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

Messier’s Wife Shoots Back

By Greg L | 9 May 2007 | Prince William County | 66 Comments

Today’s print edition of the Manassas Journal-Messenger has a very unusual letter to the editor from the wife of Sheriff candidate Mike Messier which compares my coverage of the sheriff’s race with the behavior of Cho Seung-Hui, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre. The general gist of the article is that their daughter apparently attends Virginia Tech and was disturbed to find out that her father, who is running a decidedly negative campaign himself against the very man who cleaned up the mess that Lee Stoffregen and Mike Messier left three and a half years ago, has been criticized on this site and is now fearful of the safety of her father. To buttress this unusual claim, Messier’s wife complains about my use of a quote from R. Lee Ermey “if you don’t learn from past mistakes, you need to be drug out and shot” during a legislative update I gave to the county Republican Committee in February.

Mike Messier is a law enforcement officer with the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department. His job carries sufficient risk that he is issued a sidearm at taxpayer’s expense in order to defend himself from violent criminals. I’d imagine that after doing this for twenty eight years, he wouldn’t get all panicky when voters criticize his record and his campaign activities on a website. I’m also surprised that his family, well experienced with the dangers of his profession, would seem think that a website is going to jump up and attack an armed law enforcement officer. But it sure does make for a heart-rending story, of how a local blogger’s “hate-filled statements and lies” are hurting a Virgina Tech student.

Here’s what’s apparently causing so much angst for this candidate: that he either knew or should have known as Lee Stoffregen’s Chief Deputy about Stoffregen’s sale of Sheriff’s Department credentials in exchange for campaign contributions. That Messier told the county committee that he would give $10,000 to the committee if elected, which can reasonably be interpreted as the solicitation of a bribe, and that a complaint in that regard has been filed with the Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney. That Messier held a fundraiser at a somewhat disreputable bar that is a frequent target for undercover operations of the Joint Narcotics Task Force. That he is asking Republican voters to cast ballots for him in a primary election when he rarely has participated in primaries himself. That his only political activity to speak of is running a campaign for a Democrat, and that he has actively campaigned against Republican candidates. All of this is documented fact, which so far hasn’t been refuted by the Messier campaign in any substantial way.

Messier’s own campaign however is an interesting example of outright lying. His campaign website claims that Glen Hill “increased the Sheriff’s Office budget by $3 million while cutting citizen programs and law enforcement duties”. There is no basis whatsoever for that claim, and the county’s budget documents demonstrate that this claim is clearly a false allegation. Sheriff Hill’s first budget was in 2006, and $7,260,524 was spent by the department, The department’s spending in 2007 was $7,200,846. The budget for 2008 for the Sheriff’s Department is $7,105,794, which is a cut over last year’s spending. There is no $3 million dollar increase here. When it is so obvious that Mike Messier is willing to lie to the voters, it’s really hard to take it at face value when he courageously hides behind his wife’s skirt in order to shoot back at the messenger who is documenting just how bad a candidate for office he really is.

It’s disconcerting to learn that Mike Messier and his family were affected by the outrage that happened at Virginia Tech. If he and his family needed a little time to regroup, I certainly would have laid off for a while had anyone bothered to ask, or done so of my own initiative if anyone had said what was going on. Instead Mike Messier’s campaign rolled along without mentioning this now supremely significant issue. He seems to have held his scheduled meet & greet on April 22nd, attended a PWCRC meeting on the 26th, and as far as anyone can reasonably determine was in full campaign mode in the aftermath. That’s a good thing for Messier, as it’s not seemly for a Sheriff’s candidate to “get wobbly” when tragedy strikes.

In direct contrast to that display of strength, today we see this surprise broadside from his wife. I’m scaring his children. I’ve “lied and twisted stories to meet [my] own needs”, and “some of [my] writings compared to the Virginia Tech shooter”. This is so completely over the top it’s really hard to take it seriously. Forgive me for perhaps mistaking this for a desperate attempt to gain political advantage by a candidate who so far has been entirely unable to answer the questions raised about his qualifications for office. It’s just too convenient to dodge the criticism like this, and too ridiculous to equate that criticism with the actions of a madman who murdered thirty two innocent people last month.

Next are we going to hear “stop, or my mom will shoot?

UPDATE: Here’s the letter:

Meanness spread by local blogger
Letter to the Editor
Potomac News
Wednesday, May 9, 2007

After reading Leonard Pitts’ column in the News & Messenger regarding meanness, I felt compelled to put my words and feelings on paper. I have struggled with panic, relief, sorrow and worry throughout this past week. My youngest daughter is a student at Virginia Tech and after hearing about the shootings at work I panicked, worrying for her safety.

When I finally connected with her, I felt blessed she was safe. Then my heart filled with sorrow for all the parents and families that lost their loved ones in this senseless tragedy.

Finally, I worry about my daughter having had to experience such a horrific event, losing friends and being surrounded by such sorrow when these should be her best of times.

My daughter insisted on being one of the students that stayed in Blacksburg during the barrage of media because the faculty and students of Virginia Tech are a strong family. But on Thursday, she surprised us all by showing up on our doorstep. I held her in my arms; we had a long cry session and talked for hours.

That night I learned that somehow she was informed about a local blog that is filled with hate-filled statements and lies. The blogger has written horrible things about her father.

He has lied and twisted stories to meet his own needs. She can’t seem to understand how a person can write such terrible things about a person he doesn’t even know. Then she told me how some of his writings compared to the Virginia Tech shooter and it hit me like being punched in the stomach. She is worried for her father’s safety.

So I want to take this opportunity to thank Greg Letiecq. With all your hate-filled ranting and ravings about my husband, my daughter’s father, you have instilled additional fear in her life. Good job. It also makes me think that maybe what she said is right. Maybe you are someone whose writings and actions we should be closely watching.

I recall very vividly at the last PWC Republican meeting when you abruptly interrupted the meeting in order to rant that certain politicians “should be taken out and shot.”

So you’re right Mr. Pitts, this world is full of meanness and hate. And, unfortunately, we live in a country where nothing can be done until tragedies like Virginia Tech happen, and then we can only wring our hands and wonder where we went wrong.



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.


  1. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 11:40 am:
    Flag comment

    You can discern my opinion of much of what you say here, Greg, from what I write, but I thought this letter was uncommonly silly.

  2. Not Mike Messier said on 9 May 2007 at 11:52 am:
    Flag comment

    I say, turn up the heat. The wife has entered the fray, and is now fair game. The Messier campaign has distributed outright lies regarding Glen Hill. Everything that you reported is backed up by fact. In addition to responding here on your blog, I would answer this in the MJM. She’s opened the door for you.

  3. anon said on 9 May 2007 at 12:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, Greg, I strongly disagree with the previous entry. Families of political figures are naturally protective of their loved ones when they get beat up in the press. Ms. Messier is simply defending her husband. She is not fair game, and I hope that this issue ends here. That is the decent and gentlemanly thing to do.

  4. AWCheney said on 9 May 2007 at 12:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree with anon (12:05 pm)…Mom’s are very protective of their children and her child is suffering right now. I’m sure that Mrs. Messier has no idea what actual involvement her husband had during the Stoffregen regime and considers him absolutely innocent of wrongdoing…why would he tell her. Families should be off-limits.

  5. hirons said on 9 May 2007 at 12:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Speaking of avoiding the family and sticking to the issues . . . I haven’t spent any time following this race. After reading this post I started clicking around.

    What the hell is Messier talking about with regards to the Sheriff’s office budget? If the budgets don’t support the claim of $3 million increase where does he get that number from? Does have a habit of making stuff up? Then he goes on to talk about how he’s going to reduce the budget by working hard and better management . . .got any specifics? The paragraphs that follow his statement on his website talk about restarting programs Sheriff Hill shut down. How is he going to find the money to restart these programs while reducing the budget at the same time? Is he going to reduce the level of security at the courthouse?

    He apparently can’t even properly prepare his family for the rough and tumble world of politics. . .how’s he going to make PWC any safer?

