Four Things

Seen this elsewhere. Why not?

Four jobs I’ve had

1. Boy Scout Camp Counselor/Lifeguard
2. Library Assistant
3. Waiter
4. Lawyer

Four movies I can watch over and over

1. The Gallant Hours
2. To Kill a Mockingbird
3. Patton
4. Star Trek: First Contact

Four places I’ve lived

1. Logansport, Indiana
2. Northumberland, Pennsylvania
3. Decatur, Georgia
4. Montclair, Virginia

Four TV shows I love

1. Law and Order --- any iteration
2. Star Trek --- any iteration
3. Monty Python’s Flying Circus
4. L.A. Law

Four places I’ve vacationed

1. St. George Island, Florida
2. Bay Area, California
3. Knoebel's Grove, Central Pennsylvania
4. Seattle, Washington/Vancouver, B.C.

Four of my favorite dishes

1. Chicken Fettucine Alfredo
2. Teppanyaki Filet, Shrimp, & Scallops
3. Sushi --- Salmon; smoked salmon; Philadelphia Roll (see a theme here?)
4. Maple Bacon

Four sites I visit daily

1. Commonwealth Conservative
2. Drudge
3. Anchorage Daily News
4. Too Conservative

Four places I would rather be right now

1. Kailua, Oahu, Hawaii
2. Anchorage, Alaska
3. Bay Area, California
4. Hampden-Sydney

Four bloggers I am tagging

1. Scott Hirons
2. Virginia Centrist
3. Chris Casey
4. Shaun Kenney

Charges Dropped

The Capitol Hill Police have dropped charges against Cindy Sheehan, who appeared in the gallery at the State of the Union address as a guest of California Democrat Lynn Woolsey wearing a t-shirt reading "2245 Dead. How many more?" The wife of Congressman Bill Young, Beverly, whose local home is in eastern Prince William County, was also removed. She was wearing a shirt that read "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom." According to the Washington Times, Mrs. Young (no relation) told the St. Petersburg Times, "They said I was protesting. I said, 'Read my shirt; it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"

Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer apologized to both.

I agree with Chief Gainer's decisions on all counts. Both should have been removed, for House Chamber during the State of the Union Address is not an appropriate venue for protest. I would assert that the House Chamber is never an appropriate venue for protest or comment of any kind. And I agree with his decision to remove Mrs. Young. Had he not done so, Cindy Sheehan would have had the basis for a potentially-successful lawsuit for content-based discrimination.

Actually, though, Mrs. Young was partially right, too. There were two idiots in this imbroglio (saying Cindy Sheehan is an idiot is redundant). They were Mrs. Young, and Congresswoman Woolsey.

The Washington Post Discovers America

Interesting article in today's Washington Post about Randolph, Utah, where more than 95% of voters cast their ballots for President Bush in 2004. David Finkel wrote a balanced article profiling the town and its people.

While it might come as news to most Post readers and reporters, this town reflects a majority of Americans.

Who You See at the Airport Sometimes Amazes

Was flying out of IAD this afternoon, and was waiting to board at the gate.

And who should get off the plane, but Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Walked right past me, within spittin' distance.

Quite a test of self-restraint.

However, I did hear someone down the concourse give "The Yell" a few minutes later.

Coretta Scott King --- RIP

The widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, passed away last night.

Having attended law school in Atlanta, one could hardly avoid Dr. King's legacy if one wanted to. His church was there, and his son, Martin Luther King III, was on the Atlanta City Council at the time, and we had at least one mutual friend. Mrs. King must've been quite a woman, raising her very successful children alone after her husband's assassination.

The Rev. Bernice King, the Kings' youngest daughter, was a law school classmate at Emory, a candidate in the joint J.D./Divinity program. Nice woman. Took a couple of classes together, and while we were no more than acquaintances, she was kind enough to accept my invitation to a Federalist Society program my chapter sponsored at which Clarence Thomas, then Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, spoke.

Condolences to Mrs. King's friends and family.

Harry Parrish Ill and In the Hospital

I hope the information is wrong, but I was told this evening that Delegate Harry Parrish (R-Manassas), Chairman of the House Finance Committee, is ill and in the hospital. Word is that he is not expected to return to his duties during the session.

I covet your prayers for Harry, his wife, Mattie, and his entire family, for a full and speedy recovery.

Now Here's a Unique Campaign Pledge

It seems that Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi's latest campaign pledge is somewhat ... personal.

'Course, as I recall, the Italians once elected a porn star to their national legislature.

Is this a case of hoping that the pendulum has swung the other way?

Heidi Stirrup for Tenth District GOP Chairman

The boys over at Too Conservative managed to get themselves all in a dither over Heidi Stirrup's candidacy for Tenth District Republican Chairman. She is running against long-time incumbent Jim Rich, who has the support of Republican Congressman Frank Wolf, who represents the District in Congress.

It's been an amazing series of posts, comments, charges, countercharges, and rumor-mongering.

TC (Vince Thoms) himself said, on 6 January, that "Word has come to me from someone close to the 10th District Committee that a secret coup d'etat is being planned, to oust Chairman Rich and install Heidi Stirrup instead."

"Secret coup d'etat." Gee. Can we use any more loaded disparagements?

Noting that Mrs. Stirrup is married to Gainesville Supervisor John Stirrup, TC also alleged that "Supervisor Stirrup ... has long been rumored to want to eventually run for Congress after Wolf's retirement." A bunch of commenters complained about power-mongering, and then there was one who said that Heidi's candidacy is the "first step in a planned challenge of Frank Wolf by John Stirrup and the right-wing.... Mark these words: if Heidi Stirrup wins the 10th District Chairmanship, John Stirrup will challenge Frank Wolf in two years." A number also pegged Frank Wolf as a "moderate to liberal."

Two days later (8 January), TC opined that "The only reasons I can imagine for this are that Rich is not 'conservative' or the more plausible one..that John Stirrup might primary Frank Wolf from the right."

Where do these people get this stuff?

As I said in my post, there are a few good, non-ideological reasons why Heidi would be a better Chairman than Rich (who, as far as I know, is not what some would call a "RINO"; to the best of my knowledge, Rich has never done anything ideological; he's just always done things to advance Jim Rich, first and foremost).

For example, for a long time, the entire HoD delegation in the Tenth was Republican; no more.

And I still hold Rich in contempt for his effort to remove duly-elected State Chairman Pat McSweeney with misrepresentations and distortions (TC was about five at the time). Probably only those of us who were present in the upstairs conference room at the Obenshain Center remember (you know, the fruits of having "labored in the vineyard"), but Rich attempted to present as "facts" obvious falsehoods.

Perhaps the best reason of all is in the fact that Rich consistently writes the Call for the Tenth District Convention to set an early filing deadline for Chairman (at least once, just ten days after the call was issued, but not yet published), in the hope that he can avoid any challenge at all. I've since learned that he did the same thing this year (the link is here, though not direct: hit "more details" in the center panel to download the Call). Uhh, all you Tenth District Republicans out there? If you wanted to run for Chairman, you can't. The deadline to file passed on 9 January. Rather odd that those who make pretensions to support for an "open" GOP so strongly support someone who works so hard to avoid any challenge to his authority. Like big-government advocates who fear free citizens with guns, I suspect that Jim Rich has good reasons to fear an open process. His behavior is nothing less than fixing the system to protect his own posterior.

And I can't imagine that John Stirrup would want to run against Frank Wolf, and I think he would be a fool to do so. Succeed him? Perhaps. I haven't spoken to John about this, but running his wife for Tenth District Chairman strikes me as a rather ineffective step toward such a goal, even if she were to win.

As for TC's implicit condemnation of "power hungry people ... try[ing] to hijack the system" is rather bold talk from a supporter of Chairman Sean. It wasn't too long ago (May 2004) that he tried to pack a PWC GOP Committee meeting with supporters --- many known Democrats who never showed up again --- in response to his loss of a straw poll at the County Convention that he, and/or his strategists, was too stupid or lazy to pack, i.e., trying to do illegitimately what he could have done legitimately just a few weeks earlier.

I support Heidi for Chairman. She is an accomplished woman who will run an open, honest, and fair process. She won't write the rules to protect her own posterior. That alone makes here eminently preferable to the likes of Jim Rich.

With that having been said, though, I find TC's disparagement of her candidacy despicable. A "secret coup d'etat"? The only "secret" was Jim Rich's early filing deadline, a clear effort to avoid any challenge whatsoever. Nevertheless, TC (and some of his commenters, perhaps more of them) attempt to smear her efforts as somehow illegitimate.

