Jim Fotis
By Greg L | 4 June 2007 | Prince William County | 98 Comments
Jim Fotis is one of those folks you’re just really happy to have involved in local politics. He’s more of a regular guy than a well-polished political candidate, but he’s got a solid grasp of the issues that affect local government and a strong background in law enforcement that would make him a compelling candidate for any office. He jumped into the Sheriff’s race pretty late and doesn’t have much of a local organization, which has hampered his effort to establish himself. I haven’t seen a single yard sign for Jim, and his candidate events haven’t been well publicized, for example. As a result, he’s not really getting the attention his candidacy deserves.
Jim’s campaign theme is that he is a true conservative, and of the candidates he probably is the person who can most credibly make this claim. He’s a member of Help Save Manasssas, has made very strong statements on behalf of Second Amendment rights as head of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and seems to be very qualified to run the Sherrif’s Department. He’s chosen his issues carefully, speaking about issues that the Sheriff’s Department can actually affect, rather than getting into discussions about who is and who is not the proper pro-life candidate. Voters who think that a conservative outlook is the most important qualification for this position should seriously consider voting for Jim Fotis.
There has been some discussion about how effective he has been as the head of the LEAA, which may be relevant, but is likely resulting from the normal level of criticism anyone who has lead a large organization will be subjected to. When you’re out in front of an organization, it’s impossible to please everyone, and easy to really upset a few. If these concerns were fully credible, I would expect that the organization’s directors and members would have resolved the issue long ago, and since Jim is still the Executive Director of the organization, I tend to discount these claims. Seeing that the debate over leadership issues in the LEAA seems to have spilled over to BVBL rather than where LEAA membership and directors could actually do something about the supposed issues only further detracts from the credibility of these concerns.
What I haven’t seen much discussed is that Jim hasn’t been a part of the local political scene until quite recently. I can understand that he’s been focused on national issues and higher visibility campaigns, but building a local campaign organization requires some history with local activists which Jim appears to be lacking. Much of his support comes from outside the county. He doesn’t appear to have any local endorsements, and there are no endorsements listed on his campaign website. With not much of a campaign organization and little visibility, I’m not sure Jim got into this race with the intention of really working in order to win. He could be building name ID in order to run for something else later on.
I’d welcome that. I’ve said before that I really like Jim’s stand on the issues, and think it would be more productive for conservatives to elect Jim to an office where he would be a legislator, rather than the administrator of a Sheriff’s department. He could still surprise us in this last week and boost his profile to the point he could tap into some of the discontent on how the two more visible candidates are battling it out, but I don’t see that happening. Jim Fotis would make an outstanding Sheriff, but the dynamics of this race are such that I don’t see him getting much of a chance to prove that assessment right. Instead, we may end up with Jim Fotis running a stronger campaign for a legislative seat in the near future.
Also in this series:
Current Election Overview
candidate Glen Hill
candidate Mike Messier
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.
98 Comments
Views: 1960
Loading ...
Greg-
Thanks for this thread.
I agree with you that, “Jim Fotis would make an outstanding Sheriff”. And, with all due respect to your comments about the lack of local support roots, I believe that conservative voters (thanks in large part to your BVBL) will focus on this race. Once they do, they will be faced with making a choice.
In a head to head comparison, Fotis wins…. quite easily I think… especially when you expect that those comparatively few folks who tend to vote in Primaries are the most well informed/passionate members of the party/cause.
So, if voters do see Fotis’ name and learn about the difference, Fotis can win.
And, just for the record for all to see, Fotis is running for Sheriff. This is NOT some attempt to run a campaign just to acquire name recognition!
Vote Fotis for Sheriff on June 12th!
Here’s my question…
If Jim Fotis is such a staunch upholder of true conservative values, why is he running for Sheriff, a Constitutional office with little (if any) influence over policy or law, especially in a County that overwhelming rejected the last Sheriff (Stoffregan) who tried to so overtly mix his politics with the duties of the office?
Would the “conservative cause” be better served if he were to run for County Supervisor, Delegate or State Senate? Why Sheriff?
