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

Ongoing 51st District Delegate Form Follies

By Greg L | 28 May 2007 | 51st HOD District | 40 Comments

Riley has more on the processing of delegate applications for the 51st District convention over at Virtucon:

We’ve received some additional information on some of the convention delegate filings for the 51st Dist. GOP convo. Among the filings said to have been accepted were three from one family where the signatures were all the same — not the same handwriting mind you — one person signed three forms with his own name. When contacted, this individual admitted to signing all three forms, yet apparently all three were still allowed.

I’m hearing rumors about a number of problems with delegate forms submitted by the Faisal Gill campaign. Some of these may just be honest mistakes, but the number of these problems is far above the norm. My understanding is that more than one hundred of Faisal Gill’s delegates have already been disqualified, and questions regarding a substantial number of those that remain still haven’t been resolved. Either there’s a problem with attention to detail here, or something more insidious going on.

Also of note is that Gill’s request to allow unqualified voters to submit voter registration applications up until the day before the convention has been disallowed by RPV. A person signing a delegate form which says that they are a legal and qualified voter who then still needs to register to vote after the fact clearly isn’t qualified to participate, and I can’t imagine anyone rationally claiming that they are. With some of the nuttiness we’ve seen in the past few days, maybe that kind of illogic shouldn’t be surprising.



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.

40 Comments

  1. TheNon-CorruptKopko said on 28 May 2007 at 11:11 am:
    Flag comment

    Could Gill do ANYTHING more to prove he’s the worst candidate of all time short of attempted murder??? And when will his “apologists” stop making fools of themselves, defending him no matter how stupid he makes himself and our party look?!?!

  2. joe said on 28 May 2007 at 11:12 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg-

    Are the 100 already disqualifed include the folks not registered yet, or are those folks included in the “substantial number of those that remain unresolved”?

    Do you have any kind of updated tally for both sides?

    Thanks!!

  3. AWCheney said on 28 May 2007 at 11:17 am:
    Flag comment

    The final tally is going to be how many of their delegates that they physically get to the convention. If Julie does as good a job with that as she apparently did signing up solid delegates, Gill is toast.

  4. Watching said on 28 May 2007 at 11:43 am:
    Flag comment

    If someone signed three different delegate forms, for three different people, then these should be disqualified as well. Unless this individual can produce a power of attorney, or other such document that gives the individual legal authority to sign official documents for another, then this is in clear violation of the pledge. How can one individual sign a pledge stating that they are qualified to vote in the convention, for another person? Can I go to the polls and vote on-behalf of everyone in my family? Can I go to the registrar, fill-out a voter registration form on behalf of my son, and sign my name to it?

    The answer is no. If these individuals applications are accepted, I hope the Lucas campaign files a complaint with RPV. That the credentials committee would allow these people to vote in the convention is a clear violation of the rules. I also hope these individuals are challenged at the convention. Are they even registered to vote?

  5. CONVA said on 28 May 2007 at 11:44 am:
    Flag comment

    The convention is likely to be a chaotic goat rope. Once again Kopko and his keystone Kops have managed to make a simple process open to question.

  6. Jonathan Mark said on 28 May 2007 at 11:52 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"Among the filings said to have been accepted were three from one family where the signatures were all the same — not the same handwriting mind you — one person signed three forms with his own name. When contacted, this individual admitted to signing all three forms, yet apparently all three were still allowed.”"”

    It is shocking that the PWCRC would accept a Faisal Gill delegate filing that was not signed by the putative delegate himself. The RPV rules are very clear, as Virtucon notes:

    “”"A pre-filing form is not valid without the filer’s valid name, address, phone number and signature. (emphasis added)”"”

    http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/more-on-the-51st-convo-delegate-filing-forms/

    I seriously question the integrity of this process due to Gill campaign employee Kopko and Gill campaign event speaker McQuigg’s decision to accept the two delegate forms that were not signed by the applicant.

  7. TheNon-CorruptKopko said on 28 May 2007 at 12:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    May and McQuigg just showed a HUGE lack of judgment if they decided to be as soft on this as it seems. If anyone votes in this convention who is not a “legal and qualified voter” as per RPV, the guilt rests squarely on their shoulders, at the behest of the Gill campaign.

