Fascinating Exchange with Harry's Primary Campaign Manager

I've had the most fascinating exchange with Harry Parrish's campaign manager over the last two days. Fascinating. It seems to have been provoked by my temerity in using the "Hitlary" to refer to the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock, and then dare to point out the similarities between her socialist/totalitarian agenda and the National Socialists, as well as play on the similarities between her first name and der Fuhrer's last. The point of my little bon mot is, of course, that while there are many on the far Left who freely compare Republicans to Hitler and frequently invoke his name, it is their ideology/agenda which has far more in common with der Fuhrer than anything ever proposed by any Republican of whom I am aware (excepting, of course, so-called "moderates").

Anyway, here it is, in the order in which I received and responded. It is lengthy, but anyone desiring a window into the mind of a supporter of a tax increaser who claims to be a Conservative, and an individual who claimed that "the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman other than reporting them when they came to our attention" (emphasis added), is invited to read, and be astounded.

At 01:17 AM 9/30/2005, you wrote:

I am responding to your remarks regarding "Hitlary" in the NLS blog because, unlike you, I really don't believe that the majority of the people who visit and participate in these blogs that are designed for intelligent discussion really want to be subjected to personal attacks and pissing matches, which seem to be your stock in trade. I will, however, be happy to respond publicly if you insist because, unlike you, I don't believe that I'd be the one who would come out looking like an idiot.

It amazes me how you, in your zeal to bluster your way out of a faux pas (equating Hillary to a fascist rather than a socialist), arrogantly try to rewrite history rather than admit you misspoke. I'm no fan of Hillary's...on the contrary, you'd be pretty close to the truth in describing her as a socialist...but what I found most interesting about your post was, in attempting to justify your position, you enumerate points which I found to be far more in tune with you and your fanatically extreme allies.

For instance, "Both embrace interposition of the State into the most intimate of family relationships." What, exactly, do you call a Constitutional Amendment which defines the nature of marriage??? My conservative credentials were first established, probably before you were born but most certainly before you were out of elementary school, when we fought the battle to wrest the Virginia Republican Party away from the Linwood Holton liberals and bring the conservative dems into the Republican Party (an effort led, in part, by Dick Obenshain, who was a friend, btw). I was a unit chairman of YAF (if you're too young to remember, that stands for Young Americans for Freedom) and a member of the conservative Virginia "Team." We conservatives, in those days, believed strongly in limiting government interference in the lives of the citizenry. We were also strong Constitutionalists and believed that amendments to that revered document should only be applied in the most extreme circumstances and never by imposing upon the personal and private lives of the individual (yes, we believed in individual and states' rights). We believed that government should balance its checkbook (tax cuts, yes, but only with commensurate cost cuts) and, at every opportunity, reduce the debt which we are passing on to future generations. Abortion, in those days, was an issue of states' rights and, for those of us opposed to the act itself, a condemnation of the use of our tax dollars to perform such an egregious act, but one that was, and is, of a very personal nature (God gave man...and woman...the right to choose right from wrong. Got'em kicked outta the Garden of Eden, afterall). I guess that's considered a "pro-choice" position nowadays, by right wing radicals. I'm still the same conservative that I have always been.

Today's so-called "conservative" (of which you are representative) believe that the Federal Government should impose it's will upon all people and all States in all things (marriage amendment, among other things); you believe that it is correct to take away the rights of the individual in the name of security (Patriot Acts, Homeland Security [interestingly enough, that is the English translation of the name of the NAZI secret police]); you believe in tax cuts regardless of spending cuts, on both the State and Federal level, the future be damned (I'm primarily referring to the Fed. tax cut); and our so-called conservative Republican Majority in both the Senate and House have shown themselves to be bigger porkers than the Dems ever were. Yeah, Dick Obenshain must be spinning in his grave to see what conservatism has become.

