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

Jeff Dion Caught In A Lie?

By Greg L | 8 January 2007 | Prince William County | 7 Comments

James Young has been bulldogging the Jeff Dion campaign in order to get clarification about the biography published on Jeff Dion’s campaign website and reported to local media. So far there’s been no response, which increasingly lends credibility to the theory that Jeff Dion has been somewhat artfully lying to the voters. James writes:

Likewise, a prospective public official’s frankness in his or her public pronouncements, particularly in something as elemental as his biography, is important to voters. And if Dion is misrepresenting himself and his custody status by artful obfuscation, voters are entitled to know that, as well. If voters and constituents are presented with a candidate whose every statement must be parsed for alternate and perhaps contradictory meanings (see, i.e., the Great Prevaricator AKA Bill Clinton), then they should know that before entering the voting booth. If Dion can’t even tell the truth about his custody status and is publicizing false impressions, how can voters hope to assess his qualifications and policy prescriptions as a predicate to making an informed choice? In short, what else is Jeff Dion lying about?

It has been reported to me, as recently as this evening, that Dion does not have custody of his children from his previous marriage. Yet the bio remains unchanged. And seems specifically and intentionally designed to leave the false impression that he does.

Definitive answers are available in the public record. I guess we’re going to have to bring that record to the public since Jeff Dion is unwilling to clarify these questions himself. This ought to be interesting…



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.

7 Comments

  1. James Young said on 8 Jan 2007 at 10:37 am:
    Flag comment

    “Bulldogging”? Well, I suppose that’s better than the oversized a**hole, … er, failed Sheriff’s candidate who dubbed me a “pit chihuahua” a few years back….

  2. James Young said on 8 Jan 2007 at 10:49 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually, I’d just like to be accurate. If I’m wrong about this, I’d happily correct my previous statements.

  3. Matt Harrison said on 8 Jan 2007 at 1:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    I know zero about Jeff’s situation but what evidence is out there that leads one to believe he doesn’t have custody other then an unnamed source who has reported this to James? Not exactly rock solid proof.

  4. James Young said on 8 Jan 2007 at 1:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yeah, Matt, you go with that. This isn’t some wild allegation made by one who hides in anonymity. I’m talking about my impression — confirmed by others — as people who attend the same church. But I’m certainly not going to spend my time going to Manassas to confirm it one way or the other, particularly when Dion could and has had ample opportunity to disabuse me of it, AND receive a public apology, if I am wrong.

    That he hasn’t done so suggests that there’s something to it.

  5. anon said on 8 Jan 2007 at 10:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Now how is James’ innuendo about Dion any different than Greg’s innuendo about Gill?

    There really not different when it comes to substance. A key component is the perception of impropriety or untruths.

    But in the Dion case, it’s a-ok with Young because it’s a democrat. In the Gill case, it is disallowed because it involves a republican.

    Principles or party? Clearly, a reader can tell who is a man of principle and who is one of party.

  6. James Young said on 8 Jan 2007 at 10:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, anon 10:09, the difference is personal knowledge and observation, and old, stale reports by others based upon innuendo and guilt-by-association. I suspect that you can’t tell the difference “because it’s a democrat.” Your analogy is utterly false.

    And if you’d actually read my comment about Gill, I didn’t defend him; I said the post was full of innuendo and guilty-by-association. Actually, my initial post questioned Greg’s motivations in attacking Gill. My comments about Dion are based upon personal observation and impressions confirmed by others. And I have always said that Dion could easily prove me wrong, but has declined to do so. The thing about Greg’s comments about Gill are that there’s probably nothing that Gill could do (you know, like wearing a naval uniform) that could persuade Greg otherwise.

  7. charles said on 9 Jan 2007 at 12:41 am:
    Flag comment

    If Dion hadn’t prominently made claims about his children, and even referenced them as his teachers and guides, I would probably say Dion shouldn’t have to answer questions about where his kids live and who has custody.

    But if you are going to claim something, and then it seems it might not be true, a politician, a public figure, should make a public statement to correct the record one way or another.

    Dion has access to the legal papers that would show he had custody, if he does, and could state directly that the children live with him and his boyfriend, if they do.

    As I said, this is only an issue because Dion made it an issue — if he didn’t make claims about his children, it would really be none of our business where his children live.

    Remember that Dion attacked May (his opponent) for not having children. So he has made children an issue in the campaign.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2049