Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Shameless Fatherly Pride

Finally figured out how to load photos, so here's two. The first is Hampden-Sydney's Homecoming, 2004. Patrick was only 3 1/2, and was a little afraid of the Tiger.

Two of the worlds cutest kids, Homecoming 2005

My wife gives me beautiful sons.

Hypocrisy Gut-Check

Thanks to our friends over at NoVA Squishes ... er, Too Conservative ....

You know, I might just have to change that moniker. It doesn't seem those folks are all that squishy, it's just that they seem to: (1) have bought into Sean Connaughton's cult of personality; and (2) possess an entirely immature and wholly personal resentment of yours truly. It's kind of funny, really, when you consider that the carping against me comes from people who hide behind a veil of anonymity, while Jim Riley and Scott Hirons are people whom I can respect and, not coincidentally, don't hide their identities.

Well, anyway, back to the original point (and I do have one). The boys and girl over at TC found this link, with a wonderful little parody of Delegate Jeff Frederick, soon to clean Hilda Barg's clock.

I seem to recall that our friends on the far Left were in high dudgeon over an advertisement run by Jerry Kilgore against Tim Kaine, in which the latter was rendered cartoonish, to reflect his cartoonish commitment to higher taxes and more government spending. Both Waldo and the boys and girls at Raising Kaine complained about that one.

Or was it simply a case of far Lefties opportunistically appealing to objective criteria which are abandoned when inconvenient?

Take a particular look at comment 17 on Waldo's blog. Identifying the foibles of the far Left is a burden, but someone has to do it.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Is This the Smoking Gun That Sinks Harriet Miers?

A tip of the hat to chimpstein.com. It seems that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers aided efforts to perpetuate reactionary Liberalism by promoting IOLTA (Interest On Lawyer Trust Accounts). It's the method by which the bar lays claim to interest earned on property held by lawyers for their clients. While, in a just world, the clients would get that money, the far-Left scam has used it to fund far-Left activities which cannot get funding the old-fashioned way, by earning it.

This could be enough to sink the Miers' nomination.

Now, Here's a Huge Surprise

I know you were waiting, and here's the link.

It seems that the Washington [com]Post has come out with its editorial endorsements for statewide office in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I won't make you click on the link to satisfy your curiosity, and I know it will come as a huge surprise, but it seems that the Post has decided decided to break with tradition and endorse .... [drum roll, please] .... the entire Democrat ticket!

The Post even managed to endorse Creigh Deeds, NRA endorsement to the contrary notwithstanding. This is the only real surprise among the endorsements, since the Post is among the worst offenders of those who demonize defenders of the Second Amendment. However, Deeds had little to worry about; the Post's continuing War on the Family virtually guaranteed that the paper would endorse anyone running against someone with Bob McDonnell's strong pro-family credentials.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

You Really Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Turns out the boys and girls at RaisingKaine are up to their old tricks of Democrat/Socialist double standards. This one's a two-fer.

First, they attack Bob McDonnell because, it turns out, his former campaign manager is a pedophile, convicted of a crime against a child five years after he managed a McDonnell campaign. Now, I'm no McDonnell fan (I supported Steve Baril for the GOP nomination), but could someone please explain how something that happened five years after his association with the pervert is supposed to hurt McDonnell?

And weren't these the same guys who defend Earnie Porta, who was himself found liable in a workplace discrimination lawsuit? In fact, didn't they misrepresent the record by claiming that Porta was "completely innocent of any wrongdoing"? Yep. It sure was.

Then there's the "Taliban Bob" smear of the post.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these the same guys who screamed foul over an accurate reference in a Jerry Kilgore advertisement by an average citizen who references Tim Kaine's apparent belief that even Adolf Hitler was not worthy of the death penalty? Oops! You just have to scroll down a little on the same page to find out that this is true.