  8. James Young said on 28 May 2007 at 12:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Interesting problem, but not necessarily damning. For instance, since I hold a power-of-attorney for my wife (and she for me), I can sign such a legal document on her behalf (and vice versa). We executed them within days of our marriage (probably need to be updated). It’s a responsible, if too infrequent, course of action for those who marry, and others (for example, for those of us with elderly parents and grandparents).

  9. Jonathan Mark said on 28 May 2007 at 1:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    What an irrelevant Non sequitur.

    James Young, are you asserting that your power of attorney enables you to register to vote on your wife’s behalf?

  10. Lars Wiechmann said on 28 May 2007 at 1:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe there was a time in Virginia GOP history where the convention process was a party building exercise, but those days are long gone. If anything, we’re seeing a prime example of a process that would scare any clear thinking, intelligent person away from being active in the PW GOP — why put up with this bunk on a regular basis? How will we ever attract quality candidates in the future and subject them to this craziness?

    So, I’d really love to see us go back to more primaries so we can REBUILD the party. It is more orderly, they build good lists of identified Republicans for campaigns and the party to use, and it doesn’t cause any bad blood (to the level that we see in conventions anyway). If anyone steps over the line and does something wrong during the primary process, there are more clear cut rules and laws to take resolve such matters.

    Please people….let’s fix this mess before it’s too late and the PWC GOP is destroyed.

  11. TheNon-CorruptKopko said on 28 May 2007 at 1:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I second that Lars, first step: get rid of Kopko! Besides, does the PWC GOP really want the face of the committee to be a look-a-like of Vigo The Carpathian? (Ghost Busters II for those who don’t know)

  12. anon said on 28 May 2007 at 1:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    A power of attorney does not allow you to vote for your spouse.

  13. James Young said on 28 May 2007 at 4:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Contrary to what you appear to assume based upon the responses of many here to your other ridiculous constructions, JM, simply because you say it does not make it so. It is neither “irrelevant,” nor a “non sequitor.” It is simply a possible explanation of the behavior which would render what Greg questions legitimate, but seems not to have occurred to Greg.

    To answer your question (which is ACTUALLY a non sequitor, i.e., having nothing to do with the question at hand), I assert no such thing, since my recollection is that there are statutory requirements to register to vote. I simply point out that there are circumstances — and this MAY be one — where such a document allows you to execute certain legal documents on behalf of the individual granting it to you. I did not look at the statutes of the Commonwealth, but it is easy to imagine that this COULD be one of them, if those statutes even address that point. Of course, Anon 1:59 is correct, and this does not allow one to vote on behalf of the grantor of such a power, though such a practice, if allowed, would probably be less fraudulent than one method of voter fraud utilized and detailed by John Fund in his book is to have people go into nursing homes to “help” the elderly and infirm to cast their ballots for the “right” kind of candidates.

    As to Lars Chene… er, “Weichmann’s” assertions, that is a matter of opinion. Sadly, conventions are the only manner left to political parties not permitted to insure the integrity of their nominating processes with the instrument of Party registration. His assertion reflects, of course, the long dispute over whether political parties should reflect a general philosophy of governance, or should simply function as a vehicle for the acquisition and maintenance of political power. I associate (as I always have) with the former school. Of course, it is interesting that one who has not, in recent memory, bothered to associate himself with the PWC GOP is lecturing those of us who have (and who have, not coincidentally, been part of bringing it to dominance in the County) on his concerns about what could “destroy” the PWC GOP. Those who would presume to advise on that issue would be well advised to involve themselves, and perhaps acquire the legitimacy which accompanies actually being informed on the matters about which they presume to speak.

    He is correct about one thing, however: so long as there is a dedicated minority among GOP activists dedicated to disparaging/delegitimizing any action by the Conservative majority, conventions will “scare … person[s] away from being active in the PW GOP.” Whether those who would be “scare[d]” by the rantings of such individuals can rightly be categorized as “clear thinking” or “intelligent” is, of course, also a matter of opinion.

  14. Jonathan Mark said on 28 May 2007 at 5:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"I simply point out that there are circumstances — and this MAY be one — where such a document allows you to execute certain legal documents on behalf of the individual granting it to you.”"”

    The person who signed three different delegate applications for three different people did not provide a “power of attorney” document. It is doubtful that such a power of attorney would apply in any event.

    For this reason, the Faisal Gill For Delegate campaign kickoff speaker McQuigg and her boss, the Faisal Gill for Delegate employee Kopko should have disallowed two of the three Faisal Gill delegate forms that were signed by the same person.

