"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
More On Faisal Gill’s “Endorsements”
By Greg L | 12 February 2007 | 51st HOD District | 33 Comments
I’ve been getting a few calls regarding the story about the withdrawl of Milt Johns’ name from Faisal Gill’s list of endorsements, and got some additional details about this episode which readers might be interested in. Apparently Milt Johns never gave Faisal Gill permission to use his name for an endorsement, nor approved his name being used on Faisal Gill’s campaign materials. Milt wasn’t informed that Faisal intended to use his name and only learned of Gill’s intentions when pushcards showed up at the Occoquan Convention with his name on them. What a class act.
This is definitely a pattern. Faisal Gill runs a pretty awful convention for the Occoquan Supervisor’s nomination, but does a bang-up job at printing campaign materials for himself with which he litters the convention. On those campaign materials, Faisal uses a current officeholder’s name for an endorsement without permission. And then Faisal gets poll workers to hand out his own campaign materials during the Occoquan Special Election when he’s not a candidate on the ballot. Before this, Faisal Gill becomes PWCRC Vice Chair but doesn’t show up to meetings and botches the labor day picnic, then is selected Chairman of the Taxpayer’s Alliance which effectively shuts down during his tenure, apparently due to neglect.
Of course there’s Faisal Gill’s superb performance as a key part of Steve Chapman’s 2005 campaign in the 50th District, which was summed up nicely in the Manassas Journal-Messenger as follows:
Chapman’s spokesman, Faisal Gill, said Chapman missed the deadline because he was distracted by the ongoing defamation lawsuit against an Internet blogger.
“I think he was kind of caught up with that and it was just something that he missed,” Gill said.
What a candidate. Can’t we get him to help run John Chichester’s re-election campaign instead, where he might actually accomplish something productive? Maybe he can have that campaign establish a Wikipedia entry for Chichester like he did for himself, which would provide for endless political amusement. Hint to political types out there: it’s dangerous to run a campaign on Wikipedia, especially if you’re a Republican. Not quite as dangerous as listing endorsements you don’t actually have, but dangerous nonetheless.
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.
33 Comments
Views: 1058
Loading ...
Okay, well that is bad on Gill’s part all the way around. The “he said-she said” about Julie running or not running is meaningless. But there is no way Gill should be using someone’s name as an endorsement without their clear permission. At worst it’s untrue and at best it’s sloppy. Assuming the best, that it’s sloppy, your are absolutely correct Greg that it reflects a consistent pattern of the Gill-Chapman alliance, which should lead people to question how well they would represent their constituents.
You know, Milt is not currently residing on Mars.
IN other words, you don’t need to post “apparently” about him, just write him a note or call him and get the truth from him.
I never understood all this 3rd-party information-gathering about people you can just talk to from local politics. It’s almost like everybody would rather guess at the facts than actually learn them.
I’ve got a call in to him, and haven’t heard back yet.
“IN other words, you don’t need to post “apparently” about him, just write him a note or call him and get the truth from him.’
Apparently….you don’t realize that Gill will sue at thedrop of a hat. Using words like ‘allegedly” and “apparently” are just qualifiers.
Now run along and complete your fellowship.
I wonder if Gill has some old Match.com profile out there, like old Stevie-boy:
Jihaid678
Ht: 5′ 7″
Wt: 305 Lbs.
Status: Looking for love in all the wrong harems
Faithful guy seeks faithful chick. Must like Burkas.
Likes: Long Walks, Grape juice, and praying 5 times a day.
Goals: To make the Haj with a really cool gal.
Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name on his lit and website.
Considering that you’re posting anonymously and appear to be connected with the Faisal Gill campaign in some way, please excuse me for not taking that very seriously.