Matter of fact, let's just do a little word substitution on the sanctimonious boobery that passes for commentary on the issue over at Raising Kaine:
Thankfully, it now looks like the [far-Left Democrat campaign to equate Conservatives with the Taliban] ad has begun to backfire, at least among [Christian and Muslim] leaders in Virginia. [In the middle of] the ... Holy [Month] of [Ramadan], Imam Mohammed Hussein of the [Al Aqsa Mosque] in Alexandria called it “demeaning and morally repugnant.” [Saddam Arafat], the Council on American-Islamic Relations'] regional director for the office that covers Virginia said that the [far-Left smear] ad is “inappropriate and insensitive, and, as part of a discussion of the [political debate] in the Commonwealth of Virginia, trivialize the horrors of the [Taliban].” [Yassir Sadat] of Richmond, the former president of [the Muslim Brotherhood], said that the [far-Left smears] went “beyond the pale” and was “strategically timed to run [during Ramadan].” Finally, [Imam Ruhollah Khomeini] of [Martyr's Congregation] in Richmond pointed out that “Bandying [[the Taliban's perversion of the Koran]] about is an affront to those who really know [the Taliban]. We know the real [Talibans] of the world.”


So how badly, if at all, does the [Muslim] community’s outrage at the [far-Left smear] hurt [Democrats] politically? That’s a tough question. First, the [Muslim] population of Virginia is small, at just 66,000 (out of 7.1 million). On the other hand, [Muslims] generally vote in high percentages and this ad could prompt a larger-than-expected [Muslim] turnout on November 8. In a close election, which this one is shaping up to be, a few thousand votes could make all the difference. If so, the [far-Left "Taliban" smears] actually could be a factor - but not the way that [Democrats] intended it to be — 24 days from now.

Second, there are many Virginians who, although not [Muslim] themselves, have [Muslim] friends and relatives. Many of these people probably haven’t been following the Kaine-Kilgore contest much (or at all), and many probably weren’t even planning to vote on November 8. My guess is that the [far-Left "Taliban" smear] may have grabbed their attention, and that some of those people - how many, I don’t know - will now feel motivated to vote on November 8. Unfortunately for the [Democrats], I strongly doubt that many of these people will be voting for the [candidates supported by the] perpetrator[s] of the [far-Left "Taliban" smear]!

Third, millions of Virginians have learned about the [Taliban] in school, or through visits to the [Pentagon and site of the World Trade Center]. They know what [the Taliban] actually did [and supported], not just [allowing terrorists to train in their country], but also [engaging in genuine oppression of women, setting codes for men's appearances and family relations, preventing women from going to school, and destroying centuries-old religious sites]. They know that the [Taliban] is not, in any way, shape or form, relevant to the issue of [the Republican agenday for] the 21st century United States of America. There is certainly a risk that many Virginians will recoil at the utter absurdity of [the far Left and their mouthpieces at Raising Kaine], bringing the [Taliban] into a race for Governor of Virginia. If not, they certainly should. We’ll see.

Finally, there is the potential “backlash against the backlash” factor. Could there be a closet [anti-Islamic] vote in Virginia, now energized due to the [Islamic] leaders’ criticism of the [far-Left Taliban smear]? I certainly hope that’s not the case, but you never know.

By the way, I find it highly interesting that the [far-Left] has not pulled the [posts] from the[ir sites], yet [the Kaine campaign] is simultaneously attempting to distance itself from the reference to [the Taliban]. According to [Kaine] spokesman [Dewey Cheatham], “The sentiments uttered by Mr. [Feld] were his own.”

Oh. I see. So now [Raising Kaine]’s going to try and weasel out of this one too, huh? It’s all [Lowell Feld]’s fault, right? (sorry, but it was the [Raising Kaine website] that put the despicable [reference on its website and kept it there]) And by the way, isn’t [Feld] Jewish? (apparently so, but is that relevant in any way?) []

The bottom line here is that the [Raising Kaine website], with it’s reprehensible ["Taliban" smear], has gone way, WAY beyond the bounds of decency. As if all the othe reasons for opposing [Democrats] weren’t enough, this one should seal the deal. Hey, maybe someone should ask [Bob Beckel] — [Walter Mondale]’s top political strategist, now facing possible criminal charges in the [whoremongering] case — what HE thinks of the [far-Left "Taliban" smear].

Democrats and double standards. Puuuuuhfect together!

