is running then? She just up and decided to..without having ANY reason to?

involved-I disagree-with that crew anything is possible.

 
At 1/08/2006 08:37:00 PM, Anonymous not jim young said...

No surprise that all of you Connaughton Piss-boys and Piss-girls would support Jim Rich, ‘cause he’s every bit as evil as Lord Connaughton. Too bad you all cower under the cloak of anonymity so that no can realize that you have not been toiling in the vineyards of GOP politics long enough to have seen Jim Rich’s true RINO soul (or lack thereof) shine through.

To enlighten you with my own egotism, please allow me to elucidate. Many years ago, before my adopted hometown of Montclair, Virginia (not as nice as, but bigger than, my original hometown of Northumberland, PA) was redistricted into the 11th, I wanted to serve on the state central committee but was prevented from doing so by Jim Rich and his sycophants. Thus denying the RPV the wisdom and experience that my having written the by-laws of the Prince William County Republican Party would have brought them. Rich has allied himself with liberal RINOs like Sean Connaughton and Steve Danziger ever since. Clearly, Hector Quintana and O.P. Ditch control him telepathically.

Heidi Stirrup, on the other hand, is a champion of true conservatives. And I would know. I am the one who gets to decide who is and is not conservative and ‘bout the lovely Mrs. Stirrup I say, “Conservative”! More than I can say for you RINOs. My only regret in life is that I will not be able to serve as Parliamentarian of that convention to watch Jim Rich go down in flames. (Plus, the lovely Mrs. Young wouldn’t tolerate moving to Gainesville just to vote for 10th district chair, although I suspect she’ll be tempted.) I hope Heidi wins and I will be telling all of the 10th district residents here at NRTW to attend the convention and bring down the man with whom I am ashamed to share a first name. (Might have to switch back to Willie. Hmmm.)

As for her husband running for Congress, I would be proud to support the Right Honorable John T. Stirrup and would probably donate as much as $216 to his campaign; which is more than I gave to Steve Baril. I will support anyone who refuses to be a succor to Chairman Sean. And although I will do it, it would trouble me to do so. After all, Frank Wolf was only elected to Congress in the first place because the largest, awesomest and most totally righteous Young Republican Club ever (chaired, naturally, by me) supported him in his very first election. I know that it will pain Frank (I call him Frank because we are close friends) to lose my support, it will not hurt as much as when I turn my back toward him at the next public appearance of his that I attend. Frankly (pun intended), I don’t think Congressman Wolf meets the standard of a true conservative anymore and he no longer calls me to ask how to vote on the house floor. Plus, I think that union members may have built the car he drives.

 
At 1/08/2006 08:53:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Not Jim Young-

I posted..and I don't hide in anonymity...

As to how Sean is a RINO, no one has still be able to prove that to me..but thats not the issue here.

The issue NJY is that people such as yourself...feel people like Frank Wolf are not conservative.

Theres no nicer way to put it except...your kind is runing the Republican party in Virginia.

Where will the craziness stop? WHO ISNT A RINO?

The stuff you all throw at other Republicans is fabricated BS, and does NOTHING except weaken us.

Something I've never understood. Why cant your wing of the party get GOOD candidates to run for these offices then? People with long public service records, who have not committed fraud, have drug records, or who are carpet baggers

What amazes me..is that I really think you all believe your helping the conservative cause. Is there any way to get through to you all that you're doing nothing but ruining it?

 
At 1/08/2006 08:58:00 PM, Anonymous not jim young said...

Vince, it's a JOKE. Anon 8:29 remarked that Jim Young would have a lot to say about this topic so I saved Jim Young the time by pre-writing it for him.

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

Quote from Steve Danziger to the anonymous posters

"We should be trashing Democrats and not each other"

-Well said Steve

not jim young-oh I get it now...
Nevermind all the bad stuff I said then haha

 
At 1/09/2006 09:58:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

There are a few good, non-ideological reasons why Heidi would be a better Chairman than Rich (who, as far as I know, is not what some would call a "RINO"; to the best of my knowledge, Rich has never done anything ideological; he's just always done things to advance Jim Rich, first and foremost).

For example, for a long time, the entire HoD delegation in the Tenth was Republican; no more.

