Thursday, May 31, 2007
Let it also be known that he is a man who keeps his word. A few weeks back, I quite unwittingly posted the 60,000th comment at NLS. Ben promised to buy lunch for the person who crossed that milestone, and today, made good on his promise, at Kilroy's.
It's always pleasant to break bread with someone who shares your interests, and is perhaps even more stimulating when it is someone with whom you can have respectful disagreement.
I posted this rejoinder:
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.
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.”
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.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Now, when I was a weekly columnist for the Woodbridge Fishwr... er, Potomac News, I would occasionally see printed a letter to the editor which attacked not something I wrote, but rather, something that I had done (or more frequently, was falsely accused of doing) which had not been subject to any news story in that "journal." It started occurring regularly when Susan Svihlik appeared as Managing Editor, and started her campaign to oust me as a weekly columnist.
I consider it a fair accomplishment that it took her four years to succeed.
So even though I have litttle use for Greg's blog, I have to wonder why in the Hell things written there, and not reported in any kind of news story in the paper, are appropriate fodder for a letter to the editor? I can't say that I disagree with much said by the author, save for her apparent hostility to Glen Hill, and the notion that Greg is acting as an agent for Hill, an assertion ridiculous even in its construction. Indeed, they are as ridiculous as Greg's and his commenter Jonathan Mark's smears against Faisal Gill.
Charles discusses it here, making the valid point that this writer's accusations against Hill are about as credible as Greg'sand his commenter Jonathan Mark's smears against Faisal Gill. And while Charles does not address the rules governing journalistic ethics --- so far as I am aware, he is no more a "journalist" than I was, and makes no pretense of being one --- it certainly is perhaps the more objective question to ask.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Since Lowell apparently believes that he's not shelling out enough to the Commonwealth, perhaps he can post a copy of the check that he sent in for money above and beyond what was required of him under existing law.
Oh, he didn't send in more than he had to?
Until he does, and for that matter, until the Roanoke Times does, they should spare us the pretensions that we're not paying enough, or that we should be paying more. Commitment requires more than lip service, and unless the Lefties who want more government demonstrate it with action, I'm simply not interested in hearing about how much more they want to take from me.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Here's a news flash, Joe: America isn't really a democracy. It's a republic.
I guess Klein simply demonstrates that even a stopped clock (e.g., "left-wing extremists) is right twice a day.
What a maroon.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Are some NoVA Republicans doing what Dems have been trying for decades: criminalizing policy differences?
"... this is an opportunity for folks to get involved in a happy way and not feel like they're participating in ugliness."But see this. And this and this and this. And this. And this and this and this and this....
Actually, Ebert had some pretty good lines ("I guess I'll be in a position to devour my opponent"), though he missed the best one, as least from his perspective: this may be the best that the GOP can do.
However, my guess is that this write-in candidacy will not resonate with the Muslim population, or with observant Jews.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
My home address growing up was 64 Queen Street. I walked by this place every day.
And from reading the paper, the neighborhood has changed quite a bit in the intervening 25 years.
Not for the better.
To be sure, there are some who clearly could be considered racists. They think that if they generate enough smoke about Gill's past associations with those who turned out to be terrorist sympathizers (even though Gill's actions were above reproach), they can appeal to latent racism or discriminatory feelings about all Muslims. This strategy is especially necessary, because Gill, of course, has a distinguished record of service to the nation, and no one could possibly attribute Islamicist actions to him.
This is unfortunate. Aside from the fact that the main proponent of these canards is a Democrat, it is clearly racist in its effect, since it is an effort to paint all Muslims, even those who are loyal Americans, as wild-eyed extremists. It is especially true as to Faisal, whose record demonstrates to even the casual observer a strong penchant for bringing American Muslims into the political mainstream.
Then there are those who are quite clearly bitter over the fact that Faisal Gill dared to play a role in a campaign of someone who dared to challenge the sainted Harry Parrish, who was either too far gone or too dishonest to admit that he was trying to raise taxes on the people of Northern Virginia. Their association with the smears is likely derivative of their dishonesty, i.e., they want to be thought of as "conservatives," but their record of enthusiasm for increasing levels of confiscatory taxations precludes that. God forbid that they should actually be forced to attack Faisal's positions.
And then there's Greg Letiecq, who shot off his mouth about Steve Chapman and, whatever the merits of some of his charges, went too far and managed to get himself sued. His beef with Faisal? It is Gill's law firm which is representing Chapman in his lawsuit against Letiecq.
And then there's the irony of those who would attack me for holding Julie Lucas' support for tax-increaser Buck Waters against her would associate themselves with those who hold anyone's support of Steve Chapman against them. As though a personal agenda to increase taxes were comparable to a personal agenda to pursue jihad.
Unfortunately, Julie has now resorted to reliance upon the smears to advance her candidacy.
One wonders how enthusiastic Gill's supporters will be for Lucas, should she win the nomination. It's one thing to take the high road --- as Gill has --- and win. But Lucas' effort seems to be an increasing sign of desperation, and one which will, if she is able to secure the GOP nomination, limit her ability to enlist Gill's supporters for her candidacy. Particularly now that the Dems have a serious candidate in the race.
Sadly, it is doubtful that it is a position from which she can retreat.