Charles is right again. I didn’t even notice the “apparently” and instead assumed, Greg. L, that you had actually spoken to Milt given the reaction to your earlier post and how definite and specific you sounded in this later posting. Now we find out you have a call into Milt but haven’t heard back. That’s ridiculous, as is the claim from BDB about adding “apparently” to avoid being sued. If you had spoken to Milt you could have said “according to Milt Johns” or even “according to someone with direct personal knowledge of the situation”. Instead you put up two postings that turn out to be founded on nothing but rumor or some third-party heresay. This is what distinguishes Charles and other reputable bloggers from the bush leaguers. Not only could you have easily contacted Milt for the truth, but anyone with an once of professional integrity would at least try to do so before posting anything, much less two unconfirmed reports. There are plenty of facts to attack Faisal on Greg, don’t make people feel sorry for him by making stuff up or repeating unfounded rumors.
Sorry, meant hearsay.
“Charles and other reputable bloggers’
Huh? you mean Charles and the rest who’s blogs never get read? You mean the Bloggers who have no credibility because blindly defend bad candidates like Gill and Chapman, in spite of overwhelming facts that support the claim that they are bad candidates? You mean those bloggers?
Given that the election isn’t until June, the prudent thing would have been to wait a day and see if Milt wanted to respond directly. Then you’d be able to post truth, and not conjecture.
Of course, that’s the difference between responsible reporting and, well, BVBL.
Enough already! Here is what Milt had say. He told Faisal that he would endorse him IF Julie Lucas wasn’t running.
My response is that a person of Integrity would have been respectful of Milt’s position and held off on using Milts name until he was absolutely sure that Julie wasn’t going to run. Furthermore it has now made him look bad because the endorsement appears to be withdrawn. End of story.
Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race. When Lucas entered, the endorsement was withdrawn, and there is no animosity over the incident.
Milt believes both candidates are good candidates. His response to my e-mail expressed no ill-will to Gill over the endorsement, contrary to the suggestions of this post. He says he is convinced that Lucas’s decision was a last-minute decision (he did not say exactly why, nor did I ask).
He did confirm that Gill believed Lucas was not running at the time Milt gave him the endorsement, and also Lucas had not told Milt she was running before she filed.
Politically, it’s probably better to not have published an endorsement than to have to pull one. I’m surprised Lucas didn’t talk to Milt about running while making her decision, to ask him for an endorsement — I presume that part of deciding whether to run or not is figuring out who will support you and who will give you money, and Milt is an important base of support for her. But maybe she assumed he’d support her (which is accurate).
If someone thinks that is an issue, of course they can simply write and ask her.
Ah, snow days.
“”"Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”"”
Therefore, Gill did not have Milt’s endorsement until after the deadline for filing for the race had passed without Ms. Lucas entering.
Alternately, Gill could have ascertained whether Ms. Lucas ruled out entering the race.
Gill did neither. He used Milt’s endorsement in a manner contrary to the instructions which Milt gave him.
“”"When Lucas entered, the endorsement was withdrawn,”"”
There was no endorsement until the filing deadline had passed without Ms. Lucas running, or until Ms. Lucas herself ruled out running. Without either of those two conditions being met Milt had not endorsed Faisal Gill yet.
“”"and there is no animosity over the incident.”"”
Speak for yourself. A number of us feel animosity over the incident, since Gill was deceiving the voters. What else is Gill deceiving the voters about?
“”"Milt believes both candidates are good candidates. His response to my e-mail expressed no ill-will to Gill over the endorsement, contrary to the suggestions of this post.”"”
The problem is that the voters were harmed, i.e., misinformed, by Gill’s false campaign literature. Our objection is not that Milt is harmed, or that Milt is angry. We object because Gill has misinformed the voters.
“”"He says he is convinced that Lucas’s decision was a last-minute decision (he did not say exactly why, nor did I ask).”"”
All the more reason that Gill should have waited for Ms. Lucas to make that last-minute decision. Instead Gill decided on Ms. Lucas’s behalf that Ms. Lucas was not running and used Milt’s endorsement without Milt’s permission.