And I still hold Rich in contempt for his effort to remove duly-elected State Chairman Pat McSweeney with misrepresentations and distortions (TC, you were about five at the time). Probably only those of us who were present in the upstairs conference room at the Obenshain Center remember (you know, the fruits of having "labored in the vineyard"), but Rich attempted to present as "facts" obviously falsehoods. To take a point from NJY's slanderous post, this is a characteristic he shares with Chairman Sean.

Perhaps the best reason of all is in the fact that Rich consistently writes the call for the Tenth District Convention to set an early filing deadline for Chairman (at least once, just ten days after the call was issued, but not yet published), in the hope that he can avoid any challenge at all. Rather odd that those who make pretensions to support for an "open" GOP so strongly support someone who works so hard to avoid any challenge to his authority. Like big-government advocates who fear free citizens with guns, I suspect that Jim Rich has good reasons to fear an open process.

And I can't imagine that John would want to run against Frank Wolf (I associate myself with involved's and 10th district conservative's comments on this point), and I think he would be a fool to do so. Succeed him? Perhaps. TC, is your belief that he might do so based upon some information, or is it simply attributing overweening ambition (a la Chairman Sean) to one who sometimes opposes Chairman Sean?

And TC, I think your implicit condemnation of "power hungry people ... try[ing] to hijack the system" is rather bold talk from a supporter of Chairman Sean. It wasn't too long ago that he tried to pack a PWC GOP Committee meeting with supporters --- many known Democrats who never showed up again --- in response to his loss of a straw poll at the County Convention that he, and/or his strategists, was too stupid or lazy to pack, i.e., trying to do illegitimately what he could have done legitimately just a few weeks earlier.

As for NJY, 'tis truly a pity that he or she (I have my suspicions based on his or her apparent historical knowledge which, alas, will have to remain mere suspicion) is such a coward that he or she has to slander his or her betters. But it's gratifying to see that he or she is reading, and recalls a few of my accomplishments, which doubtless overshadow his or her own! And BTW, nimrod, my first name is "William," though by family tradition, I have always gone by my middle name. I wonder if NJY is the same individual identified by Waldo over at the CC thread on anonymity/pseudonymity? Waldo and I have little in common politically, but he recognizes cowardly indecency when he sees it.

TC, please do not confuse me with that obviously slanderous fool. You are correct, however, in your 8:53 post that people such as NJY --- people who busily slander Conservatives and those who defend Conservative values in the GOP --- are "ruining the Republican party in Virginia." So why is does your 9:00 post say "haha" after quoting Danziger's comment? 'Course, it's not a practice Danziger follows himself, at least with regard to Conservatives.

 
At 1/09/2006 11:42:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tanks Jim Young for sharing your views -- I knew we could count on you.

 
At 1/09/2006 11:46:00 AM, Anonymous not jim young said...

You have to admit that I got it pretty close.

 
At 1/09/2006 12:38:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, let's see, I:

(1) never equated support for Rich with support for Chairman Sean;

(2) brought to the table new information about Rich's perfidy of which you were either ignorant or, more disturbingly, didn't care and wanted to ignore;

(3) didn't mention at all my own candidacy for the State Central Committee, which most Republican activists know is little more than a gold watch;

(4) didn't mention Rich's ideology at all, and specifically disclaimed knowledge of it; and

(5) didn't criticize Frank Wolf at all; indeed, I support him (after all, he wrote an endorsement letter for me during my first campaign for School Board) and think it would be a mistake for John to run against him.

Yeah. You were right on target, NJY.

And "egotism," NJY? You confuse "egotism" with displaying one's credentials as a device to demonstrate that one knows from whence one speaks. I juxtapose it against your practice: spouting off in cowardly anonymity (because your record bespeaks no authority) with fragments of facts, coupled with self-serving slanders of your target. Or perhaps you're simply a humble man or woman, and your humility is well-justified.

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

JY-

The PWC Board does not meet in Richmond, or Washington.

The "right" wing impacts the party on a larger scale..as in they actually take actions which matter in the long term.

Whether she is running to help her husband in aprimary or eventually..it is still a selfish goal, and there is no basis for unseating Rich. Is he a liberal?

I did not know Stirrup opposes Sean..and do not believe it.

They seem to serve well on the board together..and just differ on some votes...like funding for the 9/11 memorial perhaps.