Never mind that their is very little that is "democratic" about the modern Democrat Party.
Apparently, the Democrat-dominated (because the current Governor is a Democrat) Prince William County Board of Election didn't get the memo.
It refers to the primary to be conducted among Democrats on 12 June as the "Democrat Primary."
I know Paul socially. Never knew he was a Democrat. VPAP lists him primarily as a Republican donor since 2001, donating roughly twice as much to Republicans as to Democrats. However, he has also donated more to the Virginia Trial Lawyers PAC than to all candidates combined.
Interestingly, while he personally gave $250 to Republican Corey Stewart for Chairman in 2006, his firm gave an equal amount to Democrat Sharon Pandak. His personal donation was made to Stewart early, in August, while the firm's donation to Pandak was made late, on 30 October. It may well be for others to discern meaning, if any, from these facts.
At last, the Dems have a serious candidate for this seat. From what I know of the man (admittedly, not too much, other than that he seems to be a good guy), I have my doubts that he'll satisfy the moonbats for whom Jeff Dion seems to be a good candidate, and who seem to have taken over the Democrat Party. This race may have just gotten a whole lot more interesting.
Additionally, Greg reports that Faisal Gill has outfiled Julie Lucas in terms of delegate filing forms for the upcoming convention, with an advantage of more than 200 forms (with an insignificant number of apparently uncommitted forms). From all available criteria, Gill clearly has the upper hand. It remains to be seen whether the Internet smear campaign being waged against him will yield the results sought.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Nevertheless, it is repetition for emphasis. Today's Potomac News brought a letter demonstrating the kind of dishonesty and contradiction typical of the far Left. Here's his missive:
Consumed as he is by his high dudgeon against John Merli, Dale Rehak (Letters to the Editor, May 16) appears to have forgotten a couple of very important points.
First, Merli writes a column of opinion for the Opinion page of this newspaper. He's entitled to his opinions, whether Rehak likes it or not.
Second, the First Amendment says he has every right to voice his opinions, and the Potomac News has every right to publish them.
Rehak may not agree with Merli's opinions on George Bush, but if he silenced everyone who doesn't like this president, about 65 percent of the country would have to stand mute.
Since Rehak is agitating to have Merli's column dropped, I'll do a bit of agitating of my own: If the Potomac News caves in to ultra right-wing ideologues of Rehak's ilk and drops Merli's column, I will immediately cancel my subscription.
Now, it's not that I disagree with Floars about Merli; I don't. Indeed, Merli is so harmless and offers such weekly pablum that, while it is difficult to understand how he obtained his space in the first place, it is impossible to believe that the current management of the Pot. News could ever dismiss anyone for being too far to the Left. Frankly, I don't remember what Floars' target said, but it's not as if there's some sort of campaign against Merli by "right-wing ideologues" (compared to, for example, the campaign waged against me by the likes of Floars, among others). Indeed, the only campaign against Merli that I could imagine would be one seeking substance on the editorial page of the Potomac News.
What I found entertaining was Floars' characteristic sanctimony. Characteristic of the far Left; characteristic of Floars. Particulatly dishonest was his stirring defense of Merli's First Amendment rights, and the suggestion that it is somehow illegitimate to ask that a columnist be dropped.
The problem? Merli's First Amendment rights have nothing to do with the continuation of his column, or the business decision that the Pot. News makes to run it. Indeed, I find it highly doubtful that anyone --- including Rehak --- would suggest otherwise.
I know when I read this missive that Floars' name was familiar, so I checked my files. Sure 'nuff, I found about three letters attacking me for something or other that I wrote over the years when I had 800-900 words a week in that journal. The most recent appeared on 1 June 2004, in which Floars made the following statement: "A couple of years ago, I had a subscription to the Potomac News. I cancelled, in part, because I was heartily sick and tired of seeing the viperous right-wing rantings of James Young."
I guess Floars only objects when people cancel in protest of conservative "rantings."
However, I strongly suspect that, if the circulation of that journal were measured by what the readers of Prince William County wanted ("right-wing" vs. "left-wing"), Floars would never have re-upped in the first place.
Friday, May 18, 2007
It's an interesting contrast: Republicans lost their national majority when they strayed from the principles upon which they were elected. Representative Dawn Pettingill details how Democrats there misrepresented their goals in order to obtain a majority:
Democrats gained the majority in November’s election. They have the Senate, the House and the Governorship. I was told we would govern from the middle, where we had consensus and would be good leaders, working with the other side…for Iowa. That’s how I believe governing should work and what I had worked so hard for.
It did go that way for about a month. Then the special interests, who had given so much money to get House Democrats elected, started wanting their payback.
“Fair Share” came along in early February. We received a bill drafted by some labor lawyers in Washington, D.C. and were told we were passing it, without changes. I and several other Democrats did not go along with it. Although conceptually, I agree that no one should be getting something for nothing, the bill forced everyone who wasn’t union to pay up or be fired within 30 days, public employees would a fair share fee deducted from their pay whether they liked it or not. I filed a change to make it a choice - if the non-union person wanted union services, they could sign up for paying their fair share, if they didn’t sign up, they would not be forced into paying and would not receive union services. That is when the rift began.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
It's a good title for anything written by Algore. He is an authority on the assault on reason in the same way that the Great Prevaricator was an authority on the "politics of personal destruction," and in the same way that, locally, AWCheney is an authority on sleazy politics: as one of its leading practitioners.