  6. Not Mike Messier said on 9 May 2007 at 12:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let me clarify: I am not advocating that Greg attack Mrs. Messier, or thier daughter. What I am advocating is that Greg answer this in the same forum that Mrs Messier chose to launch her attack. Comparing Greg to the VT shooter, and speaking in broad generalities doesn’t cut it. Since she chose a public forum to comment in, her comments are fair game, and should be addressed.

  7. Not Larry Sabato said on 9 May 2007 at 12:44 pm:
    Flag comment


  8. AWCheney said on 9 May 2007 at 12:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    I understand NMM…I think what we’re (at least I am) trying to say is that the charges she has made are totally, and obviously, emotional and do not warrant response. It’s best left alone.

  9. Greg L said on 9 May 2007 at 12:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ben, that’s a reasonable request. What question and choices would you like to see?

  10. Not Larry Sabato said on 9 May 2007 at 2:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Worst Prince William Candidate Wife Ever?

  11. AWCheney said on 9 May 2007 at 2:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    That would be like responding. Poll “Respond or Not Respond” Greg.

  12. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    With that having been said (and I have little reason to believe that you’ll listen to me on this), I wouldn’t respond in the paper to what she wrote in the paper. To those who don’t like you, and/or your tactics, you’ll just prove her right. To those who do, your response here is adequate.

    I’m still wondering why the Pot. News/MJM prints tripe like this about things on which they have not reported. It’s one thing to print a public thanks over a kindness, and another entirely to print one over a dispute in another medium.

  13. Greg L said on 9 May 2007 at 3:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually James, you’re probably right. What was printed probably speaks for itself, although it wouldn’t surprise me if some readers decide to weigh in on the editorial page themselves.

  14. Interested Party said on 9 May 2007 at 3:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    And the band plays on.

    Messier attacks Hill; the content and veracity of the attacks are analyzed and parsed ad naseum. Now, however, the voters have a different choice, a better choice: James J. Fotis for Prince William County Sheriff.

    Far too often voters don’t have a real choice, a choice that is clear — a choice where there is an opportunity to ‘trade-up’ — like there is now in the upcoming Republican primary.

    Now, at long last, the voters in Prince William (those who really care about the heart and soul of conservative/republican policies and beliefs) have just such a choice. If you don’t like Messier because: you think he’s his former boss, if you think he is a ‘D’ hiding in ‘R’ clothing, or whatever, you can vote Fotis for Sheriff with the sure and certain knowledge that he is a TRUE conservative and that he brings that vision to the office.

    If you don’t like the job Hill has done, if you believe that Hill is not the best choice to be an elected ‘R’ politician either because he is supporting the candidate running AGAINST an ‘R’ in another race in Prince William County, or if you feel that he has done very little as Sheriff to advance conservative ideas and political beliefs, or if you feel that his greatest accomplishment is that he has done so little with the office that almost no one in the County even knows his name, you have a choice.

    If you are sick of ‘politics as usual’ and want something different, you have a choice, VOTE FOR FOTIS!

    There will be a republican primary on June 12th for the Office of Sheriff; there will be three candidates running, one of whom will be the republican nominee when the votes are tallied. Whether you are tired of all this ‘politics as usual’ nonsense or the bitter personal attacks, or tired of the challenge in finding ‘the truth’ behind political attacks, then send a message and Vote for Fotis!


  15. Turn PW Blue said on 9 May 2007 at 4:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Interested Party (and Messier supporters)…

    This is now the third or fourth time I’ve asked this question, and I’ve yet to get any kind of answer. What has Glen Hill done that calls for his being voted out of office? Why is an incumbent facing not one but two primary challengers?

  16. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 7:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “it wouldn’t surprise me if some readers decide to weigh in on the editorial page themselves.”

    It would certainly surprise me, Greg, since only two or three of your readers, other than Charles and myself, have the courage to attach their names to their posts, and the Pot. News/MJM require them.

  17. Interested Party said on 9 May 2007 at 7:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Turn, sorry I missed the other times you asked.

    I don’t think someone has have to have done something so terribly wrong in order for folks to want to vote for someone better. That is, precisely the situation I believe exists between Fotis/Hill. Fotis is a better conservative/republican than is Hill; he has a longer, much more visible pedigree and history. Fotis will bring energy and enthusiasm to the office of Sheriff. It looks to me like Hill was simply a guy asked to run for a job, when an ‘R’ candidate was desperately needed (the waning days of the former ‘D’s’ administration, occuring very near the time that he was hit with his criminal indictment).

    That is well and good that Hill was willing to step into the breech and run. That said, however, Hill has not been a real, dynamic leader in his office. Perhaps the best that can be said of him is that he is running the deparment better than the previous discredited Sheriff did — and that, IMHO, is NOT much of a ringing endorsement!

    Hill’s name is now attached supporting a challenger to the ‘R’ candidate for the office of Clerk of the Court. Hill has done very, very little to help support other ‘R’ candidates (up and down the ticket) and after getting input from hundreds of PW Co residents, it has become clear (at least to me) that most folks in the county do not even know who Hill is.

    The Office of Sheriff should be a vibrant part of the conservative/’R’ process/agenda. Others may wonder how much a Sheriff can do to help advance the conservative cause and I think the answer is that IF they are MOTIVATED and TRY, they could do so very much more than Hill did. So, Fotis is a better candidate than is Hill, it is really that simple.

    In concept, the whole purpose of a primary is to allow those within the party to get a chance to pick a candidate who, in Jim Fotis’ case, can be a much better conservative, much more energetic and creative Sheriff than Hill has been. In short, a chance to ‘trade up’.

    Since there will be a primary, wouldn’t you agree that the best outcome of that process would be that the best candidate wins. Is there any ‘real’ argument that on his worst day, Fotis is not far superior to Hill, especially vis-a-vis ability to do something more with the Office and better for conseravatives than Hill has done (or perhaps better to say, that Hill has not done)?

  18. Stephen Martin (Turn PW Blue) said on 9 May 2007 at 8:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    How the heck is the Office of Sheriff going to be a “vibrant part of the conservative/’R’ process/agenda”? The primary missions of the sherriff’s office has little if anything to do with setting policy or establishing a conservative or liberal agenda. If the only reason you provide for why Hill needs to go is that Hill is not ‘R’ enough for your tastes, then it realy seems like the Republican Party is out to eat its young. If the current situation were such that there were “traditional” conservative candidates coming out of the woodwork at every turn, I could see the reason for some more in-fighting (much the way the Democratic Primary in DC is where the Mayor is chosen, not the general election). But looking at the PWC landscape, it seems to me a waste that the Sheriff’s office is where some looks to establish a foothold in restoring conservative ‘R’ values.

    Don’t get me wrong…as a “D” I’m more than happy to see Republicans spend so much time and effort beating each other up. Just seems like a lot of wasted time and energy.

    Oh, and my name is now attached to my posts. *G*

  19. Interested Party said on 9 May 2007 at 8:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Stephen -

    I am a staunch conservative. If you don’t agree with the basic premise that conservatives want to elect the more conservative candidate than I suspect we are, fundamentally, at an impass.

    There is going to be a 3-way primary. That is a fact and discussion now about IF you think that is good, warranted, needed, etc. is really immaterial. It is here. The only question is will those voting in the primary — if they are presented with the accurate information — pick Fotis, the more conservative candidate, over Hill.

    I think the Office of Sheriff matters very much. I have seen where Sheriff’s have used their office to serve the public, raise the profile of their party and that partie’s agenda, and to improve the visibility/responsiveness of that ELECTED office.

    Perhaps you think Sheriffs should not be elected — or, in the alternative — not serve those that elect them. I disagree. The Sheriff can do much to advance law and order ideas (that often have a big impact on other elected office holders, by the way).

    And, while if you are D you might not want to hear it, I suspect that had Hill busted his butt to support just one R candidate, George Allen, the outcome of that race might, JUST MIGHT have ended with an R victory.