  15. Had to Say said on 28 May 2007 at 5:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve NEVER trusted Kopko and I think he needs to step down as the PWC GOP Chairman.

  16. Lars Wiechmann said on 28 May 2007 at 6:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Huh?…James Young must be kidding me . I first joined the PWC GOP in 1980…so I guess I was around some while James Young was so KEY in bringing the GOP to dominance in the County (can someone please tell me if he’s ever managed a campaign). I do admit, however, that I have not been active in PW politics in a few years. I haven’t run a campaign in Prince William since 2003 (Glen Hill’s) because to make a living in campaigns I have to work in other states, which I’ve been doing for the last 3 election cycles — Florida during the Presidential election in 2004, North Carolina, and Hawaii (yes we have a GOP there these days…a CONSERVATIVE GOP Governor and Lt. Governor in one of the most liberal states).

    I’m not going to debate him point by point on his comments (he’s obviously very educated, intelligent, and more well spoken than I am). Having said that, I think both James Young and I care about the PWC GOP and it’s success, we just have a serious difference of opinion over convention versus primaries.

    These are some advantages about primaries;
    – They identify large numbers of GOP voters..update our lists, etc. We can use these lists to build the party.
    – Primaries are a good scrimmage for the general election They help a campaign get organized early and effectively get a message out (we will get more conservatives ELECTED this way…not just nominated).
    – Contrary to popular belief, polling data that I’ve seen shows that Dems do NOT “cross-over” to vote in GOP primaries in very significant numbers. All good direct mail vendors purge those names off their lists anyway and they are never contacted again and turned out to the polls. Yes we need party registration – it’s just not going to happen for a while.
    – In a primary race of non-incumbents (barring scandal or completely inept campaigns), I think the more conservative candidates usually wins.
    – Integrity in the system (laws are on the books…we don’t have to depend on RPV to come in and make rulings…or worse fall prey to all these recent court decisions.

    And in the end, primaries HELP “political parties reflect a general philosophy of governance.” I consider myself a conservative and believe we will win and govern best with conservatives in office (watch Fairfax County closely this year…I predict those that stick to their conservative principles will win the tight races…and we’ll see some “moderates” upset in their races). I have run and worked in enough campaigns in Prince William, across Virginia, and other states to see actual proof that using primaries instead of conventions as a means of nomination helps build a party.

    I’m also seeing the danger signs of literally handing what should be a safe GOP seat to the Dems if we don’t make sure that the integrity (even the appearance of integrity) in the process is unquestioned. A challenge to the outcome could last for months and destroy the party. It needs to be fixed by those in charge of the 51st — it’s not too late. It can be and NEEDS to be done so we can get the nominee (either candidate) elected to that seat in the general election. We don’t have the comfortable majorities we used to have in Richmond.

  17. James Young said on 28 May 2007 at 6:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, thank you, JM, for your obviously well-informed legal opinion. From where did you earn your legal degree? The same place as you earned your authority in intelligence analysis?

    Of course, as Charles demonstrates on his website, this post and your comments are informed by a partial/inaccurate understanding of all the facts.

    Not that the facts will get in the way of your rants.

  18. Jonathan Mark said on 28 May 2007 at 8:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Well, thank you, JM, for your obviously well-informed legal opinion.”"”

    Fact: The person who signed his own name for his family members delegate applications did not provide any evidence of having power of attorney. The suggestion that he did is something that James Young pulled out of his lawyerly posterior.

  19. James Young said on 28 May 2007 at 8:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, Lars, I’m sorry if I hadn’t heard of you. I guess your overshadowing presence in the PWC/Manassas GOP from the Eighties wasn’t sufficient to ever see your name in 16 years of leadership in the County GOP. I’m delighted to hear that you’ve been so successful in building the party elsewhere (particularly in Hawaii; let me know when the conservative Governor and Lt. Governor actually start rolling back the socialist government there; I’m still receiving frequent calls from teachers who are being victimized by a union virtually unchecked by the state government; and yes I realize that she faces overwhelming Democrat majorities in her legislature), but it sound as though — Glen Hill’s campaign excepted — you haven’t been all that active here in recent years, particularly throughout the Nineties, when we actually started taking seats away from Democrats. And perhaps my judgment was colored by your last name, and the well-documented (here, anyway) conflict with someone whose maiden name is the same as your last name (sister, perhaps?), and the tactics she employed against a primary challenger here, despicable and dishonest even assuming arguendo his flaws.

