Thursday, February 02, 2006

Black Blames Republicans For Staton Loss

From the Connection Papers: For Staton, U.S. Sen. George Allen (R), Attorney General Robert McDonnell (R), U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10), Deputy Attorney General Mims and Black all campaigned on his behalf. Black, who played a key role in Staton's campaign, said Republicans must start sticking to core conservative principles — like opposing tax increases — if the GOP wants to start winning elections again."You can't just simply walk away from your base and expect them to show up on election day," Black said. Would these Republicans be Tom Rust, Joe May, and Bill Mims? All who are still sitting in office today?

37 Comments:

At 2/02/2006 05:12:00 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said...

It it the republicans fault. Come to the mainstream and support legalized abortion and civil unions and youll win elections

 
At 2/02/2006 05:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How DARE he blame them!!!

 
At 2/02/2006 05:33:00 PM, Blogger BlackOut2005.com said...

Hummm, was that a diss on Staton? I have no doubt Black was an insider and adviser to the Staton campaign. Did his son in law not follow his wishes?

So now, not only has Black split apart the Republican party, he is now splitting apart the Black Brigade?

I take that as a good sign!

 
At 2/02/2006 05:34:00 PM, Anonymous John Epps said...

Fascinating spin here. I wondered when Delegate Black would let us know who really was the cause behind his decisive loss, Chris Craddock's decisive loss, and now son-in-law Staton's decisive loss. Of course that fault does not lie with the candidates themselves or their views on the issues. Thank you Delegate Black for clearing this up for us. Before I read this, I was ready to blame sunspot activity or the Redskins' playoff loss for the Staton loss.

 
At 2/02/2006 05:38:00 PM, Anonymous I'll take my chances said...

"You can't alk away from the base and expect them to show up on election day"-

I sure as hell am willing to try. What do we have to lose- a special election? A governors race?

 
At 2/02/2006 05:40:00 PM, Anonymous Fight Club said...

The first rule of the RPV NOVA Task Force, is to not talk about the RPV NOVA Task Force

 
At 2/02/2006 05:41:00 PM, Anonymous Sophrosyne said...

Is anyone going to the RPV NOVA Task Force tonight? I just read that it is in fact tonight but nobody is talking about it.

 
At 2/02/2006 05:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ding-dong, Dick Black is dead!
The Wicked Dick is dead!

And apparently lives in denial on why they lost as well as his secret desire to have a family with Eugene DelGottaGo on a Wyoming ranch.

 
At 2/02/2006 05:56:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

I thought it was a "Strike Force" Sounds like elliot Ness or some sort of drug crackdown. Are these things open to the public? I assume they'll hang on every word of Davis, Wolf, and Connaughton, the only Republicans who seem to be real popular at regional ballot boxes in recent years.

Anyone got a list of whose on the "Strike Force/Task Force"

 
At 2/02/2006 06:04:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

republitarian,

It's not just about you.

 
At 2/02/2006 06:06:00 PM, Blogger republitarian said...

Legalized murder is mainstream?

Yeah I guess it is along with many other immoral things, yep, we should just go with the flow. I'll stay home.

 
At 2/02/2006 06:09:00 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said...

I thought the task/strike force would be a group of inviteds to discuss what to do. Opening it up to the public seems like it would defeat the purpose.
I still never heard when or where it was supposed to be.

 
At 2/02/2006 06:50:00 PM, Anonymous ZB said...

Actually Mims is no longer in office. That sorta precipitated this whole thing :).

 
At 2/02/2006 08:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You can't just simply walk away from your base and expect them to show up on election day."

So, is Black saying HE walked away from his base? He must be saying that, since he lost - thus, the "base" did not show up on election day.

And if Black walked away from the base - then that means that his lunatic fringe ideas and behavior is NOT representative of the base. And yet, that is exactly who the party keeps choosing in primaries.

 
At 2/02/2006 09:52:00 PM, Anonymous disenfranchised constituent said...

The Republicans will continue to lose elections as long as they put up far-far right wing wacko candidates. Black has been pulling the strings in Loudoun County for too many years. How come he wasn't booted out after his first non-productive term in Richmond? The guy was the laughing stock of the House of Delegates, an image not helped by his plastic fetuses fiasco--the guy's a nut! Give us moderate candidates with fresh ideas and they'll at least stand a chance of winning.

