and appears in an upcoming ad (run the video to view) for the Boyish Governor.
Aside from the Winchester Billygoat AKA former state Senator Russ "Chamber" Potts, Chichester did more than anyone to destroy the value of the GOP name brand in the last decade.
It's a refreshing change that he's dropping the pretense of actually being a Republican.
Perfidy, thy name is "John."
2 comments:
I worked for Mike Rothfeld's campaign against John Taxchester a few elections back during the Republican Primary.
Yet, I do not agree with your premise that in order to, "be a Republican" one must always support a Republican candidate.
While I understand the sentiment that a Party wants loyalty, it has been my observance over the past few decades that by demanding absolute loyalty, Party officials cause many good citizens to abandon the Party altogether.
For example, in Taxchester's case, he has worked for decades for many good Republican candidates, and has honorably served our Commonwealth for at least as long. It is folly to ignore all of this gentleman's positive contributions, because he happens to like a particular candidate from another party from time to time. It is also dishonest to expect Republicans who are supporting a Democrat to keep quiet about their preferences. It is far healthier to openly accept these decisions as the legitimate personal choice made by one of our friends, even though we may disagree this particular time.
In recent years the Virginia GOP has become more restrictive, trying to regulate-in loyalty, when the simple fact is, loyalty must be earned by having good candidates actually keeping their promises and defending the Constitution, besides, absolute loyalty is not even a goal that we need to achieve. If we can have an additional fifty-thousand supporters who will be loyal most of the time, rather than a hundred people who are always loyal, we clearly would be better off with the larger participant pool.
In the upcoming period of change in the RPVA, one area that should be carefully discussed is whether we want a rather small Party of automatons who vote in lock-step, or if we really want to broaden our Party membership by ten to fifty times its present size, by accepting the fact that sometimes good Republicans can make a principled choice to support someone from another organization, or even join the administration of a Democrat, as John Hager (quite appropriately) did.
My suggestion is that the only regulation that we should attempt to impose would be to have members to be in general accord with the Republican Creed and leave it at that. No Party affiliation on voter registrations, retain open Primaries and recognize the reality that every once in a while, talented, productive, Party members and even elected Republican officials may choose to support someone running on the other side and vice versa.
We must not ostracize good citizens who sometimes prefer to support another party's candidate. Provide good, responsive candidates and we will have earned the People's loyalty, love and respect; we won't need to have regulations to create the illusion of loyalty.
JTB, just read the Party Plan. In the absence of registration by Party all that is required in Virginia is to declare one's "intent to support all of the Party's nominees in the ensuing election." Hence, if one does not intend to do so, one should not be calling one's self a Republican.
If you want to be a member of the club, you've got to play by the rules.
I mean, aside from the fact that Chichester is scum. I do not agree with your premise that "he has worked for decades for many good Republican candidates." I was a constituent of his for seven years. Never did he deign to cross the Chopawamsic, as far as I am aware. Certainly, he never did so to work for ANY Republican candidates, good or bad.
In fact, this is the first time of which I am aware that Chichester has ever lifted a finger for another candidate.
That it is a Democrat says it all.
Post a Comment