Granted, I don’t mind seeing such a “true conservative” locked away in a role where those views have little meaning, but from a practical sense, one has to wonder why someone with such a pedigree as a “true conservative voice” would chose to pick a race with such a low profile.
While I think the Mr. Fotis is an extremely well-qualified candidate, and the only reason that I can find to not vote for him his is very short time in PWC, Glen Hill still has my support. I am very happy with the way Hill has run the department.
Hill challenged and defeated an entrenched incumbent, who was running the department as his own little fifedom, in which, Mike Messier was his chief Lieutenant. Badges were being sold, weapons were missing, slush funds were established, and the department was just shy of all-out political warefare with the PWC PD. Courthouse security was neglected and screening machines were broken. Hill came in and cleaned up the mess, and got the department back to its traditional duties. Also, contrary to Messier supporters lies in the MJM, PN here and other blogs, the Sheriff’s budget decreased.
Hill turned the department around. Not a small job considering the state it was in when he took over. Hill is a conservative, in that he has taken a CONSERVATIVE approach to running the department. He read what the Connsitutional duties and responsibilites are for the Sheriff, and he has executed these duties to the letter. Furthermore, Hill has longer ties to the community than either of his opponents. He was a Manassas PD officer, superintendent of the Jail, and Sheriff. He has been supportive of the party, and other Republicans, but has avoided turning the office into a “political” machine.
I am not going to bash Mr. Fotis, just because he is challenging Hill. As far as I can tell, he would make a very capable Sheriff. He has an impressive resume, and is a very approachable person. Hill is in the same category, and he is the incumbant. He deserves another term, and I will support him. Messier, on the otherhand, isn’t fit to serve stew at the local soup-kitchen, condiering his role in the previous department. Plenty there to hang around his neck. If it were Fotis vs. Messier, Mr. Fotis would have my total support.
Hell, if it were Ham Sandwich vs. Messier, I would vote Ham Sandwich.
Wow!
Consevative voters in PW Co. might just want thier Sheriff to support (and defend) their values and while the Sheriff is at it, do what the Sheriff can to help make the deparment more responsive to ‘the people.’
If you are not consevative, not Republican, not planning on voting in the Primary I can see how you might think these issues don’t matter.
But for just one example, the current Sheriff seems to be against gun ownership, the Second Amendment and legitimate self-defense. A new Sheriff, in the form of Jim Fotis as Sheriff, will support and defend ‘the people’s’ rights to gun ownership — and use, especially as it relates to self defense.
Don’t you think voters might like to see thier uniformed Sheriff defending in Richmond, locally to other politicians in PW Co, or to the media, ‘the people’s’ Second Amendment Rights?
I think many consevative voters will stand up and support such a change…
Fotis for Sheriff
Forgive me for my ignorance but what is LEAA?
Also, some good points were raised about what a Sheriff can do about illegal aliens. At this point I don’t believe they can do much until some agreement is made with the Feds about enforcement which is something that should of happened already.
How do the candidates stand on the 287G? Seems like PWC police are dragging their feet on that.
[Ed note: LEAA=Law Enforcement Alliance of America, see http://www.leaa.org ]
Batson -
You do a good job describing the basic fact that Hill took a bad department and made it “better” and with Hill coming from the local PD the Sheiff’s dept does now ‘play more nicely’ with the local PD.
That would be the local PD that appears to be working against the will of the voters on the immigration front. So Hill is playing nicely with those that are working the wrong side of this issue…to the apparent detrement to those who voted for him and to those in the county that are concerned on this issue.
Hill has taken an openly hostile stand - using his office as a bully pullpit - to undercut gun owners, their rights, and to help advance the anti-gunner’s arguments.
Hill has declined to stand up and be counted on key law-and-order issues of the day: Self-Defense and Immigration to name just two. And there is so much more..
Thank you for admitting that Fotis is well qualified, I agree. I think PW Co. Voters will want more than merely ’status quo’ and the votes cast in this June 12th Primary will either prove or disprove that theory (provided that we can keep facts before the voting public and with the assumption that they get so informed!).