Everything might be fine in the Tenth with Jim Rich as Chairman. Frank Wolf obviously thinks so --- he's already endorsed Rich --- but it might not be unreasonable to assume that Congressman Wolf's main concern is a GOP that gets him reelected.

'Fact is, while the Tenth used to have an entirely GOP delegation in the House of Delegates, it doesn't any more. And I've never known the Tenth District Committee to make any substantial efforts to advance the GOP in the State Senate. So far as I know, and I'd be happy to be corrected on this, the Tenth District Committee has never made substantial efforts to support a Republican challenger to at least one Democrat State Senator that I can identify from the District: Chuck Colgan, from Prince William.

One wonders whether those who are attacking Heidi's candidacy are doing so out of a failure to recognize some deficiencies in District operations, or because they don't think they are deficiencies, i.e., because the Republicans who have been defeated --- Dick Black: Bob FitzSimmonds; Dave Mabie --- are not the "right" kind of Republicans.

Whether you like Heidi Stirrup or not, there are obviously reasons why Republicans could hope to do better in the Tenth Congressional District. And one cannot help but wonder whether the position of her attackers grows more out of their hatred for intra-party rivals than out of their concern for the continued prosperity of the GOP.

Certainly, their bile makes it clear that "hatred" is not too strong a word.

The Poodle Wants a Filibuster

Will somebody please tell John Kerry who won the 2004 presidential election?

Turns out the Poodle --- having heard from his masters at the New York Times --- has decided that Democrats ought to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to be the next Association Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

There is no cause but an ideological one for this course. And the voters resolved that question in the 2004 presidential election.

Republicans should suffer no nonsense on this issue. If Democrats attempt to filibuster the Alito nomination, Republicans should vow to vote against any nominee of a Democrat President if that individual is deemed "too Liberal."

Marriage Amendment Passes the Senate

Just when you're about to give up hope on the Repubmocrat majority in Virginia's State Senate, they do a single praiseworthy thing.

'Seems that our estimable Senators have passed a Marriage Amendment identical to that passed by the House.

And oh, how the far Left is in high dudgeon over daring to protect the language. It's precious. High school student Ben Kyber calls it "A Sad Day." I guess reading comprehension is yet another defect in our public schools.

Then there are the boys and girls over at Raising Kaine, who call it "A Sad, Sad Day in Virginia History," and have claimed over and over again that judging people according to their behavior is somehow inappropriate. They actually list the votes, and I note that my State Senator, Toddy Puller (gulp!), is one of those eleven nihilists ... er, Democrats, who voted against it. Chesty must be turning over in his grave.

And for all his reasonableness on the Kaine tax increase, Virginia Centrist also likes the idea of re-defining the fundamental unit of human civilization to satisfy the demands of perverts.

Even the Richmond Times-Dispatch, usually a bastion of reasonableness, is editorializing against it. Norm Leahey takes his shot here.

I'm planning a rather long post (when I get the time to write it!) on the subject, but this isn't about virtually anything that the far Left and partisans of the radical homosexual agenda claim it is. What this is about is standing athwart the efforts of the far Left to exercise the power of government to change society and the language to suit their whims. It is about raw political power, nothing more. Decent Virginians and Americans will have to stand in the way of these efforts, and now that the battle has been joined, it is necessary to defeat the demagoguery and misdirection of the far Left in order to protect the integrity even of our language.

It is a sad day when we have to do that, but hardly for the reasons that the nihilists on the far Left claim it is.

Completely Predictable WaPo Editorial

Boy with a father who "is a convicted felon with a long rap sheet" apparently accidentally shoots girl in Maryland after "bragg[ing] that he had access to guns," in the latest of "years of similar incidents and anguish and debate."

So what does the Washington Post think the answer is?

Does the Post advocate allowing an investigation by school officials? Allowing reporting to police and investigation by them? A stern talking to by school officials to both child and his parents?

Nope. None of these. What does the Post advocate as the answer?

You guessed it! More gun control, in the form of more "gun safety laws" and "stricter federal laws on access to handguns."

Color me surprised.

Another Hampden-Sydney Man in the House

It appears that Virginia's newest delegate is Chris Peace, a fellow Hampden-Sydney man!

I first met Chris when he was running Delegate Jack Rollison's last primary campaign, which lost to Jeff Frederick. One can only hope that Chris learned the wages of political sin, i.e., trying to raise taxes while claiming to be a conservative, small-government Republican.

That should put a little crimp in Democrat braggadocio!

Congratulations to Delegate Peace!

Chairman Sean and Big Labor Evasions

Over at TC, Mitch Cumstein suggested that I had made an "unfair ... distortion of the facts" about an answer Chairman Sean gave in a debate before last year's primary.

What happened was this: I made reference in a post that Chairman Sean had made "disturbing comments at a PWC Committee of 100 debate on public employee unions."

Mitch responded with this:

Jim:

I have to say I still don't understand your comments regarding the Committee of 100 debate (which I attended) and the "right-to-work" question. Sean stated that he would talk to any and all parties involved in a question. Period. I think that speaks volumes about any leader, a willingness to listen to whatever anyone, including opponents, have to say and evaluate it as opposed to simply dismissing it out of hand. He never stated that he supported unions or gave any indication that he ever would. He merely said he wouldn't refuse them an audience. Suggesting any more from that debate is simply unfair and a distortion of the facts.

Mitch's memory apparently failed him, but because I had written about it at the time, I responded with this, at some length, because reason takes up more space that catch phrases. Indeed, while useful (look at all the content to be gleaned from Chairman Sean's), they frequently are used to hide meanings:

No, Mitch, that's not all he did.

The question was this: “Virginia protects its workers with a Right to Work law and bars public employee monopoly bargaining. With these principles in mind, would you seek and/or accept the endorsement[s] of the Virginia Education Association and/or the Virginia AFL-CIO? Additionally, would you support any effort to impose a ‘meet-and-confer’ requirement on Virginia’s public employers?” I drafted this question, and as I recall, I did not know at the time that Chairman Sean had been endorsed by the Virginia Education Association, an endorsement which should disqualify almost any "Republican" candidate for further consideration in a contested nomination.

Chairman Sean’s answer was, to say the least, distressing, not the least because he never squarely answered the question (contrary to your representation). Your memory appears to be faulty; mine is refreshed by the fact that I happened to write a memo about it at the time. But you assert that he answered by saying that "he would talk to any and all parties involved in a question. Period."

But that doesn't answer the question. I asked a very specific question about a very specific issue which relates to the granting of preferred legal status to labor unions (i.e., while you have a right to speak, government officials have no obligation to listen to you, and meet-and-confer legislation creates an obligation of public officials to listen to union bosses) in the competition for scarce public resources, one with which any locally-elected leader should be familiar. If you don't concede that Chairman Sean wasn't familiar with the issue, then he's ignorant. If you do, then he evaded squarely addressing a fundamental "good government" question.

What he did answer was that his father was a “union man” in New York (not necessarily damning; his website indicates that he was a police officer), and then launched into various motherhoods about the GOP being a “big tent” (read: “We shouldn’t stand for anything”) and indicated that he is either too stupid to know the difference between rank-and-file union members and union bosses, or too dishonest to admit to supporting the latter’s agenda. I do not believe that he is stupid.

Chairman Sean also seemed to indicate his support for imposition of a preferred status for public employee union bosses vis-a-vis state and local governments. He also cited the “fact” that Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the NEA. While I assume that Reagan was never endorsed for President by the NEA, it has since been suggested to me that he may have been endorsed by the California affiliate for Governor, in the days before the extreme radicalization of the NEA, and it is that endorsement to which Chairman Sean may have been referring.

So there it is. I don't think Chairman Sean is stupid. I just don't think that he answered my question --- which gave him a wonderful opportunity to expound on the evils of special privileges for public employees unions --- either fully or particularly honestly. I don't think he ringinly endorsed the union boss agenda for greater power and permanent, government-subsidized perpetuation of the far Left, but at the same time, he used language and catch phrases which should give anyone with an understand of those issues pause.

But what he did say is enough to give pause to those who hold that Virginia's ban on public employee monopoly bargaining is good government.

And I'm still trying to figure out how support for the enrolled and engrossed law of the Commonwealth of Virginia --- you know, like its definition of marriage and prohibition of sodomy --- is, in TC's words, "far-far-far-far right" or "out of touch with voters."

