Thursday, August 31, 2006
This is a significant advance for those (like yours truly and the aforementioned young Mr. Tribbett, with whom I am in accord on this issue) who believe that parties should nominate their own candidates without interference from individuals affiliated with other parties. The only surprise to me (and to JD, who predicted otherwise), is that the Fourth Circuit did not proceed to issue a decision on the merits, which appears to be a pure question of law. C'est la vie. Probably just a function of that court's natural conservatism.
A favorable decision on the merits may well provide the impetus for Virginia legislators finally to permit registration by party. At the same time, it may well remove any vestigial authority (more in theory than in practice) for local party organs to discipline their own members, since individuals who stray from the Party path will always be able to point to their "registered [Party]" status, if party registration is enacted. One can hope that the result will be better, more defined choices among candidates, in lieu of the "Repubmocrat" campaigns run by all too many candidates for public office.
Congratulations to State Senator Ken Cuccinelli, who argued the case on behalf of Chairman Larry Miller and his 11th Senatorial District Republican Committee, and former Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Pat McSweeney, who was on the brief.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Charles has a brief analysis of the event here. Craig Vitter has a number of analyses of the race over at his eponymous website. Ben Tribbett's comments are now "below the fold," and apparently went there before I got back in the country, so I neither know what he said, nor its quality, though I suspect that his analysis was sound, as usual (excepting the fact that he is in the bag for R2D2), even for a Democrat. Even Vince was magnanimous, though his more peurile and less courageous contributors have been uncharacteristically quiet, save for "NoVA Scout," who offers a discussion which, as one would expect, lends credence to the theory that he is Chairman Sean in its fawning and wailing and gnashing of teeth over his pending departure.
I haven't seen this elsewhere, so it's worth noting here:
The biggest news out of the competing nominating contests is in the fact that nearly twice as many people participated in the GOP nominating contest (411 or 413, depending upon whom you believe) as participated in the Democrat nominating process (211). This dismal showing among County Democrats cannot be attributed solely to the timing of its Convention in the summer vacation season, as Republicans labored under the same handicap. That is, unless the Democrats --- as the party of surrender and appeasement --- can be equated with the cheese-eating surrender monkeys of France, who are notorious for vacationing in August.
The most interesting aspect of the relative reporting is that one finds the Washington Post to have reported this news with less bias than our own local Potomac News. Not unexpected, mind you --- the recent direction of the Pot. News increasingly demonstrates the left-wing biases of its management --- but interesting, nonetheless.
While casting Stewart's resounding victory --- 69% of the Convention vote --- as "a rebuff of the pro-growth policies championed by Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Sean T. Connaughton," the Washington Post reports the fact of the relative numbers relatively closely, mentioning the dismal Democrat numbers before noting the number of GOP delegates attending the Convention. Of course, the same day as the Convention, the Post offered an expectedly fawning editorial (actually on the editorial page!) about Chairman Sean and his imminent departure, virtually ignoring the rate of tax-bill growth and noting his eleventh hour effort to "cap" tax-bill growth at "only" 5.9%. Never mind that, while County population has grown by only 30% during his tenure, County spending has grown by 114%. I guess utter surrender to the desires of a bureaucracy to engage in a spending spree is what the Post means when it dismisses those urging a more measured course as "the zealots in his own Republican Party who couldn't abide his determination to govern pragmatically." No, WaPo, what we couldn't abide was his failure to lead and to take control of County spending.
Of course, the Pot. News took a different tack, burying the relatively dismal showing among County Democrats far within its story. There, one cannot help but notice that, while Keith Walker mentions the 413 (I have no explanation for the difference in the numbers) delegates at the GOP Convention in the same brief paragraph discussing Stewart's speech, one has to read twelve paragraphs farther into the story to learn that only 211 Democrats were delegates to that Convention. And one has to do the math one's self to learn that the GOP is relatively more unified (Stewart received 69% or 70% of the delegate votes) than the Democrats (Pandak received 134 of 211 votes, or 63%) in their choice.
Sadly, given my experience with the Pot. News and the honesty (or lack thereof) of its management, it's probable that Republicans can expect more of the same in the months to come.
I'm shocked/humbled. Particularly since it happened during a period when the new content here can best be described by the truism "Move along. There's nothing to see here." Not bad for a one-man operation.
I'm sure there are those who are dismayed. Heh.
Monday, August 28, 2006
It seems redundant to note that these people --- who advocate equating homosexual promiscuity and sodomy with true marriage --- are shameless.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Vote Republican! Vote Corey Stewart!
Sadly, though it was just down the street from my hotel, it's one Anchorage attraction that I never managed to see, notwithstanding numerous business trips over the years. Mr. Whitekeys' book was hilarious, nevertheless.
