Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Julie Lucas Responds

By Greg L | 7 May 2007 | 51st HOD District | 85 Comments

Julie Lucas has responded to Tom Kopko’s bizarre broadside from last week with a pretty mild statement that definitely demonstrates that she’s taking the high road here.  If you’re looking for some class in this race, just read this:

Dear Committee Members,

It is very unfortunate to see controversy arise from the 51st District Convention. While I am deeply concerned that my opponent, Faisal Gill paid our Chairman to be a political consultant, I would like to be able to resolve this issue so we can move on to select the best Republican candidate, and ultimately win in November.

April finance reports indicated that Faisal Gill paid our party chairman $1000 for consulting services. An amended filing has revealed the amount is actually $2000. At the last GOP meeting I chose not to publicly address the issue, but agreed to meet with Faisal Gill and the Chairman, per his suggestion. Unfortunately my opponent did not personally attend the meeting. Whatever issue the Party as a whole has with these actions, we must not allow this to promote infighting among our Party members.

A recent Washington Post article on Faisal Gill’s hiring of the committee chairman prompted Tom Kopko to email the Republican Committee explaining “his side of the story.” There are many areas I feel I must now clarify.

· I’ve never advocated for a primary so Democrats could vote for me. In fact, in Tom Kopko’s e-mail, he expressed his opinion that discussion of a primary is a “veiled attempt” to include Democrats in the process.

· I assure my fellow Republicans that I did not contact the Washington Post and would have preferred to continue with the process that was agreed upon. In fact, I called the Chairman to alert him to the pending article.

Most of you know how hard I work for the Republican Party, over the past 7 years, in Prince William County. My personal belief is that it is a conflict of interest for any candidate to retain the Chairman as a paid staff member. Prior to the filing deadline, I was busy consulting with close friends and associates. My closest advisors knew of my intention to run before January. I continued to make public my intent to file for the 51st District seat at the January 25th meeting of my GOP women’s group. Many of the members congratulated me on my decision to run for the 51st District. During Dec/Jan, I was in contact with our chairman many times regarding the 51st race. I had been trying to meet with the Chairman since December 2006 to show my interest in the 51st Delegate race. At no time during these discussions was the paid relationship between Faisal Gill and the Chairman revealed. At this point the bottom line is it doesn’t matter when I declared my candidacy, as the filing was still open and any primary candidate could have emerged. Now, we must focus on retaining the 51st District for the Republican Party.

Though I have been encouraged by many people’s support for my candidacy, my focus is on representing the people of the 51st district in the Virginia House of Delegates.

I agree with Tom that we must look forward, and regret he tried to divert the issue with inaccurate and disparaging remarks. I can do nothing but what I’ve always done, work hard for the Republican party, the people of Prince William County and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I strongly support Republicans choosing their nominee and support Party registration in Virginia, but I have found 51st District voters are confused by the process. With two conventions and a general primary, voters find it difficult to juggle family and participation in the process. The convenience to the voters and the integrity of the process requires giving primaries a consideration whenever possible. I am extremely humbled by how many people want to give a few hours of their time on Saturday, June 2, to help me win the Republican nomination!

Tom and I agree on one major point, we want to bring in new people to the Republican Committee. I am very excited about the opportunity to bring in Republicans that have never participated in a convention before. In order to keep these attendees participating we must do all we can to ensure the convention is run smoothly and efficiently. We have a very strong party and a lot to be proud of, let’s welcome fellow Republicans to our party with open arms!

Thank you, for taking the time to read this email, and thank you for your dedication to our Party. If you have any questions for me please visit my web site: www.VoteJulieLucas.com or call: (703)597-3233.

Most humble regards,

Julie



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

85 Comments

  1. Loudoun Insider said on 7 May 2007 at 5:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Now that’s a class act who deserves to be elected. Someone please make Gill go away.

  2. freedom said on 7 May 2007 at 7:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    A class-act lady, if ya ask me!!! Go Julie!!

  3. CONVA said on 7 May 2007 at 7:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Julie has always been in front of the crowd when it came to fairness and she refused to get down in the dirt. This should well resonate with the voters if it gets the distribution it deserves..

  4. charles said on 7 May 2007 at 9:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Her complaint is with Tom Kopko.

    So why did she mention her opponent, Faisal Gill, FOUR TIMES BY NAME before she even mention Tom?

    I think we know why.

    If you want to see a class act though, check out the comments of the Lucas supporters vs Tom’s supporters. Each believes their person is telling the truth.

    Lucas supporters will call Tom a liar and call for his removal. Tom’s supporters will accept Lucas’ e-mail and treat her with the respect she deserves as republican candidate. You won’t see any of us insist she has to “resign”.

    But keep pretending your side is all sweetness and light. Meanwhile, don’t ask yourself why, if Lucas is trying to ensure that Tom is being fair, her complaint about the meeting Tom scheduled with the campaigns was not anything Tom said, but that Faisal Gill didn’t show up personally.

    I do believe Julie is a good Republican. She isn’t doing this to run as an independent. She has worked hard for Republicans, and deserves our respect. I believe she made a mistake with her remarks to the Washington Post, but it’s hard to talk with reporters and it takes some seasoning to gain the upper hand with them.

    I would have preferred that she use some of what she said in this e-mail in her talk with the reporter. Or said “we are working out our difficulties among ourselves in the committee, as it should be. Our focus is and will be to elect Republicans for the good of the community”.

    But I am glad she has explained to our committee her side of the argument, and about her talks with the Washington Post.

    If her supporters will just follow her lead and back off, we could come out of this stronger. I fear they will not, but instead will use this as another excuse to try to split our committee.

  5. AWCheney said on 7 May 2007 at 10:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    If it were up to you Charles (and Gill and Kopko) NOBODY should call ANYBODY on questions of ethics or behavior. That’s how this arrogant attitude has manifested itself among numerous Republicans (from Haymarket to Manassas Park to the PWCRC, etc.) that you can do and say anything, and it doesn’t even matter if you get caught because you have the power. Power is fleeting Charles…and it matters.

  6. vonnegut said on 7 May 2007 at 11:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    another pithy little statement from Charles. Where does he get the time to go on and on? Is there some sort of time warp around that neck of the woods? Is time moving more slowly for him?

  7. James Young said on 7 May 2007 at 11:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Boy, it sure is a good thing that we have someone who is so above-board and honest to lecture us on ethics. God knows, a person like that would never try to solicit a criminal investigation against a political opponent, and then lie about doing so.

  8. AWCheney said on 7 May 2007 at 11:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t lie Jimmy…I’m considered more of an “in your face” type person, and I wear that persona proudly. And I’m also not obsessive, and so lacking in the ability to present an argument that I must say the same thing over, and over, and over again. You are about as intimidating as a child trying hard to project the persona of that schoolyard bully that used to make him wet his pants.