Now, you say "Both embrace the politics of resentment." Well, what do you think you and your fellows do constantly. I've seen this "if you're not 100% with me, you're against me" attitude displayed by you and the rest time after time over the past few years...never so blatantly as I did in the Primary Election in the 50th District. Your people (most of whom were from outside of our district) in the 50th utilized intimidation tactics including, but not limited to, threats, merely because somebody who happened to be a conservative had the nerve to support Harry Parrish. Not isolated incidents either. Lies, misrepresentations, intimidation...a daily occurrence throughout the campaign. I know that your motto is "the end justifies the means" but that's not very Christian, now is it?...and sounds a bit fascist to me.

In terms of rewriting history, you should perhaps go back to it and check out what happened to homosexuals under fascism. They, as were the mentally ill, socialists, and political opponents in general, were persecuted just the same way as were the Jewish people. THAT is the fact. You don't really think that Roehm was openly homosexual, do you? Besides...Hitler had him and his entire staff massacred in 1934 while they were in a staff meeting. Maybe he found out (sarcasm alert). Actually, the reasons were more complex than that, but perhaps you should look it up for yourself.

If there is anybody out there hatemongering in the political arena today, it's you and those of your ken. It is YOU, and others of your ilk, who want to impose your values (rather, lack of them) and beliefs upon all others, here and abroad. Who made you God?

Anke Cheney

Since I was traveling on Friday, and out of town all weekend, it took me until Monday at about 10 a.m., to respond:

Anke,
It is a truly entertaining experience to open my mail and find, in an e-mail seething with resentment, one full of "personal attacks and pissing matches," one which embraces them as a "stock in trade," one which dismisses my "allies" as "fanatically extreme," and one which states that I'll "come out looking like an idiot," the accusation that I am the one promoting the "politics of resentment."
If the length of your piece didn't demonstrate a rather significant expenditure of effort, I might simply dismiss it as slapstick. More's to pity that I cannot.
It's really too bad that you fail to recognize that constitutionalizing protection of marriage as it has been defined throughout history --- necessitated by the effort of a fringe element to change the meaning of a simple word --- is somehow an effort to "interpose[] the State in the most intimate of family relationship." It would be funny, if it didn't bespeak a woeful ignorance of exactly what is going on out there. Would I prefer to eschew cluttering up the Constitution with such an amendment? Certainly. Am I willing to stand idly by while life-tenured federal judges impose their values via "emanations," "penumbras," and other assorted shadowy excuses for legal reasoning? Not hardly.
What is interesting in this sense is your discussion of abortion. Your comments indicate that you and I agree that it is not a constitutional issue, though we might disagree if, upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Commonwealth should make it illegal. Your comments leave open whether your brand of "conservatism" means that you are satisfied to leave on the books a constitutional monstrosity which, in the words of one commentator, is "not constitutional law, and barely pretends to be."
And I am uncomfortable (and expressed that discomfort publicly) about the name "Homeland Security" and, indeed, the need for creation of yet another Cabinet post. Less so about the "PATRIOT Act," which at worst is a pale reflection of the restrictions upon civil liberties typical in war time (it doesn't compare to those in World War II, for example). Unfortunately, it seems that you have made the mistake of believing the caricature of the far Left as to its provisions and effect.
As for your discussion of marriage, "Conservative" doesn't mean quiescence in the face of assault upon values pre-dating our constitutional order, at least for me. That you seem to suggest that such efforts equate with Nazi genocide (of which I am well aware, BTW; Roehm was a notorious homosexual, not an "open" one, and the reasons for the "Night of the Long Knives" purge were political, not based upon his homosexuality) demonstrates just how radical you truly are. A commitment to "individual and states rights" an excuse for allowing perversion of the Constitution to validate perversion, and to provide additional protections for perverts. Adequate protections lie in the Fourth Amendment to allow them to practice their perversions behind closed doors; adequate provisions of contract law permit virtually all of the benefits that they seek. It is when what used to be the "love that dare not speak its name" becomes "the love that will not shut its mouth," demanding societal license and approval, that "Conservatives" must get off their lazy posteriors and act.
And the fact that your Conservative credentials pre-date mine is nothing more than a function of age. Sadly, your other comments belie the notion that with age comes wisdom.
Yes, I know what YAF is, or was, and was even a member for a time, after the last purge, if I recall correctly. And I founded a chapter of the Federalist Society, hosting and shepherding around Atlanta Clarence Thomas (don't know if I can call him "a friend," as if that has anything to do with anything), among others.
It is therefore odd that you would claim the "Conservative" mantle with regard to your support of a lawmaker who, so far as I know, has never embraced spending cuts, but is what Fred Barnes rightly calls a "Big Government conservative." But then, you seem to know so little about economics that you fail to recognize that, in the best supply-side tradition, the tax cuts pushed through by President Bush have increased Federal revenues, just as those signed by President Reagan did. Were it that they were accompanied by dismantling of the Liberal welfare state.
As for my faux pas, you may declare it as such as much as you like. But in doing so, you merely shed light on your woeful ignorance of political history and political ideologies.
Finally, as for the 50th District race, I didn't participate in it, save for a few Internet comments about the sleazy tactics of the campaign that you managed. "Lies"? Oh, Anke! You have demonstrated that the campaigns denials as to involvement in the charges against Steve Chapman were nothing but lies. To paraphrase Robert Duvall's character from "True Grit," I'd call that pretty bold talk from a demonstrated liar! You may dismiss Steve's supporters as you like, if it helps you sleep at night, but the fact that he won 45% of the vote in his first campaign demonstrates that Republican dissatisfaction with Harry runs deep. "Threats"? Please, be specific. I know of none, but, as I said, I didn't participate in the race, and I would love to know just what it is that you consider a "threat." "Threats" of criminal prosecution, perhaps? I'm sure it's just precious.
It is too bad that you confuse "articulate" and "well-informed" with "extreme." It is the type of name-calling that is most closely associated with the far Left. But it is, of course, easier than engaging in reasoned and well-informed debate, and is usually the tactic of those who lack the tools to do so.

