Julie Lucas Responds

Because of a trip out of town, I didn't reproduce this myself late last week, but Tom Kopko sent a general e-mail regarding the recent imbroglio over her comments to the Washington Post late last week:

Dear Committee Members,

As I explained to you at the last committee meeting, you would be hearing about the 51^st 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 4^th 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 18^th - 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

1. “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.
2. “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.
3. “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.
4. “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.
5. “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.

Sincerely,

Tom Kopko
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. 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.

Whining Her Way To Public Office?

A few days after her nearly-half page advertisement, the Trait..., er, Lucy Beauchamp's decision to abandon the GOP and run for Clerk of the Circuit Court as an independent is now the subject of two articles in today's newspapers.

The first --- because it's the paper I read first --- is an article in the Potomac News by Jaclyn Pitts. In it, she starts out by saying "she just wants things to be fair." She claims to "prefer[] the primary method because she feels it is more fair to the candidates and gives more people the right to vote for the candidate of choice." She "thinks a convention is unfair because it allows only Republican delegates to choose who they want and doesn't let the public decide."

The second article, by Ian Shapira, is little more than a patented Pravda-on-the-Potomac, er, Washington Post hit piece on the GOP. It's not not mostly about the race for Clerk of the Circuit Court, but manages to include the Trait..., er, Lucy's specious grievances. The part dealing the the Trait..., er, Lucy, starts out as follows:

This week, School Board Chairman Lucy S. Beauchamp, a longtime Republican who has won three countywide elections, decided to run as an independent for clerk of the Prince William County Circuit Court because, she said, she was angry at Kopko's handling of her nomination process. He had favored a convention in that race as well.

The problem? She's lying. Openly. Brazenly. Either that, or Lucy's thought processes are wanting. Probably both.

Virtually anyone can vote in a Convention. All they have to do is show up. Virtually anyone can become a delegate to the Convention, again, only by registering and showing up (sounds a lot like voter registration, doesn't it?). And the Trait... er, Lucy, is still whining about the location of the Convention, a government school, the second choice (the first was Forest Park, in the Dumfries District, home of one of Lucy's biggest supporters, Supervisor Maureen Caddigan) one over which she has presided as School Board Chairman for more than a decade.

Of course, the real reason for the Trait... er, Lucy's decision is in the fact that she wanted the advantages of the GOP nomination, and Republicans found her wanting, just as Members of the Republican Committee found her wanting when she twice sought the Committee's endorsement, and was denied it (once, when unopposed!). 'Fact is, her candidacy went over like a lead balloon with Republican activists. Having probably figured that she couldn't earn the support of anywhere near a majority of Republicans who would actually show up at a Conventions, and brazenly resenting a process which would allow Democrats to participate in/interfere with GOP nominating contests, she simply decided to take her ball and go home.

I guess it really sucks when your record and political ambitions don't justify the trust and advantages of the GOP nomination for public office.

It would be refreshing of the Trait... er, Lucy, would simply admit that her decision to run as an independent is a self-serving political calculus, rather than making a pretense of victimhood. That she does not do so speaks volumes about her honesty. That she seeks to harm the GOP on her way out the door simply demonstrates just how much of a Republican she really is, and probably always was.

Lucy Web Watch --- UPDATE

Well, after nearly a week of misrepresenting herself to readers of her website, the Trait... er, Lucy Beauchamp has finally removed all references to the GOP. That's some kind of "attention to detail" that I'm told she likes to tout.

However, it is worth noting that her endorsements page was only updated on 20 January 2007, and still lists many Republican officeholders and County Committee Members as her endorsers.

When will the exodus required by their pledge of "intent to support all Republican nominees for public office in the ensuing election" be reflected?

Another Childhood Hero Dies

One of the Mercury Seven, Walter Schirra, has died at 84.

A guy with "the Right Stuff."

RIP.

What? Benedict Arnold College Didn't "Sing"?