    [Ed note: typo corrected]

  9. charles said on 8 May 2007 at 12:04 am:
    Flag comment

    AW, I simply wish that she would have brought her complaint to the people who could directly respond and take action, the committee. NOWHERE have I said I don’t want a question of ethics to be raised. I take allegations seriously, and want to discuss them seriously, and in a forum where the issue can be discussed without it being used for partisan political purposes.

    Speaking to the Washington Post did NOTHING to help the committee sort through and resolve this issue. Her e-mail on the other hand will be very useful to that end.

  10. AWCheney said on 8 May 2007 at 12:19 am:
    Flag comment

    She explained that pretty well in the email Charles. She was attempting to work things out quietly (”At the last GOP meeting I chose not to publicly address the issue, but agreed to meet with Faisal Gill and the Chairman, per his suggestion.”) and SHE did not contact the Post, they contacted her (”I assure my fellow Republicans that I did not contact the Washington Post and would have preferred to continue with the process that was agreed upon. In fact, I called the Chairman to alert him to the pending article.”). If anybody is trying to spin this into something else, it’s Tom Kopko (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here).

  11. charles said on 8 May 2007 at 12:20 am:
    Flag comment

    (Boy, your advertising is sure odd, Greg. You’ve got an ad for a guy running in the 4th ward of DC who is the “Past Finance Vice Chairman, Democratic National Committee”.)

    I clicked it. Consider that my miniscule contribution to your efforts.

    I was going to discuss some discrepancies in Julie’s e-mail. But I’ve decided to take her up on her request.

    Julie said: “Whatever issue the Party as a whole has with these actions, we must not allow this to promote infighting among our Party members.”, and also she said “I would like to be able to resolve this issue so we can move on to select the best Republican candidate, and ultimately win in November.”

    In a spirit of cooperation, I have shelved a point-by-point analysis of her e-mail, as well as a comment I was to make here, and instead JOIN JULIE in urging that we all put this issue to rest, not allow it to promote infighting, and move on to the task of selecting our nominees.

    If she is a leader, her supporters will follow her lead. If not, they will ignore her and continue the smears, attacks, and attempts to stir up infighting and divide our committee.

    So what say you, Lucas supporters? Can we get to discussing the real issues of the campaign? As I said to Julie in an e-mail thanking her for her note, it would be a shame if come June the only reason her supporters have given here to chose Julie is because her opponent is a fat, lazy terrorist.

  12. AWCheney said on 8 May 2007 at 12:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight…I don’t live in the 51st. I just have a real problem with the lack of honor I’ve seen displayed by politicians these past years in a County I grew up in and thought was above that (starting with Steve Chapman and his handlers).

  13. Greg L said on 8 May 2007 at 1:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles, I wish I had more control over what adsense puts up, but I appreciate the click. I’m probably $0.12 wealthier because of it. I’ll try to not spend it all at once.

    Julie wants to try to work things out quietly and come to some sort of compromise. That’s probably good for her to do, but I’m not running her campaign, or a part of it.

    I came into this dynamic scene a little more than a year ago, without an ax to grind, or even knowledge of the players. When Tom won the convention, I did the good soldier thing, signed on as his supporter, and have done everything from write software for a convention to do drywall work at HQ along with my daughter to support him and what he wants to do. He’s a great guy, fun to hang out with, and it’s always great hanging out with folks who share your same outlook on politics and life. He’s also a dedicated and tireless worker. It’s not hard to talk a lot about all the great qualities of this fine man.

    I’ve seen him do some things that haven’t helped, though. I don’t agree with a number of decisions he’s made, and now he’s become the center of a storm when he shouldn’t be. It’s become a real mess, and when that happens it’s time to step aside and stop having the personalities distract from the principles. Rumsfeld left when this happened, although he was the right man for the job, had every quality one would want in a secdef, and we’re poorer for his departure. But politically, it was the right thing to do.

    As far as this campaign goes, there are a number of issues that directly relate to Faisal Gill’s qualifications for office. Some might not accept that Faisal Gill’s prior decisions have bearing on his candidacy, but I think a lot of people do, as I do. Regardless of what Julie Lucas may be calling for, I believe my purpose here on this site is to ensure that those decisions are adequately reported. Voters need to know who their candidates are who seek their support.

    Believe me, the democrats are going to come out with everything whether I do or not, and it’s not going to be good if Gill makes it to the general election and then gets hammered there. Dems intend to spend money to win this seat if Faisal gets the nomination, and if we give him a pass just because he makes the appropriate genuflections to conservative ideals, we’re not meeting our responsibilities to ensure that we nominate the best candidates.

  14. Jonathan Mark said on 8 May 2007 at 1:39 am:
    Flag comment

    James Young wrote: “”"a person like that would never try to solicit a criminal investigation against a political opponent,”"”

    What does that mean? Who solicited a criminal investigation of who? What were the criminal charges supposed to be?

  15. AWCheney said on 8 May 2007 at 1:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy, in his delusionary mind, is referring to me Jonathan. It’s a long story but, suffice it to say, I personally initiated no investigation (although there was one), and that story may not be over. I’m pretty sure that he’s not referencing my part in initiating the FBI investigation of Manassas Park, and some other things…you see, I have a real problem with political corruption, especially in my backyard.

  16. AWCheney said on 8 May 2007 at 2:16 am:
    Flag comment

    To clarify (rereading my comment, it might not be clear), it was the investigation that Jimmy is referencing I did not initiate, although I would have in a heartbeat if that candidate had not been a political opponent (I tried to quit the campaign when I found out about it so that I COULD get involved)…I have no vested interest, other than as a concerned citizen, in the ones with which I am involved (and proudly so, I might add).

  17. freedom said on 8 May 2007 at 4:26 am:
    Flag comment

    …and charles said:

    “…it would be a shame if come June the only reason her supporters have given here to chose Julie is because her opponent is a fat, lazy terrorist.”

    My goodness, charles, I wouldn’t go that far, but assuming you’re right, sounds like a pretty good reason to reject a candidate to me. Need there be more justification?

  18. Citizen Tom Warning to Candidates; The Internet is a Public Place « said on 8 May 2007 at 9:00 am:
    Flag comment

    […] it went to a large number of party activists, inevitably two blogs (here, here and here)  posted Julie Lucas’ (candidate for the House of Delegates, 51st District ) […]

  19. James Young said on 8 May 2007 at 9:01 am:
    Flag comment

    At 11:18 pm, AWCheney decided to use you patented belittlement in the face of facts (i.e., that she said about the investigation regarding Steve Chapman 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”; she later claims that she “personally initiated no investigation,” which begs the question about the Parrish campaign, of which she was the manager), and claims that she’s “not obsessive.”

    Then, at 12:30 a.m., she said “I just have a real problem with the lack of honor I’ve seen displayed by politicians these past years in a County I grew up in and thought was above that (starting with Steve Chapman and his handlers).”

    Not obsessive!?!?! Puh-lease. And AWCheney lecturing on integrity is like Bill Clinton lecturing on veracity. The same people who would buy her line are probably among the types who would trust JM to identify terrorists.