UPDATE: And with all of that having been said, I don't assert that Chairman Sean has done anything in his current office to raise a concern on this point. Under the Commonwealth's law, he couldn't. But the question was raised in the context of his aspirations to statewide office, where he could do something. And given his endorsement by the Virginia Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association, there was --- in retrospect --- good reasons to raise these questions. My recollection is that, to this day, Chairman Sean has refused to release the VEA's questionnaire, or his answers to it.

Interesting Post About Issues Close to Home

I caught this article in today's Post, too, and was going to comment on it, but Below the Beltway beat me to it.

As I've said to Chris Casey, on his website, as a matter of law, the HOA's have the better of this constitutional argument, since every member of a homeowners' association knowingly and intelligently waives his right to post political signs when he buys his property.

That having been said, if Montclair changes the regulations, I'd be among the first to post political signs on my property come election season.

Comment Moderation Enabled

Well, one of the first things that a parent learns is that children change things.

Turns out that there's a homo-loving child out there who takes joy in making specious arguments against the considered wisdom of 5000 years of human civilization, and in name-calling against those who defend the language and traditional values. Goes by the name "Willis." He has posted "Delete this comment!!" and other peurile and sophomoric postings not fewer than three dozen times. I've had to delete more childish Willis postings than spam postings.

Sooooo, from now on, I'll simply moderate the comments before they appear here. And Willis?

Yours go straight into the trash can. Look at the bright side: it's probably the first thing you've ever earned in your life.

They Must Be Terrified

It seems that France's President Jacques Chirac is reserving the right to nuclear retaliation against any state that carries out a terrorist attack against it.

Does anyone else doubt that potential terrorist are quaking in their boots?

Taliban Johnny's Dad Wants Clemency

It seems that the father of John Walker Lindh --- who left Johnny's mother for another man --- is asking that President Bush grant his son clemency for the 20-year sentence imposed as the result of a plea bargain.

The real tragedy is that Taliban Johnny wasn't tried for treason.

WaPo Turns Off Blog

It seems that Pravda on the Potomac is addressing some of the same problems we work through in the Virginia blogosphere. It is shut down the comments section to its blog after commenters responding to Ombudsman Deborah Howell's column --- daring to point out that the Jack Abramoff scandal involves Democrats, too --- turned "nasty."

For the record, I --- for one --- never posted a comment there.

To Borrow a Title: "Huh?!?!?!"

It seems our friend TC and many of his readers advocate unilateral disarmament in the face of societal nihilists.

Demonstrating Class Over at Raising Kaine

Once again, the socialists over at Raising Kaine demonstrate their class by use of an adjective of venerable Anglo-Saxon origins.

Darwin Award Nominee

I can only imagine the pain of her parents, but the facts coming out about this fatal accident suggest that the young lady killed is in the running for a Darwin Award:

15 years old

Driving at 4:00 a.m.

100 miles/hour

Coming home from visiting her ex-boyfriend

PWC Personal Property Taxes to Rise

I hope the reader recognizes the self-control necessary to eschew (for now) further comment on this.

Prince William Dems Elect New Officers

It seems that our friends over at the Prince William Democrat Committee have reorganized themselves for the coming two years. Here are there new officers:

• Chairman, Vic Bras
• 1st Congressional District Vice-Chair, Martha Nickerson
• 10th Congressional District Vice-Chair, Cindy Kennedy
• 11th Congressional District Vice-Chair, Ernestine Jenkins
• Treasurer, William Westhoff
• Corresponding Secretary, Pete Frisbee
• Recording Secretary, Ellen Miles

It appears that they met on 11 January at the McCoart Building to elect these officers.

The Prince William County Republican Party holds a County Convention every two years, and has had to hold its meeting in high school auditoria every time to accommodate those participating. Every individual seeking election on those seven occasions (when PWC split from the consolidated County/Manassas Committee in 1991) has been elected.

Remind me again: which party is "inclusive," and the "party of the people"?

New Virginia Cost-Cutting Blog Goes Over 1000 Hits

Congratulations to Delegate Chris Saxman and his VACostCutting blog, upon which I was the 1001st hit early this morning. It has the potential to be a good read.

One thing that I hope --- but am unsure whether to expect --- to see is a ringing endorsement of school choice (vouchers and/or tax credits) as a cost-cutting measure.

Too frequently, the debate over school choice gets caught up in the social-issues slanders that the far Left uses to disparage the notion of parental choice in education as a double-secret scheme to destroy government schools. And while that might not be a bad idea --- I have come to wonder whether the separation of school and state is not more important to liberty than the separation of church and state --- it's not a necessary result of an active school choice program.

It's a fairly simple proposition, really. Give parents vouchers and tax credits. Perhaps the most frequently-cited number is about $3,500, which was --- a few years back --- about half of the average per-pupil expenditure in Prince William County. 'Course, right now, it's about 90-95% of the cost of tuition at my son's private, Christian school.

OK. Now this isn't too hard to follow, but our "friends" on the far Left (the NEA and its apologists) seem to have a problem with simple math, so read carefully. Maybe they're simply products of government schools. Here goes:

If every parents get a voucher for half the average per-pupil expenditures (let's call that number $7,000), and an uncertain number of parents (let's call that number x) utilize those vouchers to send their children to private schools, it will deny to schools x x $3,500. But it will also free up x x $3,500. Now what to do with that other x x $3,500? Well, if total education spending is not reduced (something even our Republican-controlled legislature seems pathologically incapable of doing) per-pupil expenditures can increase by 50% in the public schools. So school choice isn't necessarily --- or even probably --- an instrument to defund the government schools on a per-pupil expenditures basis. Even if that x x $3,500 is not plowed back into government schools, per-pupil expenditures would remain flat.

Of course, with an unknown number of parents withdrawing their children from government schools and choosing Christian or private non-religious education, the demand for government-school teachers, staff, and bureaucrats will be diminished. That, of course, is the rub for government-employee unions. Lesser need for educrats means fewer members; fewer members mean less dues; less dues to spend on politics means less power.

So the opposition of the chief defenders of big government is not based upon concern for children, or parents, or efficiency, or some belief in the mythical separation of church and state. It's about dues and income for the union-boss political machine. It's about government control.

But one has to wonder why there are some Republicans who virtually reflexively oppose school choice. Is it because it is supported by Christian Conservatives? The evidence would seem compelling. After all, so-called moderates who recoil from "social-agenda" Conservatives frequently tout their "fiscal conservatism." Since there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a voucher or tax credit program --- so long as parents control the voucher --- even for Christian schools, a well-administered voucher or tax-credit program would serve both the ends of social-agenda Conservatives and fiscal/limited-government Conservatives ... if fiscal Conservatives were actually interested in reducing the size, scope, and power of government. That they fail or refuse to recognize the positive fiscal benefits of a voucher/tax-credit program should cause one to question their commitment to smaller government and, indeed, whether they are any kind of Conservative. Other than the kind of "conservative" that defends reactionary Liberalism.

Don't confuse advocates of government schools with advocates for education. Quality education is far down on their list of priorities, and is only incidental to their agenda. Efficiency isn't even on the radar.

Getting to the Point on Alito

Professor Bainbridge has the following observation on the Alito hearings.

After catching up on the first day of the Alito hearings, one conclusion seems inescapable; namely, that Alito is more machine now than man; twisted and evil. He yearns to take liberals, women, minorities, gays, small children, and puppies to the Dune Sea, and cast them into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac, in whose belly they will find a new definition of pain and suffering as they are slowly digested over a thousand years. (Or maybe it's the slavering maw of Cthulhu the Great. I zoned out for awhile during Durbin's opening remarks.)

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Schumer and Leahy's feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side. As for that that slimy piece of worm-ridden filth, Ted the Hutt, he'll get no pleasure from these hearings. You can either profit by this or be destroyed. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.

God, I wish I were this funny/original! Somebody said the "Cthulhu the Great" reference is to Lovecraft, but I'm a Stephen King fan, so I'd appreciate any enlightenment offered.

Hypocrisies Among Our "Moderate" Friends

As I recall, it was George F. Will who once wrote that one should hold onto one's wallet whenever approached by a group representing itself as "concerned" about one thing or another. 'Course, as I also recall, this was in the days before Concerned Women for America, so perhaps that group is the exception that proves the rule.

Here is Young's Corollary: Beware anyone who makes pretensions to "civility."

Recently, some commenters --- safely cowering in anonymity/pseudonymity --- to our friends over at NoVA Squishes ... er, "Too Conservative," have taken to launching attacks upon me. I suppose I should be used to it, but the boys over at the now-quiescent Not Jack Herrity have dubbed me "Thin Skin," for what that's worth.