Very truly yours,

About four hours later, I opened my mail to find this gem:

At 02:07 PM 10/3/2005, you wrote:

I hardly think that my email was "seething with resentment," as you say. Actually, you might say it is more seething with contempt for you and those who think like you do. I happen to believe that people of honor and integrity, regardless of their beliefs, can come together and formulate solutions to the worst problems of this world, if allowed. I happen to believe in the spirit of open-mindedness and occasional compromise because, unlike you, I have NEVER believed that any one person can be 100% right about all things at all times. I, unlike you, believe in tolerance because, unlike you, I do not believe that I know God's mind and everyone else is going to go to Hell just because they don't believe like I do. I, unlike you, am ALWAYS ready to listen to another opinion and put myself in another's shoes because the one thing that I know for sure is that no person, myself included, is always right.

This is what scares me about what you and others have done to the conservative movement. You've taken the heart out of it...there's no room for those wonderful values such as honor, integrity, open-mindedness, and tolerance. In your world, people are either with you or they're against you...there's no room for compromise, or even disagreement. You toe the line or you are with "them." I saw this starting in the early '80's in Prince William County and kept it out of the conservative campaigns here until I "retired" from politics (a long story that I would happy to relate, if I were relating it to an open mind). You're really not interested in doing the right thing...you're only interested in the power to compel everyone to do everything your way. It's sad...and scary...