  20. Anonymous said on 8 May 2007 at 9:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Rumsfeld did leave for the right reasons, but if he had only left a few years prior, many thousands of people would still be alive today. Few people have as much blood on their hands as Donald Rumsfeld. (Add Paul Wolfowitz to that list, too.)

  21. AWCheney said on 8 May 2007 at 1:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    I hope that answers your questions Jonathon…as I always say, consider the source.

  22. Jonathan Mark said on 8 May 2007 at 2:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"The same people who would buy her line are probably among the types who would trust JM to identify terrorists.”"”

    Don’t trust me. You don’t even know me. Rather, see if what I have to say checks out. Refute what I say about Gill, Alamoudi, Al-Arian, Safa Group and the American Muslim Council, if you can. So far your response has been an attack on the messenger. You ignore, ignore, ignore evidence against Gill and then claim that I and Greg L. are prejudiced against Faisal.

    The imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi was the founder, leader and funder of the American Muslim Council. Faisal Gill was the chief lobbyist for the AMC. Gill admits that Alamoudi was a “member of the board” of the AMC (Alamoudi was much more, but even that is a lot.)

    Alamoudi stated in 2000, when Gill may already have started work at the AMC, that the position of the AMC with regards to the peace process was well-known, and that the AMC were the ones who went to the White House and defended Hamas.

    Who at the AMC went to the White House? Who defended Hamas? Did Faisal Gill go to the White House and defend Hamas? If not Gill, then who? Gill was the AMCs chief lobbyist, and it was thus Gill’s job to defend the suicide-bombing group Hamas, according to Alamoudi.

    Why does Faisal Gill refuse to say when he first worked for the AMC as a contractor, and when he last worked there? What is Faisal hiding about his past?

    Gill is hiding his work as a chief lobbyist, title, “Director, Government Relations” for the American Muslim Council.

  23. Mitch Cumstein said on 8 May 2007 at 4:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    “So far your response has been an attack on the messenger.”

    Jonathan, that’s Young’s M.O.. Why do you think he has such a problem with anonymous/pseudonymous bloggers? Because he needs to attack the messenger instead of engaging in debate of any real intellectual substance. It’s funny to watch and completely predictable.

  24. Jonathan Mark said on 8 May 2007 at 4:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wouldn’t want to have Young representing me in court. Judges and some jury members would see through it.

    “My opponent is a liberal! He is like Bill Clinton who had an affair with Monica! Gentlemen and ladies of the jury, how can you convict my client when opposing counsel did not bathe today?”

  25. James Young said on 8 May 2007 at 5:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    That you, “Mitch,” consider JM’s innuendo and guilt-by-association tactics “debate of any real intellectual substance” speaks volumes, and explains why it is well that you post under a pseudonym. The Cowardly Lion, so full of sound and fury and so obviously unwilling to be publicly associated with the comments he posts here and elsewhere

    As for you, JM, it is doubtful that you would ever have occasion to do so. As a committed Democrat, you doubtless support forced-unionism requirements, and hence, have no need of my services. Sheep seldom do. Then again, I screen my clients more carefully, and would never take on the likes of you as a client. As for what “judges and some jury members would see through,” I’ve never lost a case. Though my cases are not the kind that are heard by juries.

  26. Jonathan Mark said on 8 May 2007 at 7:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    More attack-on-the-messenger claptrap from Jim Young.

    Faisal is running for office. I am not. Faisal’s work history ought not to be a secret. Julie has no secret work history. Julie has no employers of which she is ashamed.

    Why does Faisal have employers of whom he is ashamed, James Young?

    So tell me, Jim Young, when did Faisal Gill first work for the American Muslim Council, which was founded, funded and led by the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi?

    When did Faisal Gill last work for the American Muslim Council?

  27. Jonathan Mark said on 8 May 2007 at 7:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    More attack-on-the-messenger claptrap from James Young.

    However, Faisal Gill is running for office, and I am not.

    So Faisal’s work history is relevant. If Faisal seeks to obscure his start and end dates at the American Muslim Council, then he is unfit for office.

    So tell me, James Young, when did Faisal first work at the AMC, and when did he last work there?

    If there is nothing wrong with Gill’s having worked at the AMC then surely you could tell me when he first worked there.

  28. Rebecca said on 8 May 2007 at 8:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    May I point out that many of the people that post negatively about Gill arent “lucas supporters” as much as they are anti- gill? I make this point because I have never heard Julie say a cross word about Faisal, nor would she condone that approach. For real “Lucas Supporters” this is about the belief that she is the best candidate.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course, but I would rather talk about talent and track records that beat the snot out of the other guy.

  29. freedom said on 8 May 2007 at 8:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Amen, Rebecca….

  30. Rebecca again said on 8 May 2007 at 8:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I meant to say :than to beat the snot out of the other guy. - typo

  31. Mitch Cumstein said on 8 May 2007 at 9:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually. Rebecca, I think you said it correctly the first time. Julie’s talent and track record do “beat the snot out of the other guy.”

    I know Julie would never say that, but that doesn’t mean that those of us who support her AND don’t think very highly of Gill can’t.

    And now to Jim:

    Once again, you reach for logic that simply isn’t there. I didn’t say that I “consider JM’s innuendo and guilt-by-association tactics ““debate of any real intellectual substance””. You pulled that out of thin air, as you frequently do. I said that YOU consistently run from “debate of any real intellectual substance” and feebly attempt to mask your failure through ad hominem attacks. And, once again, you prove this by bringing up my pseudonymity when it is completely irrelevent. Predictable and sad.

  32. Loudoun Insider said on 8 May 2007 at 9:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan Mark has to be the most stay-on-message guy I’ve ever seen!

  33. NoVA Scout said on 8 May 2007 at 10:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    James: Very, very impressive. Do you realize how few lawyers can say they’ve never lost a case? You may be one of perhaps three (that’s a very liberal -not in a political sense - estimate) in the entire country. How come I never read about you in these “Superlawyers” or “Best Lawyers in America” supplements in the Sunday papers?

    I know quite a few lawyers, many who are very good and a few who are absolutely superb. They all have lost cases. They hate it when it happens, but the litigation football is oblong, not round. Litigators win some, lose some. How did you avoid these verities? Luck? Superhero skill? Crushing intellect that you hide under a bushel on these plebeian blogs? Do you take something off your game here to make us feel superior? If so, that’s an amazingly generous and sensitive act of noblesse oblige. It’s a giving, self-effacing side of you of which I was previously unaware.

    Keep up the phenomenal work. You truly have reached the pinnacle of the American legal profession. Even Webster, Darrow, and Carter Philips have lost a few.

    On second thought - go write your memoirs and stop wasting your time with these tiddly wink items. You are a Titan writ large in the legal firmament. The rest of us are fortunate to have lived in the same epoch with you.

