Thursday, May 31, 2007

Is Turnabout Fair Play?

I came across this comment at I came across at BVBL this morning. I post it here because I think it might disappear:
  1. Unbiased Bystander said on 31 May 2007 at 2:06 am:

    Since everyone wants to attack Faisal Gill all the time, I thought I’d go against the norm and turn the tables. From my understanding, Julie Lucas is having an “affair/relationship” with a gentleman by name of John Light. Coincidentally, there is a gentleman by the name of John Light who posts on this blog and continuously bashes Faisal Gill at every opportunity. Mr. Light is said to have been married (could be separated right now) while conducting this affair with Ms. Lucas. Everyone questioned Faisal Gill’s donors because a majority of them lived outside of the district. Could it be that they just wanted to support a fellow Muslim? What interest does John Light, a resident of Springfield, VA, have in this election being conducted in a different county than he currently resides in? Ms. Lucas’ reports show that Mr. Light has donated $100 of his hard-earned money to her campaign (I’ll stop short of calling him a cheapskate). One would think someone who’s romantically linked with one of the candidates would be more than willing to support her a little more financially. Instead, he shows his adoration for her by continuously belittling her opponent to no end. What happened to the so-called “family values” that Ms. Lucas brings to the table? So much for this wholesome image she tries to portray. Greg, since you seem to be so pro-Julie (or maybe it’s just anti-Faisal), before you decide to delete this post, I suggest you merely ask around. That should be more than enough proof. Thank you for your time.

I posted this rejoinder:

I think UB needs to get to bed a little earlier.

I will say this: to the best of my knowledge, the gentleman to whom he refers is currently divorced. If there is or ever was a romantic relationship (and I don’t know if there is or ever was, though one might assume so from the tone of many of his posts, as well as the casualness with which he seems to be willing to attack those who formerly considered him a friend) between him and Julie, UB seems to be making the same kind of assumptions that characterize JM’s posts about Faisal. I also know that he has three sons from his prior marriage, so I don’t even think it’s fair to diminish his donation in the way that UB has.

The truly sad thing is that this is the level at which many here wished to conduct this debate. It is hardly surprising that someone is attempting to turn the tables on Julie.

As for “NoVA Scout’s” subsequent comment, it has utterly no credibility, since he has been more than willing to stand idly by — if not cheer on — those who are “sliming” Faisal. After all, “if someone like that supports [Ms. Lucas], there may be a lot of other low-lifes in that camp that would drag [her] down, no matter how well-meaning [her] candidacy might be.”

The race for the GOP nomination to succeed Michele McQuigg is utterly out of control. And the main reason for this state of affairs is because one irresponsible blogger has made it his mission in life to destroy anyone associated with the candidacy of Steve Chapman, who had the temerity to run against a man --- Harry Parrish --- who broke from Republican orthodoxy on an issue of key importance (taxes), and chose to run again for office. And while Harry should certainly be credited for being a Republican when Republican wasn't "cool," the simple fact of the matter is that he ran for office at least one time too many, when he was a sick man of advanced years who ultimately died in office, and denied his constituents the representation to which they were entitled.

Perhaps it is true that Steve wasn't up to the task. But the sleazy tactics engaged in by the Parrish campaign to retain the GOP nomination (Chapman got 45% of the GOP primary vote) diminished the man and his record.

These sleazy tactics also resulted in a campaign by Greg and the "mysterious" original BVBL which resulted in arguably actionable comments. Greg's campaign of guilt-by-association and innuendo against Faisal Gill --- with the aid and comfort of the likes of Democrat Jonathan Mark, who is such a moonbat that he was denied membership in a Fairfax County Democrat magisterial district committee, and a bevy of commenters who are mainly anonymous/pseudonymous, and/or who have a record of enthusiasm for tax increases, and don't have the integrity to attack Gill's anti-tax credentials --- is no more complicated than revenge against the lawyer whose law firm represents his litigation opponent.

It's too bad, because --- while I support Faisal for the nomination, as the superior candidate --- I had thought that either Faisal Gill or Julie Lucas would be a good candidate, though with Democrat Paul Nichols in the race, I think the case for Faisal is now even stronger. And, of course, the fact that Julie Lucas has now, for all practical purposes, embraced the smear campaign against Faisal, has made her unacceptable.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

That contest sounds lie a cesspool.