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Meltdown at RaisingKaine

The boys and girls over at Raising Kaine are having a meltdown over Jerry Kilgore's very effective and accurate advertisements over Tim Kaine's intellectual chaos over the death penalty.

When their "outrage" is that contrived, you must be on to something.

Chad Dotson has a good discussion of the controversy here. The number of comments alone demonstrate the effectiveness of the Kilgore ad.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Lowering Standards

After following me into the blogosphere, the boys over at Too Conservative now have a contributor who is banging the drum for homo marriage.

She's started two threads on the subject.

Can someone explain to me how changing the fundamental institution of civilized society is "conservative"?

UPDATE: Pursuant to TC's comment, I have changed the references to neocon22's sex.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

New Kilgore Advertisement

Thanks to Blue in Virginia, on the blogroll, I just saw this new Kilgore advertisement.

Heh, heh, heh.

If they're that ticked off, we must be doing something right.

More Trouble for Former GOP Candidate

It seems that Debra Ann Wilson has been indicted on six counts of embezzlement of funds of the Woodbridge Senior High School Athletic Boosters Club. The story appeared in yesterday's Potomac News.

County GOP activists will remember that she was the GOP nominee against David Brickley in 1997. She was indicted then and convicted for election fraud, which warranted another story in today's edition. The actions taken against her seem --- to many --- to have been a model for the actions taken against Steve Chapman. Both moved (or claim to have moved) into the district to run for office.

Wilson ran against longtime County GOP activist Salvatore Perchiano for the GOP nomination to run against Brickley, and it was widely considered that her candidacy was an effort by certain GOP Powers That Be to deny Sal the nomination. Sal deserves much of the credit for the GOP surge in the County during the Nineties, when he organized and worked closely with the YRs, was Vice Chairman of the County Committee, and served as Operations Chairman.

If memory serves, Wilson came out of the Tom Davis camp. Of course, she's innocent until proven guilty, and I hope that she's not guilty. However, I would certainly have to reassess my opinion of her were she to be convicted of these charges. I have long thought that she was a victim of people who led her down the garden path, only to abandon her when the going got rough.

Maybe I was too charitable.

Update on Elian

It's almost a certainty that a six-year-old boy cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

I speak, of course, of Elian Gonzales, the then-six-year-old refugee whose mother gave up her life so that he could live in the United States. Almost certainly, it cost Al Gore enough votes in Florida's Cuban community to swing the state --- and the election--- to George W. Bush.

Of course, the Clintonistas --- including at least one attorney who had represented Clinton in the impeachment proceedings --- made sure that Elian was returned to the tender loving care of Fidel Castro, to become little more than an instrument of Castro's agitprop.

I turned past the story when I saw it on 60 Minutes on Sunday, but apparently, Duncan Currie had the stomach to watch the entirety of Bob Simon's report on Elian's life in Cuba since his return, and writes a brilliant article on it for The Weekly Standard.

Of the many crimes of the Clinton Administration, this was perhaps the most despicable.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

More on Earnie Porta

I should have mentioned it earlier, but the Potomac News finally got around to running a story on the Title VII lawsuit against Earnie Porta. It appeared one week after allegations were first brought to the attention of the paper by Prince William County Republican Committee Vice Chairman Michael Wooten.

Porta offered the same non-denial denials offered in the blogosphere, apparently hoping that no one would notice that he changes the subject from a claim for hostile work environment and retaliation (upon which the plaintiff prevailed) and sexual harassment (which was not even brought or pursued).

Today, another story appears today, about Republican Delegates asking Porta to drop out of the race. Unfortunately, with typical Pot. News accuracy, it makes reference to a "sexual harassment lawsuit," and includes a photo of Democrats in a "spontaneous" protest at McQuigg's office, calling for more socialism. Whether they were union thugs brought in from Maryland was not reported. And little Ricky Coplen, County Democrat Chair, apparently doesn't know the difference between "character assassination" and "character identification."

I wouldn't expect Porta to drop out. Heck, when he gets his clock cleaned in November, I expect him to announce for the Democrat nomination for President!

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

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:

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:

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:

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.