  34. James Young said on 8 May 2007 at 11:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    If you were such a towering intellect, “NoVA Scout,” you would recognize the subtext, and the most plausible explanation (not mentioned among your belittling ones), which is the fact that — unlike those I affectionately refer to as “real lawyers” — I have the luxury of choosing my cases, and have been able to do so for the entirety of my career. I have worked with quite a few lawyers over the years who have similar records, because they enjoy the same luxury.

    And as for you, “Mitch,” your pseudonymity is not “irrelevant” merely because you declare it to be so. That you sadly believe that is all the more to pity.

    BTW, “Mitch,” perhaps you can explain why you inveigh against what you describe (wrongly) as my “ad hominem attacks,” but give a pass to “NoVA Scout.” Double-standards ALWAYS impress me.

  35. charles said on 8 May 2007 at 11:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM, Gill answered that question, his job was to facilitate meetings, not be their spokesperson. So I would presume that the AMC spokesperson spoke whatever it was they said when they went to the white house, and that the AMC press office issued press releases for whatever they put out in press releases. And the people who actually spoke in specific situations were actually the people who spoke, as so far as I can tell Gill is not a ventriloquist.

    You will never know exactly what Gill did each minute of his job consulting for AMC, mostly because you haven’t seemed to learn how to send an e-mail, or show up at a meeting and walk up and ask a man a question — and while I was happy to ask a couple minor questions and get answers, I have no interest in continuing this incessant rehashing of the same old stuff over and over. Do your own homework.

  36. charles said on 8 May 2007 at 11:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can’t edit my previous comments, but having had subsequent e-mail exchanges with the parties in this dispute, I am satisfied that the overabundance of “Gill” references were the result of editing the e-mail for space, not a deliberate attempt to attach Gill to this issue.

    I also believe there was an attempt to express to the Post what I would call a more unifying message, a more pro-republican spin on the story, but that the Post reporter specifically wanted only to report the conflict, not the broad range of agreements or common purpose of all parties to advance the republican cause.

    I believe the reporter contributed to the discord, and my previous comments did not appropriately assess blame with that in mind. I am reminded how hard it is to speak to reporters and get them to focus solely on what YOU want them to focus on.

    I appreciate the trust both parties have shown in answering my e-mails, and am hopeful that we can now, as both parties wish, move on to the task of electing republicans. I can’t really say more.

  37. Jonathan Mark said on 9 May 2007 at 4:31 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"JM, Gill answered that question, his job was to facilitate meetings, not be their spokesperson. “”"

    This is insane.

    Gill told Mason Conservative:

    “””Q: What was the nature of your work at the American Muslim Council, and be as specific as possible?
    A: I was the spokesman and I also assisted them in reaching out to Congress. I attended meeting with AMC and congressmen.”””

  38. freedom said on 9 May 2007 at 8:45 am:
    Flag comment

    “””Q: What was the nature of your work at the American Muslim Council, and be as specific as possible?
    A: I was the spokesman and I also assisted them in reaching out to Congress. I attended meeting with AMC and congressmen.”””

    Hmmmmmm, wonder if he’d like to retract THAT answer…..

  39. NoVA Scout said on 9 May 2007 at 9:01 am:
    Flag comment

    I certainly don’t think of myself, James, as a “towering intellect.” You’re the only one I’m aware of who has ever used that phrase in my vicinity. And my comments were ones of admiration, “ad hominem” only in the sense that they were directed your way. Ultimately, all lawyers get to choose their cases. It’s not a luxury, it’s a necessity.

  40. Mitch Cumstein said on 9 May 2007 at 9:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Insofar as you cherrypick your cases, Jim, why even bring up the fact that you’ve never lost a case? It doesn’t necessarily show anything more than reasonably good judgement on your part in picking winnable fights. I guess that’s cool, but hardly what I’d call impressive. It’s certainly not something that would encourage me to give your otherwise illogical arguments more validity.

    Which, of course, brings me back to the irrelevence of the whole anonymity thing. A good point stands on its own and should argued on its own merits, not on the stature of the individual making it. Unfortunately for Jim, the reverse is often true. Attaching his name to comments frequently turns readers away before his point even given much thought. Perhaps a pseudonym might help in his case?

    Hmmm…

    I think I smell a “Give Jim Young a Pseudonym” contest in the making.

  41. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 9:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Unfortunately, “Mitch,” you frequently don’t make points which stand or are argued on their own merits, and instead hold yourself out as some sort of authority, with utterly nothing to back it up save for your own elaborate claims… much like “NoVA Scout.” As for your assertion that attaching my “name to comments frequently turns readers away before [my] point even given much thought,” I have no doubt that your assertion is true, among a certain contingent which claims to be “Conservative” and/or committed to the GOP, but obviously is not, and just as obviously includes yourself. I have no doubt at all that the likes of you (with your frequent “Two Minute Hates” of your truly) have managed to create an impression and little mythologies (one of my favorites is the falsehood that I frequently use the term “RINO”; it reminds me so of Democrats who respond to any criticism of their judgment as an attack on their “patriotism”) that I’m quite sure comforts you when you contemplate your own dismal record. It’s certainly of a piece here with the efforts to smear Faisal Gill. That you would spend so much time doing so speaks better of me than you probably imagine or even have the ability to appreciate. But of course, that you would make such an assertion simply demonstrates your own reliance upon the strategy that you hypocritically and disingenuously purport to condemn: “ad hominem attacks.”

    ‘Fact is, I lose little sleep worrying about (though waaaaaay too much time responding to) gutless cowards whose own records necessitate the use of a pseudonym to camouflage their own biases and lack of records justifying their efforts to hold themselves out as authorities.

    And “NoVA Scout,” I must apologize. I’m sorry if I confused your efforts to hold yourself out as a “towering intellect” to imply that you actually thought of yourself as such. And forgive me ever so much for confusing your tribute with sarcasm, or damning with faint praise. I suppose I was under the false impression that you reserved such comments for He Who Shall Not Be Named.

    Nevertheless, you comment suggests to me that your own claims are little more than elaborate fictions. No one familiar with the Washington legal scene, large-firm (i.e., with associates), and/or criminal practice would ever assert that “Ultimately, all lawyers get to choose their cases.”

  42. NoVA Scout said on 9 May 2007 at 10:26 am:
    Flag comment

    Someone claiming to be me must have described himself to you as a “towering intellect”, James. I’d be wary of those types, if I were you. As I said, you’re the only person I’ve ever heard use the phrase in relation to me. Certainly, I have never done so and know for certain that my intellectual capabilities are rather pedestrian - which is usually more than adequate for this sort of activity.

    All lawyers get to choose their cases. Some, for a variety of reasons, do not exercise that right. But the right is always there.

  43. David Don'tHasselltheHoff said on 9 May 2007 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Lawyers get to choose their cases, and Spokesmen get to choose those they speak for. Gill has chosen to represent an idiot for a client in a bad lawsuit, and has chosen to represent an organization that supported terrorism.