I had occasion a while back to write about the controversy over the decision of Randolph-Macon Women's College to go co-ed. My own alma mater, Hampden-Sydney College (how about those two good-looking boys with the tiger on the alumni page?) had a debate about ten years ago over co-education, and decided to remain affirmatively, proudly, all-male. It has thrived since, and right now may be stronger than ever.

Women lost the debate at RMWC, and I have just learned that the school will change its name to Randolph College beginning on 1 July 2007.

RIP, Randie Mac.

Guess I MIssed Your Post On Rosie O'Donnell

Well, Sean Hannity predicted it. Once the far Left "got" Don Imus for his vile and despicable comments, they'd come after mainstream Conservative talk radio.

Sure enough, they've got their first target for their faux, contrived, politically-motivated outrage: Neal Boortz.

I started listening to Neal when he was with the "ex-wife," on WGST in Atlanta, when I was in law school. This was in pre-Rush days, 'bout 1987. He's always been edgy, though not outrageous. I even link to his website here. For all practical purposes, he was blogging before blogging was cool. There, he posts his daily program notes.

Now, the boys and girls at Ranting Kids (h/t to Riley), ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine" have launched a campaign against Boortz. Not fewer than a dozen diary entries in the last three weeks attack him. Today, one of them asks whether the far Left would be up in arms if a left-wing radio host (they're out there, though you have to look very hard because they're not, as a rule, commercially successful) had said something as purportedly outrageous as Neal had.

It's easy to understand why the far Left is launching these faux, contrived, politically-motivated assaults. After all, the far Left fails miserably on talk radio, because it is market-driven. That's why Air Pravda ... er, "Air America" is in bankruptcy, having failed miserably in the marketplace of ideas. For that matter, that's why labor unions demand the power to extract monies from employees, and why union bosses and the far Left so jealously guard the privilege to do so. They have to, because they sleep poorly in the sure and certain knowledge that allowing people to vote with their feet and their dollars is a recipe for disaster for their far Left causes.

But to answer RK's question: Ever hear of Rosie O'Donnell? More specifically, ever hear of a far Left-type calling for her removal from "The View," before ABC decided not to renew her contract, for her much more outrageous and inane comment about, well, just about everything, but particularly, about Iraq and 9/11?

The question answers itself: O'Donnell's name appears nowhere in the post. Amazingly enough, it appears that the only "O'Donnell" even mentioned at the website is Shawn O'Donnell, a Socialist ... er, Democrat candidate for Congress in the First Congressional District. Another "Rosie" appears in a post, but not Rosie O'Donnell.

The real tragedy is that the boys and girls at Ranting Kids (h/t to Riley), ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine" actually agree with Rosie O'Donnell.

Lucy Web Watch --- Day Six

Well, it's six days since the Trait... er, Lucy Beauchamp declared her independent candidacy, and her website is still designed to misrepresent and give the impression that she is a Republican.

When will Lucy stop lying to Prince William County voters?

Lucy Beauchamp for Clerk. Misrepresenting Herself Since 27 April 2007.

Pot. News Letterwatch

The political agenda of Potomac News (now) Executive Editor Susan Svhilik (like Hitlary, former Goldwater Girl) was obvious to me when she started her campaign (four years before she succeeded) to can me as a regular columnist.

But it's made more obvious when she republishes the same letter over and over again from one of the tax advocates.

Jean Reynolds comments about the budget were stupid enough when she made them before the Board of County Supervisors. No word on whether she has contributed more of her hard-earned dollars than required to County government.

Then she repeated them in a 2 May letter to the Pot. News.

Now, virtually the same letter appears again today (sorry, no link available).

What was that about no left-wing media bias? Surely, banging the drum qualifies as "bias."

The Speech That Bush Should Give

A childhood friend just sent me this from Florida. Except for the fact that this is exactly what the far Left would want, this is friggin' brilliant. Call it the Atlas Shrugged response to the current political climate:

Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans." Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: there's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.

I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" thing. If I was trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied People Died' crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remin d you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor'.

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively sup port those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I' m going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there're just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean.