Anke Cheney

Well, an occupational hazard is an almost manic inability to require the last word, so I responded about 100 minutes later:

Anke,
Your arrogance is truly astounding. And here, I thought it was an occupational hazard in my profession. It's almost as astounding as your serial contradictions.
You confess that you are "seething with contempt for you and those who think like you do," making a distinction without a difference between contempt and resentment (which apparently arises from the fact that someone other than you sets the GOP agenda), and arrogantly presuming that you know how I "think."
Don't kid yourself: you've never troubled yourself to learn how I think, so please spare me your pretensions of omniscience (which sound strangely like an expression that you think you are God, but ... never mind). You profess that you "believe in the spirit of open-mindedness and occasional compromise," but them condemn me as someone who "believe[s] that any one person can be 100% right about all things at all times." Truth be told, I've never met anyone who can, and I've only ever heard of One. Neither have I ever met any one person who can be 100% wrong about all things at all times, though you seem to ascribe that characteristic to "[me] and those who think like [I] do."
The truth is the matter seems more to lie in the fact that -- while you protest belief that you "people of honor and integrity, regardless of their beliefs, can come together and formulate solutions to the worst problems of this world, if allowed" -- you refuse to "come together and formulate solutions to the worst problems of this world" with Conservatives like me. Disparaging the "honor and integrity" of myself is certainly easier than dealing with me, but those few who ever have challenged it have always found it to be a losing proposition. Indeed, too frequently in dealing with "people like you," I have found that "honor and integrity" are malleable. One example would be in the YRFV in the early Nineties, when an election was stolen by those who had to keep chartering material (which determined votes) secret to prevent the truth from coming out. Another would be Harry's campaign's protestations of non-involvement in the Chapman indictment.
If it makes you feel any better -- though I doubt your actual openmindedness, as compared to the principle to which you so desperately cling -- I "believe in tolerance," and distinguish it from "acceptance." I "do not believe that I know God's mind," and unlike those so quick to condemn devout Christians who happen to be Conservatives, don't caricature them as people who believe that "everyone else is going to go to Hell just because they don't believe like I do." And as people who have troubled themselves to know me -- the best man at my wedding, for instance, know that "I ... am ALWAYS ready to listen to another opinion," to debate an issue, and to alter my opinions when their bases become untenable. Perhaps you truly believe that you "know for sure is that no person, myself included, is always right," yet I know of no occasion when you have ever confessed error.
It's truly laughable, if not so tragic, that you seem so "scared" that people with whom you disagree are actually accomplishing Conservative goals. You apparently confuse the "heart ... of it" with the notion that one should accept anything. What that has to do with "honor" or "integrity" is a mystery, since those I know in the Conservative movement are among the most honorable, and demonstrate the most intellectual integrity, of any I have ever known. They don't make broad and uninformed accusations like "In your world, people are either with you or they're against you...there's no room for compromise, or even disagreement." Indeed, that is absurd; most frequently in politics in PWC, I have noticed that it is individuals who advocate less Conservative policy prescriptions who most frequently want to stifle debate, or avoid it entirely, probably because they lack the ability or basis for defending their ill-advised positions. You dismiss all those who don't happy to agree with you as having a "closed mind," and won't even relate the story of your retirement from politics because you imply that I lack an open mind. "[N]ot interested in doing the right thing"? Did you just happen to miss it when I was excoriated because I gave Democrat Lee Stoffregen credit for trying to keep a campaign promise, however ill-advised? Or when I defended Steve Keen for having the integrity to resign from the Republican Committee because he couldn't keep his word to support a Republican nominee in the ensuing election?
Your caricatures demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge of the people you excoriate. But unlike you, I won't assume or ascribe to you the motive that "you're only interested in the power to compel everyone to do everything your way." But to borrow a phrase from you (in part), "It's sad." Not "scary," but certainly pathetic.