Of course, both Chad Dotson at Commonwealth Conservative and Shaun Kenney at his eponymous blog have recently discussed the behavior of the cowering types and the evils of their practices. But it seems that those commenting at NoVA Squishes ... er, "Too Conservative" have elevated the hypocrisies to an art form. And just to be clear, these comments are not directed at those running the site.

One of the more popular cuts against me apparently is that I'm "mean," or "vulgar." I suppose belittlement to any extent is acceptable, just as long as one refrains from identifying an idiot as an idiot.

For example, there's Krissie Kjome Nohe, who apparently doesn't like belittling. That is, of course, unless it's the right target: me. She said at TC that:

Krissy is with a Y not an IE. And I stopped using it in Middle School. But, as your name calling ways show, your maturity seems to be stuck at about the 7th grade, I will let you, and you alone, continue to use it.

But here is what Krissie later says to me: " J. Willie Young - Only if you use the 'Y.'"

Then there's Anke Cheney (posting as "awcheney"), who posted this little slander: "Kris, there's truly no point in assuming this person to be a gentleman...he's never given any indication of it before." 'Course, this was the same Anke Cheney who managed Harry Parrish's primary reelection campaign against Steve Chapman, engaging in a campaign of dirty tricks, but quoted in the newspapers as stating that "the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman" and immediately proceeding to affirm that the campaign had "report[ed] them when they came to our attention." And this was the same "lady" who inundated my mail box a few months back with missives using phrases like "pissing matches," and calls me and my "allies" (whoever they are) "fanatics," "extremists," and "right-wing radicals."

I'm not frequently given to quoting Scripture --- my degree is in law, not theology --- but I do seem to recall something to the effect that, before thou removest the mote from thy neighbor's eye, though shouldst remove the boulder from thine own.

All too frequently, people appeal to purportedly "objective" standards as a point of attack against those who disagree with them. But they are objective standards that they are perfectly willing to abandon when it serves their personal ends.

Very Funny

It seems that some over at Too Conservative are all in a tizzy over the candidacy of Tom Kopko for County Chairman. This alone commends Tom for consideration.

Then there are those wits who --- doubtless sarcastically, and conscientiously anonymously --- are suggesting that I should be a candidate. While I've no doubt that I could do a better job than the present Chairman, I don't know how Tom would do. Anyway, here's the little exchange:

Anonymous said...

I plan to write-in "James Young" for PW Party Chair. Given his past history of gain and glory for Republican causes, candidates, and organizations, I know he will be able to unite the local party and lead us to bigger and better things.

Mr. Young, will you serve if we elect you?

2:23 PM

nasuna said...

I'd vote for Jim Young over Kopko or Murphy!

9:36 PM

Anonymous said...

Me too!

As an extra benefit if Young gets elected, I bet the Potomac News will run reprints of his old articles and new ones as well -- whoopie!

8:11 AM

omom said...

I'm pretty good friends with the publisher of the Potomac News. What do you think of the idea of me asking him to give Jim a column, let's say just monthly to start, if he agrees to serve as committee chair?

8:19 AM

Anonymous said...

Only if he agrees to call us "piss boys" -- I get such a rush when I read that!

9:38 AM

James Young said...

Given the tenor of some or all of these commenters, and unless they're of the "Only Nixon can go to China" school, I doubt that they're serious (they remain safely anonymous/pseudonymous, after all). I don't doubt that I could do a better job than Murphy. At least I could run a meeting, and wouldn't move backwards by neglecting to schedule major events (the Labor Day picnic comes to mind).

About Kopko, I don't know. I tend to discount the comments about him here, since most are anonymous/pseudonymous. My recollection is that he came in with the historically-challenged crowd, but appears to have quickly become disillusioned with it (a point in his favor). However, I'll probably support him.

However, the last time I was stupid enough to be persuaded to run for a public office --- County political party chairmanships have standing as such, carrying with them certain public duties --- was when I ran for School Board, and between the people who owed me who betrayed me (and conservative principles) and those who childishly continue to lord over me the fact that I lost, it's just not worth the trouble.

9:59 AM

Anonymous said...

Run, Jim, Run!

10:39 AM

One of the Greats

Full disclosure time. I grew up a Penn State fan. My grandparents --- who never attended college --- were Penn State fans, and Gramps had season tickets at Beaver Stadium, on the 40-yard line, 'bout halfway up. When it came on to November, my grandmother was not too fond of the cold, and I'd take the bus about once a year with Gramps up to Penn State to sit in the cold with him and watch Joe Pa and his team.

So I believe. I believe that Joe Paterno's time is not past. I believe that, when I first heard the joke about Bear Bryant crawling into bed, and his wife commenting "God you're feet are cold!," and he said, "Dear, you can call me 'Paul,'" it was really about Joe Paterno. I believe that Penn State was robbed in its game this year against Michigan, when officials put two seconds back on the clock, allowing Michigan to score in the last second to win the game. And I believe that Penn State has a legitimate claim on this year's National Championship.

But you don't have to be a Penn State fan, or even a football fan, to recognize that last night's Orange Bowl (screw FedEx) has a legitimate claim on being one of the best college football games ever. Joe Paterno's Penn State Nittany Lions vs. Bobby Bowden's Florida State Seminoles. Two coaches with more than 700 victories between them, a match-up not likely to be repeated in our lifetimes, or even in this century. Triple overtime.

Sure, there were imperfections. Two kickers who were the difference. Lots of penalties. Sadly, quite a few injuries, including one cheap shot on Penn State's star linebacker, one the great Jack Ham calls a great.

But when you get down to it, you couldn't turn the game off. The lovely and gracious Mrs. Young has to get up waaaay too early to go to work, and she couldn't go to bed. As I said to her, "You wouldn't be the woman I married if you could." I'm blessed with a wife who is both a Trekkie and a football fan.

And last night's game in Miami was one of the most thrilling and exciting moments I can remember in college football, rivalling Penn State's low-scoring victory over Alabama for the National Championship in the Sugar Bowl a few decades back. It was a privilege to watch.

And I'll bet that there are quite a few East Coast offices where the start-up this morning will be quite slow.

Light Blogging Over the Holidays

As some have already noticed (both Vince Thoms and Ben Tribbett made a comment at Tom Davis' Christmas festivities), the blogging has been light of late. Between the holidays, the end of the year (I am in a "use it or lose it" vacation posture), and some rather burdensome discovery obligations in a number of cases, I just haven't had the time (or access to the T1 line) to make regular postings. This one comes from my mother's dial-up (!?!) connection in Central Pennsylvania. But I'm never far, and will offer more commentary in January, with the triumphant return of the Ellie Awards, Internet Edition.

Try to temper your enthusiasm.

A Blue Dog of Discerning Tastes

Before I got into the blogosphere, I was only aware of that big red dog on PBS. Two young boys in the Young household are very fond of Clifford.

Well, it turns out the Virginia has its own dog, and it's a blue one. Steve Sisson over at the Blue Dog has published his list of his daily dozen, and it seems that I've made the cut at number seven.

It's interesting, since I can still recall a professor or two in the Hampden-Sydney political science department suggesting that I moderate what they perceived as overly partisan credentials. 'Course, then there's those among my "fellow" Republicans who seem to have a daily Two-Minute Hate whenever I dare to point out that some Republicans are acting more like Democrats.

I'm flattered, since I'm in some truly outstanding company, and have been at this for less than a year. However, rest assured that I'll work harder to try to make the top half next time.

Thanks, Steve.

A Virginia Treasure Leaves the Blogosphere

As you might gather as a regular reader here, I don't have much use for most Democrats these days. As a rule, today, they're shrill, mean-spirited, dishonest, hypocritical, and generally unpleasant. About BO, I do not, and do not want to, know.

One exception is Barnie Day, a former General Assembly member from Stuart and columnist for the Roanoke Times and Augusta Free Press.

Well, Jim Bacon reports over at Bacon's Rebellion that Barnie is hanging it up for other projects. Whether it is voluntary or not is unclear; if not, at least his editors had the decency to allow him to say goodbye to his readers. The hacks at the Potomac News could learn a thing or two from them, but they're cowards.

Barnie is one of that ever rarer breed these days: a Democrat who could disagree without being disagreeable, without foaming at the mouth, and with a considerable degree of honesty. Only met him once (we obviously don't go to many of the same meetings) at the Blog Summit in August.

He will be missed.

Another Triumphant Return!

Ya gotta love Dan Snyder! Any man who can become the most hated owner in an NFL in which Jerry Jones owns a team has got some talent.