I gotta get a new case in Alaska!
The Shad Plank and Wonkette provide an interesting insight into Jim Webb's son, with reference to his MySpace weblog.
Since the Webb campaign will doubtless promptly pull down the offending references, and to insure maximum exposure, I reproduce the post here in its entirety:
Wonder how Webb's paid nutroots will spin this?
Foolishness: An equal opportunity offender
Mere days after Sen. George Allen's MacacaGate gaffe comes a bit of nearly-as-embarassing news from the other side: James Webb Jr. -- son of the Democratic Senate candidate -- has a public MySpace Page, and it's not exactly a page from the typical scrub-and-polish smiles we see at campaign stops.
Junior, a member of the 2nd Marine Division, writes: "As the official purchaser of porn in the ‘support this friggin Marine program’. You are not only the provider of pornagraphic paraphenalia, to this individual friggin Marine, but a whole Platoon of friggin Marines, waiting to be supported by someone like you, the General Public. But please, no midget or goat porn."
And, just to keep the week's theme constant, Webb provides some dubiously racist language: "Right above the reel it read “made in china.” ‘Confucious say, cheaply made rod make expensive catch.’ Zebco is made in china now?! Holy crap! This wholesome everyday American product, is now relegated to manufacture by a bunch of people in China, who will probably NEVER even SEE a lake. Let alone fish one."
We'll give the Webb campaign about a half-hour to pull this, so check it out now.
UPDATE: Well, some of my commenters, and a post or two around Web (one "b") have taken me to task for raising this issue. 'Fact is, I don't believe Webb is a racist, or that his son is, either. However, I have begun to wonder about the real purpose of this contrived story on George Allen. I have concluded that it must be because Webb fears stories coming out late in the campaign about his use of common disparaging terms about Southeast Asians during his service in Viet Nam. Anybody who's seen "Platoon" or "Apocalypse Now" could repeat them; I won't here.
Who said Webb doesn't believe in "pre-emption"?
Remember, you read it here, on Tuesday, first, before 10:00 a.m.:
Perhaps the funniest and most contrived post of all comes from the paid hack at Raising Kaine, who isn't satisfied with George's apology. Of course, nothing short of a complete surrender and withdrawal from the race would satisfy Webb's nutroots contingent.Well, from today's Raising Kaine, sure 'nuff: a call for Allen to withdraw from the race.
Don't bother, George. You've made your apology. Unless they're right, and you are a racist and meant it as a racial slur, don't bother to say another word. You'd be wasting your time with people upon whom further efforts would be wasted, and I'm willing to bet that most of the voters in Virginia --- people who are going to or even might vote for you --- recognize that.
Not really surprising, though. The only way R2D2 can win is if he doesn't have an opponent. And even then, he should be thankful that "None of the Above" is not an option.
It seems that a Federal judge in Detroit has been persuaded to enjoin the NSA's wiretapping program targetting terrorists.
At least now the Federal appellate courts will have the chance to demonstrate just how empty the criticisms of the President for this program are.
UPDATE: Steve Minor agrees.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Is anyone else not surprised that the suspect was arrested in Thailand? Does anyone else suspect that he was there on one of those perverse "sex-with-minors tours" that is fodder for Law and Order: Special Victims Unit?
This is a notation, not a comment. I make it a policy to not comment upon the merits/demerits of Democrat nominating processes. I figure they're entitled to pick their own maniacs, and we're entitled to pick ours. That rule, of course, does not apply to comparing the Democrat nominee to the GOP nominee.
'Course, a Democrat contest might just suppress John Gray's turnout at the PWC GOP Convention.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
They are by my former --- nearly said "old" --- French professor, Alan Ford Farrell, now a Brigadier and Professor of Modern Languages at VMI. He is a true Renaissance man --- reputed to have learned ancient Greek so he could read Homer in the original --- who is "fierce" in virtually every endeavor. He is legendary among those who had the pleasure of studying with him. In French 201, we read Le Pont de la Riviere Kwai, or, as he put it, Moby Dick Goes to Thailand. Gave one of the most memorable lectures I ever heard, on teaching. "I teach," said Farrell. "But that is a verb which requires an object. I teach men." A nationally syndicated columnist gave a lecture at the same time on campus. It was Farrell's which was filled to overflowing.
I'll read virtually anything he writes, and enthusiastically commend it to your attention, as well.