    With that having been said, the notion that a primary is necessary or even preferable for small local districts, as opposed to County-wide, simply cannot be sustained.

    You list a number of “advantages about primaries,” most inapplicable given the facts, or at least subject to reasonable dispute:

    – They identify large numbers of GOP voters..update our lists, etc. We can use these lists to build the party.
    ‘Cept, we’re having a County-wide primary for Glen Hill and Corey Stewart. I guess we don’t have to worry too much about “identify[ing] large numbers of GOP voters” and “updat[ing] our lists.” We’re going to do that regardless.

    – Primaries are a good scrimmage for the general election They help a campaign get organized early and effectively get a message out (we will get more conservatives ELECTED this way…not just nominated).
    Perhaps true. By the same token, conventions save a candidate’s money for the general election by creating a limited and focused group to which to take his/her message, as well as creating lists of potential volunteers motivated enough to show up for a convention.

    – Contrary to popular belief, polling data that I’ve seen shows that Dems do NOT “cross-over” to vote in GOP primaries in very significant numbers. All good direct mail vendors purge those names off their lists anyway and they are never contacted again and turned out to the polls. Yes we need party registration – it’s just not going to happen for a while.
    Perhaps not. Though I doubt you would dispute that John Warner depended upon such votes in 1996 to retain the GOP nomination. And while polling data elsewhere might show otherwise, there is a conventional wisdom in Virginia that it DOES happen, a CW that I believe is lightly dismissed, and belied not all by polling data elsewhere. Couple that with the fact that there seems to be some evidence — accept it or not — that one GOP candidate in the 51st District race sought a primary specifically to seek Democrat votes. And as for party registration, it certainly ISN’T going to happen if we continue to nominate Delegates/Senators beholden to Dem crossover votes.

    – In a primary race of non-incumbents (barring scandal or completely inept campaigns), I think the more conservative candidates usually wins.
    True, IF Dems don’t cross over to vote in it. The problem here (and I mean, this website) is that Greg’s purely (or almost purely) personal animosity against Faisal and focus on Jeff Dion’s sexual perversion has resulted in a situation where the Dems don’t have a contested nomination, and Dems could have crossed over in GOP primary.

    – Integrity in the system (laws are on the books…we don’t have to depend on RPV to come in and make rulings…or worse fall prey to all these recent court decisions.
    You won’t find me defending RPV’s decisionmaking process, or legal counsel, particularly in recent years. But you have to buy into the creative and self-serving fictions rampant here about “integrity.” Elect good Party leaders, and monitor their activities, and you won’t have problems with “integrity.” Unfortunately, there is a dedicated minority among GOP activists dedicated to disparaging/delegitimizing any action by the Conservative majority, some for political reasons, and some for personal reasons.

    And BTW, I don’t think anyone believes that the seat at issue — held by a Democrat until Jim Gilmore gave him a full-time state job and backed Michele McQuigg to replace him — is by any measure “a safe GOP seat.” I agree that we don’t need this conflict. You seem to agree that either candidate for the GOP nomination is preferable to the Democrat, a sentiment with which I agree.

    However, that all of the bile in this race is being directed at only one of them should be a clue as to who it is who is placing their personal peccadilloes above the interests of the party.

    Did it occur to you that your comments are best directed at those who are sliming one of the potential GOP nominees?

  20. Citizen Tom Fighting the Disformation Campaign Against Faisal Gill « said on 28 May 2007 at 9:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    […] unintentionally inaccurate report from Virginia Virtucon. Then we have a gleeful, rumor-mongering report from Black Velvet Bruce Li. Then Two Conservatives makes a phone call and reports the […]

  21. Lars Wiechmann said on 28 May 2007 at 10:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    “perhaps my judgment was colored by your last name, and the well-documented (here, anyway) conflict with someone whose maiden name is the same as your last name (sister, perhaps?)”

    I’ll just have to post as anon from now on since my last name apparently offends James Young and I needed to have held a position in the party for the last 16 years to have an opinion (would have been tough to do while working on General Assembly and statewide campaigns out of Richmond through the 90s).

    I’ve been around Prince William County long enough (since 1962) and County GOP meetings (at least one or two every year from 1976 through 2003) to know that I’ve never heard of a James Young ever managing a single winning GOP campaign anywhere, but I just don’t think any of that is relevant for the purposes of exchanging ideas/comments (one of the purposes of political blogs).