“”"He did confirm that Gill believed Lucas was not running at the time”"”
Did Gill ask Ms. Lucas if she was going to run? What was the basis for Gill’s belief?
“”"Milt gave him the endorsement,”"”
He did no such thing. Rather, Milt gave Gill a promise that he would endorse Gill if Ms. Lucas did not run.
“”"and also Lucas had not told Milt she was running before she filed.”"
Why did Milt condition his promise on Ms. Lucas not running? Did Gill tell Milt in response that Ms. Lucas was not running?
Did Gill tell Milt in response that the condition of the promise, that Ms. Lucas not run, had already been met?
You are claiming that Gill believed that Lucas was not running so Gill could go ahead and use Milt’s name as an endorser. Did Gill share his belief with Milt?
“”"Politically, it’s probably better to not have published an endorsement than to have to pull one.”"”"
Politically, it is better for Gill not to trick the voters with false information.
“”"I’m surprised Lucas didn’t talk to Milt about running while making her decision,”"”
So this is Ms. Lucas’s fault now?
“”"to ask him for an endorsement”"”
Are you her campaign manager? She will decide what endorsements to request and when.
“”"— I presume that part of deciding whether to run or not is figuring out who will support you and who will give you money,”"”
Again, Charles is trying to make this sound as if Faisal’s deception was somehow Julie Lucas’s fault.
“”"…maybe she assumed he’d support her (which is accurate).”"”
Did Milt tell you that he is supporting Lucas now?
“”"If someone thinks that is an issue, of course they can simply write and ask her.”"”
Charles has an unusual pattern of logic. If you feel that Faisal deceived the voters then you must first ask Ms. Lucas whether Faisal deceived the voters.
I prefer to think for myself.
Is it not possible that this whole thing came about because Julie Lucas had the good grace not to announce or pursue her candidacy until after the special election, unlike Faisal Gill who in fact took advantage of that election? I really believe that this is the greater issue.
Thanks to Charles we now seem to have a pretty good handle on the facts of this thing, which are just what Greg L. should have obtained before posting (and yes, that’s the difference between reputable reporting and the car-wreck sort of blogging some seem to prefer). In at least partial defense of Greg, however, judging from some of the posts on here I now think Greg got played by a fellow Lucas supporter who probably exaggerated all this without Julie’s knowledge. But still, shame on you Greg for not doing some direct research of your own rather than relying on a gossipmonger. Whoever your source was on this, I suggest you be more careful with them in the future. They probably meant to help Julie, but by using you probably hurt her a little among the party-types who read this sort of stuff and will vote.
Now that the facts are out there, though, it does look like Gill maybe jumped the gun a little. But all the stuff about integrity and misleading the voters and such is fertilizer. Gill could just as easily argue that he had Milt’s endorsement “until” Julie entered the race. Bottom line, Gill was sloppy again and this is, or should now be, a dead issue. Go Julie!
“”"Gill could just as easily argue that he had Milt’s endorsement “until” Julie entered the race. “”"
Gill could argue that, but it would be a lie if Gill did so.
If I say “I promise to give you $1000 if Gill is elected to the House of Delegates” you cannot honestly tell other people that I have promised to give you $1000.
Even if you believe in your heart that Gill will be elected to the House of Delegates, you cannot tell people that I have promised to give you $1000.
“”"this is, or should now be, a dead issue.”"”
It will be a dead issue when we Gill critics decide it is. It is not up to Gill to decide which aspects of his own dishonest behavior are dead issues.
I spoke with Milt Johns today, and it corresponds pretty closely with most of what’s been reported here. Milt told Faisal that he would endorse him if Julie didn’t run. Faisal represented to Milt that definitely Julie Lucas wouldn’t enter the race, and only told Milt that his name would appear on Faisal’s campaign materials after they were already printed. When Julie announced, it pretty much caught Milt by surprise, and in the future he intends to be a lot more cautious about giving endorsements as this episode is not something he wants to ever see again.