Very truly yours,

I guess insomnia set in, because this name-dropping missive was apparently sent while most of us were sleeping, in the best Internet tradition:

At 02:17 AM 10/4/2005, you wrote:

Jim, your last reply gave me pause for thought. You are certainly right about one thing...I guess I really don't know you. What I know about you is largely from what I have heard you say in Committee meetings and what I have read of your thoughts in the blogs. You seem to shoot from the hip so it tends toward a personal attack rather than a debate. You're not always "right on" with your facts either. That aside, you also don't know me. Maybe we should try to sit down and talk...we might both find it valuable. Actually, it was your references to the YR split in several of your blog posts that I read tonight which makes me most interested in listening to your perspective of things. Also, that you say you are interested in bringing the Republicans together. That suggests a willingness to welcome other viewpoints into the Party rather than drive them away.

Perhaps I should tell you a little bit about myself. I did, in fact, found the Prince William County Young Republicans in 1975. I also founded and sponsored numerous Teenage Republican Clubs around the County in those years. We had, countywide, more than 500 YRs and TARs and could, with very little notice, field a MINIMUM of 50 workers at any given time. It was one of the top 10 stories of the Journal Messenger in their New Years edition of 1977. We were a strong State Federation in those days...and strongly Conservative. Our core group included the likes of Jade West, Ray Legeunes, Jim Gilmore and Kathy (Coe) Royce (Coombs), among others. Morton Blackwell was peripherally involved (he sometimes hosted our "retreats" and we worked with him). I was originally assigned, and succeeded, in taking over the 8th Congressional District for the Team in Virginia, wresting it away from a liberal, and ineffective, Alexandria YR Club. It was my YRs and TARs (18 before next election, of course) who provided the swing vote which took the Republican County Committee away from the likes of Annie Snyder and Gill LeKander, who were happy to keep the group only large enough to meet in a phone booth because they could then just take turns running things...and never get anyone elected. This was the beginning of the growth of the Republican Party in Prince William County. [I turned the YRs in PWC over to Megan Lott in '82 or '83...can't remember exactly when]

I was a member of the VA "Team" in those days. Super secret then...doesn't exist now. It died out about the time of that YR State Convention which created the split. You can thank Jay Timmons and his bunch for that, as well as the split. I heard about what they were planning too late to do anything about it, except go to the convention in the hopes that I could talk some sense into those boys (I had long been out of the YRs). Until then, the YRs had been a very powerful element of the RPV. No decisions were made without YR involvement and YRs were highly respected among Republicans statewide. That ended virtually overnight. I'll be happy to fill in the gaps if we should ever sit down and talk.

This is only a portion of my political resume. I "retired" from politics in 1985 (I actually started in CRs in 1969) and came out occasionally when something extreme was about to happen (I would get the "call" that someone was trying to pull the Party apart with slating, instruction, or some other divisive nonsense) and I would step in, do my thing and retire gracefully again. I became somewhat active again during the School Board elections in 1993 because my children were in school at the time and I was concerned about the school system. My solution was to elect myself a School Board. I helped recruit and I designed the campaign plans for 6 of the 8 candidates for School Board that year. Everything I did was behind the scenes, as was with some subsequent operations in the County in which I played a role. The only exception was Harry's campaign.

Harry Parrish is one of the few politicians who could ever have gotten me fully involved in a campaign at this stage of my life. I've lived in Prince William County almost my entire life and have known Harry Parrish for most of my adult life. I never met a more honorable or worthy man (with the exception of Dick Obenshain) in my entire life. I didn't (and don't) always agree with him, but nobody should always expect to agree with someone 100% of the time (my opinion, of course), so that doesn't make me think less of him. Steve Chapman, on the other hand, is quite a different story. The truth will out and a lot of those people who think he has been wronged will be sitting down to a banquet of crow. My original post on Bacon's Rebellion was a reaction to the quote from Steve of "trumped up charges"...this was a last straw for me. I'm going to make sure that the truth gets out. This is another issue that I would be happy to discuss with you at any time and at any length that you wish. I get the feeling that you really only know what you have read in the media about it or, perhaps, heard from the people who put him up to it in the first place. I'll be happy to enumerate in detail the intimidation, misrepresentations, etc., to which I had previously referred.