Once again, a coach that Snyder hired, then fired --- Marty Schottenheimer --- came back to Washington and did something he couldn't do consistently while the coach of the Redskins: win a football game!

I vividly remember the last game I attended while Schottenheimer was coaching the Reskins. It was the first game played after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. A friend called me up with an extra ticket, and I sat on the lower level, at about the 35-yard-line, next to a retired Sergeant Major who is about a foot taller than I am. Fans were calling it the "Toilet Bowl," since two teams without victories were meeting. As I recall, it was the Redskins who emerged with their perfect[ly awful] record intact.

Touching History

Anyone who knows me at all knows that I am a real history buff. I have waaaay too many books at home (my wife is on me to buy more bookshelves), and I was one course short of a history major in college.

Interesting day on Sunday. Having heard the advertisements, I went out to the Dulles Expo Centre for the Nation's Gun Show, and got to meet someone I've wanted to meet for years: Theodore "Dutch" Van Kirk. World War II buffs will know that he was the navigator on the Enola Gay, the B-29 piloted by Paul Tibbets that delivered the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

Well, it turns out that, like me, Ted is from Northumberland, Pennsylvania, a little borough at the junction of the North and West Branches of the Susquehanna River. Northumberland is a town of fewer than 3,000 people, and isn't known for much more than the fact that English chemist Joseph Priestley, discoverer of oxygen and the guy to thank for carbonated soda, emigrated and conducted many of his later experiments there. As for me, I just remember playing Little League baseball on the field between Priestley's home (now a museum) and the Susquehanna.

It's rather odd, or perhaps a sad commentary on the woeful state of history education in this country, but in that small town, I never learned in school that a local man had played an important role (at church yesterday, a retired Air Force officer commented to me, "Well, he got them there") in one of the most historically significant events of the Twentieth Century. As I told my sons, who were with me, long after we're dead and gone, people will remember what Ted and the crew of which he was a part did to end World War II.

I was also happy to introduce my sons to a truly history-making man, the only one among the Enola Gay's crew who is healthy enough to do public appearances. And equally important, to demonstrate to them what Admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey said so well, that "There are no extraordinary men ... just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with." As it happens in a small town, Ted and I knew many of the same people. Indeed, while I introduced myself as a fellow Pineknotter, and mentioned that he might have known my grandparents, who ran a restaurant in Northumberland before and during the war, Ted prompted me by noting that my grandfather became the Pontiac dealer in Sunbury immediately after the war, and that he had bought his first Pontiac from him!

Life in a small town!

Well, Ted's nickname fits him, 'cause he's a Dutchman, and we spent quite a bit of time --- probably more than I should have, but there was nobody waiting behind me --- reminiscing about our home town, and the people we both knew there. Of course, they were quite a bit younger when Ted knew them.

And my oldest son, Jimmy, simply ate it up. He's old enough to remember his beloved "Gramps," and was excited to meet a man who did business with him. For a nine-year-old, he's got a great head on his shoulders, and has a keen sense of where he comes from.

So Ted signed a copy of the book on the 509th Composite Group for me ("To a fellow Pineknotter"), and I know that someday, my oldest will cherish it as a link to his past. As for me, I was just privileged to have a pleasant conversation about small things with a man who, in his early twenties, was engaged in great things, dealing with some truly extraordinary circumstances, and who now gives of his time in the twilight of his life to share his experiences with a generation all too oblivious to the deeds and sacrifices of those who have gone before them.

And Now, a Short Sports Interlude...

Isn't it great that Norv Turner has finally figured out a way to win in Washington?

Additions to the Blogroll

A few additions to my blogroll, in the interests of keeping up to date, and in the hope of reciprocity.

First, there's Virginia Centrist, in a triumphant return. And no, this is not mere payback for his recent reference to a post here. VC only accepts cash.

Then there's Alice Marshall, who recently called for imposition of the death penalty for Virginia's senior Senator, Foghorn Leghorn... er, John Warner. And no, not because he voted against Robert Bork and worked against Ollie North. One read of Alice's comments, and you'll be yelling "Stop the Insanity!!!!"

I've also added (belatedly) Ben Tribbett's site, aka Not Larry Sabato, which badly needs a new name.

This is what I read fairly regularly, and maybe that explains a lot.

Another Asinine College Professor

If you thought Ward Churchill was bad, read this little piece --- tip of the hat to Chad Dotson --- on a professor in New Jersey:

PROF. JOHN DALY: "SOLDIERS SHOULD EXECUTE SUPERIORS": A prof at Warren Community College in New Jersey woke up and took his stupid pills the other morning. That can be the only explanation for why he wrote this email to a college freshman who had innocently invited him to her campus event to hear from Iraq War hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter.

The freshman was new student Rebecca Beach, and she was trying to drum up a bit of interest in her event which would feature the War On Terror vet. Here is the entire response she received from John Daly, English prof.:

November 13, 2005

Dear Rebecca:

I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it. Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive. Your main poster "Communism killed 100,000,000" is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that CAPITALISM has killed many more and the evidence for that can be seen in the daily news papers. The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane Katrina. Racism and profits were key to their priorities. Exxon, by the way, made $9 Billion in profits this last quarter--their highest proft margin ever. Thanks to the students of WCCC and other poor and working class people who are recruited to fight and die for EXXON and other corporations who earning megaprofits from their imperialist plunders. If you want to count the number of deaths based on political systems, you can begin with the more than a million children who have died in Iraq from U.S.-imposed sanctions and war. Or the million African American people who died from lack of access to healthcare in the US over the last 10 years.

I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus. Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs--such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.

Prof. John Daly

Here's Prof Daly's e-mail address: jpdalyca@yahoo.com... if you'd like to tell him what you think of him.

Actually, I think "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq return to the United States and turn their guns on idiotic college professors who spout this kind of nonsense to impressionable young college students."

It's About Time

When I was growing up, I remember watching a wonderful television movie starring George Peppard, in his pre-"A-Team" days. It was about the Sam Shepard murder case from the late 50s or early 60s, about a Cleveland doctor accused, convicted, and ultimately acquitted of murdering his wife and two children. It was one of F. Lee Bailey's first high-profile cases.

The movie, which was fairly sympathetic to Shepard, had a wonderful moment where the verdict of acquittal was announced and Peppard, as Shepard, having spent years in prison for the crime, slams his hand down on the defense table --- one slam for each word --- shouting "It's about time!"

I've had much the same response in the past few days, as the Administration is finally responding to far Left and far Left congressional critics who are accusing the President of lying about pre-war intelligence regarding Iraq. For example, Vice President Cheney yesterday attacked those critics as dishonest and reprehensible opportunists.

Finally, the lunatics of the far-Left blogosphere have started to influence more lunatics in Congress. But dismal Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Leader, had perhaps the most pathetic comment in response: he said that Cheney was “playing politics like he’s in the middle of a presidential campaign,” and "urge[d] the members of the Bush administration to stop trying to resurrect their political standing by lashing out at their critics.”

As opposed to whom, Harry? Democrats "playing politics like their in the middle of a presidential campaign"? Or Democrats "trying to resurrect their political standing by" trashing the President?

The truth is always the best cure for lies. And Democrats have been pursuing the strategy of the Big Lie since the beginning regarding George W. Bush, starting with Florida in 2000, and continuing throughout, save for that short interval after the terrorist attacks of 2001.

An Interesting Take on the Republican [So-Called] Main Street Partnership

Recently received an e-mail linked to this site, which attacks the Republican Main Street Partnership as "primarily funded by the likes of George Soros and other radical Left-wing individuals."

Don't know if that's true, but if it is, I find it even more disturbing that Tom Davis' name is on this list, as a Board Member.

Not that there isn't something entirely too far-Left about this organization to begin with. After all, the RMSP's website lists Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andrew Stern as a "supporter." SEIU is, of course, one of the more radical unions out there. Other supporters include David Dempsey of the National Association of Social Workers, gun-grabber Michael Harrington of Americans for Gun Safety, and Mary Elizabeth Teasley of the National Education Association. The homosexual group "Log Cabin Republicans" --- a group that refused to endorse the President's reelection bid --- is linked to as a "resource."

To be sure, this is only a partial list of "supporters." But what is Tom Davis, or any Republican, doing associating with people with these far-Left agendas?

"Too Conservative" Comes Out of the Anonymity Closet

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.

Name-Calling?!?! We Don't Got No Stinkin' Name-Calling!