Hilarious Post on RaisingKaine

It's nice to know that there are things that you can depend upon. The far Lefties over at Raising Kaine are all agog over Rahm Emmanuel's appearance on Sunday's Meet the Press. In it, he laid out a five-point agenda to address the "Republican Culture of Corruption," the latest buzzword to come out of the DNC's talking points memo.

I guess "sleaze factor" was just passe, and might have been confused with the Clinton Interregnum.

Wow! That's impressive! Democrats see (unproven) corruption in Republicans (proven corruption in a Democrat President is ignored) and offer .... more Socialism!

Boy, there's a fresh agenda.

More Evidence That TaxLovers are Democrats

It seems that retiring Delegate Jim Dillard (RINO-Fairfax) has endorsed Democrat Dave Marsden over Republican Michael Golden, over the tax issue.


UVA Junior Ignores Medical Realities

As I tell my son when they're sick, my degree is in law, not medicine.

But having observed twenty-five years of AIDS politics (I even remember its other acronym, GRID, for "Gay Related Immune Deficiency"), and having vivid memories of the effort to suggest that it would soon be a disease rampant among non-IV-drug-using heterosexuals, it's nevertheless amazing that there are still efforts to deny that, at least in the United States, it remains a disease primarily spread by people putting into their bodies (or parts of their bodies) things that don't belong there. It is more difficult for women in the United States, generally more healthy than their African counterparts, to get it, and it is almost impossible for a man without other "social diseases" to get it through heterosexual conduct.

Usually, medical professionals deal with facts. As a result, there is and remains a long-standing policy against accepting blood donations from men who have, since 1977, engaged in "sexual contact" with other men or another man. Other restrictions are imposed against those who: (1) have used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by a doctor; (2) have taken money, drugs, or other payment for sex since 1977; (3) have had sexual contact within the past 12 months with anyone who has done so; (4) had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months; or (5) have, in the last 12 months, been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail or prison for more than 72 hours.

Nevertheless, some genius and advocate for the radical homosexual agenda at the University of Virginia advocated last week removing this restriction, claiming that it is based upon "discriminatory concepts and outdated statistics."

Well, yeah. It is based upon the "discriminatory concept" which discriminates based upon behavior. 'Fact is, most of us "discriminate" every day. I don't choose to associate with alcoholics, racists, criminals, child abusers, those who are "hygiene-challenged," many Democrats, and other undesirable types. Some don't associate with smokers. Strangely, the author does not take up for the other categories of discriminatees listed above.

Of course, most of the piece is nonsense. Homosexual activity remains among the most frequent and effective means of transmitting the AIDS virus. But for the supporters of the radical homosexual agenda, concern over the "feelings" of those who "desire ... to someday be included in this affirming activity" is more important than insuring the safety of the blood supply.

As for me, I'm also old enough to remember Ryan White, who died of AIDS contracted from a transfusion with tainted blood.

An article like this really motivates one to want to go out and look for a candidate that would defund "The University."

The Conservative Firestorm Over Harriet Miers

Given the nature of the real job, I am reticent to comment upon Supreme Court nominees. While I doubt that anything I ever say here will have any kind of impact in any case that I might get to the Court (and I've filed more than a few cert. petitions; even had one granted), the possibility exists, and where the profession is concerned, discretion is truly the better part of valor.

That does not preclude me from commenting upon Conservative criticism of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. As noted by Norm at One Man's Trash, "Over at Sic Semper, both Old Zach and Lighthorse Harry are unleashing their fury at the President and the seeming inability of conservatives to stand up for principle these days." Neither does Chad or a number of commenters hold their fire at Commonwealth Conservative.

Let me first say that I have no inside knowledge of Miers. Never met her. Never heard her speak or saw her at a Federalist Society Convention (something which is or maybe should be de rigeuer for any Bush nominee). Never even saw her name, 'cept in news reports. Even Chief Justice John Roberts once appeared on the right side of briefing in a case that I litigated (that's a public record). So I really have no way of assessing her record. And there is some legitimate concern about whether the President inherited the Bush gene that causes squishing.