I don't know who wrote this, but is has to have been written by a devotee of Ayn Rand.

Lucy Web Watch --- Day Five

I only started this yesterday, but the Trait... er, Lucy Beauchamp has now moved from merely implicit to explicit misrepresentation of herself.

I speak, of course, to her approximately-half page advertisement in today's Potomac News (page A5), declaring her "independent" candidacy for Clerk of the Court.

Nevertheless, there's that pesky little fact that her website still touts her Republican credentials. It cannot be mere oversite, since she lists that website in the advertisement. One wonders what the explanation could be. Could it be that her webmaster (the e-mail links to Jay Hochstaine, a longtime Republican) has quit in disgust, and that she has no ability to change or remove her website? One can only hope.

It's certainly an interesting advertisement, in letter form. Like most "independent" candidates, I suppose, it implicitly attacks anyone who dares run with partisan affiliation as someone who serves only "a small faction" of the community ("I have remembered that I serve all of my community, not a small faction"; "I am announcing today that I am running for Clerk of the Circuit Court ... as an Independent Candidate, so that I can continue to serve the entire population of Prince William County and the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park").

Oh, I get it. She's now attacking Dave Mabie, the former Circuit Court Clerk, who twice ran for and won election as a Republican. And virtually anyone else who runs with partisan affiliation. I guess that's par for the course for someone with so few principles that she fails to understand that there are those --- most, I hope --- who run with partisan affiliation not as a path to personal political power, but rather, because political parties at their best are supposed to represent a set of shared ideas and values which --- to their adherents --- best "serve all of [the] community."

One can only conclude from Lucy's ham-handed criticism that she holds to a different view.

And no mention is made of the fact that she twice sought --- and was denied --- the GOP endorsement for her current job as School Board Chairman. No mention is made of the fact that she has repeatedly joined and maintained her membership in the County Republican Committee.

I guess the naked hypocrisy which such an admission would reveal is something that she hopes that the voters will overlook in her quest for personal political power.

Lucy Beauchamp for Clerk. Misrepresenting Herself Since 27 April 2007.

Lucy Web Watch --- Day Four

Well, it's been four days since Lucy Beauchamp reportedly announced her intention to run for the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park as an independent.

Nevertheless, her website still proudly touts her Republican affiliation. Republican logos; endorsements from Republican officeholders, etc.

When will she remove these false claims of GOP affiliation? I suppose one can understand a delay of a couple, or even a few days. After all, it will probably take a few days for her betrayed but loyal-Republican endorsees to communicate their desire to have their names removed. But is this the efficiency which she offers to the citizens of these jurisdictions?

The trait... er, Beauchamp, has adopted the slogan "Proven Leadership," at which many laughed out loud.

If she wants a more honest slogan, how's this? "Misrepresenting Herself Since 27 April 2007"?

The Lucy Web Watch begins here.

Sadly Right

Michael Oliver, the Dogwood Pundit, has this post about how today's modern Liberals (please note capitalization) are not liberals, as that term is normally understood. Worth a read.

The Exodus Begins

I received a report that at least one loyal Republican listed on the trait..., er Lucy Beauchamp's, list of Republican endorsers has pledged his support to Michele McQuigg for Clerk of the Circuit Court. It does not surprise me, but I don't yet feel comfortable reporting the name absent confirmation or permission from the principals to report it.

One hopes that the imagery is the reverse of "rats deserting a sinking ship," i.e., the ship deserting a sinking rat.

Lucy Beauchamp Betrays GOP

Huge surprise. No link is yet available to the Washington Post Prince William Extra article.

Charles has a great analysis here. Not much to add to this.

Greg notes it here.

Good riddance.

Oddly, the trait... er, "candidate's" website still attempts to portray her as a Republican, with the GOP elephant logo featured prominently.

A number of questions are raised. The front page of her website has a picture of Beauchamp with Glen Hill and Maureen Caddigan. While Hill has no history on the issue of party loyalty, Caddigan does, and it's not impressive: in 1999, she publicly endorsed Democrat Kathy Seefeldt over Republican Sean Connaughton, though one wonders if many will remember this fact.

