RISHELL OUTRAGES PARRISH FAMILY
By Greg L | 15 July 2006 | Manassas City, 50th HOD District | 17 Comments
Jeanette “Moonfruit” Rishell has been touting herself as someone who is “moderate in the mold of Harry Parrish”, and I am hearing from sources that the family of Harry Parrish, and his widow in particular are absolutely livid at this mischaraterization. Harry Parrish was very conservative on social issues and was endorsed by several family organizations, and in no way supports the far-left liberal platform that Ms. Rishell promotes. The family feels this is an assault on Harry’s record and legacy of public service to the citizens of Manassas and the 50th District and is outraged by her comments.
Ms. Rishell is trying to pollute the legacy of Harry Parrish by associating it with advocacy of gay “marriage”, support for illegal immigration, and adherence to marxist economic policies for her own political gain. In doing so she is causing pain to the family of this recently deceased public servant. Ms. Rishell owes this family a public apology.
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.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
17 Comments
Views: 1000
Loading ...
It is not surprising that she would paint herself as akin to Harry Parrish. After all, our party painted Harry Parrish as a left-winger. She’s just capitalizing on the man “we” made him out to be.
True enough. Steve Chapman would have been the proper political heir to Harry Parrish. Of course, he was libeled by an “unknown” blogger, and isn’t standing for office this time around. However, as I understand it, that blogger has failed to defend the lawsuit brought against him, and a default judgment has been entered. Just desserts, methinks.
“True enough” anonymous? It was Steve Chapman and his campaign that tried to paint Harry Parrish as a liberal. That is probably one of the more hypocritical remarks that I have read on a blog recently and one obviously tied to an agenda.
Ah, the formentor of the false felony charges against Steve Chapman speaks! Anke, when does the statute of limitations for civil actions for malicious prosecution run out? I think you had better hold your breath, cross your fingers, and pray that you’re not the next one up in the conga line of civil defendants!
Ah, anonymous, esq. this time, since you are alluding yourself to be an attorney, please lay out your evidence and proceed. I look forward to hearing from you…and don’t think for a moment that I would be as nice as Greg and not consider a countersuit.
One cannot file a countersuit when there is no basis for it. And as far as I can tell, neither can you file a countersuit after you have defaulted, as BVBL apparently has. So much for that idea.
[Ed Note: in order for BVBL to have defaulted, he would have had to have been served with legal process in the first place. To my knowledge, BVBL has never been identified, much less served. My suspicion is that this poster is neither an attorney, nor informed regarding the facts. — Greg L.]
There’s an awful lot of talk about being “defaulted.” You want to explain that…and how that could possibly apply to me?
Hey, Esq - if a default judgment, I think you should produce it online and provide a link. Until then, it’s just talk, talk, talk, sweetie.
I think Harry Parrish was one of a kind in every positive way imaginable. No one deserves to campaign on his legacy unless they bear his name, period.
Rishell, Miller, and most especially Chapman should do themselves a favor and keep his name out of their mouths.
Maybe if the republican party didn’t paint Harry as a democrat Rishell wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. We only have ourselves to blame for this…more people should have stood with Harry last year and not with Chapman. It was the democratic party that stood with Harry during his primary last year remember?
My house was graced by Jeanette earlier today, good thing I was not home. But, she did leave behind a campaign sheet, “Common values and Common sense”.
No mention of her ties to illegal immigrants. In fact, there is not a single word on this sheet regarding immigration, illegal or otherwise. The overall theme is that she will continue the legacy of the 50th district. Now, I realize politicians will tread the line of truth at times, but for her to remain silent on her support of illegal immigration is pretty bad.
“Maybe if the republican party didn’t paint Harry as a democrat Rishell wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. ”
Who painted Parrish as a democrat? The “Republican Party” or a small, vocal faction who didn’t live in the 50th, and had to move their boy in to primary him? The Manassas Republicans were always behind Parrish.
Rishell is going to lose big. Her fundrasier last night was a FLOP. Only 20 people showed up, and less than 5 were from the 50th. Romelt spent the entire time bashing Marshall.
And anonymous esq, (just a gut feeling, but I think his initials are TB, and he’s NO lawyer) is full of it. Anyone can go down to the PWC courthouse and check. I encourage everyone to do so, and see that there hasn’t been any judgement rendered, whatsoever. Chapman is both Mili AND Vanili. Blame it on the rain…or BVBL, but his political career is over. He represents his generation, the “it’s not my fault” generation well, where accountability means nothing.
I don’t think anybody painted Harry Parrish as a democrat. I read everything on the Chapman web site, and went to both debates, and to his campaign announcement, and NEVER did I hear that Parrish was a liberal, or a democrat.
Parrish was not as “conservative” on a couple of issues as Chapman, and Chapman drove home those differences. Parrish DID vote for the 1.4 billion dollar tax increase, that was a fact, and the chapman supporters emphasized that point repeatedly.