As I said over there, this sucks.
When I learned of the premise (what happens to a small town after about half a dozen American cities were destroyed in a nuclear terrorist attack), I was pretty sure it wouldn’t even last one season. Too serious for the pablum that passes for entertainment these days. That it did is a tribute to the devotion of its audience (I was among them; it’s the only show I tape, as Wednesdays are choir practice night at church), and to the quality of the writing and cast. To be sure, there was plenty about the show to criticize: primarily, its premise about the extent of the societal breakdown which would result from the attack described. It seemed a bit over the top to me, but then again, when I was muuuuuch younger, I read and enjoyed a book called Alas, Babylon, based upon the same premise.
However, I won’t be a spoiler, save to note that I was quite disappointed about one of the happenings in the last episode.
That Jericho is cancelled while the likes of American Idol, Survivor, and America’s Bingo Night are on the air is a true tragedy. Evidence (along with rap and hip-hop) that those who say that America is in decline are right.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
When I was in college, I used to be rather contemptuous of tele-evangelists. Still don't like 'em much. Maybe it's my reserved, German Lutheran roots.
Nevertheless, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was a man who did much good in the world, and never was touched by the scandal that rocked Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, and others.
UPDATE: Well, the hatemongers didn't even allow the body to cool before starting in. Despicable.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Sounds like the ever-so politically-correct faculty and students of the university are in desperate need of a crash course in academic freedom and free speech.
A "free speech awareness week" at Tufts?
Don't hold your breath.
Today's Potomac News, however, offers as fine an example of "advocacy journalism" as I've ever seen. It is Kipp Hanley's article covering the dedication of the new community plaza at the County Complex, named after former Board of County Supervisors Chairman Sean Connaughton.
Since I used to get paid to do it, I don't often offer my services to the Pot. News for free by writing a letter to the editor. So here are a few errant comments on Hanley's hagiography, a suggestion as to how it might have been edited by a journalist, or at least a journalist not completely in the bag for [former] Chairman Sean:
If that last line isn't "advocacy journalism," I don't know what is. Certainly, the Potomac News was entitled to make such an assessment on its editorial page. It might even be a correct assessment, and it certainly isn't one which --- with regard to the plaza --- I'm prepared to dispute here.
If the dedication of the Sean T. Connaughton Community Plaza and the Development Services Building on Saturday was a movie, they would have titled it "Back to the Future." [After all, it was during Connaughton's tenure --- elected as a Republican --- that County taxpayers suffered perhaps the biggest run-up in County taxes in history, giving evidence of his reactionary Liberalism.]
On a day when the former Chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors was honored for his past achievements, the current supervisors buried their present in a time capsule to be opened in 2031, the 300th anniversary of the county.
On that date, they can gaze back to Connaughton's terms in office to see what he and his fellow supervisors were able to accomplish. And they will be doing it on the grounds that Connaughton helped visualize - a gorgeous, landscaped tract of land ideally suited for public use. [By then, perhaps the County will be able to make a more objective assessment of Connaughton's tenure, rather than yielding to the passions of today.]
Connaughton said the goal of building the plaza was to create a facility for recreational purposes, a gathering place of sorts. At the far end of the plaza - which can hold 2,000 seated or 4,000 standing - is a stage that can be used for future theatrical or musical performances.
"We had virtually no public space like this in the county," Connaughton said. "If people wanted to have community events, if people wanted to have public concerts, they had to go other types of facilities to do it. So when we were looking at putting this [development services] building here, it made perfect sense to put [the plaza] between the two [government] buildings."
[Connaughton apparently forgot about the public high schools, and the many public parks scattered throughout the County.]
Connaughton's idea for a plaza came from a 2002 trip to Italy, where he was able to enjoy the great public "piazzas" that the country is famous for. [He didn't mention whether the trip was made at public expense.]
"A plaza is something all great cities and all great communities have," supervisor Martin Nohe, R-Coles, told the crowd. "We need to look and act like a world leader." [Subtext: "We're indulging our delusions of grandeur here."]
Not to be outdone by the plaza is the adjacent Development Services Building, a beautiful glass structure across from the old James J. McCoart Administration Building that houses, among others, the transportation, public works and planning and zoning departments. In the past, those offices were spread around the county, said current chairman Corey Stewart, R-at large.
The new building also has a cafeteria, a little thing to most people but not to Connaughton, said Nohe.
"It's the little things that turn a good community into a great community," Nohe said.
While addressing a crowd of distinguished guests that included several area politicians, Nohe raved about Connaughton's forward thinking while serving as chairman from 2000-2006. The economic development of the county was a focus of Connaughton's, said Nohe.
Nohe spoke about the Triple A bond rating the county was able to obtain under Connaughton. He also bragged about Prince William County's real estate tax rate, now the lowest of any Northern Virginia community.
It was clear from all those that spoke on Saturday that Connaughton left a positive legacy. Stewart admitted that while he didn't always agree with Connaughton on some issues, he knew he had some big shoes to fill when the Merchant Marine graduate vacated the chairman seat to head up the U.S. Maritime Administration last fall.