One also wonders whether Maureen Caddigan will sign a pledge to support all Republican nominees in the ensuing election and, if not, whether she will be qualified for the Republican primary ballot. I hope that she does, in light of her challenger's virtually nonexistent credentials.

Furthermore, Beauchamp has a page listing a number of Republican officeholders as endorsees. With they demand that their names be removed?

Constitution? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Constitution!

Once again, a Democrat-majority body ignores the Constitution (and for that matter, potentially, the will of the people it represents) and passes nakedly unconstitutional, undemocratic legislation.

And the far Left loonasphere applauds.

Once again: the Constitution creates an Electoral College to elect a President and Vice President. If you don't like that, try to amend the Constitution.

The truly offensive thing about this effort in the Democrat-controlled Maryland legislature is its utter disregard for the will of the people. Imagine, if you will, that the conditions to its becoming operational occurred. If a Republican wins the national popular vote, but a majority of Maryland's voters vote for the Democrat candidate, Maryland's electoral votes will nevertheless be cast for the Republican.

I am a partisan Republican, but I find this incredibly offensive.

Please tell me again what's "democratic" about the modern Democrat Party?

Justice Department De-Politicizes Intern Process

This is just great news. According to the Washington Post:

The Justice Department is removing political appointees from the hiring process for rookie lawyers and summer interns, amid allegations that the Bush administration had rigged the programs in favor of candidates with connections to conservative or Republican groups, according to documents and officials.

Of course, this is a problem unique to "the Bush administration." God knows that, in prior Administrations, no such "rigging" occurred.

Or, at least, the "rigging" going on before was designed to favor those with powerful political connections, rather than the competent.

It seems that incredibly suspicious activities were engaged in by these Conservative ideologues hired by the Bush Administration. Imagine (with appropriate breathlessness, if you can) that one member of a four-person team dared to suggest that the other three were wrong about a Georgia law that was later struck down. God knows, there are never good-faith disputes in the law, like the four Supreme Court justices who disagreed on the recent partial-birth abortion decision. And then there's this example:

Another honors hire, a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law who had been president of the campus chapter of [a national organization], displayed a bust of President James Madison in his Justice office, according to a former honors program lawyer who was hired during the Clinton administration.

Leave it to a Clintonista to find suspicious a law student's display of a bust of the man who was the Father of the Constitution. And whose silhouette also happens to appear on the logo of EEEEEVIL! Federalist Society.

I applied for one of these internships in 1987, after my first year of law school. Didn't get it. To be sure, my credentials weren't steller (well above middlin', but not stellar). Who did? A guy by the name of John F. Kennedy, Jr. (now, recently deceased), well known for his stellar intellectual credentials.

A guy who failed the Bar exam three times before passing it.

I suspect that the main complaint here isn't that the Justice Department wasn't running the program based on merit, but that a Republican Administration had merely dared to discriminate against those with powerful, far-Left connections. Apparently, the WaPo found it not at all questionable that one former honors program lawyer hired during the Clinton Administration commented that "When I started, it was rare you met people whose civil rights credentials were that they were part of the Federalist Society, but it became a commonplace thing," even though the Federalist Society has more than 30,000 members.

Perhaps the WaPo's real complaint is that the Justice Department and its Civil Rights Division is no longer discriminating against Conservatives.

A great idea from The Red Stater:


Make your own KFC sign at KentuckyFriedCruelty.com

You can try it, too!

Weirdness In Massachusetts

OK, that title might be redundant.

But this is just too weird. The Dean of Admissions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a long-term (28 years) employee, resigns because she fabricated her own educational credentials.

I think I remember meeting this woman, waaaay back in the day when I was looking at various colleges, and my small, rural high school in Central Pennsylvania had three candidates for admission to MIT. Only one of us applied and attended (the only person I know who holds a patent), and he has since earned his Ph.D. from Harvard.