Witness "Mitch Cumstein's" ever evolving assertions. On a post attributed to him at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Conservative," "Mitch" says that:
Based on the numbers I’m hearing, this is going to be a very close race. Despite getting into the game very late, Gray has earned a tremendous amount of support. It will all depend on who shows up on Saturday but, of the approximately 950 delegates, my guess is that John has close to 450 (compared to 500 for Stewart). I don’t know the district-by-district makeup at this point. But I’d say it’s anyone’s ball game.But in a comment on independent Craig Vitter's website, he says this:
My source (who saw these forms last night) indicated that, based on the names, the split is probably closer to 80-20 in favor of Gray. With wieghted voting, Saturday is going to be very interesting.Hmmmm. Well, which is it, "Mitch"? Can't get your story straight? Or did you just get your talking points mixed up?
I won't pretend to have seen the filings. Didn't even file myself, as the Youngs will be in Canada on Saturday, on a long-planned family vacation. But a source close to the Stewart Campaign has indicated to me that "Mitch's" first numbers are a lot closer to the truth, though inflating Gray's by a factor of about 30%, and that the only way that Gray can win is if his people show up, and Corey's don't.
Clearly, this is a proxy battle. The Connaughtonites out there fear and loathe Corey Stewart. And it appears that they are attempting to turn out the same people who came to a GOP meeting in May 2004, after Chairman Sean was embarrassed by a loss in a straw poll on the Lieutenant Governor's race conducted by the YRs at an ill-attended County GOP Convention. Then, he attempted to hijack by proxy the County GOP Committee --- something he could have done easily if he'd just bothered to encourage his people to attend the Convention --- by turning out people to vote for inferior officers who would jump on his bandwagon. Among them was at least one --- John Gray --- who just a few months earlier had sought the Democrat nomination for Occoquan District Supervisor. Many paid their $30 membership fee with crisp, fresh new $10 and $20 bills, which many believe to have come from the same fresh bank stack from Chairman Sean's campaign. And most who were elected to Membership --- after the voting --- never bothered to show up again.
Hopefully, that fear is well-grounded. After all, if Corey wins and leads the County conservatively (e.g., by requiring County bureaucrats to write a budget within revenue, rather than allowing them to write budgets with ever-increasing taxes) it would give lie to claims that Chairman Sean is/was a conservative. And that disaster would follow from any other course.
What they fear most --- as "Mitch's" post makes clear --- is a Republican nominee who will actually and successfully pursue fiscally Conservative GOP policies, rather than Chairman Sean's developer-friendly, developer-financed tax-and-spend policies. A BOCS Chairman who puts those policies on the defensive --- as Chairman Sean has consistently refused to do --- would give likely give lie to the notion that County taxpayers are unremittingly supportive of a budget that has increased, under Chairman Sean's tutelage, by 114%, while the County's population has increased by only 30%.
What they fear is a choice, not an echo. That would certainly take the bloom off of Chairman Sean's rose.
UPDATE: Jim has a preliminary Credentials Committee Report up over at Virginia VirtuCon. It seems that old "Mitch" has been telling tales at Craig's site.
Recognized? By whom? Race hustlers? Tunisians? Once again, Lowell has been dippin' into the Kool-Aid just a wee bit too much if he really believes this. 'Course, who knows what he believes, beyond the paycheck?
Well, I'm convinced. George Allen, who won't even discriminate against people for their perverse sexual behavior --- he has been described by one homosexual publication as having the most fag-friendly [paraphrasing here] office on the Senate side --- is truly a goober and a racist, making judgments about people's skin color. Nevertheless, he's sophisticated enough to use a racial epithet that would only be recognized in obscure corners of the world.
And I also believe in: the Tooth Fairy; that Bill Clinton really didn't have sex with "that woman"; the Easter Bunny; that HillBilly have a real marriage; Santa Claus; that Governor Marky Mark's tax hike was necessary to avert a deficit; that John Gray is a Republican; and that someday I'll collect Social Security.
What I don't understand is how he was supposed to incite a crowd which probably didn't include people from those obscure corners of the world. Or whether the young, mohawk-headed man in question even understood it as a racial epithet.
Perhaps the funniest and most contrived post of all comes from the paid hack at Raising Kaine, who isn't satisfied with George's apology. Of course, nothing short of a complete surrender and withdrawal from the race would satisfy Webb's nutroots contingent.
Don't bother, George. You've made your apology. Unless they're right, and you are a racist and meant it as a racial slur, don't bother to say another word. You'd be wasting your time with people upon whom further efforts would be wasted, and I'm willing to bet that most of the voters in Virginia --- people who are going to or even might vote for you --- recognize that.
UPDATE: Sillier and sillier. Now Ben is claiming that "inside the Beltway" is a racist codeword. One commenter has it right: Ben has officially jumped the shark.