    I don’t care to participate in the personal digs here. I sincerely want to weigh in on how we can fix these problems in GOP nomination contests. Hey..I hope he’s right and the GOP somehow holds the 51st seat. Right now I see too many danger signs for success and an unwillingness on the part of some to fix problems that are very fixable.

  22. NoVA Scout said on 28 May 2007 at 10:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    James Young’s 1257 comment probably nailed it. All those interspousal powers of attorney no doubt account for these superficial irregularities. Especially the one with three signatures by the same person. I wish I were sharp enough to see that there had to be a logical explanation.

    RE Lars’s comment: the use of of primaries to build parties is a sign of confidence and aggressive expansion. The use of conventions, especially those where the credentialling process becomes the focal point, is a defensive strategy designed to protect a relatively small bunch that holds power within the local party units. The “cross-over” problem is a bogey-man thing. I’ve never seen any convincing evidence that it is a statistically significant phenomenom.

    I’m not religious about this: primaries have their problems too. Low turnout and expense are chronic in Virginia. But I think you fairly described how primaries can work hand-in-hand with party building at a time when bringing new faces to party politics is a November-important event. Conversely, failure to bring new faces and new enthusiasm to the Party is also a November-important event (in a bad way over a lot of Novembers).

  23. AWCheney said on 28 May 2007 at 10:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    You must understand Jimmy, Lars…he’s just so overwhelmed to discover that just about everyone in our family could produce a resume that would drop-kick his own small political offering into oblivion.

  24. Progress said on 29 May 2007 at 8:14 am:
    Flag comment

    The loss of Dion is a disaster. He was a controlled-growth Democrat. The party has unfortunately been defined by John Jenkins, Hilda Barg, and other good-ol-boy Democrats whose pockets have been lined by developers. Nichols is no better and is in fact worse. He is a developer himself. Dion would have helped to change that image. Unfortunately, the Jenkins crowd thought it more important to nominate anybody than a gay man than choose someone who was good on the growth issue.

  25. Batson D. Belfrey said on 29 May 2007 at 10:27 am:
    Flag comment

    “I’ve never heard of a James Young ever managing a single winning GOP campaign anywhere,”

    James is to busy trying to manage his huge ego. That he has been a PWCGOP gadfly for years is true. That James Young has actually had the impact that he loves to shout about is a product of his ego…much overblown.

  26. James Young said on 29 May 2007 at 10:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Lars, your last name doesn’t offend me. You relative does. I operated under a misapprehension, and I conceded the point. Nevertheless, sure enough: the Old Whithered Wench had to chime in with her peurile name-calling. I guess she labors under the misapprehension that her belittling diminutive does something other than provide me with an opportunity to apply an accurate characterization of her.

    And no, you need not “have held a position in the party for the last 16 years to have an opinion.” It might be helpful, though, in lending some authority and depth to opinions about internal party workings in PWC to have actually witnessed some of the goings-on, of which you were perhaps unaware “while working on General Assembly and statewide campaigns out of Richmond through the 90s,” or perhaps, while relying upon the jaundiced views that you might have gained at family gatherings. Nevertheless, some of us have been able to lend aid to local party matters while working on other things, like working to defund the far-Left’s illicit forced-union-dues-for-politics nationwide, in places like California, Alaska, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. To be sure, managing campaigns is important. However, it is not the be all and end all of ability to speak with authority in matters political, though — protestations to the contrary notwithstanding — you appear to believe so, or want others to believe so, since you’ve mentioned it twice now.

    But back to the main point on conventions vs. primaries: it’s an academic issue at this point with regard to this race. The legitimate authority which gets to decide such questions has decided on a convention. Discussion at this point over how it could have been done better or how there was a better alternative are a thinly-veiled effort to delegitimize the eventual GOP nominee, whomever that may be. It’s too bad that some are now emulating the Dems’ strategy after the 2000 debacle in Florida.

    If your interest is in holding primaries in the future, then perhaps the best way to ensure that end would be to get involved in local party matters or at least, get more involved than you have been recently. It is doubtful that blogosphere discussions on the issue at this time and over how it was a bad decision in this case are not conducive to that purported goal.

  27. AWCheney said on 29 May 2007 at 11:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy, you never cease to amaze…I’ll just bet that you have absolutely no idea how ridiculous you sound. I’ll also bet that everyone else does.