Apparently, she was well-liked and respected. It appears that she was an incredibly talented woman whose long-ago offense has ended what was otherwise a successful and distinguished career.

Truly a tragedy.

Good News for a Friend

Was trying to find his card, and found this instead:

Carey International Inc. Selects Gary Kessler as CEO and President

    WASHINGTON, April 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Gary L. Kessler has been
selected as the new President and Chief Executive Officer of Carey
International, Inc. In January, the Carey International, Inc. Board of
Directors named Kessler President and Chief Operating Officer.  "We
conducted an exhaustive search to locate the absolute best person we could
find to retain Carey's leadership in the chauffeured services industry, and it is
no surprise to us that Gary fits that description in every way," said Robert J.
Tarr, Chairman of the Board. "Gary's track record of success is well
documented, and we are confident that he is the right choice to lead a very
talented Carey organization forward."
 Kessler said, "It is an honor to be selected as Chief Executive Officer.
Carey has provided me with an outstanding opportunity to lead the largest
chauffeured services brand in the world, one that continues to set the highest
standards and be a true innovator." "Gary is committed to developing Carey
into a true global franchise system that will be the top of class for the travel
industry and would rival systems found in any luxury category," said Tarr.
"Throughout his career with Carey, Gary has contributed significantly to
Carey's success.  He has driven innovation and excellence in overseeing
Carey's industry-leading Meetings and Events division and has provided
executive direction for the development of Carey's new worldwide
reservations facility in Frederick, Maryland, the most advanced reservations
center in the chauffeured services industry. Gary's contributions continue
today with the recent re-engineering of the customer care and private
aviation departments, and the continuing excellence and impeccable reliability
demonstrated by Carey's road show services."  Kessler joined Carey in 1999
and served as Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and General
Counsel prior to his appointment to President and Chief Operating Officer.
  Mr. Kessler holds an MBA from the Fuqua School of Business at Duke
University and a JD from the University of Virginia School of Law. He is a
member of Phi Beta Kappa and a Magna Cum Laude graduate of
Hampden-Sydney College.

About Carey International
 Carey International is the world's premier provider of limousine services and
luxury ground transportation with locations in over 540 cities and 60
countries.  Since 1921, the Carey brand has represented uncompromising
reliability and impeccable professionalism, safety, security and quality. Carey
provides a full range of chauffeured services, including luxury airport
limousine services as well as transportation for road shows, special events
and tours. Certified professional chauffeurs, a state-of-the-art fleet of luxury
vehicles and an industry-leading quality assurance program set the standard
for luxury limousine and executive car services.  Carey also has the only
Meeting and Events division in the chauffeured transportation industry,
providing end-to-end event transportation and meeting management services
including planning, logistics, on-site coordination and centralized billing. For
more information, please visit http://www.carey.com.

Gary was my best man. He married his bride last year, on our anniversary, so we share that special day.

It's always good to learn of a friend's success. Congratulations, Gary!

Only in LA

Or maybe San Francisco.

This is kinda like a car wreck; you can't help but look.

Sucking Up To The Teachers' Unions Early

Bruce Roemmelt, he of the phoniest doctorate in academia, announces another run against Bob Marshall.

Reports of crickets chirping were not exaggerated.

Let's see: homos; teachers unions; people who don't understand English (either because they speak Spanish, or don't understand the word "marriage").

It's a small coalition, but an entertaining one.

Attacking Journalists As Insufficiently Leftist

Well, it had to come sooner or later.

Now, the boys and girls at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ..., er, "Raising Kaine" are attacking the Washington Post's David Broder as insufficiently Leftist. His sin? In today's column, Broder decries Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's despicable declaration of surrender ... er, "loss," in Iraq. You see, it's not enough for the moonbat Left that Broder links Reid to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, savaging both. No, Broder dares to call out Harry Reid for the surrender monkey that he is.

Of course, the actual difference between the two is that Broder equates Gonzales' apparent ineptitude in responding to the non-scandal over firing eight U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the President with Harry Reid's drunkenness over having some measure of personal power, and trying to get more by weakening America.