June 5, 2003
"There are several significant issues: (1) Uncontrolled development: 34,000 more houses to be built, with poor planning for roads, schools and other infrastructure to support those houses. (2) Uncontrolled spending: County spending has increased 60 percent in the past four years alone. Its not possible that spending is 'bare bones.' There is fat in this budget. (3) Uncontrolled real estate growth: Even with the tax rate 'reduced' to $1.16, taxes have increased more than 40 percent in the past four years. We need to get development, spending and taxes under control. They aren't now!"
Monday, August 14, 2006
This is too rich. It reminds me of the story out of the University of Pennsylvania a few years ago, where Eden Jacobowitz called noisy people outside of his dorm room "water buffaloes," and was accused of racial insensitivity.
That Webb and his media supporters are already desperate enough to trump up this charge is nothing but good news for the Allen campaign. What's really too bad is that Allen's fair-weather friends are already jumping on the band wagon. Or maybe it's good, because it simply reveals them for the opportunistic weak sisters that they really are.
March 14, 2004
Author: Letters To The Editor
At the March 9 board meeting, Supervisor Corey A. Stewart of Occoquan stunningly asked the board to direct the county staff to prepare the 2005 budget with a real estate tax rate of $1.01 per $100 of assessed value instead of the $1.10 as presented. The $1.10 rate is a reduction from the $1.16 rate used in 2004.
While I have absolutely no problem with the premise of the question, the manner in which it was raised is beyond explanation.
During his campaign, Mr. Stewart pledged to the Taxpayers Alliance not to raise taxes beyond a set formula approximating 6 percent for 2005. Real estate tax revenues are projected to raise by 12.6 percent at the $1.10 rate. The Taxpayers Alliance formula would result in a 2005 tax rate of 99 cents. In short, the Taxpayers Alliance would require a drop from $1.16 to 99 cents, or about $56 million.
Bear in mind that the $56 million cut would be shared with the schools, meaning the county would have to cut spending by $24 million and the schools by $32 million. Obviously, the concern is where those huge cuts are to be made. The alliance states it is up to the county and the schools to identify those cuts, not the alliance. I disagree, but I can live with it.
I have nothing against spending cuts, and if we can identify them, fine. Let's cut. But I do not believe we have $56 million in excess spending in the budget.
Mr. Stewart obviously thinks we have at least $49 million because that's what he proposed to be cut. What galls me is that he did so without any input from his constituents or his Budget Committee, of which I was supposed to be a part. The proposed budget has been out exactly two weeks. His Budget Committee met once. He has never held a town meeting to discuss his constituents' questions. So where did the $1.01 rate come from?
Obviously Mr. Stewart's only concern was to honor his Taxpayers Alliance pledge. Don't his constituents have any say in their taxes?
Please don't tell me this is his fight for lower taxes. The $1.01 rate is arbitrary, capricious and without any merit or basis in fact or numbers. The rate was pulled out of the air and is fictitious.
He could have waited until county staff members gave their presentations of their individual department budgets and then asked them, "Where do you think we could possibly reduce spending in your department?" No, he just picked the $1.01 rate without any concern for his constituents.
And by publicly stating that as a supervisor it is not his responsibility to know the budget in detail, nor is it his responsibility to identify his proposed cuts (that's the staff's job), he has precluded his Budget Committee from doing its job.
Two weeks ago, at the county executive's presentation of the budget, Mr. Stewart was trying to illustrate that the 7-cent countywide fire levy is an additional tax.
It is. No question. So is the gypsy moth fee and the storm water management fee, but that wasn't Mr. Stewart's point. He was trying to show that because Fairfax doesn't have the 7-cent fire levy, our taxes are higher than Fairfax's.
What he didn't know was that Fairfax doesn't have a volunteer fire system, so the 7 cents we pay is really very fair, as it represents just "hard costs" of the volunteers. We don't pay them wages or benefits.
The permanent fire staff accounts for 8 cents of the $1.10 rate being proposed. So getting rid of the 7-cent levy would result in at least an 8-cent increase in the tax rate to cover the new staff necessary to replace the volunteers. Wow! That's tax reduction if I ever saw it!
There is a level of on-the-job training necessary to be a supervisor, but Mr. Stewart is quickly that showing his short 31/2-year residency in Prince William County, and his lack of any substantive community involvement in those years, have not remotely prepared him to be a upervisor.
He needs to consider resigning now, before he does more damage than he already has in these 10 weeks to the political career he really wants. Occoquan citizens not only deserve better; we demand it.
John S. Gray
The far-right agenda for real estate taxation has in fact and truth been to vote against the reduction in the tax rate for the last three years. If their votes had prevailed, your real estate tax rate would still be $ 1.36, not the current rate of .76 cents. Think about that for a minute!It appears that the self-proclaimed Connaughtonite candidate for the Board needs to get his talking points straight. 'Course, it is utterly clear that Gray is Connaughtonite in one way: he'll apparently say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear in order to get elected.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
Never mind that Chairman Sean ran in 2003 attacking those whom he alleged were in the pockets of developers, such as Republican Mary Hill, and turned around in 2005 and funded his failed campaign for the GOP nomination for Lieutenant Governor with developers (i.e., pro-tax increases) money. Never mind Chairman Sean's own record of tax increases.