    Says a lot about his character and judgement, I think.

    On smears, how can the truth be considered a smear?

    Did Gill work for the AMC?

    Does Gill represent Steve Chapman, who forgot to file his candidate declaration on time, and has chosen to blame this blog for his actions?

    Is Gill overweight?

    Did Gill take campaign photos where he was the sole person in uniform?

    Did Gill almost forget to order the food for the PWC picnic?

    Did Gill pay the Chairman of the PWC GOP $2000?

    The answer to every one of these questions is “Yes”. Unless placed in context, and shown how they have meaning, they are just facts. Once placed in context, they paint a very unflattering picture of a very poor candidate for the Republican nomination. Smears? I think not. For these to be smears, the facts upon which the opinion is developed would have to be proven false. Since the facts are not in dispute, no matter how inconvenient, the truth cannot be classified as a “smear”.

  44. AWCheney said on 9 May 2007 at 12:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I have no doubt at all that the likes of you (with your frequent “Two Minute Hates” of your truly)…”

    You, Mr. Young, spend your LIFE spewing hate, and the evidence is all over the blogesphere. What a hypocrit…or are you truly that deluded that you don’t recognize the hate monger in yourself? You are a sad little man Jimmy.

  45. Mitch Cumstein said on 9 May 2007 at 1:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    “one of my favorites is the falsehood that I frequently use the term “RINO””

    Really?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t your own, seldom visited, blog prominently state that “Nothing herein should be confused with tolerance of folly, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only)…”

    Granted, you may not use that specific term frequently, but everything about your writings and comments spews forth the notion that your vision of what is and is not “Republican” is right and anything else is “far Left.”

  46. David "don'thasselthe" Hoff said on 9 May 2007 at 1:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mitch,

    Go easy on Jimbo. You know how hard a time he has admitting that he isn’t a hypocrite

  47. Anon said on 9 May 2007 at 1:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Whatever happened to that septictiank observer site that made fun of Young? It held some promise.

  48. anon said on 9 May 2007 at 1:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles,

    Have you even bothered to look at the PRESS RELEASE from the AMC themselves, which has been posted in the comments on this website MANY times, in which the AMC THEMSELVES identify Gill as their DIRECTOR OF GOVERMENT AFFAIRS.

  49. Batson D. Belfrey said on 9 May 2007 at 2:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Charles,

    Have you even bothered to look at the PRESS RELEASE from the AMC themselves, which has been posted in the comments on this website MANY times, in which the AMC THEMSELVES identify Gill as their DIRECTOR OF GOVERMENT AFFAIRS.”

    That would invlove Charles putting down his Sippy-Cup full of Kopko Kool-Aid, and actually researching the facts. Instead, he choses to wax-poetic, split-hairs, and generally annoy people. No wonder he gets no comments on his blog, and the high point of his life (outside of his toy trains), is seeing his drivel printed in the MJM.

  50. David Don'tHasselltheHoff said on 9 May 2007 at 2:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles will also argue that the Democrats won’t use this and more to wipe the floor with Gill, should he defeat Lucas at the convention. If Kopko has his way, this will happen.

  51. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 3:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    AWCheney, once again, you confuse contempt with hatred, inflicting yourself on an exchange between others. Very Clintonian of you. Unsurprising that you would belittle and attack. To do otherwise would require an introspection that would doubtless cause anyone other than a sociopath to slit his or her own wrists.

    So I am a “sad little man”? That’s certainly a devastating assessment from a pathetic, name-dropping liar desperate to worm herself back into political relevance.

  52. Jonathan Mark said on 9 May 2007 at 4:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"AWCheney, once again, you confuse contempt with hatred, inflicting yourself on an exchange between others. Very Clintonian of you.”"”

    This is a rhetorical trick of Young’s. Instead of disputing that it was wrong for Gill to be the chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, Young simply accuses every Gill critic, including lifelong Republicans of being Democrats, or “Clintonian.”

    Young refuses to engage on the question of Gill’s activities at the American Muslim Council, because to do so would be to admit that Faisal Gill is a former chief lobbyist for or on behalf of a terrorist.

    Reading all of the postings about Gill on BVBL, it seems to me that Kopko, Cuccinelli, et al must be taken aback by the vociferousness of Greg and many of us Gill critics. I wonder if they would do it all again the way they have done it.

    My hope is that Cuccinelli will lose his seat because of this. He deserves to. Someone must pay for this Faisal Gill fiasco. Cuccinelli is representing a district that went for Kaine by 55 percent. He is vulnerable in November, the other Gill supporters are not.

    That is why Cuccinelli should pay for his support for Terror Lobbyist Number One with Cuccinelli’s own political office.

  53. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 4:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM, it’s unsurprising that you accuse Gill of terrorist associations, and can’t even comprehend a simple sentence. I decidedly DON’T accuse Greg, or Hirons, or even AWCheney of being “Democrats” (didn’t know it was an “accusation,” for that matter). I identify you as one only because you have previously identified yourself as one, though you now deny it. And BTW, “Clintonian” is a “codeword” for people who dissemble and belittle their critics, not Democrats. And while I certainly believe that there are more of those among Democrats than among Republicans, we sadly have our own with whom we must deal.

    And you write: I “refuse[] to engage on the question of Gill’s activities at the American Muslim Council.” I do so not “because to do so would be to admit that Faisal Gill is a former chief lobbyist for or on behalf of a terrorist” but because to do so would be to debate a psychotic.

  54. Mitch Cumstein said on 9 May 2007 at 4:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Once again a completely predictable response by Young.

    He’s afraid to answer the question, so he attacks Jonathon as a “psychotic.”

    The facts as presented by Jonathon and Greg are not subjective and, quite frankly, are not even in dispute. The latter is due to the fact that those who seem to want to defend Gill refuse to offer any evidence to refute them or any plausible explanation as to why these facts shouldn’t raise concerns. What we’ve consistently heard instead are calls of bigotry and attacks against the messengers. Nothing that would convince the average voter that all of the billowing smoke coming from the Gill campaign can be disregarded.

    And that’s really the point here. Gill apologists can continue to “shoot the messenger” and claim that his distractors will never be convinced, irrespective of solid arguments to the contrary. And to a degree, that’s probably true. Knowing what I know, and have seen over the last several years, I can’t envision a scenario under which I’d support or vote for Faisal. But what about those folks on the fence who will, without solid, positive answers to these questions, be unable to support him in good conscience?

  55. anon said on 9 May 2007 at 5:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here’s something I’ve been thinking about over the last month, based upon voting patterns in this district:

    The democrats have a phenomenal opportunity to pick up this seat if Gill becomes the nominee. But for some reason, PWC democrats insist upon shooting themselves in the foot. Why on earth is their candidate Jeff Dion? I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but really … he is a gay man in a moderate-to-slightly-conservative district. Have the democrats completely lost their minds?

    Even Gill, with all of his “baggage”, can beat Dion in this district.