One of the more popular slurs among both the far Left and the Repubmocrat intermeddlers in today's GOP is the term "free lunch crowd." It's a slur perpetrated against people like the Club for Growth People, and Americans for Tax Reform. It's directed with particular enthusiasm against Grover Norquist and Phil Rodokanakis. It apparently is rooted in another slander, i.e., that opponents of tax hikes nevertheless want government to grow to the same degree as those applying the label (funny, isn't it, how people who normally decry the use of labels by conservatives never have a word to say to people who use this one?).

Of course, the underlying "logic" of the slur is nonsense. None of the advocates of low taxes are interested in perpetuating or growing the modern welfare state. To the contrary, most oppose it and would tear it out root and branch.

It's time to respond in kind to these slanders. Let's call the "tax-'em-'til-their-eyes-pop-out" crowd what they really are: the all-you-can-eat buffet lunch crowd.

It's a lot more accurate applied to them than "free lunch crowd" is as applied to us.

Ask someone in the all-you-can-eat buffet lunch crowd what limit he would put on the percentage of a persons income that should be seized by the government in taxes. Most likely, you won't get an answer. If you do get an answer, it will likely be far less than the actual percentage of the average taxpayers income --- more than 40% --- that is actually seized by various local, state, and federal government entities.

And why does the all-you-can-eat buffet lunch crowd support taxation unlimited conceptually? Because they apparently believe not only in a social safety net, but it a nice hammock, strung between trees rich with foliage, with a all-you-can-eat buffet only a short distance away.

UPDATE: Well, I beat Shaun Kenny to the punch by a few hours but great minds do think alike. His more expansive comment on the same subject appears under the title "'Free Lunch' Republicans vs. 'Kamikaze' Democrats." I commend it to your attention. Not bad for one of such relative youth. ;-)

Food for Thought on Prince William Returns

This will be an on-going consideration of the vote totals in Prince William.

First, who was the biggest vote-getter in Prince William County in 2005?

According to the most recent State Board of Elections data, it was Bob McDonnell, Republican for Attorney General, with 34,339 votes.

And who came in second?

That would be Bill Bolling, Republican for Lieutenant Governor, with 33,571 votes.

Interestingly, Democrat Tim Kaine only barely made the top three, besting Jerry Kilgore by 1,189 votes.

Also interestingly, the Winchester Billy Goat, Russ "Chamber" Potts, from the Benedict Arnold wing of the GOP, received 1,220 votes in Prince William County.

What do these returns tell us about the County? Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the Left-wing media, I do not, unsurprisingly, believe that this is bad news for the GOP.

Let's first deal with the issue of the Winchester Billygoat. One could speculate that the Potts vote hurt Kilgore in Prince William, but it would take a great deal to persuade me that he took votes from Kilgore, not Kaine, and that all of those votes would have gone to Kilgore to put him over the top in Prince William. I have never thought that Potts took votes from Kilgore, since he worked very hard to sound like a tax-and-spend Democrat. Believing that Potts took votes from Kilgore accuses self-styled "moderate" Republicans of treachery. Assuming arguendo that they remain loyal Republicans, the notion that Potts hurt Kilgore cannot be sustained. I leave it to self-styled "moderates" to look within themselves to inform the reader whether such treachery among their fellows explains the Potts vote.

With that having been said, however, it seems clear to me that our squishy friends --- self-styled Republican "moderates" --- are dead wrong when they assert that the GOP was hurt by Conservatives, at least in Prince William.

The hard truth for our less-stern friends is that the unabashed Conservatives on the state-wide ticket led and won in Prince William. And they won not because of the drop-off in votes from Governor to the other two offices --- in 2001, about 1100 fewer people voted for LG in Prince William, about the same number as in 2005; in 2001, the drop-off for AG was larger than in 2005, notwithstanding a growing electorate --- but by out-polling every candidate in every other race. Was it tighter than in past years? To be sure. After all, Prince William County gave George Allen and Jim Gilmore 12,000 and 14,000 vote margins in their contests. Even Mark Early carried the County by more than 3,000 votes over Marky Mark ... er, the Boyish Governor.

So what is the problem in Prince William? Let me say that, first, I believe that there is less of a problem than the media would have you think. The simple fact in Prince William is that unabashed Conservatives carried the day. Candidates who "moderated" or more accurately, "liberalized," their message lost.

But where does the fault for Kilgore's defeat lie?

I have said elsewhere, and have not been persuaded otherwise, that it lies primarily with the candidate himself. Kilgore was clearly a drag on the ticket, throughout Northern Virginia, and perhaps even elsewhere (I haven't examined that data). And I have a sneaking suspicion --- I cannot back it up with polling data --- that it was his tax referenda plan on transportation that hurt him most among Northern Virginia voters. Could he have won here? Probably not. But we've "been there; done that" on so-called transportation tax referenda, in 2002.

Northern Virginia expects its leaders to lead, and its legislators to legislate. As I said at the time, such proposals are simply political cover for craven politicians who refuse to make the hard decisions they're elected to make. In this particular case, they constitute an excuse to do nothing about Northern Virginia's transportation woes, and the despicable failure of Richmond politicians to allocate fairly transportation dollars to Northern Virginia. To be sure, this proposal is a pet project of Northern Virginia developer and business interests, and was sufficient to garner their support in the election, but I have to wonder whether Kilgore's woeful drop-off from the down-ticket races is directly traceable to this problem.

Of course, virtually any miscue is sufficient when you're talking about the small margin in Prince William. But I believe that the argument is sustainable when you look to Kilgore's performance relative to Bolling and McDonnell throughout Northern Virginia.

And where does the fault for the relatively poor (relative to prior years) performance of the GOP in Prince William lie? Certainly, there are some macro-trends beyond the control of we mere functionaries to affect. Kilgore's drag on the GOP was beyond our control. Equally beyond our control was the perceived or actual weakness of the President and the GOP-controlled Congress. Likewise, County demographic trends and growth have cut into the GOP margin.

But what can we control? The simple fact of the matter is that the GOP flourished in Prince William County when it was a party of the grass-roots, governed from the bottom up with strong leadership in the County GOP Committee.

That is not the current state of the County GOP. With increasing electoral success, we have witnessed broader ambitions among elected officials. I've said elsewhere that one of the benefits of having a successful political operation is your ability to elect any idiot on the party's ticket; one of its pitfalls is that you frequently do. Lack of ability, however, is hardly sufficient to temper ambition, and with that ambition has come a desire on the part of some elected officials and their functionaries to dominate the County GOP. And while a healthy interaction between elected officials and County GOP activists is both necessary and desired, it is not healthy for the GOP as an institution when it becomes nothing but a vehicle for personal ambition.

Yet, sad to say, that seems to be the current state of affairs in the County GOP. The personally ambitious seem to have their loyal sycophants, including some who have, in the past, been smart enough to eschew such cults of personality. Moreover, the County GOP currently suffers under pathetically weak leadership. This is not simply a matter of lacking respect for the County Chairman, though one wonders if he ever would have held the post had he been required to run for it afresh, rather than as an incumbent succeeding to the job upon his predecessor's resignation. It is a question of performance. As an example of that lack of performance, one of the best grass-roots activities that the old County GOP did was a Labor Day picnic, one which has not been held for the last two years.

I certainly cannot venture a guess as to what steps need to be taken to revitalize the Prince William County GOP. But while things are not as bad as the media would have you believe, neither are they as good as they could be, or should be.

Hilarious Website

Not appropos of anything particularly political, but I came across one of the funniest websites I've seen in a while. But then, I'm always amused by those who deflate the egos of the pretentious.

Federalist Society Convention

Little or no blogging or response for the next few days, as I will be attending the convention for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Lawyers' Division .... er, Federalist Society Convention at the Mayflower, in D.C. If you're there too, please say "Hello."

Thanks, Mark, but No Thanks

Perhaps the most asinine comment last night (though I am sure there are many candidates) came from the Boyish Governor himself who, justifiably flush with a personal victory (does anybody believe that Tim Kaine could have won without Mark Warner's support, even against Jerry Kilgore?) commented that Democrats should make sure that every vote for Dem AG candidate Creigh Deeds is "fairly counted."

God knows what this means, but I suspect that it's the Boyish Governor's appeal to the Kool-Aid drinking Far Left, that idiotic contingent who still believes that Al Gore really won in 2000.

No thanks, Marky. We don't need that kind of crap in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Glad to see you go in 2006.

Playing the Blame Game

Our friends over at NoVA Squishes .... er, "Too Conservative," are busily playing the blame game, and guess who gets the blame? That's right! You guessed it! It's those nasty, principled Conservatives, who apparently didn't do the job for Kilgore.