Stewart's description of Connaughton may have been the most fitting of the day when he joked that the former chairman must have been a Boy Scout because a Boy Scout "always leaves a camp site better than he found it."
That is certainly true when it comes to the plaza named after him.
But this is certainly opinion creeping into a news story. And while I never made pretensions to being a "journalist" while writing an opinion column for the paper --- though not a few ignoramuses who don't know the difference tried to beat me over the head with it --- I certainly know enough about "journalism" to know that an opinion like that has no place in a "news" story.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
In Prince William County, we have the Kathleen Seefeldt Parkway, appropriate enough, with enough traffic likes that it's mostly like a "parking-lot-way." Then there's the "John Jenkins Neighborhood Park," named for the current Neabsco District Supervisor.
At a minimum, with few exceptions, the person for whom a public place is named should be dead for a period of time, so that such tributes are made in the fullness of time, and not out of emotionalism or mere sentimentality. They should be made at a point (when, I'm not entirely sure) when a lasting contribution can be measured. For the same reason, if America decides to repeal that portion of Article II which limits the presidency to natural-born citizens, it should not go into effect for at least 25 years, so it will have been done for principled purposes, and not merely out of fleeting popularity for a particular politician.
Nevertheless, today, Prince William County dedicated its new office building to Sean T. Connaughton, the former Chairman of the Board of County Supervisors. A singularly hideous, ultramodern glass building, it sits behind the McCoart Building, and in front of the County Sports Complex.
My undertstanding is that it is to house a large portion of the County bureaucracy.
That is why I have no problem with naming it for Chairman Sean. Given his enthusiasm for growing the bureaucracy at the expense of the taxpayers, it's difficult to imagine a more appropriate name for the County's bureaucrats' warehouse.
UPDATE: My wife told me that she mentioned to our boys that we had seen County Executive Craig Gerhart (with whom we attend church) today, and they asked why he was there. When she explained that they were dedicating a building, they asked "To whom?" She answered "Sean Connaughton." Their response? "Who's he?"
Out of the mouths of babes....
The Prince William County Sheriff's Office is a mockery of justice. While our Board of County Supervisors dealt with budget deficits, our current sheriff increased his spending by over $3 million (from $6M to $9M) and refused to make budget concessions while offering less services.
So what has Sheriff Glendell Hill done with your tax dollars to explain the 50 percent increase in operations?
The sheriff hired 30 managers in the office, which is twice as many managers as prior to his administration. That equates to one boss for every two deputies.
This is wasted money, unwise fiscal management and cronyism.
When the sheriff took office in 2004, there was a staff of 69 people. Now he has a staff of 87 people, 15 more vehicles and two pretty little golf carts equipped with a blue light and sheriff markings to patrol the small courthouse grounds. What kind of management is that?
Morale in the sheriff's department is very low and it's a serious problem. Since deputies work "at the will" of the sheriff, their jobs are not guaranteed. This needs to change. These are public servants, trained at "taxpayers" expense, with years of experience, earning less than the average living wage for this county.
No wonder we have a shortage of law enforcement personnel in this county.
On June 12, I urge voters to turn out this current tyrant calling himself a sheriff. Vote for a person with plenty of experience, integrity, fiscally sound management policies. Cast your vote for Mike Messier.
Mike was a former Chief Deputy in Prince William County and he knows how to operate a sheriff's department prudently, efficiently and effectively.
Let's make our Prince William County Sheriff's Office something to be proud of once again. Mike Messier is the right man at the right time of budget deficits and fiscal restraints, to get our Sheriff's Office back at working "for" the people and not taking "from" the people.
Now anyone stupid enough to listen to Keith Kessler probably deserves what they get. After all, Kessler is a long-time Democrat activist. Anyone familiar with his record had no choice but to laugh aloud at his complaints about the budget growing under Glen Hill, since Kessler has never seen a budget increase that he didn't use to justify a tax increase. He's never before seen a budget increase for which he didn't apologize.
One has to wonder whether this effort doesn't mean that Messier's participation in the GOP primary (without a corresponding Democrat primary) means that Democrats are now attempting to defraud Prince William voters by misrepresenting themselves as Republicans.
After today's print edition of the Potomac News, one has to wonder. On its front page (below the fold, with a jump to page A2) appears a Kipp Hanley article entitled "NVTA wonders how to exert its new power." It starts out thus:
One of the main purposes of Thursday night's Northern Virginia Transportation Authority meeting was to hear resident input on recently passed House Bill 3202, which could raise an average of $400 million a year to pay for transportation and road projects in Northern Virginia.It's not a bad article, and ends with the following paragraph:
If approved by the NVTA governing body through a majority vote, HB 3202 could end up providing up to $400 million annually for road and transit projects in Northern Virginia through state, regional and local taxes and fees.Interestingly, one can then turn to page A5, and find a story entitled "Transport Authority divides into work groups, mulls taxes." It, too, is authored by Kipp Hanley (any relation to former Fairfax BOCS Chairman Kate, I wonder?), and begins as follows:
Thursday night's Northern Virginia Transportation Authority meeting at George Mason High School served as an introduction to House Bill 3202 to the public.It, too, isn't a bad article, and ends as follows:
If approved by the NVTA governing body through a majority vote, HB 3202 could end up providing up to $400 million annually for road and transit projects in Northern Virginia through state, regional and local taxes and fees.Now, perhaps I'm wrong, but these "two" articles are so similar as to obviously be the same article, with only the "lead" altered slightly. Now, I suppose its de rigeur at the Pot. News and other papers to recycle articles on different days to fill space. And we know that the Pot. News recycles letters from the far Left.