“That would be the local PD that appears to be working against the will of the voters on the immigration front.”
I think you are a bit confused with the geography. Are you new to the area too?
Manassas PD is not the same as PWC PD. Hill was a Manassas PD Officer. The Manassas PD is moving to participate in 287G. It is the PWC PD which has dragged its feet and has a sancutary policy in place. Also, Hill supports the Jail’s participation in 287G, and Hill is the former superintendent of the jail. The jail falls under the purview of the Sheriff, although it is also overseen by the regional jail board.
Nice try, but your argument fails at the begining. It’s simple math. PROOF: Manassas PD does not equal PWC PD.
Actually Batson, IP doesn’t even live in Prince William County. Go figure.
Once again IP outlines her candidate’s platform for what appears a gubernatorial race instead of a sheriff’s. As lofty as their ideals and claims are, the real issue is and will be until election day, why would anyone vote for Fotis and change course from a proven leader and Prince Williams’ own, Glen Hill? Your attempt to divide this party and disrupt this election is shameful. What a colossal waste of time you have spent endorsing a nobody with no hope of winning. You have missed your calling IP. May I suggest you contact Paris Hilton and hire on as her publicist. You may have more luck convincing the public at large that she has redeeming value, than anyone in this county that Fotis is a real contender.
Lets try and keep it real here:
You, such an expert on local politics, surely know that Hill ‘friend’ and politico about whom Hill has chosen not to comment on publicly is MIA on the immigration front (the Commonwealth Attorney). (Others might describe him in even worse terms.) Ebert is also a local law enforcement leader with whom Hill could be trying to lead… but no….!.
The County PD is on the wrong side of this issue as well… and where is Hill on that front?
I would ask you, isn’t Manassas Park also on the wrong side…?
So, yes, Hill came from Manassas PD and that particular department (one among many that could be engaged on this front) has done something right. (I never even heard it suggested that Hill played anykind of leadership role in that decision by the way — and he certainly never publicly supported it!)
But Hill has failed to lead with all the local PD’s (short for those in the law enforcement ‘arena’ to include the Commonwealth Attorney).
And, its true that Hill sits on a board, and that board has little policy/power and from that ‘bully pulpit’ Hill has done ABSOLUTEY nothing to lead on this issue. Where has Hll alked the media, where is it that Hill went down and testified before the County Gov’t representing the people’s concerns on this issue? Where is there any leadership at all?
The fact that the jail board allowed the Jail to participate in a federal program is NOT LEADERSHIP. Not opposing something, allowing something that is going to happen anyway to happen is not leadership!
So all this supports my basic point: Hill is cozy with those in power (local LE leadership), when given the chance to step up and lead he has REFUSED.
The fact that one agency is (finally) doing something right, something that Hill did not have a hand in — can’t possibly be reasonalby streched to the point where you claim that Hill is leading on this issue!
Like him or hate him Fotis for Sheriff will lead and he will speak up for the people of Prince William County who are concerned about this issue. Fotis has a nearly 20 year pedigree of advancing that kind of conservative agenda!
This Republican Primary is dividing the party?!?!
Fotis has a public record of being a conservative leader for nearly 20 years. He has supported numerous R candidates through the various (sometimes very challenging) primary/electoral process.
Hill’s record is exactly the opposite. He has refused to support party candidates up and down the ticket, including the recent example with the Clerk of the Court’s race. So either he does nothing (most of the time) and sometimes supports the R opponent — and you want to elect him?
Fotis, should he win the Primary will try and bring all conservatives together and harness that energy to advance our conservative values (tough law and order stuff).
That is exactly what Sheriff Hill has failed to do…. the fact that after four years the has two opponents both of whom claim they are more conservative than he would seem to prove that point.
Fotis is the most conservative candidate, he brings energy, vision, and enthusiasm… if you are against that fine, but please don’t mislead and suggest that a hearty discussion of advancing MORE TRADTIONAL CONSERVATIVE VALUES (like the Second Amendmdent) is a bad thing as part of the Republican election cycle!