  56. Jonathan Mark said on 9 May 2007 at 6:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Earlier today Batson D. Belfry wrote the following in response to an accusation of Democrat tendencies by, who, James Young of course:

    “”"# Batson D. Belfrey said on 9 May 2007 at 2:16 pm:

    ““Batson,” you have fallen into the familiar Democrat trap of dismissing points with which you disagree with the lack of an answer.”

    And you use the same old lawyer trick of misdirection. If you compare the current state of the PWC GOP, under Kopko, with that of another local unit, Manassas, it is easy to see that Kopko’s leadership is doing harm to the Party. Kopko has become the story. This is bad. He needs to go. In politics, results do count. Kopko has few positive results on which to hang his hat. If garnering bad press where the metric used to determine his success, he’d be the most successful guy around. Sadly, it is not.

    You may try to call me a Democrat. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I know what you’ll say, you have no way to verify this. I want to see the PWC GOP strong and successful, running the best candidates for office. Kopko is not the guy to make this happen. You defend mediocrity. A mediocre Chairman, with mediocre results, mediocre reputation, backing mediocre candidates like Chapman and worse, Gill.”"”

  57. Mitch Cumstein said on 9 May 2007 at 6:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    If “dismissing points with which you disagree with the lack of an answer” is a “Democrat trap,” Jim Young is a long, lost Kennedy.

  58. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 7:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    And a predictable response by “Cumstein.” He attributes to fear — according to him, I’m “afraid to answer the question” — what is utter indifference to JM’s elaborate fictions. That kind of belittlement is every bit as “ad hominem” as my response to JM, based upon his fixations.

    I’m certainly not going to waste my time asking questions already asked and answered by the numerous investigations of Gill, and because I know that he is a good and trustworthy man.

    And oh, JM, what a tangled web we weave. Why would someone who “never voted for a Democrat in [his] life” try to join — and be denied — the Mason District Democrat Committee, as you claimed elsewhere? Why would he expend so much time and energy attacking Republican candidates like Ken Cuccinelli and Faisal Gill? You can try that among those who don’t remember that little claim, but I do. Just as I recognize your appeal to objective standards to justify your entirely subjective conclusions and opinions. You say that “Kopko has become the story.” Yes, to you, and a few others. I suppose next, you’ll claim that there is a drumbeat against him, even though it is you who are among those banging the drum.

  59. Greg L said on 9 May 2007 at 8:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    anon, it’s looking like the nominee in this race will be someone other than Jeff Dion. They’re just keeping quiet until the last minute, they will then announce a consensus candidate with Dion probably just backing off “for the good of the party”, and they’re going to roar out of the gates with a boatload of cash and lots of DPVA support if Gill is nominated. I’m hearing this will be the ONLY House of Delegates race that DPVA will target this year.

  60. freedom said on 9 May 2007 at 8:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Strange thing is, James (and charles) all my neighbors are democrats and they just CAN’T WAIT for Faisal to get the nomination. They are watching this campaign more closely than most Republicans, waiting until November…and reality is…and think about this a bit before you respond…the Democrat party is not the WORST party in the world. My worst fear is that Faisal is the TRUE RINO and a card-carrying member of that other party.

    I know, you think I’m waaaaaay wrong, but if you look at his history, the evidence that I’m right FAR out-weighs the evidence that I’m wrong — you really want to take a chance on this one…for you, your children and your grandchildren?? There’s simply no need to gamble here; the risk is too great — not only for me but for you too.

  61. Jonathan Mark said on 9 May 2007 at 8:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"And oh, JM, what a tangled web we weave. Why would someone who “never voted for a Democrat in [his] life” try to join”"”

    Batson D. Belfry said that Batson D.Belfry had never voted for a Democrat in his life, after you claimed that he was a Democrat. It was in the BVBL thread on Kopko shooting himself in the head…

  62. AWCheney said on 9 May 2007 at 9:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    You must forgive Jimmy, Jonathan…his reading comprehension is limited by his extremely narrow view which can’t see beyond his own prejudices and vitriol.

  63. Mitch Cumstein said on 9 May 2007 at 9:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “And a predictable response by “Cumstein.” He attributes to fear — according to him, I’m “afraid to answer the question” — what is utter indifference to JM’s elaborate fictions.”

    And yet, once again, you run from the question. You can (and likely will) continue with the “holier than thou, I’m better than you” mantra that no one outside of the Young household buys while ducking any serious response to the debate. Or you could actually address some of the questions posed here. One would think that, with your overwhelming intellectual superiority over us mere mortals, it would be child’s play for you to put these issues to rest.

  64. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 10:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Mitch,” it isn’t a debate; it’s a smear. Propagated by JM; tolerated someone who is in a defendant in a lawsuit in which Gill’s firm represents the plaintiff. You deeming it “run[ning] from the question” is merely your own self-serving gloss on the smear.

    And I apologize, JM. Because of your incompetent use of quotation marks (in an extended, multi-paragraph quotation, you either indent — impossible, I know, in this format — or put an open quogation at the beginning of each quoted paragraph), I mistook your mere re-post of a “Batson” comment for a claim regarding yourself. It just figures that your “Amen!” chorus, the Old Whithered Wench, is too ignorant and blinded by your own hatred to recognize that. And she challenges MY “readhing comprehension”!?!?!

  65. Jonathan Mark said on 9 May 2007 at 10:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why is the claim that Faisal Gill was chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council a smear, James?

    Do you dispute that Faisal held the title of “Director, government relations” at the AMC?

    Do you dispute that Abdurahman Alamoudi founded and led the AMC?

    Which part of the statement “Faisal Gill was chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamouid’s American Muslim Council” do you disagree with?

  66. AWCheney said on 9 May 2007 at 11:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why Jimmy, I recognized the quote from the Batson comment, to which you had responded previous to Jonathan’s quote of it. I would think that someone of your grand intellect could have remembered that as well.

  67. Mitch Cumstein said on 10 May 2007 at 5:35 am:
    Flag comment

    “tolerated someone who is in a defendant in a lawsuit in which Gill’s firm represents the plaintiff”

    Here we go again.

    You’re using the lawsuit against Greg as an excuse to avoid the question.

  68. James Young said on 10 May 2007 at 8:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, Old Whither Wench, I would have expected you to. Your fixation on hating me is well-represented in these pages.

    And as for you, “Mitch,” at least Greg doesn’t hide behind a pseudonym, so that his biases are public knowledge. “Avoid the question”!?!? You keep acting as though there is a “question.” No, there are smears, little threads weaved together into whole cloth by an admitted Democrat, and used by those who think the principle purpose of the GOP should be merely to slow down the raging socialism of the Democrats.

  69. AWCheney said on 10 May 2007 at 8:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s not hate Jimmy…more like contempt.

  70. Jonathan Mark said on 10 May 2007 at 9:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"You keep acting as though there is a “question.” No, there are smears, little threads weaved together into whole cloth”"”

    No the question is: “Was Faisal Gill the chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council?”