My original point that Faisal either knew Julie would run and lied to Milt Johns, or he didn’t know and was politically incompetent probably needs some revision. In this case it’s pretty clear that Faisal deliberately overstated his certainty about Julie Lucas’ intentions in order to get away with putting Milt Johns’ name on his campaign materials to the detriment of Milt Johns. Nice of him to throw yet another fellow Republican under the bus in order to advance his own campaign.
Class act.
Greg,
You pawn of the Zionists. You dog of the infidel. Gill, a member of the faithful, can use anyone’s name that he likes. Allah the just and merciful has granted Gill the power to use the name of any believer and non-believer on his campaign materials. He needs not the “permission” of Milt Johns, who is a traitor by announcing that he is endosing that woman. Speaking of that woman, she needs to get her head covered, and face veiled, or she shall get her reckoning. She shall get an e-stoning in the Blog Bazzar, for all to see.
The armies of the faithful are massing for the mother of all political battles in PWC. Led by Caliph Kopko the great, Ibin-Fallad-al-Chapman, the Jedmeini army, and now Suliman-al-Barton. You will cry for your mother when they attack. You will be overwhelmed and consumed by the heavenly fires raining down upon you. You will wither under the e-assaults. Your servers
E-Allah Ahkbar!
Sheik Yabba Dabba Doo
I don’t get why you make fun of the Muslim faith. How would you feel if someone came on here mocking Jesus Christ or Mary or God.
That is a pretty valid point. Let’s calm down a but with the Yabba Dabba Doo stuff. Even though it’s pretty funny sometimes to make fun of the radicals who aren’t present in this conversation, this can be construed pretty easily to be religious intolerance.
“I don’t get why you make fun of the Muslim faith. How would you feel if someone came on here mocking Jesus Christ or Mary or God.”
Quit being so sensitive. I can see the satire, and yes, maybe even mocking radical Islam. If you want to make fun of Christians, go right ahead.
I am not being sensitive, but that is my faith my God and that is disrespectful. You can make fun of people all you want, but religion is a different thing.
We must be clear on what it is we oppose when we oppose the American Muslim Council, its founder and leader the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi and Faisal Gill for working for the two earlier in this decade.
Mr. Gill needs to come clean about what he did for Alamoudi and the AMC and when. If Mr. Gill continues to stonewall then we can assume that there are aspects of his work for the American Muslim Council of which Mr. Gill is ashamed.
Alamoudi is in jail. His plea bargain in 2004 stipulated that he had been laundering Libyan money since 1995. Alamoudi openly proclaimed on television his support for Hamas and Hizbullah before or during the time that Faisal Gill worked for the AMC.
Moreover, the AMC on its website told Moslems not to talk to the FBI in the aftermath of 9-11. It didn’t merely tell people that they had a right to refuse to talk to the FBI. The AMC instructed people NOT to talk to the FBI. Meanwhile Alamoudi the AMC leader was laundering Libyan money.
Money is fungible. Some of that Libyan money ended up in Faisal Gill’s pocket.
No wonder Alamoudi didn’t want people to talk to the FBI.
We are being reasonable when we want to know what Gill was doing at the AMC. Republicans can ask these questions among themselves now, or they can not ask and perhaps allow Mr. Gill to slip through the candidate vetting process. In that case Dems will ask these questions in November. And I suspect that quite a few Republicans like Greg will continue to ask then as well.
Continued stonewalling by Gill will not work as a way for Republicans to keep their seat in HOD-51.
A controversial 2′5′07 Frontpage Magazine article at http://americancivilization.net/index.php?itemid=198 contains some points that I agree with, some that I do not. i wish to cite a part with which I do agree with so that Faisal’s supporters will understand what we oppose.
“”"FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity.
…FP So is there such a thing as non-political Islam?
Warner: Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars-prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.
But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.
Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb…
The abuser uses fear to control the victim: What was the reason that newspapers would not publish the Mohammed cartoon? Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence for his novel. What “cutting edge” artist creates any artistic statement about Islam? Fear rules our intellectuals and artists.
The victims find ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder Muslims will act nicer. We have to accommodate their needs.
…FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us today.
Warner: Jamie, thank you for your kindness and efforts. “”"
By all means let us be nice to Moslems. Perhaps some of Faisal’s critics are Moslems, I don’t know. It is certainly common for Moslem officers in the Turkish Army to oppose the kind of extremism that the AMC put forward.
There are Moslem Bedouin soldiers in the Israeli Army . Faisal served in the American armed forces, and that is to his great credit.
A British Moslem soldier was the intended victim of a kidnap plot by British Islamists. By the way, when Gill’s employer Alamoudi was arrested in London in 2003 he had a suitcase containing $360,000 in consecutively-numbered $100 bills. Alamoudi stated that one reason he was in London was to recruit British Islamists to kill the crown prince of Saudi Arabia (who is himself a Moslem.)
There are lots of Moslems, both good and bad. There are lots of Christians and Jews, both good and bad.
Be nice to Faisal. BUT ask what Faisal was doing working at the American Muslim Council earlier in this decade. Because it was not simply a good organization run by someone who later turned out to be a criminal. It was an extremist organization that supported Hezbollah and Hamas and told Moslems in the aftermath of 9-11 not to talk to the FBI.
I want to know what Faisal Gill was doing working there, when there were a number of moderate groups for which Mr. Gill could have worked instead.
Gill had NO reason to believe that there would not be other candidates until the deadline for candidates to file had passed. That Gill didn’t have the smarts to avoid using Milt’s name until the day after the deadline tells me everything that I need to know — Gill lacks common sense.
And from Charles:
“Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race. When Lucas entered, the endorsement was withdrawn, and there is no animosity over the incident.”
Really, Charles, the contortions you will go to defend someone you like. Your comment is one of the most illogical that I have read in quite some time. Do you seriously believe that Milt’s intent was to tell Faisal to go ahead and use his name all over the district, right up until the day that Julie Lucas enters the race? The inanity of that just boggles the mind. Any clear-thinking, rational person would understand that IF Lucas doesn’t enter you may use my name, not use my name UNTIL and IF Lucas enters.
Good god man, join cirque de soleil.
I find Greg’s characterization biased. Since I doubt Milt would say different things to two people, I can’t fathom how Greg’s information is at odds with the written information I have from Milt. I’m not at liberty to release the e-mail (JM, I may get to your post, but most of your “issues” with it are moreso due to my need to accurately portray the facts without relying on information I did not receive explicit permission to release).
For example, Greg seems to find Milt a fine republican, a fine candidate, a savvy political individual. Gill he thinks is a lying scumbag. But both Gill and Milt believed Lucas was not running. Milt had a much closer relationship with Lucas than Gill did, so if either of them SHOULD have known the unknowable, it was Milt, not Gill — and Milt believes Lucas made her decision at the last minute.
Contrary to the suggestion by Greg, Milt gave Gill his endorsement. He did not say the endorsement was on hold until the filing deadline. His statement about the endorsement being conditioned is distinctly different from witholding an endorsement until a time future.
Milt may well in the future withhold endorsements until after filing deadlines have passed. He would have done well to talk to Lucas before giving an endorsement, rather than making assumptions that proved to be wrong.
It is rare that a candidate will offer answers in writing — usually they will call you back and talk to you, because it helps them control the conversation and doesn’t leave a paper trail, which gives them deniability. I don’t like it because it is too easy to misread verbal cues without visual contact, and easy to be left with misunderstanding on basic facts.
I am grateful to Milt for being willing to write to me, and to honor that trust he put in me, I will speak no further about this incident, regardless of how Greg continues to characterize this incident.
