As for the notion that “Kopko’s leadership is doing harm to the Party,” I recognize that you apparently buy into the notion that Party leadership should simply fold under a lot of (mostly anonymously/pseudonymously-inspired or, worse yet, obviously Democrat-inspired) heat, so long as the heat is the kind of which you personally approve. What you should have learned by now, if you are of the generation that I think you are, is that the kind of leadership you describe is not leadership at all, but cowardice. I doubt that would advocate such a rule if I were as bitterly opposed to the current leadership as you seem to be. The notion that you are applying an objective standard here is ludicrous. You want Kopko to go because you loathe the candidates he supports, or that you think he supports. Your entire record of posts here makes that abundantly clear.

Is Kopko perfect? Not by a damn sight. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the last perfect leader died nearly two millenia ago, and even then, had fewer than a score of people He could really trust, or who really trusted Him.

‘Fact is, the GOP has done just fine under Kopko’s leadership, doing well to resist enormous anti-GOP sentiments and trends nationwide. Your complaint isn’t really that he isn’t a successful leader, but that he’s leading in a direction you don’t apparently like. Show me an officeholder who doesn’t stir up passions, and I’ll show you an officeholder who is little more than a cipher, and who certainly is not a “leader” in any meaningful sense of the word. And while you certainly could be correct, Kopko has the virtue of having actually run and won the authority to make those decisions, while neither you (nor I) have.

And you use the same old lawyer trick of misdirection. If you compare the current state of the PWC GOP, under Kopko, with that of another local unit, Manassas, it is easy to see that Kopko’s leadership is doing harm to the Party. Kopko has become the story. This is bad. He needs to go. In politics, results do count. Kopko has few positive results on which to hang his hat. If garnering bad press where the metric used to determine his success, he’d be the most successful guy around. Sadly, it is not.

You may try to call me a Democrat. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I know what you’ll say, you have no way to verify this. I want to see the PWC GOP strong and successful, running the best candidates for office. Kopko is not the guy to make this happen. You defend mediocrity. A mediocre Chairman, with mediocre results, mediocre reputation, backing mediocre candidates like Chapman and worse, Gill.

Actually, that is James Young’s approach as well. Faisal Gill is refusing to provide a complete work history to the voters.

Tell us, James Young, when did Faisal Gill first work for the American Muslim Council as either an employee or a consultant, and when did Gill last work for the AMC?

You know, many employers will not consider hiring an applicant who has unexplained holes in his resume. Voters can be particular in that way as well.

So tell us James Young, if you can, when did Faisal Gill first work for the American Muslim Council?

What is “very sad,” OWW, is your expectation that you can attack others with your elaborate insults, and then attack them with belittlement for having the temerity to respond/defend themselves. Here’s a prime example: you attacked me for “considering … [my]self such a preeminent attorney.”

Now, I suppose that I could have just dismissed you as a vicious, bitter old b****, but then Greg would delete my comment, and probably block my access to the site once again.

Instead, I point out that such a judgment is best made by others, and point you to a source, i.e., facts, where you might learn what others, positioned better than you to judge, think. Doubtless to your chagrin you learned that the Martindale-Hubbell rating to which I referred you rates my legal ability (from judges, attorneys, and even opposing counsel, who apparently treat their litigation opponents with more respect than you render to your political enemies) as “Very High to Preeminent,” which rather thoroughly undercuts your belittlement. Rather than apologizing and moving on (since it wouldn’t serve your emnity), you resort to attacking/belittling me for defending myself.

Nice little vicious circle strategy, if you’re allowed to get away with it.

I’ve no doubt that repeating lies is an effective political tactic which you have mastered over the years, but one lesson that Conservatives have learned over the years is to not allow flagrant lies and fictions to go unanswered.

I have not said that, or even thought it, so there would be no reason for you to respond to it.

What I would like you to respond to is a simple question. What were the initial start dates and final end dates of Faisal Gill’s employment at the American Muslim Council?

Usually when people apply for a job they provide a complete work history. Faisal doesn’t.

“”"but responding to such a ridiculous claim would be as productive as responding to your ridiculous constructions.”"”

That is not what is going on here. Rather, James Young has decided that if he defended Gill’s work at the AMC with specifics then Gill would be on the defensive. That would weaken Gill. So it is better for Young to attack-the-messenger, thus changing the subject.

Gill was the chief lobbyist for the AMC, whose founder, leader and funder Abdurahman Alamoudi said that the AMC lobbied for Hamas, according to the 3/1/2004 edition of Insight On The News: “‘On June 2, 2000, the U.S.-based al-Zaitounah newspaper interviewed Alamoudi in English on his pro-Hamas activities at the AMC. “Our position with regard to the peace process is well-known,” he said. “We are the ones who went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas.’”

Alamoudi is now in jail serving a 23-year sentence for money laundering.

There she goes again. AWCheney and her fixation on the “ego” of others. That pesky “projection” rears its ugly head once more.

But just FYI, OWW, I’ve never said any such thing about myself. Whether I am “a preeminent attorney” is best judged by others. Your efforts at belittlement would be much more credible if you bothered to find one such judgment: http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/Lawyer_Locator/Search_Lawyer_Locator/search_detail.xml?STS=51&LNAME=Young&CN=Springfield&PG=1&bc=65&CRY=1&ratind=&FN=&FNAME=&STYPE=N&a=1F5087BCEE275B91&l=8DBEF52B5D95C8F9&type=2&pos=1&cnt=1. Just click on the “AV Peer Rated” link to learn that for which the “A” stands.

James Young has decided that any discussion of Faisal’s activities at the American Muslim Council puts Faisal on the defensive and hurts Faisal’s candidacy.

So Young cannot defend Faisal. His response to legitimate criticisms of Faisal is to change the subject with fairly uninventive bile. In a short sentence he calls AW Cheney, a good Republican, “bitter,” Mitch “cowardly” and me, inaccurately, “Democrat.”

It is because you will never, not ever, hear Jim say “Faisal did X at the American Muslim Council and that was okay for Faisal to do X at the AMC because…”

Young doesn’t want to be on the defensive. He has an extraordinarily weak candidate on his hands.

That she finds solace with the likes of Democrat JM and cowardly “Mitch Cumstein” speaks volumes. Too stupid to consider that “Mitch’s” claim to GOP credentials are a smokescreen for a Democrat trying to sow GOP dissension.

Charles,

Honest-to-Pete, do you really believe this pap you write?

Tom got money for doing work for Gill. If someone is a paid staff member, they also get paid for doing work for Gill.

Honestly, there must be some neurons misfiring that enable you to make these kind of bizarre distinctions.

I certainly understand if you think it is okay for a committee leader to work for (perform work for, perform a service for) one candidate over another. I don’t agree, but I understand it. But this — your machinations are, quite frankly, beyond comprehension. Working for, performing work for, performing a service for — they are all synonymous.

Charles, “the other candidate” (Faisal Gill) was the one who paid Kopko. That is what this controversy is about. Kopko accepted money from one of the two candidates for the nomination.

If it was wrong for Kopko to accept Gill’s money then it was wrong for Gill to offer it. Unless Charles is claiming that Gill didn’t know that Kopko was the PWCRC chair.

Pat by all accounts is a good and honorable man who has been out of the political realm for quite some time, and I’m not sure he’s prepared to be put in the middle of a contentious convention fight. Tom has decided that he would provide assistance to Mr. O’Leary during the convention, just in case he needs it.

It’s actually a pretty interesting setup.

Are you saying, Charles, that Kopko can only get work within the areas in which he has the responsibilities of unit chairman? That is very much an indictment of his competence.