    And, although you chose not to address it, you must admit that the incumbent Sheriff’s support of the candidate running against the ‘R’ ticket in the Clerk of the Court’s race is definitely not a good thing from a party/activism perspective.

  20. charles said on 9 May 2007 at 9:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Good Thread Hijack, “Interested Party”. I am idly speculating about whether their was some plot to run Messier to tear down Hill so Fotis could “ride to the rescue”. Someone who knows things could look into that, and report if they get actual PROOF rather than the standard “well it appeared on my keyboard so I guess I should hit “post”".

    The letter is silly, but if you believe it is a mother just being protective, the next question is what is written that makes a daughter cry, and her mother get protective, and was it necessary to write that in order to get the facts out.

    There are facts which make people cry, but most aren’t necessarily emotional. You can express those facts in ways that are emotionally painful, or simply thought-provoking.

    Greg is an “emotionally painful” writer who evokes harsh emotional responses. As our political discourse is overrun by this class of writer, our country becomes more incapable of rationally discussing things, or reaching compromises necessary to move forward without leaving half the people feeling alienated.

    Think about how what you write will effect the personal lives of those you write about — that includes children that love and look up to them, their wives, their extended family.

    Some could care less whether Dion’s kids have their father kicked out of their cub scout troop, or Gill’s children get harrased because their Dad “helped terrorists attack our country”. You might say that it is the candidate’s fault for running (but you can attack any candidate {see the Kopko/Lucas flap} — which makes one wonder why any sane person goes into politics).

    I see this often — my column is seen as being about them, and they write to me. I spent this weekend soothing over things with my HOA, people I all know personally as I used to be on the board, but who thought I was attacking them in print.

    If I was talking to Mike Messier, I would chastise him for allowing his wife to write this letter. It drags his daughter into a political battle she’s probably NOT prepared to be part of, it makes his wife a political figure, it’s in poor taste.

    In my cynical times, I wonder if every thing I see is part of some broad calculated evil strategy to win elections (Like my rant about how many times Gill’s name appeared first in an e-mail). In my better times, I hope people are just being honest. In my realistic times, I realise the answer is somewhere in between.

  21. charles said on 9 May 2007 at 9:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    As to why they published the letter, I believe it is because Greg has made himself into a public figure in several ways. First, he’s injected this blog into the public discourse — the local paper knows it exists, it’s been part of news stories (like Greg being threatened by Manassas Park).

    Second, Greg is the president of a public organization now, and so he is a truly public figure, and therefore considered “fair game”.

    Third, Greg has published an opinion column in the paper (I think in his position has head of the HSM organization). So while this letter didn’t respond to the column, It again opened him up I think to treatment as a “public person”.

    It still was weird that they put that letter in, and never seemed to have throught that they might want to actually look into the story as a news story. Maybe they are now — if so, the letter will have backfired.

  22. NoVA Scout said on 9 May 2007 at 9:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Both the Fotis and Messier episodes are fairly entertaining. My guess is that Hill will crush them in a primary. Once you get competence and dignity in a post, hang on to it. I love the way these guys try to harness up “conservative” memes on the theory that if you say the word, it will get you elected. If there’s an honest sheriff who runs the jails and court security efficiently, gets the writs served, and refrains from undermining the police, say “thank you,” vote for him, and be glad the Republicans have a guy they can point to who knows how to do his job without a lot of fuss or hoopla.

    Because this post (sheriff) and the Clerk post are the only ones that pay a living wage, I think they tend to attract people who would otherwise not bother the incumbent. Nonetheless, it’s just as well that we pay for value.

  23. James Young said on 9 May 2007 at 10:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    For a change, I agree with “NoVA Scout.” I hope, and don’t think, that Messier and Fotis have a prayer.

  24. Interested Party said on 9 May 2007 at 11:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    To Charles concerns of some plot, let me be clear: for my part there is no ‘plot’. I want to see Fotis win as Sheriff. It think far too much time and attention has been focused on silly, unsuported personal attacks and not enough on having a real give and take to help identify the best candidate for the office.

    The real issue is not Messier or his wife being mad at Greg L. (nor is the question do they have a right to be). The proper issue is who is the best candidate for the Office of Sheriff and moving that issue forward so that Republican primary voters can have a clear picture by the time they vote in the Primary!

    It think political debates should be about the candidates, thier real qualifications/vision (not hatchet jobs, inuendo, etc.) should come to the forefront BEFORE people vote.

    I know Fotis very well. I believe he is the best person for the job I trust others will feel the same way IF WE CAN START FOCUSSING DISCUSSIONS on the reality of the choice before the voters.

    Fotis is conservative, I believe he can do a much better job, I think Hill did not work as hard as he might have to advance the Office of Sheriff, improve its service/visibility to those that voted him into office and Hill was not engergtic or creative enough to support the Republican Party that helped put him in office.

    I don’t think that anything in the preceeding paragraph is mean, unfair or a hatchet job. I believe it has been established as fairly clear for all to see (for those who wish to see it) that Hill could have done much more…Hill chose not too. Fotis saw this and decided to run because he believes he can ‘do better’ and he has the experience that makes that believe justified. (Isn’t that the best reason for a person to run for office?)

    And, although few seem to want to deal with it, the REALITY IS that there is a primary, it is a 3-way and voters will have to make a choice.

    Given that reality, can anyone explain why the voters — or the PW Co. Republican PArty — would not want the ‘best’ republican candidate to win?

    I, for one, am tired of having to pick between the lesser ‘bad’ candidate and not being able to vote for a candidate that really does share my conservative values and will work to put those values into action. If Fotis wins the primary and somehow fails to advance conservative values in Prince William County I think that it is far better to try and fail than not to try at all.

    I don’t think anyone who has watched Hill as Sheriff can argue with a straight face that he has been trying to advance the conservative cause as the County’s Chief Elected Law Enforcement Leader!

  25. super trooper said on 10 May 2007 at 12:59 am:
    Flag comment

    oooookkkk To begin with lets get messiers wife to cry over the vt shooter, and her poor daughter. ahhhh well lets elect her father because shes affected.

    ok please lets all get together and sing cooombiya and cry. can mrs messier
    be just a bit more pathedic maybe someone will drop an atomic bomb and the messier clan will be affec ted and we can elect him president.

    Does anyone really think that Messier didnt know and understand the fraud Staffy
    was involved with is just nuts, ya he was the number two guy and he was just dumb hahaha if you think that this is a fact then you are just stupid and out of touch. and this comes from a deputy that right one that worked with Messier
    and he knew it allllll all the corruption and BS that went on and it was all OK with him yea lets elect this wimpy turd that stands for corruption and BS.

    Orrrrr we can vote for the rocket man that uses the Sheriffs Badge on his web site Hello its copy rited yea hes real cool also go play politics in another county

    Hill is the only honest choice anything else is smoke and mirrors right Mrs Messier you shoul;d be ashamed but you have no shame so all is cool with you
    after all the money is what you care about not the people of the county. So sad !!!!

  26. Interested Party said on 10 May 2007 at 6:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Wow, super trooper you seem, uh, angry.

    As to you comments about Fotis, are you saying that you are upset because:

    1. Fotis’ website (at www.fotisforsheriff.com) dispays a graphic image of the badge for the Office for which he seeks election? What is the problem with that. All three candidate use graphic images (all of them use the badge, too) in conjunction with words, to help identify thier candidate with the office they seek. Why is it that - in your mind - a reason NOT to vote for Fotis….?

    2. You seem to point out that because he has a website, with similar content as the others, that earns him the disparaging title ‘Rocket Scientist’; now my friend’s Dad was a rocket scientist (and former Marine, patriot, and all-round good guy) so being compared to a rocket scientist is not really a bad thing, but I believe you meant it that way. Why all the hostility? And would you explain your position? Are you saying that Fotis is stupid for his attempt to identify the office he seeks — or for having a website — both things that Hill has done, but when Fotis does it is bad, but when Hill does it its okay? Come on.