Well, below is mostly what I posted in response, with a few changes. It helps to have actually looked at the numbers before you justify the outcome with your predetermined gripes.

Gee, let's see, Bolling got more votes in PWC than Kilgore. Frederick has apparently won. Marshall won in a relative walk. McQuigg won. McDonnell and Bolling BOTH won in Prince William County. How this translates into "people [in NoVA] didn't have any reason to go out and vote" is nonsense. GOP candidates who gave people a reason to go out and vote won. Kilgore didn't. It's pretty much that simple.

'Fact is, Republicans in Northern Virginia "didn't have any reason to go out and vote" for Kilgore because, in part, Kilgore didn't give them any reason to get out and vote. This is borne out by the fact that Bolling and McDonnell BOTH did better in Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria than did Kilgore.

Sounds a lot like O.P. Ditch's (whom I suspect to be a contributor to this blog, if not the author of the post-in-chief) comment to me at the PWC "victory" party last night to attempt to blame Kilgore's loss on the principled wing of the GOP, rather than on Kilgore's failure to motivate the electorate, in part, and on the failure of the Connaughton Cult of Personality wing to show the same loyalty to principled candidates that they demand -- and get (see Tom Davis) -- for so-called "moderate" candidates.

The fact is that most of the people that Connaughton "brought in" to the GOP never showed up again. Witness his attempt to pack the County Committee last year. Most of those were gone after they missed three succeeding meetings, per the party plan. To be sure, a few Connaughtonites --- notably Jane Beyer --- who were preexisting activists did what they always do, and worked hard for victory. But the simple fact is that most of those "brought in" by Connaughton were "brought in" only for his purposes, and quickly disappeared when they didn't get their way.

Kilgore's bath in Northern Virginia can't be blamed on the Conservative grass roots, which was out for him. It can be more appropriately blamed upon his campaign's virtual abandonment of Northern Virginia (I think this is the main reason), a misstep on the death penalty ads, the fact that he was -- in some ways -- a flawed candidate, and his failure to take a principled stand on taxes. The fact is that the business community in Northern Virginia was behind him.

Kilgore's loss was a personal one. It can't be blamed upon those who believe that the GOP should be about principles first.

Random Thoughts on Election Day

Just a couple of random thoughts and observations on Election Day:

RE: The 52nd District Race Between Jeff Frederick and Hilda Barg

I had to laugh at the Potomac News' editorial endorsement of Democrat Hilda Barg over GOP incumbent Jeff Frederick. It's something like this where the left-wing, pro-tax agenda of that formerly moving-towards-reason rag really comes through. Assuming you're even modestly non-ideological or objective, what kind of moron advocates exchanging a 30-year-old in the majority with a 72-year-old in the minority?

RE: Democrat Concern Over GOP GOTV Efforts

Worked as a poll watcher in the Henderson Precinct of Montclair today for about four-and-a-half hours. Interesting, and somewhat grueling. At one point, a poll worker approached me and said that some voters had complained because I had been "hovering." She was rather polite, and prefaced her comment with the statement that I had done nothing wrong or illegal.

Talk about intimidation! I can imagine a poll watcher less informed of his or her rights and duties --- I spent Election Day 2004 as one of six attorneys in the GOP legal "war room" in Cleveland, after all --- doing a less effective job after such a "warning." Fortunately, secure in the knowledge that: (1) I had, indeed, done nothing wrong; (2) the latest group of voters had very few names on my favorable list; and (3) Democrats in Ohio had tried the same tactics of intimidation against GOP poll watchers in Ohio in 2004, I politely pointed those facts out to the poll worker, who bothered me no more. And never mind that the only reason I was forced to do so was the fact that the poll workers --- who are doing a thankless job for very little pay --- were not fulfilling their duty to loudly and clearly call out the names and addresses of the voters, so that I wouldn't have to "hover."

An interesting example, though, of Democrat efforts to intimidate the GOP into abandoning an effective and lonely job in getting out identified GOP voters.

RE: And One More Thing About that Potomac News Endorsement of Barg

Talked to Amy Frederick at the poll, and the issue of that endorsement came up. She reminded me that they didn't seem to like Jeff because they thought he was using his office as a stepping stone to something else.

I've heard this song before, notably as a criticism of me when I ran for School Board. First question: what's wrong with that? Second question: since when does the Pot. News object to such individuals? That journal's enthusiasm for Chairman Sean continues unabated.

One can only conclude that this "criticism" was opportunistic. Just another example of feigning application of an objective criteria while simply looking for a way to trash a candidate you don't like for ideological reasons.

Chuckie Schumer and "Divid[ing] America"

I love the far Left. I was reading all of the commentary on the Alito nomination, and I came across the comments by Senator Chuckie Schumer (D-NY), who --- according to the Washington Times --- "bemoaned the nomination of someone 'likely to divide America.'"

Wow! Boy! It's sure good to know that Chuckie's on the job, protecting us against people who would "divide America." God knows that we need protection from the likes of those who would "divide America," like those race hustlers and class warriors who would divide us by race and divide the productive from their money.

And by the way, what is it that "divide[s] America"? Might it be judges who divine new constitutional "rights" out of "penumbras" and "emanations"? Might it be those who use judicial decisions to short-circuit the political process, preventing the emergence of political consensus that results from the democratic process? Might it be those who constantly inveigh against "the rich" and "paying their fair share," when the fact is that "the rich" not only pay their "fair share" but the "fair share" of quite a few of their neighbors?

I hear that Chuckie Schumer is perhaps the most scholarly and bright member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But this kind of slick and nonsensical political rhetoric belies that notion. "Division" in America isn't avoided or minimized by committing to judicial decisionmaking issues properly resolved by the political process. Aside from the fact that the course advocated by Chuckie does violence to the democratic and constitutional process, and virtually guarantees continuing political controversy, it bespeaks a political cravenness that one would hope to avoid in elected public officials.

California Bloggin'

With apologies to Hampden-Sydney alum Pappa John Phillips.

In Sacramento, on a case, and just saw a commercial against Proposition 77, which would amend the California State Constitution to take redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and give it to three judges.

Not sure how I would vote, if it were up to me. But the far Left has gone on the warpath against this and other of the Governator's proposed "reforms."

The rhetoric was hilarious. Since when does the far Left resent the notion of "unelected judges" wielding too much power? The people opposing this are the same ones who insist that Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct.

Please tell me, what is the difference?

Rosa Parks

I guess it's because she did what made her famous before I was ever born, but I wasn't as deeply moved as some by the recent death of Rosa Parks. A respectable woman and admirable icon, to be sure, but I can't say I was too deeply and emotionally affected by her death. That, and the fact that I have traveled across the country in four of the last five weeks (I'm leaving this afternoon, too).

But I have a question: Does anybody know the name of the rude SOB who demanded that a lady give up her seat for him?!?!?! I'd kinda like to know.

Shameless Fatherly Pride

Finally figured out how to load photos, so here's two. The first is Hampden-Sydney's Homecoming, 2004. Patrick was only 3 1/2, and was a little afraid of the Tiger.
















Two of the worlds cutest kids, Homecoming 2005





My wife gives me beautiful sons.

Hypocrisy Gut-Check

Thanks to our friends over at NoVA Squishes ... er, Too Conservative ....

You know, I might just have to change that moniker. It doesn't seem those folks are all that squishy, it's just that they seem to: (1) have bought into Sean Connaughton's cult of personality; and (2) possess an entirely immature and wholly personal resentment of yours truly. It's kind of funny, really, when you consider that the carping against me comes from people who hide behind a veil of anonymity, while Jim Riley and Scott Hirons are people whom I can respect and, not coincidentally, don't hide their identities.

Well, anyway, back to the original point (and I do have one). The boys and girl over at TC found this link, with a wonderful little parody of Delegate Jeff Frederick, soon to clean Hilda Barg's clock.

I seem to recall that our friends on the far Left were in high dudgeon over an advertisement run by Jerry Kilgore against Tim Kaine, in which the latter was rendered cartoonish, to reflect his cartoonish commitment to higher taxes and more government spending. Both Waldo and the boys and girls at Raising Kaine complained about that one.

Or was it simply a case of far Lefties opportunistically appealing to objective criteria which are abandoned when inconvenient?

Take a particular look at comment 17 on Waldo's blog. Identifying the foibles of the far Left is a burden, but someone has to do it.

Is This the Smoking Gun That Sinks Harriet Miers?