Now, however, the pseudonymous cowards over at TC are attacking Corey Stewart because he dares to hold a fundraiser at Tim's Rivershore Restaurant. In his patented belittling style --- one even gets a whiff of his dime-store psychology --- "NoVA Scout" criticizes Corey for holding a fundraiser at "Tim’s Riverhouse in Dumfries."
Of course, "NoVA Scout" reveals in his misnomer just how ill-informed he is; though I've never eaten there, even I know that it's actually "Tim's Rivershore." But "NoVA Scout" reveals in his misrepresentations just how desparate he is to disparage anyone who stands up against higher taxes, as Corey has consistently done.
You see, "NoVA Scout" misrepresents the facts with broad generalizations. Here's what he says:
Tim’s and the County have been locked in a nasty spat over code violations for some time now. The attitude of Tim’s Riverhouse strikes me as defiance of demands for compliance with County building and health codes. If you go to the Tim’s Riverhouse Website, you get a strong flavor of how fervently the owners have seen this as a political issue. Despite the political pressure, the county marched ahead with its enforcement activities. The County’s legal position was upheld this past May when Tim’s owner, Mr. Bauckman, was convicted and given some stiff fines by the court. Mr. Bauckman is appealing those convictions. I’ve heard that County officials still regard Tim’s as being non-compliant with certain site and sanitation requirements.Now, if you read that, you might get the impression that eating at Tim's might give you a good case of food poisoning. Witness the reference to "sanitation requirements." There is a later reference to "health, safety and building codes," and the general suggestion that Corey Stewart isn't really interested in law enforcement. It is almost reminiscent of far Left imprecations that "children would die" if the GOP Congress were successful in slowing the increases in socialist welfare programs during the Clinton regime.
Of course, a minimal Internet search will tell you otherwise, which is perhaps why "NoVA Scout" doesn't bother with any links. One could, for example, go to Supervisor Maureen Caddigan's website, and find reprinted a column by James Simpson in the Potomac News that discusses the controversy, and reveals that it is only about the safety of the decks at Tim's.
And while I normally don't believe the Post, a Washington Post article on the controversy reveals the truth of the matter:
County officials said they took the action June 9 because the restaurant's owner, Tim Bauckman, rebuilt and expanded the outdoor seating area without proper permission after Hurricane Isabel heavily damaged it. They say Bauckman then refused to cooperate with county officials and went ahead and rebuilt his restaurant his way.
Of course, what makes Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Conservative," so charming is that it will predictably parrot whatever Chairman Sean says, even when --- as is frequently his wont --- he misrepresents the facts. Here's what Chairman Sean was quoted (emphasis added) as saying at the time, making the same misrepresentation:
"We have a 1960s-era waterman's hangout that has now turned into a 300-seat open-air restaurant," said board Chairman Sean T. Connaughton (R). "I can tell you very sincerely that the county wants to see Tim's operate and get it legal as soon as possible. The owners just have to start working . . . to make sure the building, site plan, sewer and water and safety issues are addressed."What this contoversey mainly seems to have been about is the fact that it tends to belie Chairman Sean's claims to have streamlined the bureaucracy to make Prince William County a "business-friendly" location. At least for long-established, un-gentrified businesses.
I'm not going to re-hash the entire controversy here. My point (and I do have one) is that one gets an entirely different understanding of what it was about if one makes the mistake of relying upon the post at TC. But understanding the controversy is, of course, not their point. Denigrating Corey Stewart is.
I almost commented about this over there. But casting pearls before those cowardly swine increasingly appears to be an utter waste of time. After all, in trashing Corey, the author demonstrates his de facto support for Corey's opponent, John Gray.
Of course, John Gray has experience in running for office. He was a candidate for Occoquan District Supervisor in 2003. Oh, yeah. It was for the Democrat nomination.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
It's absolutely incredible to me that some claim to be Republicans and/or Conservatives, and that they should be listened to, even though none has the courage to attach their names and reputations to their sage advice, and frequently attack those who actually lead and either have or continue to put it on the line for their beliefs.
It's a considerable step down from those who publicly pledged their "lives, ... fortunes, ... and sacred Honor" to found this nation, and the many who actually gave them.
Or maybe it's just the fact that at least one person considers them less influential than yours truly.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
OK, so it's not news to those who don't subscribe to ... uh ... let us say, a little cult of personality. But perhaps those remaining in denial will, at long last, admit the truth.