It is certain that having an endorsement withdrawn for whatever reason is not a good thing, but for a candidate in his first race, and for the reasons of this endorsement loss, it’s hardly a major issue. I wouldn’t take a conditional endorsement no matter how certain I was of the circumstance, because I’m very cautious.
JM,
Your post misinterpreted a statement of mine that was a poorly-worded attempt to convey a meaning without quoting from an e-mail. As such, I’ll apologize for misleading you so completely.
Milt’s endorsement was not “conditioned on” anything; it was based on an assumption that Lucas was not running.
I might endorse someone for office, but if a month later my wife decided to run, I would obviously withdraw my endorsement. It would not be an attack on the person I previously endorsed, nor would it mean that person lied about my endorsement. It simply means that every endorsement is conditioned on facts as they are known at the time.
I know you understand this, but I also know you would say anything you could to attack Gill, and I am dissappointed you misunderstood my comments and used them so contrary to their meaning.
Are you sure you aren’t a democrat? You sure get angry and misled and “hurt” a lot, just like a democrat.
“”"”But both Gill and Milt believed Lucas was not running.”"”"
No. Milt thought that Lucas might run. That is why he told Gill that Milt would endorse Gill IF Lucas did not run.
“”"Milt had a much closer relationship with Lucas than Gill did, so if either of them SHOULD have known the unknowable,”"”
Milt promised that he would endorse Gill IF Lucas did not run. That means that Milt did not know whether Lucas was going to run. It was not his job to know.
“”"it was Milt, not Gill — and Milt believes Lucas made her decision at the last minute.”"”
Since Milt did not know whether Lucas was going to run then Gill was obligated to wait until the filing deadline had passed or Lucas stated that she would not run. Gill did neither. That was is dirty politics on Gill’s part.
“”"”Contrary to the suggestion by Greg, Milt gave Gill his endorsement.”"”
NO! Milt promised Gill that he would endorse Gill IF Lucas did not run.
“”"He did not say the endorsement was on hold until the filing deadline.”"”
What endorsement? Milt did not know whether Lucas would run or not. He said that he would endorse Gill if Lucas did not run. Until such time as Lucas did not run there was no endorsement.
“”"His statement about the endorsement being conditioned is distinctly different from witholding an endorsement until a time future.”"”
It is the same. There was no endorsement until such time as Lucas did not run, or there would be an endorsement if and only if Lucas did not run and Milt did not know if Lucas was running. However you parse it the result is the same.
“”"Milt may well in the future withhold endorsements until after filing deadlines have passed.”"”
So this is Milt’s fault now? Before you indicated that it was Julie’s fault. It is apparently everyone but Faisal’s fault.
“”"He would have done well to talk to Lucas before giving an endorsement, rather than making assumptions that proved to be wrong.”"”
What assumption? Milt said that he would endorse Gill IF Lucas did not run. That means that Milt did not assume that Julie would run or would not run.
“”"but for a candidate in his first race,”"”
Julie has already held elective office. Perhaps Gill is not yet ready for the high office that he seeks.
“”"it’s hardly a major issue.”"”
It shows that Gill is dishonest in his campaign claims. That will be a major issue for some, and a matter of complete indifference to others.
“”"I wouldn’t take a conditional endorsement no matter how certain I was of the circumstance, because I’m very cautious.”"”
So you admit that Milt’s endorsement was conditional on Lucas not running? Because a few paragraphs before you criticized Milt for allegedly in your mind assuming that Lucas would not run.
“”"Milt’s endorsement was not “conditioned on” anything; it was based on an assumption that Lucas was not running.”"”
Charles stated earlier this afternoon (2/13/07) at 1:36 pm that: “Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”
Which part of the above statement by Charles does Charles now claim was false?
“”"I might endorse someone for office, but if a month later my wife decided to run, I would obviously withdraw my endorsement.”"”