With that having been said, I wonder whether Conservative criticism --- not mere concern --- is justified. Perhaps Fred Barnes said it best last night, when he noted that, to believe the concerns on the right have merit, you have to believe that the President either picked a moderate, or truly doesn't know whether she is dependably Conservative, for the Supreme Court: (1) after filling the appellate court benches with rock-ribbed Conservatives; (2) after having fought for them and in some cases, renominated them; (3) after publicly noting that his model Supreme Court Justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas; and (4) after having worked with this woman on a daily basis for more than a decade.

If a Justice Miers disappoints, then Conservative criticism should be withering, for all the good it will do when she has life tenure. But we simply don't know enough to know whether that will be the case, and --- on this issue at least --- this President has earned the trust of Conservatives.

Sorry, but I just don't think that this concern is well grounded. The President has heretofore demonstrated absolute commitment to reigning in the federal judiciary with Conservative appointees. While watchfulness and skepticism is always the rule where politicians are concerned, and Justice David Souter is precedent for suspicion of any nominee without a paper trail, this President's record on this issue demonstrates that he is worthy of some faith that his nominee will fulfill Conservative expectations.

Perhaps something will come out to cause me to change my mind on this. But thus far, I haven't seen it.

Hilda Goes Negative

Well, given her thus-far lackluster campaign, it's hardly surprising that Hilda Barg has gone negative against Jeff Frederick. Denizens of the blogosphere know that far Lefties have spent weeks trying to wrap the guilty-until-proven-innocent Tom DeLay around his neck, and now Hilda has gotten in on the act, too. And the Youngs were push-polled months ago, with lots of innuendo against the "shadowy" Council on National Policy (of which some of my best friends are members).

Today, on FX, I saw the first ad. It wasn't very good, with a lot of nonsense about "all that Hilda has done for the community." Oddly, it failed to mention sprawl and higher taxes. But then, it immediately segued into an attack ad against Frederick.

I guess that's perhaps one reason why you can't download and view it from her website.

Richard Cohen Gets It Right

When I was a columnist writing for the Potomac News, I had two standards I tried to meet with each column (aside from accuracy, which is a given). I tried for at least one belly laugh and one "Damn right!" in each column. The frequently kind comments of friends --- and opprobrium of enemies --- allowed me the vanity of thinking that I succeeded on more than a few occasions over the seven years that I wrote it. And just occasionally, someone from across the aisle, even someone I criticized on other occasions, would demonstrate the honor and dignity to quietly approach me and pay my the high honor of saying that I had been fair to them.

Successful columnists --- more successful than I --- will occasionally surprise you. Among the reasons I read the Washington Post (aside from the Sunday coupons) is the fact that among an almost-uniformly Leftist editorial page, one or two reliably Democrat columnists will sometimes get it right. The frequently wrong Richard Cohen is one of them.

In today's column, he takes up the cudgel for free speech. The subject? Well, it was really two-fold. First, he notes the hypocrisy of the far Left in Congress, embodied by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Second, he discussed the firestorm of criticism surrounding Bill Bennett's Thursday remarks on his talk show.

Pelosi has apparently cast aside the constitutional presumption of innocence regarding allegations against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is, in the words of Pelosi, representative of the Republican "culture of corruption." Never mind that DeLay is indicted, not convicted, or that his persecutor ... er, prosecutor, has a history of political prosecutions against Republicans and his Democrat political enemies. Nope. Cohen notes Pelosi's strange failure to give DeLay the presumption of innocence. 'Course, events may demonstrate that the only thing that DeLay may be guilty of is being the most effective House Republican Leader in recent memory.

Cohen then turns to Bennett, who rejected the notion of opposing abortion on grounds of economic utility, and was accused of racism for referencing --- and rejecting as "an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do" --- the notion that abortion could be supported for some because statistics can be used to demonstrate that black males commit a disproportionate share of crime. Cohen notes that it is Bennett who is owed an apology by his critics.

I don't know if I'd go that far. At least one serious Black woman that I know says that she was offended by Bennett's comments, and her opinion is not one that I take lightly. But Bennett's history as a champion of equality before the law and of fighting the pathologies that plague some of America's predominately Black communities (conceded by at least one who nevertheless criticizes him, Juan Williams) would seem to demonstrate that the critics of Bennett are opportunists and race hustlers of the worst sort.

In any case, Cohen's column is worth a read.