  28. John Light said on 29 May 2007 at 12:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jim Young writes: Nevertheless, sure enough: the Old Whithered Wench had to chime in with her peurile name-calling.”

    Well, AW, at least he did not refer to you as “calorically challenged” and “even more so than himself” as he, Jim Young, did to Julie.

    He has YET to attack Julie Lucas on the issues. His statement of “she supports tax increases” is blatently false. He attributes this to her “support” of Buck Waters back almost a decade ago. Yet, he is so quick to deride anyone against Faisal by saying that we are condeming Faisal of “guilt by association.”

    Just wondering, has ANYONE from the 51st District donated money to the Faisal Gill campaign? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller??? Waldo??? Anyone???

  29. AWCheney said on 29 May 2007 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy is such a child John, which is why I refer to him in the diminutive. That he chooses to refer to that as “name-calling” (given all the genuine name-calling he does on a regular basis) is only confirmation of that.

  30. Lars Wiechmann said on 29 May 2007 at 1:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    I tried to discuss the issue of problems in a nominating process and possible solutions — that’s it.

    My opinion was dismissed because I was told I had not held positions within the party. I only bring up the fact the I have managed campaigns (most of them wins — a few unseating incumbent Dems) because that is the perspective I come from in all this and why I have an interest. I never intended these posts to get personal and turn it into a discussion of resumes. I could care less about that stuff, except to say I can’t for the life of me figure out why someone would claim he was a key figure in building the PWC GOP without having been anywhere NEAR a winning campaign.

    I thought the point was to get some folks elected….not just run people to lose. Our conservatives in Richmond need more help and I don’t know where this school of thought comes from that conservatives are somehow at a disadvantage in a primary and must be nominated in a small, tightly controlled convention. Of course you can point to some David vs. Galiath scenerios where poorly funded candidates try to unseat entrenched incumbents (I’m talking about open seats).

    The point is, it’s the trouble that is caused in some poorly run conventions that scare away our good, future candidates and the donors who will fund them. It also deflates the enthusiasm of the volunteers.

  31. John Light said on 29 May 2007 at 4:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lars, you are 100% right in all your postings and you definitely have my support. Fairfax County has done away with Conventions to prohibit exactly what has taken place in the 51st.

    When the candidates go to vote in November, they are, in a sense, competing in a Primary, not a convention made up of both Party faithfulls. The problem with a Convention is that, real or not, the perception can be placed that it was biased for or against a certain candidate.

    The Faisal campaign time and again had accused the Lucas campaign of wanting a Primary ONLY so she could get Democrats to vote. Well, after doing a tally it was found that the Faisal Gill campaign is riddled with Democratic supporters (be it potential delegates or campaign contributors). Heck, even his inner-circle have voted in Democratic primaries (not that there is anything wrong with that ;-) )

    Your work for the Party is to be commended, as is your enthusiasm. Keep up the good work and fighting the good fight…seems that our Party is very fortunate to have you in our ranks.

  32. James Young said on 29 May 2007 at 5:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    John, you are a blatant liar. You are in good company with the likes of the Old Whithered Wench and the rest of the Weichmann/Cheney’s, to whose childish name-calling I only respond. I was particularly impressed with Lars’ protestations about not wanting it to get personal, but wrongly asserting that I have never “been anywhere NEAR a winning campaign”; there are quite a few Republican officeholders, past and present, who have valued my aid and input, and it is a measure of how ill-informed about local matters that you are that you could make such a mistake, assuming arguendo it is not merely a blatant falsehood. It is quite an accomplishment to engage in behavior while denying that one is doing so. I wonder whether it is pathological, or congenital?

    You assert that I said that Julie is ““calorically challenged” and “even more so than himself.”” I obviously do not refer to myself in the third person, so there’s the first tip-off.

    However, what I actually said was “Your “childish tactics” are attacking Faisal about his weight when the candidate you support is every bit as calorically-challenged as Faisal (and me, for that matter), if not more so.”

    http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/05/22/jeff-dion-gay-dating-ad-discovered/#comment-11653

    I made no assertions about Julie’s weight, save to note that, like many of us, she could stand to lose a few pounds.

    But the more important point is that you people chose the terms of this debate. It is certainly laughable that you complain when someone points out to you how your tactics could be turned back on you.

  33. Anonymous said on 29 May 2007 at 8:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Old Whithered Wench and the rest of the Weichmann/Cheney’s, to whose childish name-calling I only respond.”