I can’t speak for every Chapman supporter, I’ve heard that some said some pretty awful things. I know I didn’t say ANYTHING bad about Parrish, and I don’t remember hearing anything approaching vitriol when discussing the race last year with any of the Chapman supporters, so apparently if there were outrageous comments they were either from other people, or those I talked to didn’t use that language around me.
The only real contention I remember from the race was about who was responsible for getting Chapman indicted. Some members of Chapman’s team made what I felt were too-strong statements of direct involvement by the candidate, but in general the facts did support the contention that the impetus for the charges came from investigations done by the Parrish campaign, and involved Parrish supporters and was persued by a pro-Parrish prosecuter.
Anke (if I have my facts straight) believes all the charges were true, and she was a member of Parrish’s campaign who pushed the charges on the internet and kept them public. I never believed Parrish himself was involved in the charges.
To blame Chapman for a democrat lying about Parrish is an absurd projection that seems based on personal animosity rather than the facts.
After all, you don’t really need an excuse for a democrat candidate lying, it’s part of the package.
Ive heard Miller say on more than one occasion “nobody can fill the shoes of Harry Parrish”. Other than that Miller is not comparing himself to Parrish at all. Harry Parrish was as solid a republican as they come. He spent years supporting and building the party. Plus I know for a fact that Miller has worked to help get Parrish elected in the past, I was there with him. Where was Rishell when Harry was running?
It is absolutely disgracefull that Rishell would try to compare herself to Parrish. I certainly hope that this backfires on her.
I think anybody who knew Harry will just laugh at Rishell’s pretentious claims. There were certainly Democrats with whom Harry would work, to the chagrin of some Republicans (and, apparently, 45% of the GOP primary electorate in 2005, so hardly “a small, vocal faction”), but it is doubtful that those as far Left as Rishell were among them.
As for the issue of default, it is doubtful that one has yet been entered. As I rarely find myself in the Manassas courthouse, save to visit personal friends, I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate. Even if a properly served person has failed to answer, though, I don’t believe that it is entered automatically. One would still have to make a motion to the Court, and make a prima facie case. As I have repeatedly said, none of us (save for Greg and Steve) know enough of the facts of the case to make a judgment as to whether that prima facie case has been made.
Chapman and is crew never called Harry a liberal. Thay just said he was a baby killer, not pro-life, and for higher taxes. What’s the difference?
I’ve said before that Rishell is way out of line saying she was a Parrish moderate. Not only has she ticked off Republican’s she has probably ticked off alot of Democrat’s as well.
Harry was a legend. He was a great guy with lots of integrity. Mattie is a great woman with high values and probably would never say anything out loud about this. The same goes for Hal.
The Parrish family is an institution in Manassas, and I agree Rishell should apologize to them for using the Parrish name as she has. Let’s hope she never does so again!
Maureen, there may have been people who supported Chapman who said he was a “baby killer”. Chapman’s site referenced a few Parrish votes which were in opposition to the “pro-life” position on the issues in question. To the truly “passionate” pro-lifers, even a few votes against the pro-life position are a real problem — and while reasonable people can disagree with that, it’s a defensible position that ANY vote which does not advance the pro-life position helps those who are against the pro-life position.
Parrish WAS for higher taxes, he voted for the tax increase in 2004, and you could say his vote was the deciding vote.
Democrats voted for Harry because, in SPITE of his mostly strong conservative credentials, he had an excellent constituent service record, and was truly a nice man who cared about all the citizens of his district. He was a good example of how people will cross ideological boundaries to vote for a person they are attracted to.
“Parrish WAS for higher taxes, he voted for the tax increase in 2004, and you could say his vote was the deciding vote. ”
Parrish was for maintaining the fiscal stability and credit rating of the Commonwealth, and getting a budget passed. Based on the data that the Budget Committee had, it looked like there was going to be a deficit, and these are illegal under Commonwealth law. To say he was for higher taxes is an over-simplification. I will admit, I was pretty pissed about it, and spoke to Harry regarding it. He explained why he did it, and I understood. It was later discovered that the data they were fed was flawed. Hindsight is 20/20. While I believe that the taxes should be returned to the people in the form of rebates, and not in services, there is little chance that this will happen while Timmy is in office.
As for Chapman’s characterizing Parrish as a baby-killer, I heard nothing of the sort from the candidate. Barbara Dodge said things like this (to me), but never used those exact words. Chapman, to his credit, usually characterized Parrish as a good man who had lost touch, or something to that efffect. While he did point out a few Parrish votes that he disagreed with, I can’t recall Chapman ever spewing vitriol about Parrish. That was the job of a few of his supporters, who sometimes let passion about their issues override good judgment.
As far as Rishell’s casting herself in the mold of Harry Parrish, THAT DOG WON’T HUNT! Harry was a life-long Republican, who NEVER advocated for the things like gay marriage, and benefits for illegals.