One would hope that a journalist as distinguished as Broder would be able to tell the difference.

According to Lowell, it seems that "this is the same David Broder who said back in March 2003 that he was 'unaware of any efforts by the administration to link Iraq to 9/11,' despite many months of statements by Dick Cheney and others that, at the bare minimum, strongly implied such a link."

The idiocy of that statement is apparent. Broder noted that "he was 'unaware of any efforts by the administration to link Iraq to 9/11,'" and even Lowell Feld is honest enough to admit that he can come up with only that "Dick Cheney and others ... strongly implied such a link." Apparently, Brother Lowell doesn't know the difference between what "Cheney and others" implied and what the moonbat Left chose to infer.

But don't expect the far Left to be able to make a distinction between what actually happened and what was actually said, and their self-serving fantasies.

After all, the truth stands in the way of their lust for power.

Chicken Littles

Or, why we call them "gun grabbers."

Rosie O'Donnell Canned From The View

While I am not a viewer of "The View" (on those rare occasions I have seen it, it has been when stuck in a West Coast hotel room on a business trip) one cannot help but be aware of the recent controversy surrounding Rosie O'Donnell's moonbattery on that ABC show.

Well, executive as ABC apparently have had enough, and her contract will not be renewed when it ends in July. However, the lunacy until the end of her contract could be interesting.

Good riddance to bad garbage.

Lowering the Bar at BVBL

I know, I know. "How do you lower the bar at a website whose owner has managed to get himself sued for defamation?" you ask.

Since Greg has recently allowed access to his site, and solicited my remarks, I have posted a few comments.

And --- sure enough! --- the assholes have come out of the woodwork to attack me. Well, at least one asshole. I hate to use such language, but this asshole is such a loser that he/she can't even sign his/her name to his/her smears, lest those he/she defames become able to demonstrate with chapter and verse what a loser he/she truly is.

This idiot makes Jonathan Mark's irresponsible defamations of Faisal Gill look positively respectable. Hence, "lowering the bar."

And what fantasies he/she offers! Be sure and read it; it's good for a laugh.

My guess is that this bozo is offering his/her own biography. The psychological types call it "projection," I believe.

The Wimp Society

A childhood friend sent this to me. Food for thought on the continuing wimpification of American manhood:

April 18, 2007 12:44 PM
A Culture of Passivity
"Protecting" our "children" at Virginia Tech.
By Mark Steyn

I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on. But I was giving a couple of speeches in Minnesota yesterday and I was asked about it and found myself more and more disturbed by the tone of the coverage. I’m not sure I’m ready to go the full Derb but I think he’s closer to the reality of the situation than most. On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”

Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

Point two: The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals. And a few months later as Richard Reid bent down and tried to light his shoe in that critical split-second even the French guys leapt up and pounded the bejasus out of him.

We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.

As we continue to contemplate and wring our hands over the tragedy at Virginia Tech, it is worth considering that one or two brave men (or even women) might have stopped this massacre at the cost of fewer than 32 innocents.

Clifford Garstang, Political Ambulance Chaser

Sadly, this was inevitable.

Random Thoughts on Our Tax System

Before proceeding, a brief public service announcement:

If you’re reading this, and still haven’t filed your federal income tax return for 2006, YOU’RE NEARLY LATE!! Virginia’s deadline of 1 May is still coming.

By now, it’s a truism that our tax system is too complicated, and our taxes are too high. Of course, as it is Spring, most of us focus upon state and federal income taxes.

Let us focus, then, on a few brief points about our wonderful system by which the federal government bleeds us of 24% of our national income.

First, let’s consider the Marriage Tax. This is the penalty in additional taxes that many us pay because we choose to get married, rather than just shacking up. Just for grins, after I filed my federal income tax, I figured out the Young family marriage penalty for 1998, the depressing amount of approximately $2000.

Anyone out there still fantasize that our tax system isn’t “anti-family”?