    James Young’s unwillingness to answer this question is apparent.

  71. AWCheney said on 10 May 2007 at 10:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Come on Jonathan, haven’t you noticed that Jimmy doesn’t answer questions…he just spews vitriol and invectives.

  72. Jonathan Mark said on 10 May 2007 at 10:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    The amazing thing is that he disputes that “Was Faisal Gill the chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council?” is a question.

  73. Mitch Cumstein said on 11 May 2007 at 9:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Here we go again.

    Bias has absolutely nothing to do with the overarching question, which is: Do Faisal Gills past actions and associations make him unfit for public office?

    This same question can and should be asked of every candidate for any public office. It’s become a decidedly bigger issue in Faisal’s case because there are more questions than usual.

    Now, that isn’t to say that responses to this question will not be affected by individual bias. That’s unavoidable. But the pro-Faisal crowd, nor Faisal himself, seem willing to address the question. Instead, we get a combination of bob-and-weave along with cries of smears and bigotry.

    So, let’s take a simpler question:

    It is an undisputable fact that Gill was the Chief Lobbyist for the American Muslim Council. It is also true that the former head of that organization is in prison for his links to terrorism. Can you, with a straight face, say that this doesn’t concern you?

  74. James Young said on 11 May 2007 at 11:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Ever know someone who committed a crime, “Mitch”? Ever been associated with someone who committed a crime, “Mitch”? Are we to attribute to you knowledge of and complicity in the crimes of everyone with whom you have been associated, casually or intimately? It’s a small l’il world, “Mitch,” and if we all play the games that are being tried on Faisal, we’ll all have troubles. I suspect that’s one more good reason why you maintain your pseudonymity: fear that someone will play those games with you. I suppose that it shouldn’t surprise that a smear merchant would jealously guard his identity, lest someone try the same tactics against him.

    JM offers no proof that Faisal was much involved with the AMC for very long (people in such positions come and go), and certainly, no proof that he was aware of Alamoudi’s crimes. If such proof existed, are you seriously suggesting that he would not have suffered consequences, OR that he would have received a presidential appointment in these times? Your lies are too elaborate to be maintained.

    After all, Jonathan is/has been associated with the Democrat Party, and therefore was associated with a number of known felons: Chuck Robb (admitted); William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (admitted and sanctioned); Dan Rostenkowski (convicted); and William Jefferson (under investigation). Are we to attribute their crimes to him?

    What’s going on here is that you’re playing the Internet game. Get enough out there to associate Faisal’s name with terrorism. Then suggest that people “Google” those two words.

    Shall we try another game? How about I post web pages here and there with “Mitch Cumstein” and “wifebeater”? It’s the same principle.

  75. Greg L said on 11 May 2007 at 12:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Your attempt to post just such information has been noted. Consider this a warning.

  76. Jonathan Mark said on 11 May 2007 at 1:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"It is an undisputable fact that Gill was the Chief Lobbyist for the American Muslim Council. It is also true that the former head of that organization is in prison for his links to terrorism. Can you, with a straight face, say that this doesn’t concern you?”"”

    Note that James Young again refuses to state whether the following facts are true or false:

    (1) Gill was the Chief Lobbyist for the American Muslim Council.

    (2) The former head of the AMC is in prison for his links to terrorism.

    It doesn’t matter whether the facts are put to James Young as a question which he refuses to answer, or a statement whose accuracy he refuses to address. Here are some of James unbelievable attempts to avoid answering the question “Was Faisal Gill the Chief Lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council?”

    Young states in response, along with various ad hominen attacks on messengers:

    (1) “”"JM offers no proof”"”

    Questions do not require proof. That is why they are questions.

    (2)”"”that Faisal was much involved with the AMC for very long (people in such positions come and go),”"”

    That was not the question. The question is whether Faisal Gill is the former chief lobbyist for the AMC, not whether being the chief lobbyist was an important position at the AMC. So how about it, James, was Faisal Gill the chief lobbyist at the AMC?

    (3) “”"and certainly, no proof that he was aware of Alamoudi’s crimes.”"”

    Again irrelevant and not responsive to the question. Was Abdurahman Alamoudi in a position of authority and leadership at the AMC? Hence, the question’s included reference to “the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.”

    Having failed to respond to the questions, the rest of James Young’s response consists of various catalogs of the failings of various persons, none of whom are running for office:

    (1) Mitch Cumstein
    (2) Jonathan Mark
    (3) Bill Clinton
    (4) Chuck Robb
    (5) William Jefferson
    (6) Dan Rostenkowski

    Is Faisal Gill the former chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council?

    “”"If such proof existed, are you seriously suggesting that he would not have suffered consequences,”"”

    Proof that he was the Chief Lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council? I am asking you whether Faisal Gill held that position or not.

    Why do you refuse to answer, James?

  77. James Young said on 11 May 2007 at 1:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, relax. You misunderstand and miss the point. Maybe. I discovered that information AFTER I created a wild-a**ed hypothetical. It is merely a function of the frequent absurdities of the Internet that “Mitch’s” pseudonym — remember, it would only be damaging if I used his real name — produced such results.

    Therefore, I’m trying to understand what this is “a warning” about. Demonstrating that one could create the same kind of smear about “Mitch”? Am I warned because I’m outing the strategy of the smear, or because I “smeared” “Mitch”? And if the latter, pray tell, how does one smear a pseudonym?

  78. James Young said on 11 May 2007 at 1:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM, you have the intellect of a child. How can I answer questions that I don’t know the answers to? Why should I answer questions about which the answers are irrelevant to the issues at hand?

    I refuse to answer because, quite simply, I DON’T CARE! The answers to those question mean nothing, except to someone who is trying to smear a man by guilt-through-association and innuendo. Do they mean that Faisal Gill was complicit in anyone’s crimes? Please, I urge you to make that assertion explicitly, and expose yourself to the civil liability that you apparently fear by doing so, but that you so richly deserve. Since you fear civil liability, you couch your smear in innuendo, leaving the unsophisticated reader to assume that there’s a there, there. It’s illegitimate, and cowardly. If you (or Greg) had any real proof that Faisal Gill were involved in criminal activity, I would suggest that you take it to the U.S. Attorney, or other appropriate law enforcement official. That you do not, or have not, speaks more about your character than anything you could possibly say about Faisal Gill.

    After all, how legitimate can the arguments of someone who supported a known liar (Bill Clinton) be?

  79. Mitch Cumstein said on 11 May 2007 at 2:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jim:

    My wife and I are very happily married, to which those who do know my identity can attest. I’ve never laid a hand on my wife in anger, and have certainly never been investigated nor confronted by the authorities regarding domestic violence issues.

    Despite our obvious differences, I will say that I hope the same is and remains true for you as well.

