I suppose in this context, and in an on-the-fly analysis, the values/ethics reflected in the Party Plan are ones which respect the phrase that I placed at the end: “the considered wisdom of its current Membership.” I suppose it harkens back to Franklin’s comment at the close of the Constitutional Convention: “a Republic, if you can keep it.” That is, a framework which reflects the commitment to thoughtful representation expressed democratically.

As for your question, the first answer would be “What or whose ethics?” Mine? Yours based upon the convenience of the moment? Greg’s? Bill Kling’s?

My recollection is that it does not. A Party Plan is a framework for governance, not an expression of values. Hence, the more successful ones merely establish a process for governance. The language is written broadly, such that the values reflected by the operations of the County Committee are those derived from the considered wisdom of its current Membership.

You suggest another standard unknown to the rules by which the RPV and the PWC GOP and its Committee are governed, and one which would be unworkable in practice. That’s why I cited your “lack of knowledge.” I suppose I could have said “ignorance,” but “ignorance” carries a negative connotation, and I didn’t intend one.

Now, however, your last post demonstrates that it’s not ignorance, but a knowing commitment to attacking rhetorically rules you cannot defeat in practice and which have withstood the test of time. What is “conservative” about that attitude is a mystery to me; one could argue that it’s nihlism at its worst, or perhaps just the application of situational ethics. ‘Fact is, the same rules that prohibit Members of official committees from endorsing/aiding non-Republicans (Democrats, Greens, Independents) like Beauchamp are the same rules which prohibit me, as a member of the PWC Committee, from endorsing a post-nomination opponent of Maureen Caddigan or Marty Nohe, our well-known differences to the contrary notwithstanding. The choice of Beauchamp’s endorsees who are Members of the County Committee is stark, but simple. It is not a choice faced by those who want to call themselves “Republicans,” but who are not members of the County Committee, a fact I freely concede.

Leadership demands a higher standard, and membership in official RPV committees is a leadership role which places the demand that members be willing, upon request in open meeting, to state their intention to support all Republican nominees in the ensuing election. This is not a requirement which is contrary to the notion that “There are many of us conservatives that generally vote republican and do not join the ‘official’ Republican Committee of Virginia.” It is separate and apart from those who wish to take a leadership role in Party affairs by accepting Committee office and those who do on, some (like you, apparently) wishing to reserve unto themselves the freedom to support candidates other than Republicans.

But please do not try to camouflage your desire to reject unilaterally and at your own discretion the considered wisdom of RPV or its units by citing your contempt for me or Kopko and those who supported him over Brian Murphy. That is simply a rationalization of a narcissism which is contrary to a party’s selection of its leaders, and the effective and efficient management of party affairs. Any party’s affairs.

Of course, individuals may and will call themselves whatever they want, so doubtless, there are many who vote for Democrats who call themselves “Republicans” for political advantage. For that matter, there are scores in Congress who call themselves “Democrats” but are, in point of fact, socialists.

Would that be a Jedi’s code?

And BTW, whatever you say about Gill or Kopko, the simple fact is that you lie every time you post here, and hide your identity. It is therefore little wonder that you didn’t graduate from H-SC. After all, we do have a Honor Code.

What, you won’t use the force?

“I merely find you to be a tiresome, embittered, frustrated boor.”

Aw, Lord Vader, the feeling is quite mutual.

“Why get in the mud with a swine?”

Now let’s not get into a discussion about your student dating habits, or your proclivity to use your nose a way to kill time. I’d rather keep it to your misson to defend the questionable actions of Gill and Kopko. You seem ready to roll around and get dirty with these two.

Your insults are tiresome. You celebrate Greg’s banning of me because I speak truth, yet you feel free to fire your childish broadsides, and belittle me when I suggest that — if Greg were applying an objective, rather than self-serving, standard — you would have been gone long ago. Perhaps he finds you entertaining. I merely find you to be a tiresome, embittered, frustrated boor.

Why get in the mud with a swine? You only get dirty, and the swine likes it.

He He! That’s great! I think my nickname for you is better, and we both know why! Am I really anonymous? You seem to think I am employed by the government. Think real hard Darth. Use the force. You must know who I am by know.

As to whether or not I have attended a PWC event, I guess you would know, considering you know who I am.

Since he likes nicknames so well, perhaps we can find a more appropriate one for him. He likes anonymity, after all, from which to cast his attacks. How about John Doe’s brother, Dil? Certainly fits.

Should Beefelt resign from a party and principles he supports because there is/may be corrupt leadership in that party?

I think it is interesting that Beefelt says this:
“But somehow [they will claim] that it Lucy’s fault because she didn’t call the Chairman to find out what they weren’t telling her she had to do.”

And, then as predicted, in yesterday’s Washington Post, McQuigg lays the blame for the missed communication at Lucy’s feet because she didn’t “reach out” to Kopko. Exactly how was Lucy supposed to know that she was supposed to “reach out” - psychic powers?

The question that goes to Lyle (and other Republicans listed on Lucy’s endorsement list) is whether they will resign from the GOP, or from Lucy’s campaign.

Then, Tom sent an e-mail to both CANDIDATES. That e-mail was interpreted as being a request for the candidate to re-file, at least for Lucy. It was e-mailed to both candidates, but Lucy didn’t receive it. Tom, realising he hadn’t heard from Lucy, tried to call her to find out what was happening.

We don’t have any other e-mails, and there is some question as to how many contacts were made after that evening, but the result was that Lucy did not have to re-file, and was a candidate for the convention.

I had heard some time the previous week that there was some question as to whether Lucy was still going to participate. I think that was part of the confusion, as my guess is that Tom thought Lucy was looking for an excuse to drop out and run as an independent, and thought that was why she hadn’t responded. There were rumors that her delegate collection was not going well anyway.

I never spoke with Tom about this, I meant to send him an e-mail and forgot. There was never a question about delegates, and since the call did not mention re-filing as a candidate I believe there was never any question about that either, whatever Tom put in his e-mail.

While Tom and I do not have a personal relationship, he has been good about answering my e-mails when I question what he is doing. I would expect he’d be pretty quick to respond to any civil e-mail query.