Well, wait one minute. The marriage penalty was abolished by the Bush tax cuts in the first term of the Bush Administration. But don't get too used to that long-needed and sensible reform. It's coming back if Democrats in Congress have their way, as it is scheduled to expire in just a few years. It's hardly surprising that a political party that has "gone Brokeback" and doesn't even understand the word "marriage" would penalize its practitioners.

Next, let’s consider wage withholding. Wage withholding is the date rape drug of the tax system, in the words of a Libertarian group on Michigan. Understanding that something never seen is rarely missed, the Federal government started in World War II to require employers to withhold a certain amount of our income from each paycheck, so that we never see the money. Some are so taken in by this fraud that they look forward to 15 April as the day when they receive a windfall, rather than recover (interest-free) the loan they’ve made to the federal government.

Thus, much like the effects of the date-rape drug, we don’t notice how much we’ve been scr..., er, victimized.

Finally, let’s consider Tax Freedom Day, looming ahead. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, the day when the average American starts working for himself or herself is on 30 April, two days later than last year. Now, to be sure, that's a damn sight better than in the deep, dank days of the Clinton Interregnum when, in 1999, it fell on 5 May, the latest date ever. But it's not nearly as early as in 2003, when it reached its earliest point (18 April) since 1983. That is, until 30 April, you’re working for the governments (local, state, and federal). It is not until after that date that you begin working for yourself. Average Virginians pay 32.7% of their income in local, state, and federal taxes, or nearly a third.

More disturbing is the fact that Virginia, once known as a low tax state, is now --- largely thanks to Governor Marky Mark and his Funky Bunch (AKA some Republicans who enabled his avarice) --- merely average, with Tax Freedom Day falling on 30 April. That is later than in other traditionally high-tax states like Ohio (29 April), Pennsylvania and Michigan (27 April), and Oregon (24 April), and is only a day earlier than the People's Republic of Maryland. According to the Tax Foundation, Virginia's tax burden now ranks 17th nationally. And that is a ranking in which being "Number 1" is nothing for which a taxpayer would wish.

In the spirit of the season (tax season, that is), I offer three modest suggestions to achieve constitutional government (that is, restraining the federal government within the limitations too long ignored by Democrats and Republicans alike) and lower taxes, as follows:

First, replace the current deductibility of charitable contributions with a dollar for dollar tax credit for charitable contributions, up to a point certain determined to be necessary the very few functions enumerated in Article I of the Constitution, primarily national defense. Applying the highest tax rate, this would more than triple existing tax incentives to charity.

Government could therefore get out of the welfare business, giving it back to churches and private organizations, where it belongs. This would also avoid the more than fifty cents on the dollar lost to sinfully inefficient government. And while those who display their economic ignorance by saying the churches can’t handle it — apparently they believe that the market will not adjust — it is a just, proper, and probably more effective method of delivering charitable services.

Second, repeal wage withholding, and bar it as a practice. Make all taxes on income – including FICA and Medicare – due and payable on the deadline for the filing of tax returns, in one lump sum payment. If our tax burden is “fair,” the favorite word of the statists, then there should be no need to obscure the burden, as it has been for far too many years.

Finally, move Tax Day to the first Monday in November, the day before Election Day. Currently, tax returns and payments are due as nearly far from the preceding and succeeding Election Days as is possible. Moving this date to the day before Election Day would place it in proximity to the most important decisions we make as citizens, and the period when, according to all of the polls, Americans are most engaged in the political process.

Winston Churchill once observed that “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.” Politicians desirous of a similar lack of result would pay greater heed to our traditional constitutional limitations upon the appropriate role of government, and would be much more reticent to create dubious “government services,” only when voters’ attention is focused both upon election and the price that they will be required to pay for government.

Don’t expect these reforms too soon, however. No big-government politician — sadly, they still constitute an overwhelming majority — in his right mind would ever agree to them. And certainly, Republicans failed to cover themselves in glory during their twelve years of congressional control in reining in government spending.