But recycling an article by the same author on the same day? Frankly, were I the publisher, someone would be shown the door over this one.
Yet a third version appears on-line, entitled "NVTA discusses what to do with power."
Friday, May 11, 2007
"Homophobia" is, of course, the belitting and disparaging term used by the far Left against anyone who dares to oppose the radical homosexual agenda. You know: the agenda which seeks to redefine the word "marriage" to mandate state validation of perverse sexual relationships, and to legitimize what 5000 years of civilized societies have declared illegitimate.
"-phobia," of course, refers to/implies "fear of," from the Greek. Its usage is an effort to belittle those who hold principled opposition to legitimizing homosexual relationships. It is a term --- like "racist"; "far right"; "angry"; "intolerant"; and "uncaring" --- that adherents to far Left ideologies like to throw around against their political enemies, to disparage arguments against which they have no real response, since those arguments have little or nothing to do with fear.
Of course, the purpose of its usage is to attribute to those who oppose the radical homosexual agenda a distasteful attribute, and to imply that their opposition is nothing more than distasteful emotionalism.
It is a fraud. Just like like "racist," "far right," "angry," "intolerant," and "uncaring."
No "conservative" --- in any meaningful sense of the word --- should use it except in the most extreme cases. Any "conservative" who does so is a fraud. Or simply too stupid to recognize and/or understand their own ideology.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Well, OK, I'm just demonstrating a little shameless fatherly pride. I know he'll probably never see this.
After all, I'd hate to see him wounded by all of the mindless, misdirected, vicious smears from that vile, dishonest b****, AWCheney, who seems to labor under the impression that my son posts on political blogs.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, WaPo editorial entreaties and politicians’ bluster to the contrary notwithstanding, the District will not file a petition for a writ of certiorari. If it fails to do so, the D.C. Circuit’s petition is the law only in the District, and is nothing more than persuasive authority for any other Circuit.
It’s a rather common tactical decision among the Left/unions in my practice. They bite the bullet and take a bad decision in a single Circuit, because they fear the adverse impact of a Supreme Court decision, which of course has nationwide application. The last three times they took one of our Circuit-court “wins” to the Supreme Court — Teachers Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986); Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988); and Air Line Pilots Association v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) (the party seeking review is listed first) — they lost. Rather badly.
And while the Supreme Court reverses in about 65% of the cases they take (the last statistic I saw on the issue), there is that 35% of cases where they take the case to affirm and apply a good Circuit-court decision nationwide.
'Course, I could easily be wrong.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
May 4, 2007 - The Virginia Partisans Gay and Lesbian Democratic Club today endorsed 24 incumbent Virginia legislators for re-election in the fall of 2007. Included were 19 members of the House of Delegates and five state Senators.Interesting rhetoric, but (like its authors) perverse. Apparently, fairness for the Democrat Party's "Brokeback" contingent means granting to they the authority to redefine language to suit their perversions.
Those endorsed today were all endorsed by Virginia Partisans when they last ran for election or re-election, either in 2005 (Delegates) or 2003 (Senators), and they were all elected then. Most significantly, all 24 of these endorsees voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment at every opportunity during the legislative process, and worked against it during the ballot campaign last fall.
"We will be making additional endorsements in the 140 total House and Senate races," said Charley Conrad, Partisans President, "but we wanted to make these very special endorsements early on. We had faith in these fine legislators two and four years ago, and they kept the faith with us, consistently voting for fairness for the LGBT community. By any standard, they deserve our community's strong support for re-election."
The list of endorsees was heavily weighted with Northern Virginians- 18 of the 24 were from Fairfax City or County, Arlington County, Alexandria, Falls Church or Loudoun County. Del. Adam Ebbin, the only openly-gay member of the Virginia legislature, was on the list, as was David Englin, the only sponsor this year of a bill to repeal last year's Marshall-Newman constitutional amendment.
"We're proud of the fact that every candidate we endorsed in the general elections of 2003 and 2005 who was elected went on to vote against the Marshall-Newman amendment," noted Tom Osborne, Treasurer of the group. "No other group representing the LGBT community can say that - not Equality Virginia, and certainly not the Virginia Log Cabin Republicans. We're careful about who we endorse. We're not 'yellow dog Democrats' - we're looking for Democrats who are pro-fairness. You'll see that clearly in the coming weeks, when we're likely to endorse the opponents of some incumbent Democrats!"
Virginia Partisans operates a state PAC, and many of those on the endorsement list will be receiving campaign contributions from that PAC. "Regardless of where you live, members of the LGBT community can help the cause of fairness in Virginia by contributing to the Virginia Partisans PAC. You can also help by contributing your time and/or dollars directly to any of our endorsed candidates," Osborne noted.