    Does anyone wonder like I do if JY actually reads these things to himself before he hits the send button? This is because he disagrees with someone over Primaries as opposed to Conventions.

    “there are quite a few Republican officeholders, past and present, who have valued my aid and input, and it is a measure of how ill-informed about local matters that you are that you could make such a mistake”

    Name ‘em and describe what you did for them.

  34. anon said on 29 May 2007 at 8:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    From Mr. Young’s exact quote above:

    “Your “childish tactics” are attacking Faisal about his weight when the candidate you support is every bit as calorically-challenged as Faisal (and me, for that matter), if not more so.”

    I’m not sure what Mr. Young is disputing here. John shouldn’t have put the paraphrase in quotation marks to be sure. But his summary was accurate.

    Mr. Young says that Faisal, James Young, and Julie Lucas are fat. And that Julie is the fattest.

    I’m not sure how that makes Mr. Young look “right”.

    Julie might be chubby, and so are you, Mr. Young — but neither one of you has a duty to your country to be less weighty. Mr. Gill does.

    From Mr. Young:

    “I made no assertions about Julie’s weight, save to note that, like many of us, she could stand to lose a few pounds.”

    Well, that’s about as Clintonian as it gets.

  35. Jonathan Mark said on 30 May 2007 at 1:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"”“there are quite a few Republican officeholders, past and present, who have valued my aid and input, and it is a measure of how ill-informed about local matters that you are that you could make such a mistake””"”

    Is this all about you James Young? No one cares.

  36. James Young said on 30 May 2007 at 1:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    For all I know, you’re one of ‘em, Anon 8:07. Tell you what: you identify yourself, and I’ll do so.

    Well, maybe not. Because then, of course, the “have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too” crowd of AWCheney and her “Amen!” chorus will accuse me of bragging, or whatever.

    Kinda of like JM. Yes, JM, it is “all about [me]” when someone makes a charge and I respond to it. I suppose that I could have just ignored it. But then you would have accused me of agreeing with it.

    Apparently, it’s all about YOU, JM. Whatever you say/surmise/speculate/creatively assert is right, and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong.

    If Greg were really honest, he’s rename this sited “JM’s Insane Asylum.”

  37. Anonymous said on 30 May 2007 at 2:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    I didn’t think JY would be able to name any “Republican officeholders, past and present, who have valued [his] aid and input.”

  38. James Young said on 30 May 2007 at 3:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    I didn’t think Anon 8:07 would have the courage and integrity to identify himself.

    I’ve nothing to prove to cowards.

  39. John Light said on 30 May 2007 at 4:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    James Young writes “John, you are a blatant liar.” Ok you without honor, not once on ANY of my posts have I lied. All I have done is present facts or opinions but NEVER LIED. You, my Bill Clinton wannabe, will look at a Faisal mailer which states that he is a lobbyist and say he never said such thing. Maybe it is due to your lack of reading skills.

    Since I was going off of memory, thank you for putting the link to where you, Jim Young, clearly stated “Your “childish tactics” are attacking Faisal about his weight when the candidate you support is every bit as calorically-challenged as Faisal (and me, for that matter), if not more so.” And thank you, Anon, for correcting me on my grammar - you are 100% correct.

    Again, YOU, Mr. Young, are the liar because if that quote above does not declare that you are saying that Julie is overweight, I don’t know what does. Julie’s weight has no business even being brought up anymore than yours or your wifes.

    What I believe is the case with you, Jim, is this. By your own admission you have won 100% of your cases because you get the priviledge of getting to chose which case you will represent. Well, by doing this, you do not know how to lose gracefully.

    That being said, Jim, you are like the spoiled child that does not get his way. EVERY TIME you lose politically, which is about 100%, you have a conniption (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conniption). Time, and time, and time again, you have been virtually spanked by ALL who have debated you. Yes, you get the occasional points in there, but the big picture is, you are wrong and just do not know the proper way to handle yourself.

    Did they not teach manners at that all male (civilian) college you went to, Jim??? YOU may have nothing to prove (you have done THAT time and again and probably don’t even realize it), but your boy Faisal sure does!!!

  40. anon said on 31 May 2007 at 7:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    JY: “I’ve nothing to prove to cowards.” = can’t name a single “Republican officeholder[s], past and present, who have valued [his] aid and input.”

Comments are closed.


Views: 2984