A tip of the hat to chimpstein.com. It seems that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers aided efforts to perpetuate reactionary Liberalism by promoting IOLTA (Interest On Lawyer Trust Accounts). It's the method by which the bar lays claim to interest earned on property held by lawyers for their clients. While, in a just world, the clients would get that money, the far-Left scam has used it to fund far-Left activities which cannot get funding the old-fashioned way, by earning it.

This could be enough to sink the Miers' nomination.

Now, Here's a Huge Surprise

I know you were waiting, and here's the link.

It seems that the Washington [com]Post has come out with its editorial endorsements for statewide office in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I won't make you click on the link to satisfy your curiosity, and I know it will come as a huge surprise, but it seems that the Post has decided decided to break with tradition and endorse .... [drum roll, please] .... the entire Democrat ticket!

The Post even managed to endorse Creigh Deeds, NRA endorsement to the contrary notwithstanding. This is the only real surprise among the endorsements, since the Post is among the worst offenders of those who demonize defenders of the Second Amendment. However, Deeds had little to worry about; the Post's continuing War on the Family virtually guaranteed that the paper would endorse anyone running against someone with Bob McDonnell's strong pro-family credentials.

You Really Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Turns out the boys and girls at RaisingKaine are up to their old tricks of Democrat/Socialist double standards. This one's a two-fer.

First, they attack Bob McDonnell because, it turns out, his former campaign manager is a pedophile, convicted of a crime against a child five years after he managed a McDonnell campaign. Now, I'm no McDonnell fan (I supported Steve Baril for the GOP nomination), but could someone please explain how something that happened five years after his association with the pervert is supposed to hurt McDonnell?

And weren't these the same guys who defend Earnie Porta, who was himself found liable in a workplace discrimination lawsuit? In fact, didn't they misrepresent the record by claiming that Porta was "completely innocent of any wrongdoing"? Yep. It sure was.

Then there's the "Taliban Bob" smear of the post.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these the same guys who screamed foul over an accurate reference in a Jerry Kilgore advertisement by an average citizen who references Tim Kaine's apparent belief that even Adolf Hitler was not worthy of the death penalty? Oops! You just have to scroll down a little on the same page to find out that this is true.

Matter of fact, let's just do a little word substitution on the sanctimonious boobery that passes for commentary on the issue over at Raising Kaine:

Thankfully, it now looks like the [far-Left Democrat campaign to equate Conservatives with the Taliban] ad has begun to backfire, at least among [Christian and Muslim] leaders in Virginia. [In the middle of] the ... Holy [Month] of [Ramadan], Imam Mohammed Hussein of the [Al Aqsa Mosque] in Alexandria called it “demeaning and morally repugnant.” [Saddam Arafat], the Council on American-Islamic Relations'] regional director for the office that covers Virginia said that the [far-Left smear] ad is “inappropriate and insensitive, and, as part of a discussion of the [political debate] in the Commonwealth of Virginia, trivialize the horrors of the [Taliban].” [Yassir Sadat] of Richmond, the former president of [the Muslim Brotherhood], said that the [far-Left smears] went “beyond the pale” and was “strategically timed to run [during Ramadan].” Finally, [Imam Ruhollah Khomeini] of [Martyr's Congregation] in Richmond pointed out that “Bandying [[the Taliban's perversion of the Koran]] about is an affront to those who really know [the Taliban]. We know the real [Talibans] of the world.”

Ouch.

So how badly, if at all, does the [Muslim] community’s outrage at the [far-Left smear] hurt [Democrats] politically? That’s a tough question. First, the [Muslim] population of Virginia is small, at just 66,000 (out of 7.1 million). On the other hand, [Muslims] generally vote in high percentages and this ad could prompt a larger-than-expected [Muslim] turnout on November 8. In a close election, which this one is shaping up to be, a few thousand votes could make all the difference. If so, the [far-Left "Taliban" smears] actually could be a factor - but not the way that [Democrats] intended it to be — 24 days from now.

Second, there are many Virginians who, although not [Muslim] themselves, have [Muslim] friends and relatives. Many of these people probably haven’t been following the Kaine-Kilgore contest much (or at all), and many probably weren’t even planning to vote on November 8. My guess is that the [far-Left "Taliban" smear] may have grabbed their attention, and that some of those people - how many, I don’t know - will now feel motivated to vote on November 8. Unfortunately for the [Democrats], I strongly doubt that many of these people will be voting for the [candidates supported by the] perpetrator[s] of the [far-Left "Taliban" smear]!

Third, millions of Virginians have learned about the [Taliban] in school, or through visits to the [Pentagon and site of the World Trade Center]. They know what [the Taliban] actually did [and supported], not just [allowing terrorists to train in their country], but also [engaging in genuine oppression of women, setting codes for men's appearances and family relations, preventing women from going to school, and destroying centuries-old religious sites]. They know that the [Taliban] is not, in any way, shape or form, relevant to the issue of [the Republican agenday for] the 21st century United States of America. There is certainly a risk that many Virginians will recoil at the utter absurdity of [the far Left and their mouthpieces at Raising Kaine], bringing the [Taliban] into a race for Governor of Virginia. If not, they certainly should. We’ll see.

Finally, there is the potential “backlash against the backlash” factor. Could there be a closet [anti-Islamic] vote in Virginia, now energized due to the [Islamic] leaders’ criticism of the [far-Left Taliban smear]? I certainly hope that’s not the case, but you never know.

By the way, I find it highly interesting that the [far-Left] has not pulled the [posts] from the[ir sites], yet [the Kaine campaign] is simultaneously attempting to distance itself from the reference to [the Taliban]. According to [Kaine] spokesman [Dewey Cheatham], “The sentiments uttered by Mr. [Feld] were his own.”

Oh. I see. So now [Raising Kaine]’s going to try and weasel out of this one too, huh? It’s all [Lowell Feld]’s fault, right? (sorry, but it was the [Raising Kaine website] that put the despicable [reference on its website and kept it there]) And by the way, isn’t [Feld] Jewish? (apparently so, but is that relevant in any way?) []

The bottom line here is that the [Raising Kaine website], with it’s reprehensible ["Taliban" smear], has gone way, WAY beyond the bounds of decency. As if all the othe reasons for opposing [Democrats] weren’t enough, this one should seal the deal. Hey, maybe someone should ask [Bob Beckel] — [Walter Mondale]’s top political strategist, now facing possible criminal charges in the [whoremongering] case — what HE thinks of the [far-Left "Taliban" smear].

Democrats and double standards. Puuuuuhfect together!

Meltdown at RaisingKaine

The boys and girls over at Raising Kaine are having a meltdown over Jerry Kilgore's very effective and accurate advertisements over Tim Kaine's intellectual chaos over the death penalty.

When their "outrage" is that contrived, you must be on to something.

Chad Dotson has a good discussion of the controversy here. The number of comments alone demonstrate the effectiveness of the Kilgore ad.

Lowering Standards

After following me into the blogosphere, the boys over at Too Conservative now have a contributor who is banging the drum for homo marriage.

She's started two threads on the subject.

Can someone explain to me how changing the fundamental institution of civilized society is "conservative"?

UPDATE: Pursuant to TC's comment, I have changed the references to neocon22's sex.

New Kilgore Advertisement

Thanks to Blue in Virginia, on the blogroll, I just saw this new Kilgore advertisement.

Heh, heh, heh.

If they're that ticked off, we must be doing something right.

More Trouble for Former GOP Candidate

It seems that Debra Ann Wilson has been indicted on six counts of embezzlement of funds of the Woodbridge Senior High School Athletic Boosters Club. The story appeared in yesterday's Potomac News.

County GOP activists will remember that she was the GOP nominee against David Brickley in 1997. She was indicted then and convicted for election fraud, which warranted another story in today's edition. The actions taken against her seem --- to many --- to have been a model for the actions taken against Steve Chapman. Both moved (or claim to have moved) into the district to run for office.

Wilson ran against longtime County GOP activist Salvatore Perchiano for the GOP nomination to run against Brickley, and it was widely considered that her candidacy was an effort by certain GOP Powers That Be to deny Sal the nomination. Sal deserves much of the credit for the GOP surge in the County during the Nineties, when he organized and worked closely with the YRs, was Vice Chairman of the County Committee, and served as Operations Chairman.

If memory serves, Wilson came out of the Tom Davis camp. Of course, she's innocent until proven guilty, and I hope that she's not guilty. However, I would certainly have to reassess my opinion of her were she to be convicted of these charges. I have long thought that she was a victim of people who led her down the garden path, only to abandon her when the going got rough.

Maybe I was too charitable.