Prior to today, Virginia Partisans had only made one endorsement in the 2007 legislative races - endorsing Bruce Roemmelt in his campaign to unseat incumbent Republican Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William County), one of the principal sponsors of the Marshall-Newman amendment against gay marriage and civil unions.
Those endorsed today, with their districts and principal area represented (some represent parts of other jurisdictions as well) are:
Sen. John Edwards (D-21 - Roanoke)
Sen. Patsy Ticer (D-30 - Alexandria)
Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D-31 - Arlington)
Sen. Janet Howell (D-32 - Fairfax County)
Sen. Toddy Puller (D-36 - Fairfax County)
House of Delegates
Del. Jim Shuler (D-12 - Blacksburg/Southwest Virginia)
Del. David Poisson (D-32 - Loudoun County)
Del. Ken Plum (D-36 - Fairfax County)
Del. David Bulova (D-37 - Fairfax City)
Del. Bob Hull (D-38 - Fairfax County)
Del. Vivian Watts (D-39 - Fairfax County)
Del. David Marsden (D-41 - Fairfax County)
Del. Mark Sickles (D-43 - Fairfax County)
Del. Kris Amundson (D-44 - Fairfax County)
Del. David Englin (D-45 - Alexandria)
Del. Brian Moran (D-46 - Alexandria)
Del. Al Eisenberg (D-47 - Arlington)
Del. Bob Brink (D -48 - Arlington)
Del. Adam Ebbin (D-49 - Arlington)
Del. Jim Scott (D-53 - Falls Church)
Del. David Toscano (D-57-Charlottesville)
Del. Jennifer McClellan (D-71 - Richmond)
Del. Jeion Ward (D-92 - Hampton)
Del. Mayme BaCote (D-95 - Hampton/Newport News)
The truly disturbing thing is in the fact that so many legislative members of the Democrat Party have so little regard for the will of the people of the Commonwealth. If promoting perversion is the leading agenda of the Democrat Party, it bodes well for GOP prospects in November.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Of course, the State Party Plan, Article VII, Section D provides that:
For as long as most can remember, there’s been a rule that if a member of the Prince William County Republican Committee missed three meetings in a row, your membership would lapse. I looked in the bylaws, and it’s not in there. I asked one of the committee’s officers, who believed it was in the state party plan, and it’s not there, either. RPV says that it’s up to the unit to have rules like this, although there is a rule similar to this which affects the state central committee. Somehow a strange meme made it’s way into the committee, and for years ended up improperly tossing members off the active rolls.
In the past six months we’ve “lapsed” about one hundred members, which has kinda put a cramp on Tom Kopko’s goal of increasing the size of the committee. Instead, without any basis in the bylaws or state party plan that anyone can find, we’ve been booting members out for missing meetings. This has been going on for as long as anyone can remember, and everyone I’ve asked about this is stunned that they can’t find this section in the bylaws.
Who knew that simply by adhering to the rules as they’re written, we’d be able to reverse the trend of a somewhat declining membership? I can’t believe that I was the first person to notice this. At least Tom Kopko can now say he’s done a lot better on achieving one of the goals he talked about when he ran for committee chairman.
A member of an Official Committee other than an ex-officio member automatically loses his committee position if he is absent three (3) consecutive meetings without representation by a person holding a proxy; provided, however, that a State Central Committee member automatically loses and is deemed to have resigned his Committee position if he fails to attend in person at least fifty (50) percent of the regular meetings in any calendar year. A vacancy created by such resignation shall be filled in accordance with the State Party Plan.
An “Official Committee” is defined by Article II, Section 18, as "the State Central Committee, each District Committee, each Legislative District Committee, and each Unit Committee." Article II, Section 13, defines "Unit Committee" as "County Committee or City Committee."
Apparently, in Greg's zeal to attack the PWC County GOP Committee and Kopko, he just wasn’t looking very hard.
I wonder how long it will be before his post disappears? Or better yet, ends his ridiculous crusade against anyone supporting the political aspirations of the lawyer representing someone who is suing him?
UPDATE: Well, Greg gave himself a chance to impress me, and he did. He didn't pull the post, but simply added a correction. Here it is:
UPDATE: James Young and Valley Republican point out in the comments the proper section in the state party plan that covers this, and in fact there is a provision in the state party plan that does mandate the “three strike rule”. The county committee official that I spoke with told me they contacted RPV, who informed them that there was nothing in the state party plan, and I didn’t see this provision myself. My apologies for getting this wrong, and thanks to these two commenters for helping make sure this got corrected.
The applicable section in the party plan is Article VII, Section D.
The question raised by this is, who is the "county committee official" to whom Greg spoke? And how is it that he/she was so spectacularly wrong? Was Greg the victim of a "draw play"? Was this "county committee official" simply ignorant?
With all of the conspiracy theories that Greg and his commenters regularly float, one has to wonder about their response to this.
Dear Committee Members,
As I explained to you at the last committee meeting, you would be hearing about the 51st House convention. The Washington Post article reports on it today. There are several important pieces missing that you need to know.
The reporter got one thing right, though: the argument here is really about Virginia’s lack of party registration and its open primaries. The question to ask is whether we Republicans should knowingly invite Democrats to help us choose our nominees for office.
You would think the answer would be a resounding no. Mine sure is. Republicans shouldn’t want Democrats in our nomination contests.