Fotis:
Better on Guns
Better on Freedom
Better on Immigration
Better on Reform (law and order issues)
Better on Conservative Pedigree
Better on Leadership
“Hill has taken an openly hostile stand - using his office as a bully pullpit - to undercut gun owners, their rights, and to help advance the anti-gunner’s arguments”
IP - You are falling into the same trap Messier started out with - you making up stuff, and then lying to support it - you shoudl knowck that off.
And, you never answered my question - is Fotis a, or has Fotis been a certified law enforcement officer in Virginia??
Uh Henry have you been to the ‘official’ Prince William County website for Sheriff…. Hill has posted all kinds of silly anti-gun stuff right on his own Sheriff’s Department website.
The ’secret’ gun form that Hill created for gun owners is also visible online (though it is from another source)… I suspect that Hill didn’t want that little ‘gem’ visible on the main county website; especially so close to election.
There is no “secret” form. I checked this out and it’s not true. A third party website had a form as IP alleges, and it was not authentic.
“Uh Henry have you been to the ‘official’ Prince William County website for Sheriff…. Hill has posted all kinds of silly anti-gun stuff right on his own Sheriff’s Department website.”
Please provide a link to the pages in question.
IP,
I have two questions that I would like for you to answer.
1) What evidence (not your opinion) do you have that Fotis is a “better” leader that Hill?
2) Has Fotis ever been a law enforcement officer in the State of Virginia?
Please don’t dance around the questions…I have seen enough of that today!
Greg L -
I posted the post below on the other thread… after your assertion that the Gun issue was being improperly presented. If you have proof of your claim that you made above — that the Secret form was not authrized by Hill, did not reflect Hill’s official policy, was not used to deny Gun Owner’s approval to buy certain BATFE approved guns — than I ask you to make it public and enlighten us all!
If you can not do so then I respectfully ask that you revise your position.
You and I have seen the form. The form was posted by a licensed, highly regulated and by all appearance, credible, independent gun business. The form reflects an anti-gun policy of Sheriff Hill that was corroborated by different individuals, none of whom knew each other and none of whom had any reason to lie. So unless there is a great big conspiracy here I think the document and anti-gun testimony speaks clearly.
Hill has a definite reason to hide the truth of his Anti-Gun position….
Here is what I posted on the other thread:
Greg L. - I have been a Second Amendment activist for over two decades and with all due respect to you, I know an anti-gunner when I see one. Hill is an anti-gunner!
Apparently major gun groups and leaders would also disagree with you; they seem to see a stark difference in favor of Fotis over Hill when it comes to this issue. Fotis has been endorsed by VCDL, VSSA, CCRKBA, etc. etc.
Fotis is an Benefactor level, Life Member of NRA.
As I udnerstand it, Hill has even refused to complete ANY of the candidate surveys sent to him that would place him publicly on record as the anti-gunner I now know him to be. Fotis has completed his surveys…. not surprisingly, from the gun owner perspective, he completed them ‘right’!
Hill’s record on guns (the part he has made public) is for all to see.
Greg, you have seen the secret Hill gun form and I have seen it. I have been told directly with first person testimony from multiple individuals — those who have personally felt the sting of Hill’s anti-gun sting (refusal to sign forms) of his hostility to gun owners and refusal to sign. If you wish to post the form in quesiton for all to see and judge only you can…. it is your site.
Unless I am mistaken — and I invite you to correct me if I am factually wrong — when you asked Hill about not signing gun owner’s BATFE forms he was, uh what word best fits… disingenuous…. not ‘forth coming,’….. I don’t know what word you would use but I sure know what word I would use. You tell us, Greg, did Hill directly refute the form in question?…
Is Hill now publicly ready to claim that the form in quesiton does not exist and never did? Is he now ready to publicly claim that he has suddenly (now almost a week before election) flipped his position and become a Second Amendment supporter? I bet not a chance.
I will cede the point that you believe this issue is as you have said previously, “but even if that’s true, it’s not likely a big deal to most voters. Compared to all the good he’s done in office, this is real down-in-the-weeds stuff.”
