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

Hal Parrish Endorses Jackson Miller

By RHarrison | 27 October 2006 | Manassas City, 50th HOD District | 13 Comments

I just received the following letter from Hal Parrish, Vice-Mayor of Manassas and son of the late Harry Parrish.

“Thank you for the many kindnesses you have extended my family over the years. We are truly grateful for the opportunity we’ve had to serve our community and we look forward to continuing to try to make Manassas and Virginia a better place in which to live.

With just a few weeks remaining until Election Day, it is important that we turn our attention to choosing the very best candidate we can to represent us as our delegate in Richmond.

I like both candidates personally, but we must choose the candidate we believe will best represent our values and our interests in Richmond. I believe that person is Jackson Miller.

I have known Jackson for a number of years and have enjoyed working with him in his capacity as a Manassas City Councilman. Jackson has attributes of a leader – character and integrity. He is committed to our principles and values.

Of the two candidates, I believe that Jackson has the best experience and ideas that will help solve the transportation and traffic issues we face everyday. Finding solutions to these problems will require a Delegate who not only understands the issues but can work with other state and federal officials to find the right answers. Many state and federal elected officials in our area have endorsed Jackson.

Jackson will be an advocate for families and taxpayers, and responsible spending. He is the right person to send to Richmond and I hope you will join us in supporting his campaign and voting for him on November 7th.

Thank you very much for your consideration, and please remember to vote on November 7th.

Sincerely,

Hal Parrish

Which do you think is more valuable: a half-hearted endorsement in the Post or an enthusiastic endorsement from a popular local politician and Harry Parrish’s son?

Me too.



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.

13 Comments

  1. Citizenofmanassas said on 27 Oct 2006 at 5:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hmmm. What does this say about Jeanette being in the mold of Harry Parrish???

  2. Anonymous said on 27 Oct 2006 at 8:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Plain and simple, on the biggest problem facing us, Jeanette has a plan, as indicated by the Washington Post, and Jackson Miller does not. As for the Hal Parish endorsement, well, just seems like a routine thing one Republican would do for another. Chuck Colgan is with Jeannette and he knows what it takes to suceed in Richmond, and he knows Jackson Miller doesn’t have it.

  3. RHarrison said on 27 Oct 2006 at 9:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    How does Miller not have a plan? Miller will use the state’s surplus to fund transportation improvements. Rishell will conjure up new money from somewhere (let’s not ask where) to do the same thing, leaving the surplus to be squandered somewhere else. Sounds like Miller’s the one with the plan. The problem for Rishell is that she likes to tell people she is Del. Parrish’s heir in Richmond. But Parrish’s real heir says otherwise.

  4. AWCheney said on 27 Oct 2006 at 9:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Chuck Colgan is no doubt “with Jeannette” because it ‘just seems like a routine thing one Republican (Democrat) would do for another,’ and she isn’t really a nutcase like a lot of Democrats that they’ve run in the 50th prior to this election. I think it has little to do with knowing she will succeed in Richmond…it’s just a safe endorsement for him, because she probably won’t embarrass him too much.

  5. stuck in rush hour said on 27 Oct 2006 at 10:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon 8:57, please tell me what her plan is? I will truly consider voting for her if she would tell us where she would raise her dedicated funding source.

    I admire her willingness to state this obvious need but she refuses to say where she will raise the revenue from. This is why Miller beats her on this issue.

    Where wiil she raise the money????

  6. Anonymous said on 27 Oct 2006 at 10:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Problem with surpluses that there are here today and gone tommorow — sometimes they aren’t even here today. We aren’t getting out of gridlock with a short term fix. Its time for a long term solution to a long term need. We can be serious about government, make the hard choices to fix our roads and get some more solid mass transit options and improve the one’s we’ve got, but, to do that, we need a long-term dedicated source of revenue. Fact is, I’m already paying a transit tax in time lost from my family and gas burned while my car sits in traffic. I want somebody who will go to Richmond and put all the options on the table. Jackson wants to go to Richmond with one hand tied behind his back because he believes the surplus he can get the job done that way. Only problem with that approach is that I’ll have lots of time to contemplate how off the mark it is while I sit in traffic. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in limited government too. However, when government is given a job, like transportation, education,and public safety, it has to do them right. Jeannette is the one candidate in this race with the approach that leads to that result.

  7. Citizenofmanassas said on 27 Oct 2006 at 10:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ya, what plan does she have other then to raise taxes, which during the second debate, she almost let it slip, but stopped short, by saying it would have to come from somewhere.

    If you think she is a better candidate than Jackson, you must have low expectations.

    And the fact she has mentioned it over and over about how she would operate like Harry, she really can’t say that anymore.