But, the reporter got it wrong, or Julie Lucas never told him, that on January 4th Julie argued for a primary specifically so that Democrats could be included. She said they were her base, given her current seat. Talk about being stunned. I utterly rejected the notion.
Julie also gives the impression that she essentially informed me of her candidacy on Jan. 4. Not even close. She told me, and many others, throughout January that she had so many offices to consider that she just couldn’t make up her mind. As late as Jan. 25 she told a women’s group that she still hadn’t made up her mind. The fact is, Julie’s decision was in the air all the way up until she submitted her filing just 4 hours before the deadline on January 29.
You also should know several other important facts. While she says that I had an open mind, which was supposedly corrupted by my contract work, she doesn’t mention that I also rejected her further argument on Jan. 4 that the candidate that can win an (open) primary is best suited to win the general election. I saw that as a veiled argument for Democrats. It also argues that Democrats would improve the outcome of the Republican primary.
In fact, I rejected each reason Julie put forth that night (time, effort, cost, convenience) to try to get a primary so Democrats could vote for her. I heard these same arguments from Lucy Beauchamp and rejected them, too. Somehow, both of them still claim to be surprised at the choice of a convention.
I did say that I was open to the possibility of a closed primary, which was under consideration in Virginia courts at the time, if it materialized. (It didn’t. Federal courts stayed the possibility in mid-January). Julie and I talked for a long time that night about the great difficulties the state would have in closing primaries to just party members, whatever that means in Virginia. I also said that if both candidates agreed on a primary I might consider it then, but probably would still call a convention.
Julie also doesn’t mention that I held off for weeks in January on issuing the call as I waited for her to make a decision. I accommodated her indecision - she even thanked me for my patience on the 18th - but I am instead repaid with attacks.
It’s also not mentioned that, after they filed, I immediately reached out to both candidates to ask for suggested convention chairmen and committee leaders and workers, per usual convention practice. The idea is to have equal numbers of workers from each campaign, an agreed Convention Chairman, and agreed chairmen of the various convention committees.
Of course, it isn’t mentioned there are plenty of examples of chairmen who run fair processes while doing contract work for or having a financial relationship with a candidate. One need look just a little north to Fairfax to find a large, prime example. Examination of almost every race shows how commonplace it is. The State Board of Elections and the Republican Party of Virginia concur there’s no problem. In other words, this is much ado about nothing.
So, I think that sets the record straight and should put everyone’s minds at ease that my selection of a convention is no surprise and that a convention is the best way to choose a Republican nominee. It is time to look forward.
To that end, I am continuing to work in a spirit of agreement and accommodation. I am happy to announce that the campaigns have agreed upon Pat O’Leary as convention chairman. Pat is a former chairman of the combined PWC-Manassas committee and is well known and liked. He has also graciously agreed to work with me in the other convention preparations to ensure each campaign is satisfied with the processes and, ultimately, the convention’s result. We are targeting a May 10 meeting with the campaigns to finalize convention committee personnel and optimize convention processes for a fair, quick, and efficient convention.
To wrap it all up, with all the talk these past two weeks about primaries versus conventions, I offer the following thoughts on party nominations.
Top 5 Myths About Primary Elections
- “The public should decide.”
Absolutely not. Republicans, only, should choose their nominees. This is a bald argument in favor of Democrats and Independents choosing our nominees. Unacceptable.
- “Primaries get maximum participation.”
This is a sneaky half-truth. With Virginia’s open primaries it’s like inviting us all to go sky-diving but not mentioning that we invited extra people so now there aren’t enough parachutes for everyone. D’s and I’s take away Republicans’ parachutes/votes when they vote in our primaries. In other words, a suicidal notion.
- “Primaries are convenient.”
Convenient for incumbents, that is. In primaries they have name recognition and existing campaign funds, and even franking privileges, to conduct expensive campaigns to the general public rather than to the Republican base.
- “Conventions favor conservatives.”
False. Conventions favor those who care enough to vote. While it is true that conservatives tend to be the most consistent voters within the Republican base, the playing field is absolutely level.
- “If a candidate can’t win a primary they can’t win the general election.”
False. This not only recognizes the openness of Virginia primaries, it argues that D’s and I’s are necessary to select the most electable Republican nominee. Worse it argues that Republicans alone are unable to select their own best nominee. This argument is backwards and self-defeating.
If you have further questions I would be happy to hear from you.
Chairman, Pr. Wm. County Republican Committee (HTUPWCGOP.orgUTH)
Julie Lucas has e-mailed Committee members regarding the recent imbroglio over her comments to the Washington Post late last week:
Dear Committee Members,
It is very unfortunate to see controversy arise from the 51st District Convention.
While I am deeply concerned that my opponent, Faisal Gill paid our Chairman to be a political consultant, I would like to be able to resolve this issue so we can move on to select the best Republican candidate, and ultimately win in November.
April finance reports indicated that Faisal Gill paid our party chairman $1000 for consulting services. An amended filing has revealed the amount is actually $2000.
At the last GOP meeting I chose not to publicly address the issue, but agreed to meet with Faisal Gill and the Chairman, per his suggestion. Unfortunately my opponent did not personally attend the meeting. Whatever issue the Party as a whole has with these actions, we must not allow this to promote infighting among our Party members.A recent Washington Post article on Faisal Gill's hiring of the committee chairman prompted Tom Kopko to email the Republican Committee explaining his side of the story. There are many areas I feel I must now clarify.