From talking to people I am also fairly certain Rich will win re-election, so why risk getting Wolf angry?

 
At 1/09/2006 02:00:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, I'm not sure what to make of your first sentence, so I won't respond.

And the same might be said of any faction, so your second comment is a motherhood.

What I find disturbing is your dismissal of Heidi's actions as mere extension of her husband's ambitions. I suspect you would protest long, and loud, and rightly, were I to dismiss Krissie Nohe's activities similarly, which I never did and would never do. And while I am loathe to equate the two, they are similar insofar as each's activism predated their relationship with their spouse. So I don't think her action can be dismissed as one "to help her husband."

Equally disturbing is the fact that you completely ignored the three non-ideological reasons that I cited as reasons why Jim Rich should be unseated. You are free to disagree with them, but your comment that "there is no basis for unseating Rich" is simply not true. As I said above, I don't know whether he is a liberal. I do know that I have heard him speak falsehoods, and that he rigs the system to protect his own posterior. Those are reasons why he should be defeated without regard to his ideology.

And I didn't say that "Stirrup opposes Sean"; I said that he is "one who sometimes opposes Chairman Sean."

Finally, as for your other comments, I simply don't know. I know that there are always those who will spin things to advantage someone they support (witness your early postings about Chairman Sean) without regard to the truth. And I don't think one risks "getting Frank Wolf angry" but supporting Jim Rich's opponent. First, Congressman Wolf is a big boy, and would not and should not take it as a personal affront. Furthermore, I have known him for more than ten years, eight as a constituent, and made my opposition to Rich widely known, as have others. I have never known it to affect his relationship with them.

He is much like Tom Davis (who I have occasionally opposed in print; remember where we first met?), and unlike Chairman Sean, in this way.

 
At 1/09/2006 02:09:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I was saying that Seans "power grab" was with the Prince William County Republican Committee..

While this is an important organization, he's quest for "power" is nothing compared to the state-wide network of "conservatives" who wish to primary every "moderate" , and would more rather have Democrats then "RINOS".

I do dissmiss any other reason for her to run, as there is no other reason.

It is obvious what this is about, and I would hope Frank Wolf comes out strongly against her..and that the entire commmittee gets behind Rich.

I know who I will be voting for.

 
At 1/09/2006 02:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, James, whoever your imitator is, it was a rather clever piece of writing. He/She captured the rhythm, tone, length and content of your comments quite accurately. This guy has really been studying your collected works. It has the "chairman-sean-as-the-root-of-all-evil" element, the "James-Young-as-the-font-of-all-local-GOP-success" theme, the lapsed Republican theme re others, the James-centric notion of how one determines who the "real" Republican/Conservatives are, and the luminous historiography of the glory days of the YRs under James Young's leadership. Even the vulgarity of some of your more wound-up posts is there (where did you find this term "piss-boy", anyway? What age group uses that? My guess would be somewhere around the second grade level). I would, if I were of a satirical bent, have included some reference to the crowning journalistic achievements of a one-time Potomac News columnist, just to lend a little additional verisimilitude.

Just tell yourself that imitation is a kind of envy. In this case, it's almost certainly not true, but I say, "Go with it."

 
At 1/09/2006 02:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have an idea - I suggest that Too Conservative sponsor an on-line poll that let's us choose between "Not James Young" and "James Young" for the "official" moniker of James Young on the blogs.

What say thee TC?

 
At 1/09/2006 02:28:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, there's one difference between you and I: you can vote in that race, and I cannot.

However, since you don't challenge my assertions, I assume that you believe them, and don't care whether they are true, which I find very disturbing. On the other hand, you dismiss Heidi's candidacy as merely to help her husband. I agree that this would be a very stupid reason to run for the post, and if true (she hasn't asked me), would discourage a run for those reasons. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that it is true (you cite no evidence), and the the Heidi Stirrup I know would not enter the race for such narcissistic and self-serving reasons.

I fully expect Frank Wolf to support Rich, as he always has. I try not to hold that against him.

As to your comments about "the state-wide network of 'conservatives' who wish to primary every 'moderate,' and would more rather have Democrats then 'RINOS,'" your statement is wrong in virtually all of its particulars. But if you're going to invoke the imagery of the far Left, why don't you just use the phrase Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and remove all doubt.