But don't count on it.
Monday, August 07, 2006
However, on the principle that no challenger's campaign can be without a good slogan, or even a lame one, I hereby open the floor to a contest to pick the best, most appropriate slogan for the Webb campaign. Here are a few entries:
1. "Born Equivocating"
2. "Born Elsewhere"
3. "Born Quibbling"
Submit your best entries in comments.
NO GOOD DEED .....One can only hope that the thief is enjoying exquisite pain.
I saw a pretty nasty accident last week. It happened about a quarter-mile south of my Peachtree Rd. condo. An old SUV full of some rather hefty women (at least I think they were women) left the road, ran across a lawn, plowed through a fence and then took a nose dive about 20 feet straight down to the entrance of a basement parking garage. From the looks of things everyone went right through the front window. One woman wasn't moving when I got there, but the EMTs determined she was alive and transported her to Grady Hospital. Two days later I'm told she was still in ICU.
Anyway ... why am I telling you this story? After all, stupid people not wearing seat belts get thrown through windshields virtually every day.
Well .. it seems that someone who worked at a nearby apartment building was one of the first on the scene. He called 911 on his cell phone. One of the victims who was not horribly hurt asked to borrow his phone to make a call.
When she got through making the call she put the phone in her pocket and refused to return it. Days later calls were still being made on the phone.
When the owner of the phone would call his own number and ask that the phone be returned they would just hang up. The theft of his phone was reported to the police. We'll see if anything happens.
There's some real scum running around out there. Good people die in accidents all the time, but the cretin who stole this cell phone somehow survived. Pity.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
So, for instance, there's the "I'm a Republican, but..." crowd, which tries to legitimize its attacks on Republicans or Republican positions by claiming affiliation with the GOP. I am always particularly skeptical of those callers to, for instance, C-SPAN, who make such claims before attacking the GOP. Our own local rag ... er, journal, is guilty of the same kind of misrepresentation, discussed in a letter yesterday by the Secretary of the Prince William County Republican Committee, Grant Bell. Grant rightly took the newspaper to task for its frequent claim that "Nobody likes taxes, but...." practices. This journal, which for a time moved towards being more reflective of its Conservative readership, virtually always preferences its endorsement of the latest tax increase proposal to come along with the claim that it doesn't always support higher taxes. The problem? No one can seem to remember the last time the Potomac News advocated against a proposed tax increase.
Take today's article in the Potomac News regarding yesterday's rally against the Marshall/Newman amendment, which will add the protection of Virginia's Constitution to the continuing assault by the perversion lobby against marriage and the family, provides a fine example of the practice, one which is easily refuted.
Here's the little vignette that caught my eye:
Kreamer's husband, Terry Kreamer, said passage of the amendment would be a step back for Northern Virginia, especially if it were to affect a business's ability to provide domestic partner benefits.
A registered Republican, Terry said that some gays and lesbians might take their business to Washington, D.C., or Maryland.
Now, maybe a more sophisticated reporter would have picked up the fact that Terry was lying through his teeth. Of course, there is no such thing as a "registered Republican" in Virginia. Our General Assembly, in its estimable wisdom, precludes registration by political party, so there are neither "registered Republicans" or "registered Democrats" in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
To be sure, there are ways to measure whether one is a Republican or Democrat. Donations, for instance. The Virginia Public Access Projected (www.vpap.org) list no reported donations by anyone named "Terry Kreamer" to any candidate or cause in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Opensecrets lists a single "Terry Kreamer" of Alexandria as having given money to Don Young, of Alaska.
Then there's whether the individual has ever darkened the door of a Republican event. To my knowledge, no individual named "Terry Kreamer" has ever done so in Prince William County. To be sure, I don't know every individual who has, but if such an individual were a prominent and/or respected Republican, I might know him.
However, an Internet search reveals a single listing (apparently of him and his wife, also identified in the article). They appear in the Bull Run Unitarian Universalist newsletter, and they appear to be active members. Of course, some consider this denomination to be less Christian (indeed, my impression is that it doesn't even pretend to be "Christian") as it is religion for the far Left.
Of course, it's by now a truism that opponents of the Marshall/Newman amendment are misrepresenting the amendment in their craven and disingenuous efforts to defeat it. But it is purely pathetic that they also misrepresent themselves to do so, as well.
UPDATE: An anonymous post in the comments indicates that this individual voted in Virginia's 2000 Presidential primary. This may call into question some of my conclusions, though one primary vote does not, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, a "committed Republican" make. It certainly does not make one a "registered Republican." One would presume that committed Virginia Republicans know that there (sadly) is no such thing in Virginia.