    If you are, for whatever reason, a comitted Hill guy and don’t want to apply logic, consistency, etc. in the political debate about what I believe is obvious — that Fotis is the far and away better candidate — than just say so directly (please without the silly attack!).

    3. You aren’t really mad, or suggesting that others not vote for Fotis because the content of his website is copyrighted, are you?

  27. Henry said on 10 May 2007 at 9:40 am:
    Flag comment

    you write well Mrs. Fotis. If you had lived here any amount of time, you might have a better insight into what really does go on in the county.

  28. Interested Party said on 10 May 2007 at 11:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Thanks Henry, but I must inform you… wrong sex, wrong relationship.

    I am, first and formost ,a friend of James Fotis’ and have the honor of being close with him for over 15 years. I’ve also had the pleasure to work side-by-side with him on many, many important conservative fronts over the years.

    I do not get why you would guess that I am Mrs. Fotis or why you would type such a guess…. I thought my name for posting was clear and unambigous…. I am an ‘Interested Party’ I have made my perspective in this issue clear: I believe Fotis is best for this office and I want to see that the voting public learns the truth about him and I believe that armed with the truth, a majority of Republican Primary voters will decide to ‘trade-up’ and vote James J. Fotis for Prince William County Sheriff.

    I also believe that much of what has gone on in these styled forums is TRASH and too seldom gets above silly name calling, hatchet jobs, hidden agendas etc. and basically treats the voting public like idiots. I think the voters deserve better — a better, more honest political discussion, less trash talk and, while we are at it a better, more conservative Sheriff.

    Would you be so clear as to state where you start off on these issues…. are you, at the end of the day, against the more conservative candidate (Fotis) winning in the primary? If so, please explain why….

    Lastly, thanks for the compliment that I write well…. I do try to write clearly, from the heart and with my conservative bias plainly on display and declared early for all to see. My continuing apologies, tho when my fingers fail to keep up and insist, on their own accord, to type words with typo’s and mis-spellings.

  29. Interested Party said on 10 May 2007 at 11:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Oh and one other thing: I’ve got a NoVa padigree that goes back nearly 30 years, so you were also wrong on that little assertion, too.

  30. AWCheney said on 10 May 2007 at 12:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Interested Party, you’re from Centreville or Herndon aren’t you? I seem to recall clues to that effect in some of your comments on earler threads. There’s nothing wrong with that…I’m just curious.

  31. Interested Party said on 10 May 2007 at 12:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, just about hop, skip and jump north of the PW Co line, in southern Fairfax County.

  32. AWCheney said on 10 May 2007 at 12:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thanks for your honesty IP. I’ve got a 53+ year NOVA pedigree…45 of those right here, in Prince William County. Although I respect your arguments in favor of Mr. Fotis’ candidacy, this is Prince William County and folks here have been very happy with Glen Hill’s performance. He beat an incumbent who outspent him by $1000-1 in every precinct with about 60% of the vote, and hasn’t done anything to disappoint those same voters. I frankly believe that your guy and Glen should be allies, not opponents.

  33. James Young said on 10 May 2007 at 1:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m just not sure that I understand the justification for Fotis’ candidacy. Glen Hill has done a solid job, without trying to aggregate his own power (a la Stoffregen who, while I liked him personally and respected his effort to keep the promises — however ill-advised — that he made, was obviously trying to become the Boss Hogg of PWC). The only thing for which I would criticize him is his close ties to Chairman Sean, but Chairman Sean is gone, so who cares?

    Messier is an embittered former Stoffregen man, trying to engage in a little payback by pretending to be a Republican, which is, for all practical purposes, the only place that Glen could be beaten. Fotis is … somebody almost nobody knows? Without a reason that hasn’t been presented to me, I see no reason to throw a GOP incumbent over the side.

  34. Henry said on 10 May 2007 at 2:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sorry for the misunderstanding - I had heard Mrs Fotis speak recently and your retoric sounded like her.
    That said, Fairfax has a few of its own issues, why not focus your energy there?

  35. Interested Party said on 10 May 2007 at 3:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Henry - your apoligy is warmly accepted. I guess I am pleased if Mrs. Fotis’ remarks in support of her husband have a similar theme to mine… we agree that Fotis is the best person for the job of Sheriff.

    Mr. Young - If you can’t see the ‘justification’ for taking the opportunity to ‘trade up’ in the Republican primary than perhaps we see things in a fundamentally different way. This is an off-year election cycle; pundits and liberals will be watching what happens in Virginia quite closely; those in Virginia and those watching Virginia for stuff they can spin to support the liberal cause/candidate will rejoice if the election process ‘proves’ that the more conservative candidate can not get traction — can’t even win in the Republicn Primary — in NoVA. I think that the Republican Party should be more bold, should be looking for and embracing the opportunity to make a statement, and move into office a better candidate. I have heard no one pose the theory that they think Hill is the better conservative candidate and I will take that abscence at face value. I don’t wish to discuss Mr. Messier as I think it is clear that this race will be between Fotis vs. Hill. Stoffregen is, in my opinion, similarly a non issue since I think Messier is the trailing candidate.

    Your statement that Hill has done a solid job is, to my way of thinking, a weak claim. I am sure he is not (and I have not tried to cast him as) a bad guy. I think given the Department that he inherited from the prior Sheriff, it sounds like he had nowhere to go but up.

    Having done an ‘okay’ job compared to a bad prior Sheriff, having nowhere to go but up, is hardly a ringing endorsement for a person to be considered the ‘BEST’ candidate.

    Hill, based on all I have seen, has not been aggressive in supporting R candidates, then or now. He has run his office for four years and yet it seems that most folks in the county don’t even know his name. I think had he worked harder as an ‘R’ team player there is a good chance that Allen would have won PW Co (as just one example). Does anyone wish to claim that Hill busted his butt then or now on behalf of conservative R values or canidadates?

    So Mr. Young, will all due respect, I think conservatives/’R’s’ should get behind the candidate they think is BEST not the one who, at best, can be credited with doing a fair job, credited with taking a department that all reports suggest was in disarray and merely ‘making it better.’

    We need to expect candidates that can do more and when we find them, we should support them. If we do not then what message are we sending?

    AW Cheney, you assert that folks in PW Co are happy with Hill and I beg to differ with that assertion. I have talked with many PW Co residents and have had it reported to me that others who have talked with hundreds of them note the same thing: they do not even know who Hill is, they do not even know that he is a Republican.

    Hill, for whatever good he has done, has not been much of a leader / visibility enhancer for the Office of Sheriff, the Republican party and or conservative/republican candidates. Do you care to refut that ? I have heard many republicans/conservatives voice significant disappointment in Hill and how he has run his office, are you seriously saying you have not heard ANY?

    Mr. Cheney are you really and truly happy with Hill or is it more accurate to say it is simply a matter of he hasn’t been ‘bad’ and, in any event, he is damn site better than the “D’ he replaced?

    I would hope that any R who filled that position would have been better than the bad ‘D’ that everyone says was in the office previously!

    Mr. Cheney are you really happy that your elected representative on law and order issues supported Ollie North… oh thats right, Hill didn’t support him back then. How bout Hill’s active support of Kilgore, Early, Gilmore, Allen, etc., etc., …. Oh thats right too, Hill didn’t do hardly anything to support them or their ‘conservative cause’ either, did he?

    It seems that the only candidate in this race who can claim that distinction is James J. Fotis… a conservative then, a conservative now; who has dedicated his life to advancing the beliefs I suspect we all share!

    Even Greg L. has zinged Hill for lending his name and image to support the challanger to the R candidate for Clerk of the Court — and that is just one example that can be sourced right here on this very blog! Or does none of any of this matter? From where I sit it looks like: Hill did better than a bad ‘D’ and he has done little else. We certainly wouldn’t want to send a message that PW Co. would like a little bit more effort, enthusiasm, etc from its elected Sheriff!

    Each person that has commented about Fotis seems bound and determined to talk of the campaign in terms of what they wished it would be as if this were many months ago. That is just not reality.

    We are here now. There are three candidates. There will be an election. Voter must pick someone and the ’someone’ they pick will win and it WILL SEND A MESSAGE!

