Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Mason Conservative Understands

When I began reading Mason Conservative, I was a little skeptical. Here was just another Northern Virginia republican who disliked Reese and Dillard and wanted Ken Cuccinelli to be governor. With his latest post, it seems Mason Conservative has caught on. No Joke-it is one of the best and well thought out posts I have ever read on the state of our party. In his post, he explains why we as a party need Republicans like Reese and Dillard to maintain our majorities. He also goes out on a limb to state that Sean T. Connaughton should be RPV Chair(Watch out MC, Kate Griffin might give you a call!!). From his post: That is why we need Sean Connaughton as Chairman of the VA Republican Party. He holds no allegiances to the titans of the party (Warner, Allen, Gilmore, Cantor), he is as comfortable as a conservative as he is a moderate, comes from a great county that has it all--rural areas, congested roads, and true suburbia. He is young, and could bring some fresh life into the state. The problem is vocabulary. While getting stuck in the verbal jabs of "conservative" or "moderate," the real clevage is between "responsible," and "irresponsible." We need adults with vision who can lead by doing rather than just saying Great stuff Mason Conservative-Keep it Up.


At 2/07/2006 03:48:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Sorry TC, and mason, while I'm all for "responsibility" I cannot agree that Gary Reese was a good delegate or Republican. He lied on his position on taxes and the budget. He was not true to the way he represented himself in the campaign, and then when he lost fair and square, he went and supported the Democrat. This is not a good Republican Delegate in my opinion.

Otherwise I agree. If we run moderates or even liberal republicans like Dillard in areas where they can win, fine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support candidates who can be as conservative as possible in those areas. And most of all, those candidates should speak the truth about their positions on the issues and not claim "conservative" credentials that they do not believe in nor intend to legislate based on.

At 2/07/2006 03:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TC - when are you and Sean celebrating your nuptials? Will you ever get over this guy?

At 2/07/2006 03:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is Warner in blue?

At 2/07/2006 04:01:00 PM, Blogger Shaun Kenney said...

I still say that so long as Connaughton's supporters continue to be a vitriolic and nasty as they have in the past, they will take otherwise sympathetic conservatives such as myself and turn them into the loyal opposition.

May God save Sean Connaughton from his supporters.

At 2/07/2006 04:03:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

Rtwng Extrmst:

So, are you saying that you prefer Caputo over Reese? I'm just asking because, by nominating Craddock, the party ensured a Dem takeover in that district. It's one thing to nominate the most conservative candidate in an area where they can win. But in NOVA, that just won't fly, as this election demonstrated.

At 2/07/2006 04:09:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

I do prefer a Caputo that I know and can collect his record over two years in order to run a candidate against next time to a Reese who is dishonest.

As to Craddock, he is not who I think we should have run. His inexperience in politics along with the dirty tricks played by some and the media smears I believe had alot more to do with his downfall than his positions on the issues.

At 2/07/2006 04:18:00 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said...

MC, I am not sure I would go as far as to say that nominating Craddock ensured a dem victory.
If so, did nominating Dick Black ensure a loss too?
NOVA took a bad dem turn this time around and took down with it lots if GOPs.
I think having Reese was better than Caputo, and I think Craddock wasnt the greatest candidate in the world. Even so, I dont think it was a terrible move running Craddock instead of Reese.

At 2/07/2006 04:28:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...


"Even so, I dont think it was a terrible move running Craddock instead of Reese."

I disagree. It's a perception problem. The GOP has an image problem where centrist/moderate voters are concerned and many are likely to associated the party as a whole with the candidates it nominates. I certainly wouldn't want the average voter to think that Craddock is representative of the party.


As a Connaughton supporter, I can honestly say that being "vitriolic and nasty" is not our typical predisposition and usually only comes out when seriously provoked. The tenor of Bolling's campaign did that and, of course, Jim Young never misses a chance to incite. On the whole, though, I'd say we're a relatively low-key bunch.

At 2/07/2006 05:08:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...


That's unfair now..

Not all of Seans supporters are as "crazy" as I am.

And Mason is a new found supporter!

At 2/07/2006 06:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hated Reese and Dillard in the fall, love them now.

You are too fickle...a clear sign of immaturity I would expect from a typical teenager, but not from you.


At 2/07/2006 06:24:00 PM, Blogger Shaun Kenney said...

Oh, I never said crazy.

Crazy is good. We anti-everything, gimme-my-tax-dollars-back and pass the ammo, right wing wackos approve highly of "crazy."

However, vitriolic and nasty doesn't help Sean or anyone else at all.

This is why many musicians do everything they can to squash fan clubs -- the clubs start to narrow who is a "true fan". The same lesson can be drawn in politics, I'm afraid.