It seems that F.T. has a post discussing the injustice of Art Monk's exclusion from the Hall of Fame.
I agree with his discussion. This is an incredible injustice. So, in the spirit of agreeing where I can, I posted something to the effect of "Finally! A post with which I cannot disagree."
And given F.T.'s childish challenge to the rather simple bio posted here, I said something to the effect of "And no, Monk was NOT one of the Redskins that I represented."
Rather than merely taking it in the charitable tone in which it was intended, F.T. simply deleted it. Cast it down the memory hole. There isn't even a "Post deleted by blog administrator."
To use Waldo's phrase, what a maroon.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Attacking Senator George Allen for refusing to vote for a minimum wage increase, the Webb campaign manages to invoke the standard Democrat tactic of class warfare, while at the same time demonstrating its utter ignorance on matters economic:
I am sure the 153,000 hardworking Virginians who haven’t received a raise since 1997 would have appreciated it. But obviously, Allen’s too busy playing political games,” said Webb spokesperson Kristian Denny Todd.Kristian, here's a little economic reality for you: Anybody who is still being paid minimum wage after nine years on the job, or who is still working at the same minimum wage job after nine years, doesn't deserve a raise.
Of course, with childish antics like this (Webb's own site is still trying to make hay of the fact that Senator Allen's middle name is "Felix"), perhaps Todd's interest in a minimum wage increase is understandable. If he's paying them what they're worth, one can't imagine that Webb is paying them much more than minimum wage.
Mona Charen has an interesting take --- and probably gets a lot closer to the truth, save for her comments about Steven Spielberg's Munich, with which I take some exception --- here, as well.
UPDATE: Having picked up David Horowitz's Anti-Chomsky Reader a few weeks ago, and having just delved into it, it occurs to me that many of the same people who are savaging Mel Gibson for his anti-Semitic rant--- contrary to the man that Jewish friends like Dean Devlin describe --- positively lionize Noam Chomsky, who is a an anti-Semite of biblical proportions and a Holocaust denier, too.
Friday, August 04, 2006
You know, kind of like recognizing those poor, sad, anonymous/pseudonymous trolls for the cowards that they are.
I must confess that I am a bit disappointed, though. Damn it! The boys over at NoVA Townhall were first on his or her hit list!
To take a page from the far Left playbook that suggests that supporters of traditional marriage (which seems to be the main reason for this individual's fury), what is it about those of us who stand up for reason and values that you find so threatening?
This is really funny. Well thought-out criticisms of the policies pursued by a politician --- one can only presume that the author refers to criticisms of Connaughton's tax-and-spend policies, as well as his craven efforts to seize control of the Prince William GOP --- are "tearing the man down." And recognition that, as an admiralty lawyer --- an extremely specialized area of practice --- and as a veteran, he is well-qualified for the post to which he now has been confirmed, makes us "the sweetest singers of his praise." That's not the hypocrisy intimated by the author of the post, but rather, fair assessments of the man's qualifications.
As a wise movie cop once said, "A man's got to know his limitations." Those who have suffered under the tax-and-spend policies of Connaughton are well-positioned to criticize those policies. They are not personal criticisms (Connaughton has so isolated himself from Conservatives that few of us know him personally); they are policy criticisms.
As for the assertion that Prince William Democrats have been "quietly laying in wait ready to pounce on a weakened and divided opponent," well, perhaps. Far more likely that the long, slow, lingering death of the Prince William Democrat party is reflected in the fact that the only vigorous intellectual debate over policy is occurring not between the two parties, but within the GOP.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
One angry defender of Bush’s Iraqi war policy writes on his blog: “...When F.T. [Rea] is called out for his lies, he engages in ... more lies!”A few pertinent points: (1) Nothing in my post "defend[s] ... Bush’s Iraqi war policy"; it merely notes that opponents based at least one element of their argument on a misrepresentation; (2) my comments do not illustrate a "lack of civility and lack of common decency," unless you count among those virtues the practice of couching in euphemism base and intentional misrepresentations of fact; and (3) it is amazing that someone who chooses to call the President of the United States and his Administration liars is now accusing someone else of "childish behavior."
By “lies” the defender means that I disagree with his version of the run-up to the war in Iraq. This lathered up Bush defender claims the administration never ever said there was an imminent threat being posed by Iraq’s huge stores of weapons of mass destruction.
To suggest otherwise hurts Bush, so it simply makes one a liar.
Sadly, the lack of civility and lack of common decency illustrated above aren’t all that unusual today. It seems screaming insults at opponents has become acceptable in many circles. And, you know what -- none of this childish behavior has anything to do with making the world a better place.
None of it is really about candidates, or ideas, or the future. No. It has to do with self-promotion and meanness. It’s about brats being brats.