--- I've never advocated for a primary so Democrats could vote for me. In fact, in Tom Kopko's e-mail, he expressed his opinion that discussion of a primary is a veiled attempt to include Democrats in the process.
--- I assure my fellow Republicans that I did not contact the Washington Post and would have preferred to continue with the process that was agreed upon. In fact, I called the Chairman to alert him to the pending article.Most of you know how hard I work for the Republican Party, over the past 7 years, in Prince William County. My personal belief is that it is a conflict of interest for any candidate to retain the Chairman as a paid staff member. Prior to the filing deadline, I was busy consulting with close friends and associates. My closest advisors knew of my intention to run before January. I continued to make public my intent to file for the 51st District seat at the January 25th meeting of my GOP women's group. Many of the members congratulated me on my decision to run for the 51st District. During Dec/Jan, I was in contact with our chairman many times regarding the 51st race. I had been trying to meet with the Chairman since December 2006 to show my interest in the 51st Delegate race. At no time during these discussions was the paid relationship between Faisal Gill and the Chairman revealed. At this point the bottom line is it doesn't matter when I declared my candidacy, as the filing was still open and any primary candidate could have emerged. Now, we must focus on retaining the 51st District for the Republican Party.Though I have been encouraged by many people's support for my candidacy, my focus is on representing the people of the 51st district in the Virginia House of Delegates.I agree with Tom that we must look forward, and regret he tried to divert the issue with inaccurate and disparaging remarks. I can do nothing but what I've always done, work hard for the Republican party, the people of Prince William County and the Commonwealth of Virginia.I strongly support Republicans choosing their nominee and support Party registration in Virginia, but I have found 51st District voters are confused by the process. With two conventions and a general primary, voters find it difficult to juggle family and participation in the process. The convenience to the voters and the integrity of the process requires giving primaries a consideration whenever possible. I am extremely humbled by how many people want to give a few hours of their time on Saturday, June 2, to help me win the Republican nomination!Tom and I agree on one major point, we want to bring in new people to the Republican Committee. I am very excited about the opportunity to bring in Republicans that have never participated in a convention before. In order to keep these attendees participating we must do all we can to ensure the convention is run smoothly and efficiently. We have a very strong party and a lot to be proud of, let's welcome fellow Republicans to our party with open arms!Thank you, for taking the time to read this email, and thank you for your dedication to our Party.Â If you have any questions for me please visit my web site: www.VoteJulieLucas.com or call: (703)597-3233.Most humble regards,Julie
Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with some of Julie's claims.
First, Kopko --- so far as has been revealed --- is not and never has been a "paid staff member" for Faisal Gill, or any other candidate since he's been Chairman. Unless the situation was a special election with no other races, I believe that it would be improper for him to do so, since his time would be committed to a single Republican candidate, rather than all It's no unheard of --- Chairman Bill Kling was a paid staffer for the George H.W. Bush campaign in 1992 --- but I've never seen it done locally. He apparently performed contract work for the Gill campaign, a one-shot deal that hasn't been repeated. Julie's suggestion that he was a "paid staff member" is inaccurate, and is contradicted by her other statements.
Second, her comments about the relative merits of primaries over conventions are misplaced. Aside from their lack of merit, the decision to hold a convention has been made. She wastes her time and energy talking about this, and it comes across as both a little whiny and substantially meritless. This is not an argument that will be resolved now, or which will change the outcome.
Third, while Julie denies that she contacted The Washington Post --- and I believe her --- the simple fact is that the could have responded differently if she did not want to "promote infighting": she could simply have said "No comment."
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, very little that Julie says contradicts significantly anything Tom has said, save for one thing (see below). She claims that they played "telephone tag" in December and January, as though this were unusual. She complains because Tom didn't advise her of his work for the Gill campaign, as though he were required to disclose such things to every potential candidate, and presuming that Kopko's work occurred when he knew of her candidacy. But she also confirms that she had not committed to the 51st District race, claiming that her first public commitment to a 51st District candidacy didn't occur until 25 January, three weeks after Gill's reported payment to Kopko (when the services were provided hasn't been revealed by any of the principles). Kopko's version is different (though I presume he wasn't there) and he states that she said she still hadn't made up her mind at the meeting. Certainly, she never filed to be a candidate until four days later, and contrary to her claim, it certainly does matter when she declared her candidacy. So what if "anyone" could have filed; frankly, I believe that Party officials are entitled to look askance at someone who would jump in at the last minute, since such actions (without a prior statement committing to run) looks very much like the kind of dilletantism that is not good for any political party.
Finally, it is the implied contradiction that is particularly disturbing. While Kopko says that Lucas said that Democrats were her base, Lucas says that she never advocated a primary so Democrats could vote for her.
The problem here is, of course, that Kopko and Lucas are talking past one another. Lucas never denies having said what Kopko attributes to her, she merely says that the reason cited by Kopko is not why she advocated a primary. The two statements are not mutually exclusive, and Lucas never actually disputes Kopko's claim.
Curiouser and curiouser.