Certainly, we can't expect fiscal responsibility from Democrats. Indeed, taxpayers can expect a shock in just a few years, when the Bush tax cuts expire, and Democrat failure to act could cause the largest tax hike in American history.

Out of the Darkness, Light

One heroic story emerges from the tragedy.

One hopes that Governor Tim Kaine and the state legislature finds an appropriate way to honor the memory of this hero, an immigrant to our shores and to Virginia, a survivor of the Holocaust.

RIP, Professor Liviu Librescu.

Giving Aid And Comfort To The Enemy

Well, once again, Senator Arlen Specter (R(?)-PA) demonstrates that one's origin in proximity to Independence Hall is insufficient to cause understanding of the documents written there.

Today, he apparently favored us with the suggestion that the eight U.S. Attorneys fired by the President should be reinstated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. According to Specter, "If he was wrong, replacement -- reinstatement wouldn't be a bad idea if it could be done administratively.''

Presumably, even Specter knows enough about the Constitution to understand that it cannot be "done administratively," and that they cannot be put back into those offices absent reappointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate.

Not so with at least one blogosphere Lefty, who demonstrates why the far Left cannot be trusted with small children, sharp objects, and the Constitution.

The Right Conclusion For The Wrong Reason

Lowell Feld over at Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine," offer his moronic "10 Reason Why the Mainstream Media Sucks."

Now, don't get me wrong: on the basic premise --- "the Mainstream Media Sucks" --- I agree.

Lowell offers ten reasons. Some ("Their reporters are lazy") are even agreeable.

But those which seem most important amount to little more than "their insufficiently Leftist." The best example is the notion that those who reject --- or even question --- the concept of human-caused "global warming" aren't entitled to any attention. But Lowell even rejects as "overcompensating" on those rare occasions when reporters even attempt to give a fair shake to Conservatives.

The single best reason why the so-called "mainstream" media sucks is one that seems not even to have occurred to Lowell: they make pretensions to fairness, when in fact, they are unapologetic propaganda voices for the Democrat Party. Lowell's chief complaint appears to be that they haven't assumed such a role for the moonbat contingent, i.e., Lowell and the children at Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine."

Pot. News Letter Watch AKA All The Usual Suspects

Opened my local rag ... er, the Potomac News today, and found just about what you'd expect from the nihilistic, looney Left.

There was the letter from Jean Reynolds of Woodbridge, who took exception to a prior letter from John Suren, expressing mainstream views about homosexuality and the radical homosexual agenda. Of course, it is de rigeur to label such views as "hate," and declared that "hate speech is not protected under the Constitution." One is tempted to wonder whether Ms. Reynolds is another monument to the folly of government education, but I suspect that her idiocy is pathological.

Then there was a letter from Kurt Doehnert of Dale City. Doehnert never met a tax or government spending he didn't like, and asserted that property taxes are the "primary revenue source for county products and services." I suppose one can legitimately use the word "services" --- though a better word for most of it is "welfare" --- but "products"?!?!?! Please, oh please, Mr. Doehnert, identify a single "product" produced by County government, or any non-socialist government, for that matter.

And then there was the letter by Ron Crigger, complaining that the whiners and welfare advocates hadn't been listened to at the recent beggars night at the BOCS. Here's a news flash, Mr. Crigger: the people that the BOCS are apparently listening to are the people who actually work and pay the bills, and voted a Conservative majority into office. But if, as you assert, there are those in the County who want to pony up more to the government for misnomered "services," then I encourage you, personally, to do so.

Just take your hand out of my wallet.

Charles Reichley made a good point in a comment. He noted that one of these "services," a $4 million program that finds menial jobs for about 200 mentally-disabled County residents, subject of a whiny lead article in the Potomac News a few days back, works out to about $20,000 per person "assisted." 'Course, that program could probably accomplish just as much if the County were to cut checks for $10,000 to each individual, cut the budget in half, and fire the bureaucrats taking their cut.

Or better yet, cut entirely and left --- as it should be --- to private charity.