    Can any one of you seriously pose the position that it makes any sense not to support the best ‘Conservative’ for this office? I’d really like to hear that argument explained.

    We all expect that the winner of the primary will likely win the general. If conservatives can’t trade up now, then when?

    Are you saying that the party and voters should never move more toward the conservative/activist? If find that position hard to believe!

  36. AWCheney said on 10 May 2007 at 4:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    What you apparently are loathe to accept, IP, is that Stoffregen was resoundingly defeated largely for his POLITICIZING of the office of Sheriff here in Prince William County, and attempting to politicize law enforcement here in the County in general. If your principal argument for Mr. Fotis’ candidacy is that he will politicize the office for the Republican conservatives, it just won’t wash…even among the majority of the conservatives.

  37. Interested Party said on 10 May 2007 at 9:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    AW - A republican Sheriff should use his office to support the folks that elected him and reflect conservative values (to include supporting conservative/’R’ candidates).

    If you feel that is the negative that you posit in your post of ‘politicizing’ and what you connect to the previous ‘D’ Sheriff (in a negative connotation) than we simply disagree on terms and what is good/appropriate political action for an elected ‘R’ leader.

    I do beleive that R voters do want someone who, when in office, will reflect thier values (including those political ones).

    It is my understanding, and I invite you to share your take on it with me, that the previous Sheriff was nearly run out of town on a rail for a series of reasons, including an indictment that occurred that overshadowed his election. I have not heard anyone suggest that he was defeated for supporting the kind of legitimate political reform about which I have been talking.

  38. Greg L said on 10 May 2007 at 9:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    What a thread hijack. I’m going to have to start clamping down on comments again, as this is getting really annoying.

  39. AWCheney said on 10 May 2007 at 9:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    I see nothing in your commentary that suggests you are supporting political reform…just re-politicizing OUR Sheriff’s office (why don’t you work on “reforming” Fairfax County?) to service the Republicans rather than the Democrats.

    You may also want to research Stoffregen’s legal difficulties before you assume facts not in evidence…he side-stepped the allegations against him until the Feds were brought in and things got serious, almost 3 years after the election. It had absolutely no bearing on the results.

    A Sheriff, whether Republican or Democrat, should USE HIS OFFICE to perform the duties for which he is elected. What he does outside of his office is his own business, but whatever it is that he does politically must only be as a private citizen. An elected law enforcement office is a position particularly vulnerable to malfeasance, as we saw with Stoffregen (selling badges, intimidating his deputies to perform political duties, etc.)…he got off easy.

    If these are the best arguments you can offer, you do your friend a disservice.

  40. AWCheney said on 10 May 2007 at 9:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK Greg…but AFTER my last response to Interested Party. :-)

  41. Interested Party said on 10 May 2007 at 10:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    AW -

    Come on! I made it clear, my friend is running for Sheriff in PW Co. therefore that is where I am involved… do you really not see that? Or was your comment just a cute ‘throw away’. I note that you have not responded to the questions I have posed.

    Presuming that your response is legitimately intended to move discussion forward I will also answer your other point: that I have not been clear about ‘just re-politicizing’.

    That is not what I am saying. I think the R Sheriff should support R values, policies and other candidates. I think that as the elected CLEO for the County, the Sheriff can be a stronger leader than Hill has been . That is as it should be, it is all for the good; there is nothing wrong about that concept.

    If you want to twist what I am talking about out of context, to exagerate a concern that is not what I am talking about, just so you can rail against it, I can’t stop you, but that is not what I am saying and that is not what I believe the voters want.

    As to researching before commenting I have done some modest research and from what I have learned I think it is fair to say that some folks, including some who voted for Hill, believed that the previous ‘D’ sheriff was bad and that improper, perhaps criminal activity had been afoot and that did — to some degree — have an effect on voters. Please tell me if you know of facts that put that understanding in some different light.

    If you believe that an elected Republican Sheriff should not supprot other ‘R’ candidates, if you beleive a Republican elected Sheriff should not support good laws and support constitutional rights and freedoms, if you believe they should not use their office to do all they can to serve those that elected them, then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

  42. Interested Party said on 10 May 2007 at 10:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg -

    I think my initial comment on this thread was pretty relevant to the story lead. I think the LTE — and the response it generated — is just one more distraction from the real issues, hence the comment that the band played on while the ship slowly sinks.

    When people replied with questions/comments I responded. I took the liberty of copying my posts and putting them where this discussion might more properly belong (in the Fotis open thread). No one seemed to follow it there and the conversation continued here….

    Sorry if that is somehow poor form.

  43. Greg L said on 10 May 2007 at 11:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    The constant issue when discussing this race is that when I talk specifically about one candidate, partisans or detractors for the others feel compelled to weigh in about their candidates. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss all of the candidates, but this thread was supposed to be about the LTE that Messier’s wife submitted. Instead we’re talking about Jim Fotis.

    It’s a fine line, and I’m not entirely sure how to unambiguously define it. I used to rigorously delete comments in order to keep threads on-topic, but I haven’t had the time recently, and things have been a lot more free-wheeling recently. On this thread, try at least to relate to the original post in your comments, but this is so far gone at this point I’m not sure this thread can be salvaged.

  44. anon said on 10 May 2007 at 11:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    From Interested Party:

    “I think given the Department that he inherited from the prior Sheriff, it sounds like he had nowhere to go but up.”

    “…it sounds like…”

    This comment tells PW citizens everything they need to know. Fotis is an outsider, with outsider “support”, looking for a little more claim to fame in PWC.

    What exactly has Fotis EVER done in PWC?

    Perhaps I’ve missed it - that is entirely possible - but how long has Fotis been a member of the party? How often does he attend BOCS meetings? What leadership positions does he hold in PWC?

    Fotis is accustomed to being the star of the show. We rejected that kind of “leadership” in the sheriff’s office during the last election. PWC citizens sent a very clear message that we want a sheriff who attends specifically to the duties of the sheriff’s office. Period. I would suggest that it will be virtually impossible for Fotis to play “second fiddle” to the police department.

  45. super trooper said on 10 May 2007 at 11:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    what a bunch of liberal tree hugging BS do u dumb asses believe that the Sheriffs office is the end all be all for republican party ahhhh no

    the Sheriff is to do a job stoffy tried to go above and beyond with messiers help
    and got prosecuded for it yaaa he was honest sure and of course Messier

    will be the same awww a

    and who the hell is Fotis this guy has a large ego wow

    angry aaaa no just tired of people that think they get it and they dont

    its all just tired Hill does the job Meesssssier and this Fotis guy
    need to get a life hay run for animal warden thats your speed

    any dumb ass that was a cheif deputy to a Sheriff that got prosecuted and then runs for Sheriff deserves to be ahhhh defeated

  46. James Young said on 10 May 2007 at 11:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    I just don’t see this as much of a race. Hill is doing a respectable job. Do I wish he’d do more for the GOP? Sure. I wish every elected officeholder would do more for the GOP, but it seems to be an occupational hazard that most officeholders fear creating a “farm team” as a potential threat to their position. And I certainly can’t see throwing a good man like Glen Hill over the side simply because … well, I haven’t seen a real reason offered. And I certainly wouldn’t do so for a Stoffregen clone who tried to by the Committee’s loyalty by promising a monetary contribution, or even for someone with Fotis’ apparently impressive credentials who has neither “labored in the vineyard,” nor particularly attached himself to the people from whom he seeks support, nor laid the groundwork for a campaign. He’s an “outsider,” for lack of a better term. Now, if Hill were controversial, or in trouble, an “outsider” might come in and take the GOP nomination as some sort of — again, for lack of a better term — a “white knight,” a la Fred Thomspon. But Hill’s record does not justify such action against him.

  47. Anonymous said on 11 May 2007 at 2:18 am:
    Flag comment

    When the Democrats are better law and order fiscal conservatives then the Republican holding office, it is time for a change. Glendell made sure this occurred by his dislike for public service and lack of leadership and management skills.