As for me, Anon 2:18, I say "Grow up!" You can only parody me because I have a body of work, and a consistent set of standards and values. You apparently lack both; hence, your anonymity.

 
At 1/09/2006 02:39:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading this recent "James Young" post I think I like "Not James Young" better.

That's my vote!

 
At 1/09/2006 02:42:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I do contest them.

Rich has helped republicans prosper in the 10th.

He is a solid conservative.

and I will not use vast right-wing conspiracy..as I do not consider many of these people to be conservative.

They have squishy records, and spend their time mudslining against real conservatives.

Thus my quotations.."conservative" in the eyes of...say..Gilmore

 
At 1/09/2006 03:06:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

TC,

I'm sorry but none of the real conservatives in the 10th agree with you.

Rich made sure that no one could oppose him during his last re-election, and this year everyone hounded the 10th about the election to ensure that he'd be opposed.

Rich has served us for years, and now his time is up.

 
At 1/09/2006 03:15:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 2:39 -- This is Virginia. You cannot vote without ID here.

Thank you, TC, for demonstrating your apparent inability to understand the English language. You apparently call spendthrift tax-raisers "Conservative," but those who believe in smaller government and lower taxes are not "Conservative."

What color is the sky on your planet? It's blue here, where Conservatives are those who lower taxes, and don't raise taxes and then try to lie about it.

And thanks, involved, for supporting the factual discussion that I had.

 
At 1/09/2006 03:19:00 PM, Anonymous Kris Nohe said...

Jim- Krissy is with a Y not an IE. And I stopped using it in Middle School. But, as your name calling ways show, your maturity seems to be stuck at about the 7th grade, I will let you, and you alone, continue to use it.

 
At 1/09/2006 05:35:00 PM, Anonymous Bushwick Bill said...

I love it when Republicans go after each other; until we start eating our own and losing elections. Oh wait, that's already started happening....

By all means, let's maintain our circular formation and keep shooting.

 
At 1/09/2006 11:53:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Oh boy [hands clapping with glee]! I have Krissie's PERMISSION to keep calling her "Krissie."

Once again, no good deed (giving credit where credit is due) goes unpunished.

 
At 1/10/2006 12:37:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

I thought we had problems in Fairfax...

and then I met the Prince William County Republican Party

 
At 1/10/2006 08:34:00 AM, Anonymous Kris Nohe said...

J. Willie Young - Only if you use the "Y."

 
At 1/10/2006 09:47:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Krissie, it's fortunate that you can now rationalize your behavior with the copious amounts of time that you spend with those under the age of ten. 'Course, that doesn't excuse past behavior....

 
At 1/10/2006 10:36:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Kris, there's truly no point in assuming this person to be a gentleman...he's never given any indication of it before.

 
At 1/10/2006 11:26:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

I disagree.

I don't know James Young, and certainly haven't agreed with him on too many items... but I've found him to be a pretty good guy, from what I've seen.

 
At 1/10/2006 11:32:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Thank you, Anke, for demonstrating again that you know not from whence you speak. Apparently you failed to note that I gave Krissie credit for the fact that her political activism, as it predates her marital relationship, cannot be dismissed as mere advancement of her husband's political aspirations.

But then again, I don't expect facts to get in the way of your personal attacks. Neither do I expect you to demonstrate anything less than hypocrisy in seeking to hide behind your (or another's) sex when the political kitchen gets a little too hot.

 
At 1/10/2006 11:52:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Oh, Anon 2:10, I suspect rather strongly that you are your own "Amen" chorus on this one. Parody (along with immigration) is among the sincerest forms of flattery. As for length, well, I learned long ago (in responding to union lawyers' briefs) that responding to and point-by-point refutation of BS frequently takes more space than the BS itself. After all, those spewing BS do so with mere outrageous assertion, rather than insightful analysis.

It is also easier to disparage my many and varied comments as "chairman-sean-as-the-root-of-all-evil" element --- Chairman Sean is hardly the "root of all evil"; he is simply the most recent source of some of it --- and "the 'James-Young-as-the- font-of-all-local-GOP-success' theme" --- I am not the font of all local success (never claimed to be), but I certainly played a role (one among many) in building the GOP in this County --- rather than addressing the facts and arguments.