 
At 2/02/2006 10:16:00 PM, Anonymous snoop said...

just came from the Strike Force, at Fairfax Rep. HQ. Interesting presentation on trends in VA. Tom Davis and Jay O'Brien spoke. Some moron from Fairfax blathered at every opportunity. We meet again in March.

I expected more circular firing squad stuff, but it was pretty tame.

 
At 2/03/2006 12:04:00 AM, Blogger Virginia Centrist said...

Ummm....

Staton lost because Black is a turd.

Give me a break.

 
At 2/03/2006 12:48:00 AM, Blogger Ryan said...

if you leave the republican base you should LOSE. I would rather have a dem in office then one more RINO. Maybe thats why are turn out is not very good us christian voters are getting tired of republicans that do not stand up for christian vaules. even if you are in nova, God will be on your side if you stand up for His laws.

 
At 2/03/2006 07:12:00 AM, Blogger Waltzing Matilda said...

Ryan- If the party keeps doing what it's doing, you will get your wish...more dems.

 
At 2/03/2006 08:14:00 AM, Blogger valleyconservative05 said...

I don't think that Loudon County and Fairax have suddenly abandoned conservative principles. The problem is the fact that these principles have been the only thing Republicans in this area have been standing on the past several years. (These guys have been fighting over who is more socially conservative since the last primaries) You can nominate a social conservative who will spend most of his time discussing the issues that people care about in this area such as transportation and education. For some of these people, it can take over 1 hr. during rush hour to drive 10 miles. Right now road are their main priority. Neither candidate in this race had a specific plan to fix these pressing problems but Herring did a better job of riding a popular governors coat-tails. Right now a pure right wing social ideologue cannot win in this area because they lack ideas in other areas.

 
At 2/03/2006 08:58:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

YOU GUYS DON'T GET IT.

THE PROBLEM IS HERB LUX.

LUX WAS ATTACHED TO STATON'S CAMPAIGN, BLACK'S, JARVIS'S CAMPAIGN PRIMARY IN JUNE 05, STUBER'S CAMPAIGN IN 03, AND ROTHFELD'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHICHESTER IN 03.

THEME? ALL WENT DOWN IN FLAMES!!!

REPUBLICANS AREN'T LOSING THESE CAMPAIGNS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING WELL.

WE ARE LOSING THESE RACES BECAUSE HERB LUX IS RUNNING THEM INTO THE GROUND AND EMBARASSING THE GOP.

SOMEONE PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH ON THIS GUY BEFORE HE RUINS ANOTHER CAMPAIGN!!!

SIGNED,
AN ANONYMOUS VOLUNTEER.

 
At 2/03/2006 09:56:00 AM, Anonymous David said...

Anon 858,

1) Please don't shout.

2) I have now had a couple of lengthy conversations with Herb Lux, as I worked the polls with him on Tuesday. He seems entirely motivated by his personal religious beliefs, and that's never a good sign if what we want is fair representation and good governance, but what do you mean by research him? Do you have reason to believe something nefarious is going on? What is it that you see him doing to run these campaigns into the ground?

 
At 2/03/2006 11:12:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

David said "He seems entirely motivated by his personal religious beliefs, and that's never a good sign if what we want is fair representation and good governance."

I don't know Herb Lux; never even heard of him until these posts. But true or not, that comment smacks of anti-religious bigotry and disenfranchisement of 'bout 90% of the American electorate.

 
At 2/03/2006 11:27:00 AM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

I disagree completely. What David's comment "smacks" of is the kind of logical, level-headed, open-mindedness that we need and are sorely lacking.

 
At 2/03/2006 11:49:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

'Figures, mitch. Can't even recognize your own close-mindedness to people with religious convictions while paying lip service to "open-mindedness."

And "logic"? Aren't you one of the guys who tries to claim that Chairman Sean hasn't raised taxes?!?!

I know you have no commitment to any principles, but could you at least TRY to avoid the blatant hypocrisy of ignoring in the same post the ones you invoke?

 
At 2/03/2006 01:09:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

This coming from a guy who whines about "personal attacks?" Pathetic.

 
At 2/03/2006 02:23:00 PM, Anonymous was a volunteer said...