NoVA Scout said...

So James: all this mud is flying around and your gripe with me is that I "stand idly by."? Devastating charge, that. Are you saying that I haven't been active in all these gutter dumps in the 51st? Well, I have to admit, my heart isn't in it.

I'm not very thrilled with the level of commentary on BVBL and, to the limited extent I have expressed a view, it has been that Lucas is the superior candidate, both now and in November, based on her past record of service to the community. Gill should be opposed not because of his ethnicity or his religion (and I believe there are some who are trying to use those against him - I have no use or tolerance for that line of thinking), but because he is part of a small, governance-incompetent clique within the PW local committee whose political philosophy is brittle and incapable of advancing the interests of the Party, the citizens of the district or the Commonwealth. I have no idea what this man's true philosophy of governance is other than the usual shallow bromides of tax opposition (which everyone else shares so they are meaningless).

I suspect that the process of the local committee in this instance is faulty, if not corrupt (in petty ways), and that a few people, some of whose loyalty to Gill is unsettlingly coincident with his monetary generosity to low-tier political wannabees, will do everything they can to secure his nomination. Most of the people on whom Gill has lavished money and attention on (e.g., FitzSimmonds, Bolling, Stewart, Lingamfelter, Cuccinelli and, yes, even poor, bedraggled Kopko) are personages whom I consider setbacks for the Republican Party.

But I don't much care for the fixation on Gill's work with Muslim organizations over at BVBL. It's a fair game issue, but I'm fairly bored and certainly repulsed by the repetitiveness and base anti-Islamic tone of some of the commenters. I hope the Party does everything it can to recruit competent Muslim candidates in the future. I just don't happen to regard Gill as such a candidate. My assessment is that Lucas would be the stronger Republican candidate in November. We'll never know for sure, because the Dems won't let us run Gill, and then, if that doesn't go so well, run Lucas.

My sense of ethics, propriety, taste and relevance was fairly offended by today's comment bringing in Julie Lucas's private life. Your re-publication of it, even couched with qualifiers, does nothing to make me think you've started the climb out of your world of personal vindictiveness toward political opponents.

If I could (I don't live in the district), I would vote for Lucas just on the basis of this attack.

That's my own view and it strikes me as unremarkable. I would think you would find it fairly tame stuff compared to a lot of what is going around on this race. Now, do you want me to go out and get all those other folks over there to shush up? If so, you give my humble powers too much credit.

Charles said...

I wouldn't have quoted much of it to debunk it, but I appreciate at least seeing the other side of it.

I posted about this, because I read it over at JM's blog, where he's overwriting it repeatedly, getting it on the blog aggregator 3 times. He doesn't have our interests at heart, I think he'd love to tear down Lucas as well as Gill.

Realise that BVBL left this attack on Lucas stay on his blog, at least long enough for people to read it, and for JM to link to it several times (I'm blocked from reading BVBL). BVBL could have stopped this by deleting the comment, like he did to all my comments showing his attacks on Gill to be without merit.

So BVBL, who is an editor at his blog, picking and choosing comments, has made the decision that hosting a largely baseless attack on Julie Lucas and John Light is advantageous to his purpose, not surprising given the largely baseless attacks he's hosted about Gill.

Of course, only BVBL knows who this commenter was, and some so-called Gill posters were not at all "supportive" of him.

But it's funny that two identified "Gill Supporters" (I'm neutral, but was identified as a Gill supporter) have both attacked the charge against Lucas, while the two rabid Gill haters have hosted the charges and propagated them.

Citizen Tom said...

I just ignored the stupid charge. For all practical purposes, blogs such as BVBL and GoodBye Ken are worse than useless. We spend so much time refuting their spew we do not discuss anything of any real use. I think what they do is sick. Maggots show more discretion about what they put into their mouths.

When we do not actually discuss the merits of the candidates positions on the issues, how can we maintain a decent government. If all we know about the candidates is their bedroom life and the seriousness of the things they have been accused of (not actually been charged or convicted), what is the point of voting?