In short, while I know there's little Sean can do about the fan club, it still rubs me the wrong way that those who follow behind him can be extraordinarily and unnecessarily brutal and sharp in their criticisms of others.

Not good for party building or any other exercise, but not an irrepairable item either.

Second strike against Sean is that - apart from passing comments - I have never heard his name bantered about State Central meetings or anywhere else for that matter. His popularity stops at the Rappahannock, which is the case for most NOVA Republicans.

There is the stereotype - for better or for worse - that when NOVA doesn't get it's way, they stomp and holler and yell and scream and cry... and when your supporters fit the caricature, it doesn't help outside of NOVA one bit.

Sean's #1 credit right now is that he hasn't sung from the same sheet music his supporters have and are doing. He hasn't slammed Bolling once, he hasn't questioned the outcome of the race publically, and he hasn't condemned the rest of Virginia's GOP as idiots for not voting for him in the primary.

The best thing Connaughton-ites can do to help their man is stay quiet and stay supportive.

The worst they can do is continue to blast Bolling at every opportunity, decry the state of the GOP (which only confirms suspicions that Connaughton supporters are moderates at heart), and wail and moan about conservative foibles and organizations.

If only that handful of folks knew how badly they were hurting Connaughton in the truest sense. It's certainly put me at a distance, because I don't want to be associated with that kind of crowd. If I feel that way, you can imagine how other non-attuned activists might feel.

I could be wrong... but I don't think so.

At 2/07/2006 06:37:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...


I dont "hate" anyone.

Reese made a mistaken in endorsing Chuck...

I believe Chris would have been a much more solid Republican...

and I don't "love Reese and Dillard" now either.


Whom do you speak of?

And Seans popularity does not stop at the Rappohannock.

He is very supported in Tidewater, as well as Southwest Virgina.

He won the county furthest West in the state.

At 2/07/2006 08:16:00 PM, Anonymous Chris said...

TC, thanks for the love. I appreciate it. Listen, let me remind everyone that I am not new to the Connaughton bandwagon. I voted for him in the primary against Bolling because I thought he brought some balance to the ticket--both regionally and ideologically. I really believe that he would have helped Kilgore. Not that he would have won, but I don't think he would have been creamed up here as bad as he was. What was also cool about Connaughton was that he come from an unconventional post--county chairman. Not state senator, delegate, or AG. Its like nationally how we love governors to run because they our outsiders. Anyways, anything that gets Republicans talking about the party is good. We will really lose when we become content with ourselves.

At 2/07/2006 08:52:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

"I certainly wouldn't want the average voter to think that Craddock is representative of the party."

Mitch, have you ever spoken with the man to find out what he really believes or are you just basing your opinion on biased articles in the Blade, Centre View, and Gary Reese's ramblings?

Having personally talked with Craddock I know what the man really thinks and the only thing that would make me pause about him is actually the fact that he ran for office knowing he had a pretty bad driving record. And that is a very minor thing in retrospect.

At 2/09/2006 09:50:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

"While getting stuck in the verbal jabs of 'conservative' or 'moderate,' the real clevage is between 'responsible,' and 'irresponsible.' We need adults with vision who can lead by doing rather than just saying."

Actually, the real problem is with arrogance and disrespect -- i.e., "moderates" who follow Liberal prescriptions and dismiss their opponents as "irresponsible." After all, if your opponent is "irresponsible," you don't have to worry about little problems like the intellectual heavy lifting of actually justifying massive tax and spending increases.

Shaun -- as opposed to Sean -- is exactly correct: this is the kind of "vitriolic and nasty" rhetoric which causes divisions in the GOP. He is also correct that it is not helping Chairman Sean, who would probably do more to help the GOP -- and his remaining ambitions -- by telling his supporters to stop attacking the most loyal Republican voters and active campaign workers.

And as to the exchange between rtwng and "mitch," isn't there value in "name brand"? And "incite," "mitch"? Since when is telling the truth about someone's policies and activities "incitement"? Unless, of course, as one Supreme Court Justice famously wrote, "Every idea is an incitement." "Low-key"? Interesting claim in a thread in which I was not participating in which you launch into a gratuitous attack upon me. Chairman Sean and his supporters have waged a hate campaign against me since I was a Pot. News columnist, simply because I dared to tell the truth about his tax-and-spend ways, which most of Chairman Sean's supporters still try to deny, simply because they can't justify them. Sounds a lot like "incitement" to me.

The "perception problem" that "mitch" identifies is one that he's all too happy to promote. I, for one, espouse the proposition that a Democrat in office is preferable to a Republican who consistently and unremittingly acts like a Democrat (and vice versa).

Buckleys for Lieberman!


Post a Comment

<< Home