If I have been wrong about you Jim, I'd be the first to admit it...but nothing that you have said previously (other than my not knowing you well personally) cause me to doubt my original opinion. That doesn't mean that I believe that I'm wrong. I hope that I am, actually. You were the one that started attacking me personally in the blogs so you shouldn't be surprised that I think badly of you at the moment.

Anke (maiden name Wiechmann) Cheney

One of my bad --- or maybe good --- habits is to decline to suffer the insults of those pretending like, or perhaps really so arrogant as to really believe that, they really care about me because they want to disabuse me of my erroneous ways. So I couldn't help but reply with this at about 2:10 this afternoon:

Anke,
Unless your getting a sense of guilt over the fact that you're practicing exactly what you claim to be condemning (and that's about all I know about you), I really am not sure what purpose that this is serving, since you keep throwing out these unsupported and unsupportable aspersions ("What I know about you is largely from what I have heard you say in Committee meetings and what I have read of your thoughts in the blogs. You seem to shoot from the hip so it tends toward a personal attack rather than a debate. You're not always 'right on" with your facts either."), even ending on a personal attack, and an accusation.
You state that I was "the one that started attacking [you] personally in the blogs so [I] shouldn't be surprised that [you] think badly of [me] at the moment." It's no wonder you made your above-quoted comments, since you seem to believe that I attacked you personally.
What I said was that "shame -- like guilt -- is only appropriate for one's own actions. Therefore, I am not surprised that you feel ashamed." I did so in response to a post in which you: (1) stated that "the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman other than reporting them when they came to our attention" (here's a news flash, Anke: "reporting them when they came to our attention" is "[some]thing to do with the charges against Chapman"!); and (2) engaged in a blunderbuss attack upon "Chapman and his dishonorable tactics and lies," without ever identifying them. I then noted that you confirmed what Harry had denied (the campaign's prior knowledge of the charges), and your later comments demonstrate that Harry was either oblivious or lying (neither of which is a credit to him).
Of course, in none of these do I "attacki[] [you] personally in the blogs." Methinks you doth protesteth too much.
And in fact, what you "know about" me seems rather more derived from what you've heard said about me in Committee meetings by those who oppose me, and what you have read said about me in the blogs.
And I'm the one who "tends toward a personal attack"?!?!?! Please! I defy you to identify one occasion where I ever engaged in a "personal attack" (as opposed to a political attack), or got my facts wrong (one those rare occasions when I have, I have promptly corrected them). Putting a moniker like "marty's oversized melon" on a website is a "personal attack." Dismissing an opposing opinion as wrongheaded or recognizing an ulterior motive driving an action is not.
And your conclusion that my "interest[] in bringing the Republicans together .... suggests a willingness to welcome other viewpoints into the Party rather than drive them away" is mistaken. I am not interesting a political party which is merely a vehicle for personal political power. I am interested in a political party which stands for and advocates a set of principles, and draws people to it by the power of those ideas. Yep, that's right. I'm from the "ideology first" wing of the party. A willingness "to debate an issue, and to alter my opinions when their bases become untenable" is hardly a willingness to "welcome other viewpoints," especially when those viewpoints are contrary to the fundamental principles of the GOP. Your suggestion otherwise suggests that you --- contrary to protestations --- don't actually hold there such fundamental principles exist.
As for your comments about YRs, Jade and Ray (LaJeunesse, BTW) are both friends; Ray is my boss, as the Foundation's Legal Director; Megan is a long-time friend. I don't know the others to whom you refer (Annie Snyder is a familiar name, though I never met her).
I came in after the split to which you refer, when the continuing effects (believe it or not, by '93, having kicked out HS students, the aliens had to bring them in to pad their vote) resulted in the formation of VYRs. I was the only candidate elected from the Conservative slate, when the Virginia Beach/Alexandria types pulled their candidate against me for First Vice Chairman. Alas, when I wouldn't betray my friends for the bone that had been thrown to me, I was cashiered a year later, in a meeting scheduled for the same day as the 11th District GOP Convention. Apparently, the aliens didn't understand what it was to have YR leaders who were actually involved, respected, and running things at the local level (my recollection is that, in '94, I was Rules Committee Chairman).
As for Harry, I don't begrudge you or anyone else for supporting him. In fact, I personally like Harry. He contributed to one of my campaigns for School Board, and my visit to his office was like a flashback to my childhood, as my grandfather was an oil distributor. That he's "honorable" or "worthy" may (or may have been) true. There are plenty of honorable and worthy people out there (George McGovern comes to mind) who I would never vote for, though, because their positions are wrong-headed.
What I do reject and condemn is the dishonesty of the campaign's denial that it was involved in the charges (whether those charges were true or not). Harry ran that campaign, or it was run on his behalf. Promoting the bringing of criminal charges was nothing less than a move of desperation, a desperation apparently well-justified, given Harry's ability to win only 55% of the GOP primary vote.. Nothing you have said here or elsewhere is anything but confirmation that Harry was either: (1) aware of and intimately involved in the smear campaign against Steve; (2) oblivious to what his own operatives were doing; or (3) initially oblivious to it but later endorsed it, because he didn't fire Kenny Klinge. None of those three possibilities reflect well on Harry. And given the resume that you put forth, and the people whom I respect with whom you have worked, it is disturbing that you would be a party to it.
You repeat the comment that "I'll be happy to enumerate in detail the intimidation, misrepresentations, etc., to which I had previously referred."
Please do.
By all means.
I'm still waiting, and this is the second time that you have referred to, but not enumerated, them.
As I understand it, Steve's campaign was run primarily on the tax issue. It is a mystery to me as to what "intimidation" could have occurred (except, of course, the filing of criminal charges against Steve), and to my knowledge, the only "misrepresentations" which occurred was Harry's laughable or pitiable (I'm not sure which) suggestion to some that his vote had actually been for tax reductions.