    If you are still wondering why Glendell is holding office? It is for the money, not public service.

  48. Interested Party said on 11 May 2007 at 7:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg has asked that we at least TRY to keep this thread related.

    To those finally started talking about the real issues here (rather than the distraction/endless back and forth that takes the focus away from the question of who is the BEST candidate to be elected Sheriff) I extend my thanks; PW Co voters deserve no less.

    Anon - let me ask you, when does a ‘fresh’ leader who brings creativity, experience and energy , combined with a high-visibility successfull background from which you can get a sense of what that candidate really believes and supports , stop being an ‘outsider’ and simply become a great candidate. Fotis has been in NoVA for many years. Yes, he too like many tens of thousands of voters has fairly recently moved into the county… So What? Doesn’t the Party want those who move into the county with some particular experience or ability to contribute to ‘join in’ or, is it that in your mind they must meet some ’standard’ set and administered by a person such as yourself before they earn the right to join in the political process.

    Fotis is a proven leader who will bring conservative values (and energy and creativity) to the table… that makes him a totally different kind of Sheriff than there is now and was before in the previous ‘D’.

    Mr. Young you suggest no good reason has been offered to make a change… I disagree and I invite you to go back through the pevious posts and you will find at least one or two. You may not agree with them, but they have been made. Although I would not have done so, I personally like your comparison of Fotis for Sheriff to Thompson.

  49. vote4hill said on 11 May 2007 at 7:34 am:
    Flag comment

    I cannot honestly believe that hundreds upon hundreds of citizens do not know Hill…Please IP are you serious? This man is widely known and not just in Prince William County…Who is Fotis? I never even heard his name until this blog. In looking at the Fotis website it appears to be nothing more that that of a Stoffregan cronie! Kinda scary wouldn’t you say? His website does not mention what he will change or fix with his new duties of the Sheriff. As a matter of fact I don’t even think it mentions the security of the courthouse, which is the primary duty of the Sheriff of Prince William County. It does mention his surviving a would be cop killer, law and order, bang for your buck, tougher laws, and yes the right to shoot people in order to protect yourself. What about transporting the mentally ill to hospitals, or serving papers or I don’t know PROTECTING THE COURTHOUSE!!! Moving on, the letter to the editor was nothing more than “stop picking on my family,” this is PW politics, it does not allow for thin skin. It sickens me that someone would actually use a tragedy (VA Tech) to vie for votes (Messier). Hill is by far the best candidate. He has tended to alot of fixing and not just within that courthouse. Stoffy and Messier ruined the relationship amongst every public safety department within this County. Hill has mended them. Hill is a true documented leader and manager. He is well liked, well known and more importantly well respected. The citizens of Prince William County will speak again at the Primary!!!!

  50. AWCheney said on 11 May 2007 at 8:42 am:
    Flag comment

    “Fotis is a proven leader who will bring conservative values (and energy and CREATIVITY) to the table…”

    We had quite enough creativity in the Sheriff’s office with Glen’s predecessor, thank you very much! Insofar as “conservative values,” I would much prefer someone in the Sheriff’s office of proven honor, experience, competence, and personal values than someone who may have what all too often goes for “conservative values” in today’s world (homophobia, general intolerance, hypocrisy, and a multitude of ego-centric, self-serving values).

  51. AWCheney said on 11 May 2007 at 8:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Sorry Greg, but you’re right…this thread has been thoroughly hijacked.

  52. anon said on 11 May 2007 at 8:55 am:
    Flag comment


    NO, PWC DOESN’T want a “fresh” face. There is NOTHING wrong with the face we’ve got — Glen Hill. Glen has done an admirable job.

    And guess what — we don’t want a sheriff with “high visibility”. We want a sheriff who runs the jails, escorts funerals, and serves warrants — with high efficiency and minimal tax dollars necessary. PERIOD. THAT equals success in PWC.

    And “conservative values” — lay out the specifics if you’re going to throw that old line around — what “liberal values” has Hill brought? None. What MORE conservative values, specifically, should there be in the sheriff’s office that don’t currently exist? None that I see.

    And forget your lame accusation about the Clerk of the Court endorsement — that occurred when the candidate was still running as a Republican, so even that is not a mark against Hill.

    What’s that old saying — if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    We’ve already had one egomaniac in the office, and we don’t need another.

    Perhaps half of this thread can be cut and pasted to a new one, Greg. Maybe you could call it: “Fotis. Why bother?”

  53. Interested Party said on 11 May 2007 at 10:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Thankfully it now seems that we are actually engaging more and more so on discussing the race, the candidates and what they represent/bring to the table. I think that is a big improvement from all the attacking and silliness. I hope we keep moving the debate forward.

    Vote4Hill - first off, I’d like to thank you for the candor of your position/handle.

    Yes I am serious and yes I do believe that there are many, many folks in PW Co who do not even know who Hill is. I think that is a shame. I also agree with you that those who try to use the recent tragic, sicko slaughter for political gain or financial profit (and I am including that sick group the Sons-o-Bitches with the various gun control groups here: Sarah Brady, HCI, Paul Helmke, etc. here) should be held up for significant scorn, ridicule and derision of the most serious order.

    I would ask you, do you really feel that Hill has done all that he reasonably could to raise the visibility of the Office of Sheriff and/or made his office a more vibrant part of a more visible Republican party presence in PW Co? I think the job of Sheriff is TERRIBLY important (and in disagreement with many who have posted in the past, it can also be very influential).

    The responsibility of courthouse security is very real and very important. I’ll cede the point that on Hill’s watch (and also on his ‘D’ predecessor Sheriff’s watch) nothing very bad has happened to call into question the job they have done on this issue. I would suggest however, that the fact that nothing really big/bad has happened is not the same thing as a measure of success. I suspect there is room for new creativity and energy in this part of the Sheriff’s job responsibility as well.

    I think you place appropriate emphasis on the fact that the Sheriff’s office should work closely with other ‘public safety’ agencies. I will even cede the point that Hill may well have helped build some positive basic relationships back on that front (I would hope so, by the way, since Hill comes from that same community). That said, however, if at the end of four years Hill’s “success” is that he has helped mend old fences, that while it is laudable it is also GROSSLY INADEQUATE! I think the Sheriff could do much more than simply mend a few old fences, especially given four full years in office! I would ask, how are those that voted for Hill are better off now at the end of Hill’s first term in this regard than they were when he was elected?

    I agree that the voters will again ’speak’ through the form of the primary. They will ultimately prove one of us wrong. I do think that many will embrace the idea of ‘trading up’ and I think James J. Fotis very well might be the next Sheriff of Prince William County!

    Anon - I notice you declined to address the question of just when, in your take on things, ‘new’ arrivals to PW Co should be allowed to participate in their government. Probably very smart of you to avoid actually committing yourself to a position on such an important and fundamental idea.

    You again say that Hill has done an ‘admirable’ job, would you mind telling me what is your standard for that judgement? How has Hill met that standard? Do you or do you not think that primaries are a time for Republicans to be able to ‘trade up’?

    Do you believe that Republicans should keep in office all those who do an ‘okay’ job even when new folks arrive who are more committed to the core principles, who clearly have experience and bring much greater enthusiasm and creativity (and fresh perspective) to the job?

    Can you honestly say that it can never be ‘right’ for the R’s to ‘trade up’? If that is your final bottom line than we will have to agree to disagree. If you cede the point that there are — on occasions — sufficient reason to trade up, that it is proper for voters to chose and swap an ‘okay’ Republican ‘bird in the hand’ for what they believe is a better prospect for the future/party, then why is that time not now? (I can remember a time when certain Republicans were willing to trade in those that had ‘paid their dues’ and were the ‘established flag bearers’ for a “new” face that they felt better represented them… anyone else remember Ronald Reagan? {And no, I am not comparing Fotis to what was in my opinion the greatest President of my life time} I am comparing the ‘rightness’ of the concept of voters to ‘trade-up’.)