To me (and I suspect for thousands of voters) the Second Amendment, and how the Sheriff uses the power of his office to covertly deny Prince William County residents of their rights is not “down-in-the-weeds stuff”! If that is still your take on this than we will have to agree to disagree….
Hill has staked out an open anti-gun record; his campaign website is completely silent on this issue (the only reason I can see why he would hide his record is that it confirms his anti-gun pedigree). Hill has put it in writing, he has put stuff on his Prince William County Departmental website that I believe are not only anti-gun in their origination but are inteded to thwart gun ownership and gun use for self-defense.
Hill has NOT EVER that I can find any evidence of — again I invite you to correct me if I am wrong on this — NOT EVER said or done ANYTHING as Sheriff to support or defend the Second Amendmnet nor advance or support legitimate self-defense!
So with all due respect, when everything is added up I think it equals Hill being actively anti-gun and Fotis being way, way better on this issue than him.
The question is: Do you or do you not want a more pro-Second Amendmenet Sheriff?
Greg, I’m sure you know what Interested Party here has posted on the other “Sheriff’s” thread (Back to the Sheriff’s Race) that “In that forum most of the posters have seeded the point that Fotis is the better cadidate (sp). (Greg L. has described him in terms of being the most conservative…. etc.).” Anybody can see from this thread that statement is a blatant lie.
It’s my experience with people who lie so stupidly (in writing where anybody with a modicum of sense can see) cannot be trusted in anything that they say on the subject. That, with the fact that everything IP has said prior to this regarding Fotis (back in the earlier Sheriff’s race threads) describes Fotis as a conservative Stoffregen (with the same agenda but different label) leads me to believe that Fotis is not only the wrong person for the Sheriff’s job, but perhaps any elected office in Prince William County. I hope Fotis appreciates everything that you have NOT done for him Interested Party. He may have to find another County by the time this is over if he wants to run for political office, thanks to you.
AWC,
Fotis really is a great guy. He is not nearly as bad as some of his supporters make him look by the way they promote him here. I would support a Fotis candidacy for just about any open seat you could imagine — he’s got great policy positions, he’s got good experience, and my interactions with him have without exception been positive. He offers to help other conservatives like myself at the drop of a dime, and I’ve no doubt he would follow through on his word.
I am unabashedly a fan of Jim Fotis. It pains me that I don’t think this is the race he should be running.
Don’t take IP’s comments as any indication of what kind of guy Jim is. Some (very rarely) of Glen’s supporters have gone overboard, but we know Glen and are willing to discount stuff like that when it happens. I urge you to do the same in regards to Jim Fotis.
Well Greg, IP insists that he/she is a close friend of Fotis and has been for many years (the number 30 comes to mind, from a much earlier thread). Given this close association, I can’t imagine that Fotis would not be able to influence this person…I would if Glen asked, and I haven’t known him for 30 years. That he chooses not to do so is, to me, very telling. And if you might want to suggest the excuse that Fotis has no idea what is being said here…you know that he does, either directly or indirectly.
AWCheney -
Yes I am a friend of Fotis’ for many years. I speak for myself - yes I am passionate about issues that I care strongly about (conservative issues, Second Amendment, etc..)
I am making the case, as best I can, based on Facts, first hand experience and what is overewhelming, thus far incontroverted evidence.
Fotis is better than any other candidate in this race on many levels. If you won’t admit truth that is your choice.
Fotis is endorsed by key gun groups and Hill is not! That is a fact and you can ’spin’ that any way you want. I think reasonable people can infer from that fact that means that Fotis is better on that issue or, conversely, Hill is worse on this key freedom issue. I have seen the documents in quesiton, I have talked to the gun owners who have felt Hill’s anti-gun sting personally. I have read the content of Hill’s official taxpayer website and compared it to writing put forth by HCI and other antigunners and find that there exists a very disturbingly clear pattern of similarity.
If someone wants to argue with these pieces of evidence I’d love to hear it! If not, simply not wanting them to be true does not make them so!
With the election a mere week away, it is critically important that voters see the information that they otherwise might not learn of.