Very truly yours,

However, our friend Anke just doesn't seem to get it, and then resorts to the very name-calling and attacks that she attributes to, and purports to condemn in, me. Therefore, she responded with this little love note at 5 this afternoon:

OK...'nuff said...you are indeed the jerk I thought you to be originally. So ends this string and the olive branch is withdrawn.

A. W. Cheney

Naturally, I couldn't allow Sister Anke to labor under the misconception that her serial insults constituted an "olive branch," so I responded with this:

Olive branch!?!?!?!

Let me count the ways:

"You seem to shoot from the hip so it tends toward a personal attack...."
"You're not always 'right on" with your facts either..."
"nothing that you have said previously ... cause me to doubt my original opinion ..."
"You were the one that started attacking me personally in the blogs...."
"you shouldn't be surprised that I think badly of you at the moment...."

Lady (and I use the term generously), you have got one outrageously distorted view of what an "olive branch" is. Even ignoring your perpetual and serial insults, I've given you three opportunities to spill all of this supposed "dirt" that you claim to have on Steve ("I'll be happy to enumerate in detail the intimidation, misrepresentations, etc., to which I had previously referred."), yet you've offered nothing but broad and unsupported slanders.
So I ask again: What is "the intimidation, misrepresentations, etc., to which [you] had previously referred?
Your failure to answer heretofore seems to come down to the fact that Steve Chapman had the temerity to move into a district and challenge and nearly beat a politician who has been there so long that he's forgotten the values of the people who sent him there, for whom people are now voting out of mere habit, and who you happen to (for now, at least) respect and support.

It's indeed ironic that you call me a "jerk." You know from whence you speak.

Very truly yours,

So, there it is. Multiple opportunities to spill the dirt, and no facts; just slanders. I'll be sure to post anything else (that is, if anything else comes across after I post this) that Sister Anke sends, for your reading enjoyment.