Well, it seems that our friend "Too Conservative" has come out of the anonymity closet, identifying himself as Vincent Thoms, a seventeen-year-old former Connaughton campaign staffer and Davis intern (congrats on that, BTW; I interned for George Gekas in the Stone Age, and it was a wonderful experience). Apologies to O.P. Ditch for suspecting that he was TC, though I still wonder whether he's a pseudonymous contributor, or commenter.
Kudos to TC for being willing to take the heat.
Here it is.
Thoms' first post (7 May 2005), says that "Just heard word the Connaughton campaign is having yet ANOTHER press conference in Richmond on Monday to discuss 'placing pornographic filters on all Virginia public libraries'." Where did he hear it? Campaign HQ?
His second (same date) attempts to place the Connaughton spin on the race for the GOP nomination for LG.
I suppose I could go on, but you get the point. Most or all of his pre-GOP Primary posts were little more than hagiographies to the Connaughton Campaign, which was paying him. Some others spoke to Prince William politics, of which he is and was familiar only second-hand, and from Connaughtonites, at that. And then there's a comment that I recall that "I can't say Sean raised my taxes," as though he pays taxes in PWC. He repeated this practice with positive Chris Craddock posts (none of which I disagree, BTW), while serving as his Deputy Campaign Manager.
As one of his commenters stated, "Blogs that operate in this manner are exactly why SOME people want to consider them campaign donations." Well, maybe such irresponsibility and --- dare I say it? --- dishonesty are functions of youth.
On the other hand, he responded to a 29 September "What if..." post by noting what our ticket was, and trying to diminish such talk. Credit for that.
I'm glad TC has let us in on his little secret. It allows us to judge the credibility of his comments with knowledge of his basis (or lack thereof; his recent baseless accusations that I have called Chairman Sean a "RINO" stands out) for making them.
UPDATE: OK. That was fun/exciting/cathartic. However, I hereby declare a moratorium upon criticism of TC for keeping his identity/associations a secret. That he has displayed the courage to exit the anonymity closet has given his readers a basis upon which to judge his comments. That is an honesty which I demand/expect (remember that wonderful speech by Major Houlihan in M*A*S*H, where she concludes that she applies that standard to herself, and that, from others, she'll "expect nothing more, and accept nothing less"?), and which he has now satisfied. His revelations provide those who disagree with him points of reference, ones which allows the reader to judge how they color his comments.
25 comments:
I didn't read support into that post so much as your analytical conclusion that Reese would win. And nothing you said in your post in chief caused me to believe that you had been a paid Reese staffer at that time, so that fact didn't fit with my skepticism over anonymous blog support while a paid staffer.
I would probably call them "loyal Republican" credentials, not necessarily "conservative." That having been said, I pledge not to criticize you for cowering in anonymity.
I do plan to criticize you when you do not know from whence you speak, or when you make outrageous attacks upon me that you clearly have no basis for making. Like your recent attacks. What did I ever do to you to engender such hatred? I mean, besides refusing to sell my soul to Sean Connaughton?
Thank you, Rodney King.
And what "man I barely know" are you speaking of? If it's yourself, I don't dislike you. I would conclude that you are a moderate because of your support for Connaughton (a Liberal on tax and spend issues) and Reese (same). And I never "attacked" Kilgore, either; AFTER the election, I gave my analysis of why he lost, and showed more poorly than the rest of the ticket (someone rightly noted that he came in sixth, statewide).
Then again, I'm not the one who makes comments like "I have noticed how all of Jim Youngs posts do not involve anything except emotion anymore, because he never has a leg to stand on," or (one of my personal favorites) attributes to me the blame because you are "repulsed to support candidates they support." FYI --- I was supporting and working for Tom Davis for Congress, as PWC YR Chairman and member of the 11th District Committee, while you were still in kindergarten. That having been said, I don't buy into what appears to be Tom's theory that geography trumps ideology.
Jim, I can assure you to the best of my knowledge that O.P. Ditch is NOT a contributor to TC.
I know the identities of TC, Mr. JMS, Mitch Cumstein and Neocon22. I think that That Guy early on said who he was. Hirons and Not Not Jay Hughes are both obvious as am I. O.P. is NOT any of the contributors above and that is the complete TC roster.
I don't recall "That Guy" identifying himself.
Of course, it was just surmise; it's just that some of the comments sound so much like O.P., who is one of the more tech savvy activists around, and has a well-established hatred for me.