    Johnathon makes a very good point, however, in mentioning the fact that I am not running for public office. Gill is. Like it or not, questions such as these, while not particularly relevent regarding you and I, take on tremendous significance when considering elected officials. And frequently, the manner in which the question is addressed is just as, if not more, important than the actual answer.

  80. James Young said on 11 May 2007 at 5:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Mitch,” your reply does nothing so much as miss the point. I accused you of nothing. How could I? I don’t know your identity. For all I know, you’re Jeff Dion in drag. I was merely pointing out the process at work here, and its illegitimacy.

  81. Mitch Cumstein said on 11 May 2007 at 8:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jim:

    I was basically just jerking your chain a little on the “wifebeater” comment. But there are a few important points here:

    First, the is a big difference between an average joe like myself and a candidate for public office being accused of being a “wifebeater” or of having questionable associations. Look at Giuliani, who I’m fully supporting for the GOP nomination (and I fully expect to hear the littany of reasons why he isn’t “conservative” and couldn’t care less). He’s got some real issues with his past association with figures supposedly involved in organized crime. Many voters are going to want answers on this. And how he addresses will affect some votes. Will it affect mine? Probably not. But if he doesn’t address it well enough for voters who are otherwise lukewarm to him and they choose to vote from someone else, I certainly won’t begrudge them that. Nor will I complain that people who pose the question are “smearing” him by bringing it up. It’s a legitimate concern, just as Faisal’s association with a known terrorist is cause for concern.

    The other point is the support for the accusation. You don’t know who I am (as I’ve said before, we’ve met several times, but that’s neither here nor there). You can accuse me of being a “wifebeater,” but unless you know my identity and have some facts upon which to base the accusation, it’s pretty meaningless. In Gill’s case, the facts are absolutely irrefutable. He did work for the AMC for a period of time, an organization that was heavily influenced by a known terrorist. Is it possible that Faisal knew nothing of this and is completely innocent of any wrongdoing or activities that most Americans would find questionable? Of course it is! But here’s the rub: If he wants to represent our interests as a Legislator in Richmond, he needs to be willing to openly and honestly address his time representing an organization with some questionable ties. The appearance here is that he hasn’t been willing to do that. And that is going to look very bad to voters. Rest assured that the Dems will beat it to death during the run up to November should he get the nomination. In fact, one of the benefits of nominating contests is to deal with issues like this early on so they can be non-issues in the general election. Until Gill and/or his supporters are willing to tackle this head-on, it’s far from a non-issue.

  82. Mitch Cumstein said on 11 May 2007 at 8:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, and by the way …

    You’ve now referred to me as both John Jenkins and Jeff Dion “in drag.” That hurts. I can assure you that I am neither old, nor fat, nor balding, nor homosexual.

    Just wanted to clear that up.

  83. John Light said on 16 May 2007 at 9:53 am:
    Flag comment

    If George Allen can lose an election because of a useage of a word that NOBODY had heard before except those who saw the episode of The Late Show with Conan O’Brian with the voice-overs of the Simpsons, just think what will happen if Julie does not win this election!!!

    I would be more than happy to debate anyone on the issues of the day (as I have on previous blogs here at bvbl) as far as Julie’s support or questions about her voting record. But, seeing that Faisal has NO voting record, then what is done is basic research on the man to see what type of person he is, what his background is, etc. When the bare-bones research is done, there is NOTHING but disturbing results.

    Jim Young may have a perfect record when it comes to law cases, but his support for local candidates is ANYTHING than stellar. People used to gripe to me about Jim and even Jim joked how people did not appreciate his “in your face” attitude. And while in the past I would say that he MIGHT have tempered things some, now I have to say that he has gone off the deep end.

    But is it just Jim? No, it appears that it is ALL in the Gill camp. What their problem is is that they have lost soooo many political fights in the past that when they FINALLY think they have their man, it turns out that he has more issues than “Time Life”. There are basic questions that need to be answered once and for all by Faisal, NOT his lackey’s, in order to end the debate.

    Lord knows, if ANYONE was to question MY honor or past associations (as a member of the Masonic Lodge and a Southern Baptist, you better believe I get it ALL the time) I would write an editorial, go on channel 8, do whatever it took to end the lies and concentrate on the race at hand.

    But the reason this HAS NOT been done is, he honestly believes he has done nothing wrong. His supporters are up in arms because they know in their hearts that “if I only knew then what I know now!!!” they would not have supported his candidacy. They want to blame “late filing”, even though Ms. Lucas was talking about running back in Dec/Jan time frame. Even when you have NO ONE running against you, as a candidate you are to run as if you do until the final minute to file the intent to run.

    Though I do not live in the 51st, I would not vote for Faisal as dog catcher if we lived in the same District. In good conscious I could NEVER support him for ANYTHING, and after talking with a good number of people in and out of the 51st, I am not alone in that thought.

    What is gained IF Faisal wins??? What is gained if Julie Lucas (http://www.votejulielucas.com) wins??? Do the research, do the gut check. If Julie wins, WE ALL WIN!!!

  84. anon said on 16 May 2007 at 11:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Julie Lucas’s website:

    http://www.votejulielucas.com

  85. Mike Wooten said on 23 May 2007 at 10:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    THE DAVID H– SMEAR FALLACY.
    If I were to follow the logic of David H– (above) then I could say that the following is NOT a smear on Julie Lucas:

    -Is Julie Lucas over weight?
    -Has Julie Lucas expressed concerns that emails she received from John Light make him seem unstable?
    -Has Julie Lucas claimed that a certain fellow school board member was making improper decisions on behalf of the superintendent during Dr. Kelly’s last years?

    The answer to these questions is YES, but I contend that if her opponent were to spread this trash (because that’s what it is, true facts or not), then we could correctly accuse her opponent of smearing her. These facts (except perhaps the third one) have little to do with the office she is seeking. I’m sorry, but I think your logic is flawed, David H–. I contend that we can “smear” a person with factoids. I don’t think that I need to provide additional examples to prove my point.

    ETHNIC INNUENDO AND INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY
    Abdulrahman Alamoudi was indicted and convicted of making false statements, money transfers, and money laundering. He pled guilty to having illegal business dealings with Libya and involvement in a plot to assassinate crown prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (ala Iran-Contra). Those are the facts. Alamoudi was a criminal. Because he is a Muslim, we also GET TO CALL HIM a terrorist. If we non-Muslims are convicted of those crimes, we’re just criminals.

    The American Muslim Council and many other Muslim organizations were investigated after 9/11. America took precautions; as a result, some of Gill’s legal clients have been investigated. (I thought that was when you need a lawyer, when someone accuses you of something) I have seen bloggers accuse Gill of being a “Terror Lobbyist,” but I have not seen any documents to show that Gill’s firm lobbied for any firm convicted of terrorism.

    SIGNING OFF…AGAIN
    You guys have fun. I haven’t checked in here since Greg L and I did battle on Valentine’s Day. I’m checking out for a long while again. I contend that Greg L won that day; I won the several months following by not engaging….

Comments are closed.


Views: 3917