Also anon 858

Correlation is not causation. More actual facts may support your case better.

 
At 2/03/2006 02:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, you hit a home run on the Lutz Nutz reference. He's a dirty ole man giving candy out to children.

I'll throw another couple names out there that are destroying the efficiency of the party, Dale Myers and John Nicholas. Puppet masters behind the scenes.

 
At 2/03/2006 04:30:00 PM, Anonymous David said...

..that comment smacks of anti-religious bigotry and disenfranchisement of 'bout 90% of the American electorate.

Wow, James. That's a pretty outrageous statement. You'll note that I didn't say the man (or you, for that matter) is not entitled to his personal religious views, only that it doesn't lead to good governance and fair representation to be motivated by a desire to impose them on constituents who have a different religious view, or none. If you disagree with that, then you must also disagree with our religious freedom clause.

And if you truly believe that "90%" of the electorate both shares your particular strain of fundamentalism and wants its law imposed on civil society, you are really out of touch. Candidates who represent that world view are losing, and the trend will only accelerate.

 
At 2/03/2006 05:51:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Technically, David, you said that he was entirely motivated by his personal religious views, and THAT was bad.

You didn't say that he was motivated to force us all to live by the tenets of his religion.

I am, at least to the best of my lack of ability, trying to live my life entirely motivated by my personal religious views. Can't imagine why anybody would bother to have person views, religious or not, and then try to find some motivation opposed to those views.

It was your lack of qualifiers that properly raised the objection voiced by Jim.

Mitch, you fell into the same trap, because if we go by what was written, you claim that to be open-minded, we can't have any people who are governed by their religious convictions running anybody's campaign.

That probably isn't what you meant -- you probably just read into david's words what you thought he meant, but it isn't what he said.

Now, either of you two want to clarify? Do either of you think that people who are motivated by their religious beliefs should NOT be involved in politics, should not run campaigns, are bad for our party? Do you think we lose elections because republicans are too motivated by their beliefs?

Or did you simply mean that we shouldn't run candidates who want to force their religion on the rest of us.

 
At 2/03/2006 06:24:00 PM, Anonymous David said...

I'm motivated by my religious beliefs, too. However, the idea that everyone else should adhere to my beliefs is not a part of those beliefs. Insisting on representation that includes me does not by definition exclude others.

You are correct; I was unclear. I should have explained that an important part of what I understand to be Mr. Lux's belief system is that it's his perogative and duty to make sure that we are all governed in conformity to that system. That does force a particular religous world view on everyone, and it does exclude people, and that is my point.

 
At 2/03/2006 06:44:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Well said, David. This is exactly what I took your comment to mean, particularly in light of the fact that you said "He seems entirely motivated by his personal religious beliefs..." (Note the use of the word Entirely). I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 
At 2/05/2006 08:03:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

David, that's about as ignorant a post as I've ever seen. You attribute to me a "particular strain of fundamentalism and want[] its law imposed on civil society." 'Fact is, I'm a Lutheran. Have been all my life. Indeed, I've always been --- and remain today --- a member of an ELCA congregation, not even the more "conservative" Missouri Synod.

But thank you for demonstrating the outrageous lengths to which the far Left and even self-styled "moderates" will go to demonize religious conservatives, and anyone who fails to join them in doing so.

Reading your initial post, you reference a man "entirely motivated by his personal religious beliefs." You said nothing about someone who "motivated by a desire to impose them on constituents who have a different religious view," so now you've changed the standard, as Charles noted.

 
At 2/05/2006 08:06:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it just me, or is James Young the most closed-minded, self-righteous dude in America? What an idiot!

 
At 2/05/2006 11:41:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JY,

You're about as good of a representative for the Lutherans as you are the republicans.

You really do sound disturbed.

 
At 2/06/2006 12:23:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Is it just me, or is Anon 8:06 among the most craven, vile, and despicable slanderers in America? What a coward!

As for you, Anon 11:41, what are your professional credentials? Your professional designations? I once read that the far Left tried the same tactic against Barry Goldwater in 1964. 'Guess I'm in good company.

And you're such a good representative of whatever you claim to represent that you can't even show your name and your face. Priceless!

 
At 2/06/2006 02:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JY,

You frighten a lot of people, and I don't blame them for not wanting to expose their identify. I am one of them.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home