I've never claimed credit for "all local GOP success," or even much of it, though I can understand why you would want to belittle me and my activities by suggesting that I have done so, since I DO claim some small portion of the credit for urging GOP candidates and leaders to build a party that stands for something other than temporary cults of personality. Credit goes to those who lead with conservative principles, since those are the principles that have been rewarded at the polls through the Nineties and the first part of the Third Millenium.

You pretend that you don't like vulgarity, but you endorse it, so long as it is directed at the right target (me). Very mature, that. BTW, to answer your question, it is a cultural reference, not vulgarity. See Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part I, "The French Revolution." I suppose I could use the less earthy term "waterboy," but some (not all; I wouldn't include Riley among them) of Chairman Sean's sycophants are such focused practitioners of his cult of personality and so mindlessly repeat his lies that it is quite clear to me that they would serve the role to which I refer.

Of course, if I'm so unimportant (to be sure, I only wrote for the Pot. News, but I suspect that it's one more journal than you have ever written for), why are people like you, NJY, Krissie Nohe, and Anke Cheney so bent on running a hate campaign against? Your actions belie your belittlement.

 
At 1/10/2006 12:12:00 PM, Anonymous not jim young said...

Willie-

When did Kris Nohe "(run) a hate campaign against (you)"? All she did was ask that if you insiste on using the names she used in middle school, that you spell it the way she spelled it then. Your refusal to do so is the only hateful thing I saw in that exchange.

 
At 1/10/2006 12:14:00 PM, Anonymous not jim young said...

My typing was terrible there. I'm using someone else's computer today and it has a different keyboard than I am used to. Let's try again...

Willie-

When did Kris Nohe "(run) a hate campaign against (you)"? All she did was ask that if you insist on using the name she used in middle school, that you spell it the way she spelled it then. Your refusal to do so is the only hateful thing I saw in that exchange.

 
At 1/10/2006 04:12:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

James: I have not endorsed vulgarisms or hatred against anyone, including you. In fact, I deplore and eschew them. There is no issue in Virginia politics that rises to the level of properly eliciting hatred from anyone towards anyone, at least among persons with reasonably sound mental health. If you confuse disagreement with hatred, you run the risk of hating back. That'll wear you down in no time, if you let it take hold.

I do get a chuckle out of clever satire from time-to-time, however. I thought the NJY comment was kind of funny.

 
At 1/10/2006 04:36:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

nova scout: "I have not endorsed ... hatred against anyone, including you."

And yet, you felt free to cast an aspersion against me in a conversation in which I was not even participating (lumping me in with Robert Moelleur), and misrepresent my statements in this thread on Chad's site (http://vaconservative.com/archives /2006/01/03/is-the-leblanc- appointment-doomed/#comments).

Endorsed it? Perhaps not. But you certainly do your best to promote it by misrepresentation and belittlement, so please spare me your pretensions.

But obviously, given those who read your comments regularly, you have demonstrated your love of clever satire. And even your ability to direct it toward yourself.

 
At 1/10/2006 05:07:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

James: Self-satire is indeed a high art form. You are too kind to suggest I am at all skilled at it, but I certainly would like to be. My efforts have always struck me as a bit clumsy, but if they provide amusement or respite from the more angst-ridden psychological states that afflict some in this e-community, I will consider myself a fortunate fellow. To have relieved the darkness that so often burdens you gladdens me immensely.

 
At 1/10/2006 06:03:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Oh, nova scout! You honor me.

Thank you for your Cracker-Jack psychology. And for proving my point.

 
At 1/11/2006 04:40:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

James: I owe you and other commenters a clarification. The anon 2:10 comment was me. I think that was clear from my later response to you, but I thought I should be explicit about that. I must have pushed the wrong button when I was preparing to send that. I am scrupulous about, to use your time-worn phrase, "cowering in [consistent] pseudonymity" as opposed to "cowering in anonymity" (assuming that I am not otherwise occupied cowering in Falls Church). I beg pardon for the glitch. Operator error.

 
At 1/11/2006 06:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can we get back on track re: this discussion. Is it true that Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio has filed for 10th District Chairman too?

 
At 1/11/2006 07:19:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TC at 12:37 -- the problems moved from Fairfax County to Prince William County

 
At 1/11/2006 08:42:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eugene Delgaudio for 10th!
Jim Young for PWC!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home