Charles is now contradicting what he himself wrote a few hours ago. Charles wrote then that Milt “made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”"
“”"It would not be an attack on the person I previously endorsed,”"”
It doesn’t matter what Charles would do if Charles’ wife ran for office. We are discussing what Charles a few hours ago stated was Milt’s clear instructions to Gill that “Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”"
“”"nor would it mean that person lied about my endorsement.”"”
We are not discussing a hypothetical run for office by Charles’ wife in an alternate universe where Charles has endorsed his wife’s opponent. We should stick to actual events in this universe. Charles described those events as “Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”"
“”"It simply means that every endorsement is conditioned on facts as they are known at the time.”"”
We are not discussing “every endorsement.” Charles keeps trying to change the subject away from what Milt said to Gill, because what Charles described earlier this afternoon is so incredibly damaging to the case that Charles wishes to make. Specifically,
“”"”Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”"”"”
”’I know you understand this,”"”
I understand what you yourself said. It has a clear meaning. I will repeat what you said so you can understand it yourself:
“”"Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”"”"”
“”"but I also know you would say anything you could to attack Gill,”"”
I won’t say things that I do not believe to be true. You, on the other hand, are now disavowing your own statement from a few hours ago.
“”"and I am dissappointed you misunderstood my comments”"”
What is there to misunderstand? Here is what you wrote: “”"Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”"”"
“”"and used them so contrary to their meaning.”"”
Does Gill pay you to do this?
“”"Are you sure you aren’t a democrat?”"”
The Lee District Democratic Committee says that I am not, and I say that I am not. That is one of the very few times that the LDDC and I will agree on anything.
“”"You sure get angry and misled and “hurt””"”
You put the word “hurt” in quotation marks as if you were quoting me. That is false. I am enjoying our banter. I am glad when you post. I never said or felt hurt and never made such a statement.
JM: “No. Milt thought that Lucas might run. That is why he told Gill that Milt would endorse Gill IF Lucas did not run.”
You can make up things for Milt, but that doesn’t make them true. He would not have endorsed Gill if he thought Lucas would run. He doesn’t believe she made the decision until the last minute, and she never asked him for an endorsement, all indications that she was not running.
I speculate that there was a lot of pressure on her to run, and that was what changed her mind (or made her decision, if you truly believe she was considering this for some time but never mentioned it to her strong supporters on the school board).
There’s no point in continuing a discussion because nothing I can say will change your opinion, and everything I say will be twisted by you.
JM: “What is there to misunderstand? Here is what you wrote: “””Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.””””
I explained that to you. It’s understandable you were confused because of what I wrote, but there’s no excuse other than obstinance for not understanding after I explained to you — My statement was poorly worded, and your interpretation was false based on what Milt actually said. I should have said “the endorsement was only given because Milt thought Lucas was not entering the race”. It was on the “assumption” that Lucas was not entering, not “on the condition”. There was no condition, just a bad assumption. My use of the term “only apply” was wrong, it didn’t accurately reflect the nature of Milt’s endorsement, but I was unaware of how it could be interpreted until you did so.
I wish I had explicitly asked for permission to post the e-mail, but I didn’t, so I can’t, and that has led to some confusion which I already apologized for.
Charles’ current explanation means that he was a liar yesterday, 2/13/07, at 1:36 pm when he posted that “”"Milt gave Faisal permission to use his name and endorsement, but made it clear that would only apply if Lucas did not enter the race.”"”
If Charles, Faisal or both have problems with English then I am sorry. There is a good article on the use of conditional sentences on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sentence . Wikipedia gives the following example of a future conditional sentence:
“The same structure can be used to refer to a future state or event:
If I won the lottery, I would buy a car.
If he said that to me, I would run away.”
“If Lucas did not run” is a future state or event. It might or might not happen. “That [the endorsement] would only apply” refers to a future state which is conditional on “If Lucas did not run.”
OK folks, I think we get the idea. How about we just let this rest, since I think you’ve both adequately explained your opinions on this.