And another thing: given the increasingly obvious Fairfax nature of some of the contributors --- only Riley and Hirons are admitted PWC contributors to TC --- I'm reminded of something I heard more than a decade ago, which nevertheless seems to be the goal of TC: "Don't Fairfax Prince William!"
There's some regionalism that should appeal to TC.
Hey Too Conservative:
I know you're monitoring this thread so let me add one more thing, COWARD, what did the comments hit too close to home?, ego bruised? captain of the footbal team beat you up. You have just validated my entire premise regarding why "young republicans" shouldn't be allowed at the adult's table.
I don't mind you deleting my comment from the thread but at least have the courtesy to show that YOU removed it.
Son, now you're starting to annoy me.
Mr. Young I apologise for using your forum but Junior here keeps deleting everyone's negative comments or assertions of breach of ethics from his blog.
Now back to you Junior, you want to continue to argue, fine, but it will continue at my convenience and not a time convenient for you to use the computer lab.
Be forewarned, you want to go that route don't bring a knife to gunfight.
Boys, boys! Temper, temper!
No apologies necessary, on either side. And it's not like it's not something I'm used to; remember those two beautiful boys whose photo I posted last month?
Not usually so angelic.
"Not usually so angelic."
Neither are mine.
TC, wish I knew, too, and I agree: he or she should reveal his identity. I have an idea (only a WAG, really) but as you know, it's probably wrong. But as long as he doesn't slander you or me (rather than just being nasty), I won't delete his comments.
And besides, I'm just thankful for the traffic.
I don't usually rise to such bait but this afternoon it sort of amuses me. Despite your reading of my IP, it doesn't always, or at least in this case, reveal location, particularly when... oh why bother with the tech stuff.
As to my identity, one of the reasons I never revealed it on your blog was the suspicions, apparently founded, that I had been harboring. I feel no great need to reveal it at present as I believe it abundantly clear I have an agenda with regard to PWC.
Call it cowardly if you will, I prefer to think of it as prudent in this venue. That having been said, when real business is at hand I do and have used my real name both in print (Potomac News, WAPO, etc.) and in confrontations at places including the PWC Board Room. If you're that curious a little research should afford you the answer, my writing style, vernacular and vitriol is unfortuately distinctive. I'll even give you three swings if you're up to Casey.
OMOM, I merely apply to you the same standard that I have stated ad nauseum elsewhere. It's not personal. I have also stated that I hold in less contempt those who post under a consistent pseudonym.
I understand and actually agree with your attitude toward anonymity, however, it isn't always politically feasible to be open all the time. I do suspect however, that in a short period of time there will no longer be the need for such anonymity as I have already incurred the wrath or at least displeasure of those whose actions/agendas I have questioned.
A shameless effort to boost website traffic.
I like it!
I stand corrected Mitch, but since you remain anonymous (to me, at least), I'll just have to take your word for it. Truthfully, I just couldn't remember at the time. No offense intended.
We're making a record here!?!?!?!
Can I make a guess on OMOM -
I guess Robert Molleur. My apologies if I am incorrect - the voice is so similar.
Now if only there were some comments about homosexuals and sewers so I could be sure.
If a grown adult, with a high-paying job feels the need to create a name based on slamming a PWC supervisor..
We have reached an all-time low.
Katydid: Strike One, I can't be Molleur as I haven't mentioned the perpetually flowing ditch in my backyard nor have I ever called anyone a Socialist or Communist, well maybe Mikulski but not here.
I really wish I understood Anon 3:06 a.m.'s post, or to whom it refers. If it's me, then: (a) I don't "need to create a name," and (b) I don't "slam[] a PWC supervisor"; I have been specifically critical of his irresponsible record on taxes and spending, bills for which I pay, and his dishonest claims of "cutting taxes."
As for having "a high-paying job," I'm a public-interest lawyer. Were it that it were so.
But I'm truly inspired that someone would get out of bed at three in the morning (an hour I haven't seen since my law school days) and turn to my little corner of the Internet (which seems to indicate that the best response to this "Get a life!" post might be "Right back at ya!"). Thanks!
And one more thing, Anon 3:06 a.m.:
That the grown-adult supporters/sycophants of an ambitious PWC supervisor feel the need to run a hate campaign against a private citizen/commentator skeptical of his record and his integrity in characterizing the same...
They demonstrate that their target is not quite so unimportant as their belittling comments would suggest, and that they lack a basic understanding of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
Hirons is now in Stafford, Jim, so only Mitch and myself are in PWC.
Yeah, I knew that, too, Jim. I was referring to his prior iteration.
Post a Comment