Perhaps when the heat weave passes, some of this will go away like bad air. But I'm not holding my breath.
Now, at least one thing F.T. gets right: "By 'lies' [I] mean that [F.T.] disagree[s] with [my] version of the run-up to the war in Iraq," to-wit, I "claim the administration never ever said there was an imminent threat being posed by Iraq’s huge stores of weapons of mass destruction." Now, reading that, you might conclude that the debate was about a matter of opinion, e.g., the merits and demerits of a policy of preemption, which is an eminently debatable point.
But this isn't about opinion; its about the fact that F.T.'s allegation that the President and his Administration advanced the notion that Iraq constituted an "imminent threat" is an utter, absolute falsehood. It's fact, and notwithstanding numerous opportunities to do so, F.T. persists in his failure to offer a countervailing fact. I can only conclude that he knows that there are none, since there would doubtless be numerous sources on the far Left happy to substantiate such an occurrence, had it ever occurred. In short, F.T. clearly indicate that he has suspended any pretense of relying upon evidence, instead preferring to rely upon a far Left urban legend. And since I assume that he is smart enough to know the difference, I can only conclude that he is engaging in an intentional mispresentation of fact, i.e., a "lie."
F.T.'s arrogance would be astounding, if it were not so pathetically unjustified in his inability to actually address the issue.
And BTW, I suppose that F.T. will try to dismiss the above as ad hominem argument. That would be incorrect. Ad hominem is like Mark Levin referring to Hillary Clinton as "Her Thighness" (a pretty funny line, truth be told). It's dismissing someone who demonstrates that you have been lying a "brat," or accusing them of "self-promotion and meanness." The above addresses F.T.'s misrepresentations of fact, and identifying a knowing falsehood and calling attention to its purveyor is hardly an ad hominem argument.
But --- getting back to the silly suggestion by F.T. that the President was involved in "Newspeak" and Orwellianism --- dismissing my argument as mere ad hominem would be so much easier than F.T. admitting that his attacks on me, like the major premise of his attack upon the President, are "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Orwell, George, Politics and the English Language (1946).
UPDATE: F.T. has childish decided to delete my comments. Here's one that I have since posted, but as I expect it to be deleted, I'll reproduce it here:
You see, there you go again, F.T. You claim to not use the term "liar" lightly, implying that I do. In fact, I don't. I use it when it fits, and it manifestly fits when applied by those who set themselves up as authorities, make elaborate claims of presidential prevarication, and then fail to make their case. As you do. "Liar"? Absolutely.F.T. also offers some interesting comments about what he expect of lawyers, simply seeking to denigrate me. Of course, what he really seems to expect is that I will roll over and play dead for him.
And once again, you misrepresent the disagreement. It is not about politics. It is about the facts upon which you purport to premise your politics. Since one of those facts is so demonstrably false, it is difficult to imagine how you expect to have a civil conversation with those of us who are conversant with the facts.
Of course, with your childish decision to simply delete my posts, it is utterly clearly that you simply want to purvey your bilious myths, free of the bother of those who want to bring facts to the conversation.
Another far Left champion of free speech, and vigorous debate!
Those in the blogosphere and elsewhere who have been screaming and hollering about an "illegal convention" --- some for self-serving political reasons and/or out of a desire to weaken a Conservative candidate --- should be preparing themselves for a hearty serving of crow.
I'm a little sick to death of those who appeal to objective criteria --- criteria they abandon when they become inconvenient --- to attack their political foes. Of course, one searches the website in vain for reference to any living individual willing to associate themselves with this group. One can only wonder whether their argument would be denigrated by their association with it, i.e., perhaps it is a front group for homosexual activists.
And, of course, Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe --- like John Adams in Massachusetts, whose state Constitution was used to justify gay "marriage" --- were well-known supporters of homosexual sodomy.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Nevertheless, never one to let a kindness go unrecognized, I offer my thanks to Republitarian.
Now, if I could only break the top ten!
This is one of the more severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen. I wonder if it's just a goof?
I don't know about you, but this alone renders the 2000, Brenda Frazier remake of Bedazzled, with Elizabeth Hurley as Satan, superior to the 1967, Dudley Moore version, with Peter Cook as Beelzebub (though Raquel Welch was appropriately cast as Lust in the earlier version).
UPDATE: This might be a wonderful opportunity for a PhotoShop illustration, but: (a) I can't find a photo of Peter Cook; (b) I'm not competent to use it; and (c) the aesthetic horror would be unfit for viewing.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
I LOVE a good double-standard!
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.Now, anybody who's not a homosexual activist or an anonymous/pseudonymous coward (this means you, "NoVA Scout"), why don't you explain why you are so threatened by this?
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.