    And one other point ‘Anon’… “why bother” … really?!? I know this may seem a little over the top, and some may say I am blowing this out of proportion, BUT: We bother (those of us who feel this way) because elections really do matter. This election will have an impact on the body politic and on PW Co resident’s lives! We have soldiers fighting oversees, in part to defend our rights to debate and vote, and you say file it under “why bother”? Man, I hope you were just spouting off at the mouth and you really did not mean that…. “why bother” Mr. Anon … we bother because we care, because we think ideas, principles, values and votes matter! We believe that we have a duty to get in the Arena and try and make things better, not just sit on the sidelines and nit-pick. I’m sorry if you disagree, but if you feel voters don’t matter, ideas don’t matter, politics and excercising our God given and constitutionally guranteed rights should be filed under “WHY BOTHER” than you and I are miles apart!

    AW - I think it really stinks (and is without any basis in fact) for you to compare/link Fotis to the former disgraced ‘D’ Sheriff. There are NO TIES between the two. While some might feel that claim may apply to others running in this primary it DOES NOT relate to Fotis for Sheriff.

    I don’t see how/where you link the word ‘creativity’ and how I used it, to the conduct of the previous ‘D’ Sheriff. I suspect that was a cheap shot at a pejorative. If you have something direct to say, I’d like to hear it and be given the chance to debate it.

    One other thing, when I say conservative values, that is precisely what I mean. If to you the words conservative values means: “homophobia, general intolerance, hypocrisy, and a multitude of ego-centric, self-serving values” and/or pro-abortion, than I fear that you and I are on different ends of the political spectrum.

    I am a self-admitted, very staunch conservative — and I have been very forthright in that ‘disclaimer’ label. I believe many who will be voting the R primary have a desire to vote for a candidate who really truly reflects true conservative/republican values and WILL PUT THOSE VALUES INTO ACTION.

    I have never said, nor will I say, that Hill is a bad guy for I don’t believe he is. I also don’t think he is a strong conservative and looking at his record I think it clearly proves that he has not been out front leading in this capacity. It think the voters might like a real choice and many will vote for a ‘better candidate’ like James J. Fotis!

    One last point, you say that you value a man (candidate) who has “proven honor, experience, competence, and personal values”. Fotis is precisely just such a man and he has a very public record that supports that. Fotis also has the courage of his convictions to go into the
    ‘lion’s den’ to defend and advance traditional/conservative/republican values time and time again. I can’t see a single example where Hill has done anything similar. I’d love to hear you cite an example where this can be said of Hill.

    I have seen and experienced Fotis up close and personal for 15 years + so I know whereof I speak; I’d like to ask upon what, SPECIFICALLY, do you base your assessment of Hill….???

  54. anon said on 11 May 2007 at 11:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Your guy “bothers” because he’s got an ego as big as all outdoors.

    I don’t “bother” to give him a second look because we have a good sheriff in Glen Hill.

    Different isn’t always better.

  55. AWCheney said on 11 May 2007 at 11:16 am:
    Flag comment

    This guy really doesn’t get it, does he. He’s making Fotis sound like a Republican Stoffregen and actually thinks that he’s doing the guy a favor. It’s obvious that he knows nothing about Prince William County.

    Insofar as what I said about modern conservative values, I suggest you read the comment more carefully IP. When I utilize phrases such as “all too often,” they are not without meaning. And when I say “in today’s world,” that’s also exactly what I mean. Things have changed greatly since the decades of the 70’s and 80’s when I was considered to be a right-winger in the Republican Party here in Virginia…but I haven’t.

  56. Interested Party said on 11 May 2007 at 11:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Funny ‘Anon’, you speak of my friend as if you know him… did I miss something here? I know him and I know him from first-hand experience not to be some kind of ego maniac.

    Do you know him ….. Or is this just one more in a series of unsupported opinions that you ‘assert’ as if it were true…?

    Assertion by itself does not make a damning charge true. Different is NOT ALWAYS BETTER, never said it was, BUT sometimes THE RIGHT KIND OF DIFFERENCE IS BETTER

  57. Interested Party said on 11 May 2007 at 11:36 am:
    Flag comment

    AW - I too have often felt that certain R leaders have fallen out of sync with me. That is why I am excited about Fotis for Sheriff.

    James J. Fotis is not the previous ‘D’ sheriff; he is soo very much better than that! If you think there is a comparison there to make betwen the two I’d really like to hear your argument for that.

  58. anon said on 11 May 2007 at 12:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t have to KNOW Fotis personally to KNOW that he is driven by ego. Let’s take a look at it:

    He’s lived in PWC for a very short period of time. He lacks ties to the community. He hasn’t made any effort to become significantly involved in the community. One day he simply arrives, looks around and determines, that HE is the answer to our prayers and that HE can do a better job than these people.

    An EGO-DRIVEN person functions that way.

    For the rest of us “regular” folk arriving in a community and desiring to be involved, the process includes:

    Attending BOCS meetings
    Joining civic groups
    Writing letters to the editor
    Joining the local political party
    Lobbying our supervisors for community improvements
    Volunteering to serve on committees (like the budget committe, the clean community council, etc.)

    WHEN did Fotis arrive in the community? There isn’t some drop dead date which makes one a “real” member of a community; it is a somewhat nebulous intersection of arrival and action.

    WHAT local groups does Fotis participate in on a regular basis?

    WHEN did Fotis join the local Republican committee?

    HOW MANY supervisor’s meetings has Fotis addressed?

    Has Fotis lobbied the BOCS to implement some of these non-specific “creative” ideas?

    Does Fotis write LTEs speaking on community issues?

    Has Fotis met with his local supervisor and the chairman and requested to be on the budget committee so that he has an additional avenue to suggest “improvements” to the sheriff’s office?


    The argument for why Fotis sounds just like Stoffregen is in your very own words. If either you or Fotis had one inkling of what was going on in PWC prior to about six months ago, you might have some clue as to why you are doing your candidate no favors. For example, you suggest making the sheriff’s office creative and relevant in people’s every day lives (but no specifics, again). THAT was one of the BIG problems with Stoffregen. Unfortunately, THAT is NOT the place of the sheriff in a county with a POLICE department. We REJECTED a sheriff who promoted all kinds of “public outreach” services, running radar, making a name for himself, having hundreds of regular citizens involved as “deputies”, setting himself up as a “leader”, etc.

    The sheriff is SECONDARY to the police department. That is a fact. The man you describe in your vague writings clearly has no desire to be SECOND to ANYONE.

    And again with canard of “conservative values”. Specifics please, as has been asked repeatedly.

  59. AWCheney said on 11 May 2007 at 1:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    “If you think there is a comparison there to make between the two I’d really like to hear your argument for that.”
    Well, let’s take a look at your own words.

    Interested Party says:

    May 9, 7:51 PM
    “The Office of Sheriff should be a vibrant part of the conservative/’R’ process/agenda. Others may wonder how much a Sheriff can do to help advance the conservative cause and I think the answer is that IF they are MOTIVATED and TRY, they could do so very much more than Hill did.”

    Stoffregen considered the Office of Sheriff to be a vibrant part of the ‘D’ process and agenda, so he utilized his office to accumulate money for ‘D’ campaigns; intimidated his deputies to provide services for ‘D’ candidates (regardless of their own political/apolitical leanings); provided deputies and vehicles to Democratic dignitaries for motorcades during campaign visits in PWC (remember Mark Warner during the Early/Warner campaign?); etc.

    May 9, 11:35 PM
    “I don’t think anyone who has watched Hill as Sheriff can argue with a straight face that he has been trying to advance the conservative cause as the County’s Chief Elected Law Enforcement Leader!”

    Stoffregen did everything he could to advance his own political agenda and subvert the jurisdictional authority of the local police departments at every turn in order to fully establish himself as the “County’s Chief Elected Law Enforcement Leader” firmly in control of all law enforcement throughout the county (the “Boss Hogg” effect, which has been mentioned elsewhere).