  8. stuck in rush hour said on 27 Oct 2006 at 10:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon 8:57, seriously, Rishell would get my vote if she would just be honest enough to say where she would get the money.

    I dont agree with Miller, but at least he says to use surplus funds and to use the States AAA bond rating to raise the funds. This is really why he is winning on this issue. At least he is saying how and where he will get the money to go to transpo. Rishell just needs to say how and where she will go get the money. Her response by just saying “I dont know where we will raise the money, but we need to do it” is failing horribly with the voters. People/voters will accept a tax increase for transpo. If she would really give us a plan how, it would put her over the top on Miller.

  9. Anonymous said on 27 Oct 2006 at 10:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    AWCheney, Did you see Colgans letter to the editor? It was very telling for what he didnt say. He starts off the letter by mentioning the upcoming election for the 50th and the PWCChairmans race. He then goes on strongly endorsing Pandak but never mentions Rishell’s name or candidacy.

    OUCH, the Rishell camp couldnt have been to happy about that one.

  10. anonymous said on 27 Oct 2006 at 11:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    We should seriously consider toll roads if no other funding source can be found. I’d happily pay 30 to 50 cents to drive 15 miles if I didn’t have to spend an hour or more doing it. The Illinois Tollways charge about 2.6 cents per mile.

    Some might consider this a “tax” but nobody is forcing anyone to use the toll road.

  11. stuck in rush hour said on 28 Oct 2006 at 9:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon 8:57, please, you still havent responded. If Rishell just tells us where she will raise the revenue she will cream Miller on this issue. Like I said before, Miller says where he would get the money and that gives him the advantage on this issue.

    I have no Idea if you have a “in” with her or her campaign, give us answer.

  12. Anonymous said on 28 Oct 2006 at 9:31 am:
    Flag comment

    William F. Buckley once said that conservatives don’t have solutions, they have approaches. That notion is tied to a notion of conservatism that is Burkian in nature and is at its route skeptical about anybody who thinks they have all the answers and offers simple and easy solutions to complex problems. It is pretty clear that the ideology that now styles itself “conservative” has pretty much abandoned this skeptical approach to solving problem and sees simple solutions every where. That is where this mania to sign so called “Tax payer Bill of Rights” comes from. It is also where Jackson Miller’s transportation plan, borrow money, use the surplus, and don’t even think about raising new revenues comes from.

    Jeanette Rishell, intrestingly enough, is looking at this issue more in the manner that a Burkian conservative would. She has no magic “solution,” but an approach that sets out basic criteria — a permanent long term revenue source instead of reliance on a here today gone tommorow surplus, mass transit — both existing systems and new systems, and coordinated land use and transportation solutions. In this case, Jackson Miller is like the Doctor who, before even examining the patient and knowing all the facts, says that surgery won’t be needed. Well, I like that answer, who wants surgery. Of course, in the long run, that might be a fateful decision because it was made in the absence of all the facts — it involves taking an option off the table prematurely. That is what Jackson Miller is doing now. Before even going to Richmond he’s aligned himself with the inflexible ideological camp headed by Stapeaker Howell and decided, without looking at all the relevant fiscal and political facts, that the surplus will solve the transportation problem. Having taken 20 large from the Speakers PAC, Jackson Miller, if he gets to Richmond, might find it somewhat difficult to break the chains that bind him to the Speaker.

    Jeannette Rishell, on the other hand, is like the Doctor who is honest and won’t take an option off the table until a complete examinaiton is done. In the short run, I might want a Doctor who tells me what I want to hear, in the long run, I want a Doctor who makes a diagnosis based on all the relevant facts. A Doctor who doesn’t take an option off the table early. That is the approach Jeannette is taking. While I might not like the possibility of surgery, it beats the alternative.

  13. Greg L said on 28 Oct 2006 at 8:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    That is just plain goofy. If Ms. Rishell is so “honest”, she wouldn’t be denying the plainn reality that we have a budget surplus due to the last tax increase that was levied in Virginia. “It’s not a surplus, it’s a carryover” is just plain garbage. Blaming the House of Delegates for the failure in the special transportation session to the exclusion of all else is dishonest. Her carefully worded evasions about her role in the January protests at Manassas city hall are dishonest. Her “I support the second amendment” alongside a refusal to define what that actually means for her is dishonest. Her pie-in-the-sky transportation proposals which are berift of any notion of what this would cost or how they would be paid for is dishonest.

    If this were my doctor, I’d be suing him for malpractice provided I survived the procedure long enough to have the capacity to file suit. I have yet to see anything from her campaign which can honestly be described as a viable proposal by any stretch of the imagination. It’s all ‘let’s spend more money on X, but not have any discussion of what X may cost or how we’re going to obtain the revenues to dedicate to funding it.’

    At least Hugo Chavez had oil money to pay for his foolishness.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2694