    May 11, 10:58 AM
    “I would ask you, do you really feel that Hill has done all that he reasonably could to raise the visibility of the Office of Sheriff and/or made his office a more vibrant part of a more visible Republican party presence in PW Co?”

    No, unlike under Stoffregen, the Sheriff’s office is not run on cronyism anymore. The deputies are not required to participate in partisan politics, at the whim of the Sheriff, anymore. The Sheriff’s deputies are no longer rushing to subvert the authority of the local police at various venues. The Sheriff’s office is back to doing the job for which the Sheriff was elected, and doing it well.

    What you have continually said here regarding how Fotis would handle the Sheriff’s office is far too akin to what we voted out…in your words.

  60. vote4hill said on 11 May 2007 at 6:46 pm:
    Flag comment


    First off your are quite welcome for my candor…

    You have asked me two questions. The first one being whether or not that I feel that Hill has done everything reasonable to raise visibility of the Office and or made his office a more vibrant part of a more visible Republican party presence in PW Co? I feel that Hill has done exactly what he promised the citizens of Prince William County he would do, you know those citizens that elected him as Sheriff…

    The second questions is: How are those that voted for Hill are better off now at the end of Hill’s first term in this regard than they were when he was elected? First off let me say that I was in no way attempting to measure Hill’s “success” by mentioning his role in mending the relationships between the public safety entities in PWC. I was pointing out that Fotis would not have been able to do what Hill has done, simply put it would not have been his focus for the Office of Sheriff, based on his website alone. Back to the question, those that voted for Hill are better of now because he singlehandedly brought stability, respect, honesty and integrity to that Office. The Office is in order, the badges are for only sworn and fully trained deputies. The courthouse is safe, the judges are safe and the citizens are safe. The papers are being served and inmates are being transported without incident. You know I could go on and on…the bottom line is that Hill is doing everything that he was put in that office to do. He is doing everything the Code of Virginia holds him accountable to do. He is committed to this County and the citizens he serves. We are better off, much more than better off! So I do believe that I have answered your questions. I will however take a moment to say that I understand why you are on this blog putting Fotis out there as the best candidate, he is your friend and you have known him for 15 years. I will say that Hill has made a great name for himself in this town and earned a great deal of respect as our Sheriff, he has more years of serving this community than I am old (almost), you will never persuade me or many many many of us that Fotis is the better candidate. Sheriff Hill made promises, kept those promises and will not break his promises…I am a Hill supporter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  61. super trooper said on 11 May 2007 at 8:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    ooookkk again fotis who ——— and no messier doesnt use the current badge on his web site its the only thing he doesnt do

    does fotis even understand what job he campaigning for —————

  62. Interested Party said on 12 May 2007 at 5:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear Vote4Hill –

    Your good graces, candor and intelligent and convicted position have made the process of this discourse rewarding and pleasant, thank you very much!

    Sadly, other than this exchange with you, I was surprised how much of the discussion/commnetaries in this medium was so often needlessly unpleasant. You have my heartfelt thanks… you and I may support different candidates, but I feel you are a sincere person, honestly putting yourself and your beliefs forward without all the other…. uh…. without being too impolite… crap; that others feels should take the place of honest political dialouge and polite competativeness of ideas.

    Again thanks. I’d be pleased to buy you a beer when my candidate wins:-))

    Based on all that I have seen I think it is fair to say that Hill probably has done all that he promised when he ran for election the first time. I say that for two main reasons: I think he did not promise too much and what he did promise to do was try and bring the department back from the discrace that it had become under the control of a ‘D’.

    I would posit that many conservative’s first job when taking over from democrats is try and undo the ‘goat rope’ the liberals created (one such example might be America’s inteligence community).

    That said however, when it is time for re-election shouldn’t one of the questions for the electorate to consider is who can lead — in this case the Sheriff’s Office — best, into the future? That is where I think Fotis excels.

    One other area I’d like to hear your thoughts on: From where I sit one big ‘knock’ on Hill’s time as Sheriff is that he did little to get out and lead on the Republican Party / Conserative political front. What say you in that regard? Do you agree that he didn’t do too much? Or stating it more positively, that Hill could have done more? If you do, how do you feel about that issue… is it a good reason for primary voters to consider ‘trading up’?

    Super trooper - please read (and learn from) Vote4Hill’s comments above. Making posts that are cryptic, cynical and mean spirited do not move the process of polite political discourse forward. Am I to infer that you are mad at one candidte becuase his website uses graphic and text to identify the office for which they seek election and yet you only attack one candidate and similar conduct by the other two in your opinion in ‘okay’? Please, a little consistency would go a long way here.

    If you support Hill, just say so and spare us the silly styled attacks.

  63. super trooper said on 12 May 2007 at 10:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Interested Party My comments reflect the stupidity of the entire debate. If you need a hug go get one. One needs to understand that a debate happens when both parties are of equal knowledge and experience. Very few people on this blog can say that. A true test of the intellectual prowess of an individual is there ability to convey ideas and more importantly facts. This is not the case with you IP and for that i feel sorry for you. Politics is an aggressive business and the heat obviously upsets your delicate sensibilities. As for the Sheriffs race we finally have a Sheriff that is honest and does his job so why is there a debate. As for consistency what are you talking about Fotis is using the badge image in violation of the copyright. Messier uses an old image of a Sheriffs car. Hill gets to use it as a symbol of the office. This is very clear and concise.

    [Ed note: comment edited to correct formatting problems]

  64. Interested Party said on 14 May 2007 at 11:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Super Trooper, thanks for writing in more complete thoughts/sentences. May I ask, what the heck is it with you about asking folks if they need a hug? Do you?

    I don’t think your comments reflect the stupidity of the people of Prince William County who wish to vote intelligently because, unlike you, I don’t think they are stupid at all!!! Perhaps there is some stupidity about some of the comments posted by various writers, but surely you agree the issue of an informed citizenry excercising their constitutionally protected and sacred right to vote is not stupid… or do you?

    I asked before, and you seem inclined not to answer thus far, but in case you missed it I’ll ask again: are you a supporter of one particular candidate in the upcoming June 12th Republican Primary in Prince William County in which one of three folks is going to be selected to run in the General Election this fall (and likely whoever wins the primary may well win the general?).

    Or are you just slinging stuff and asking folks if they need a hug for no real, good reason?

    I am sorry if you feel so vastly superior to most everyone else in the world and on the internet such that you feel that your advantage over everyone else’s shortcomings is such that no ‘real debate’ can happen… What a sad world… perhaps you do need a hug.

    I, on the other hand, generally believe and have great confidence in those folks that make up this great experiment that we call America, complete with our representative Republic, comprised and controlled by the ‘average’ folks who vote.

    I think most of those folks are ready for a change from the kind of negative, politics as usual that your postings seem to want to continue. I believe the good folks in PW Co. will want to ‘trade up’ and elect a better conservative — a different and better kind of politician — for their next Sheriff.

    I think you are wrong and the dream of ‘bettter’ will prevail. I hope and pray that the voters see through all the silly negative stuff (like your writings and snide comments) and vote James J. Fotis for Sheriff. And if they need to learn more about that good man, and the strongest conservative in the race, they go to: www.fotisforsheriff.com

    So, Mr. Trooper, is there another candidate for this office that you’d like to announce has your public support or is that just too scareeeeey for you?

  65. super trooper said on 15 May 2007 at 10:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hahaha Ok Yes there oooo Great deep intellectual i am a Hill supporter and i know what i am talking about. Ohhh No yep i guess this just makes you even more ignorant of the Sheriffs office or what your talking about. You are the worst kind of debater. One that is just clueless about any facts. This just kills me the kind of intellectual BS that you throw at people when your just ignorant of any factual discord. You should be ashamed that you take the intellectual high road when you have no no no facts.

    [Ed note: comment edited]

  66. Greg L said on 15 May 2007 at 10:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    This thread is being closed. I am certain Glen Hill would be appalled at some of the ‘discussion’.

    To those who have hijacked this thread, and demonstrated so little civility, consider this a final warning.

Comments are closed.

Views: 3278