IP has one focus and that is obviously to display his/her own strong beliefs toward the second ammendment…and a futile attempt to get her “guys” name out there. I think we got that…I love the way he/she refueses to respond to questions posted on this thread. But that would be typical avoidance to issues that are important to determining the true best candidate. IP has lost a huge amount of credibility on this blog from me personally as I am sure others have seen the way he/she has intentionally posted repeated pleas to vote for her/his “guy” all the while saying the same exact thing and not responding to others questions. My goodness have you counted the total number of posts from IP alone since Greg started the new threads. Give me a break. IP, other than Foltis working for LEAA and obviously being passionate about the second ammendment (it is his job) I have seen NOTHING that suggests that he would be able to do the job of Sheriff. Thanks but no thanks. SHERIFF HILL is the best for the job of Sheriff of Prince William County. I believe the citizens will speak to that on June 12, 2007! VOTE HILL!!!!!
HILL
Best Sheriff!!!!!!!!!
vote4hill…
I believe your comment about my “one focus” is incorrect and I suspect that you are aware of it. For weeks now I have been talking about many issues/themes related to the Sheriff’s Race. This week I am focusing on key examples that contrast Fotis to the incumbent and show in clear terms that for voters to see where/how they are different.
The Second Amendment is one such issue. If your post meant to put this all in one dimensional terms than I think it was misleading.
And, for the upteenth time I’ve made this point… I am not a ‘her’…. let me put it more bluntly: I PEE STANDING UP!
I don’t know why folks posting thinks it matters — why the effort to paint me as the opposite sex — but I want to set the record straight (again) on this point.
If you want something other than something minor, like the Second Amendment and protecting your right to self defense how bout we talk about how much better Fotis has been leading on the issue of Immigration and the associated crime/illegal alien issues and how the incumbent, after four years in office, has no record on the issue AT ALL and has not even gone out to get the input of those that vote on how they feel about this issue and what action they would like to see THEIR SHERIFF take to help protect them/their interests!
OK IP - you are going to have to provide some better direction on that gun issue - I cannot find any anti-gun stuff anywhere on either site - And - answer the simple question about law enforcement certification
“For weeks now I have been talking about many issues/themes related to the Sheriff’s Race.”
Yeah, I remember…that was the stuff that painted Fotis as a Conservative Republican version of Stoffregen, with exactly the same agenda but with a R instead of a D attached to it. Like some of us have been saying…you do your guy absolutely no good at all. Keep up the good work.
Henry - my better sense tells me not to engage you on this…. but
I suspect that both Fotis and Hill went to the police academy eons ago (okay, maybe not eons, but a long time ago).
Since I don’t expect either to be chasing suspects down the street, or for that matter likely ever testifying at a criminal trial, I don’t really see your point; the police academy has geat relevance for a police officer recruit but I see little direct relevance to the Office of Sheriff (especially since they both have a similar background).
(Unless of course this is just one more in a series of efforts to distract from the core issues associated wtih the election…. like who is the more conservative candidate, who better supports ‘the people’s ‘ rights, who will do a better job addressing/representing the voters on important lasw and order issues….. I’m bettting in advance your response will make this quite clear.)
The Office of Sheriff is an ELECTED OFFICE as such, I would expect that most voters want an ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE that can do the job and represent their interests.
Fotis has an excellent background (far better than Hill did when he initially ran for election BTW); Fotis has a better educational background, Fotis has a conservative/political background and proven conservative values AND — and this is an important distinction now… stay with me…. the courage to put those beliefs into action (like on the immigration front where after 4 years the incumbent has shown virtually NO leadership).
And, also unlike the incumbent, Fotis has had to fight for his life, relying on a self-defense gun to provide that ultimate last ditch protection from sure death….. perhaps that is why defense of the Second Amendment and the right to self-defesne is something that Fotis supports while the incumbent opposes it and plays political games with it.
Perhaps this is all about you trying to create an issue that one ole police officer coming through one police academy is better than some other ole police officer coming from some other academy! (Sorry about the ‘ole comment guys:-)
So the answer is no.
You see, all previous Sheriff’s have been certified Law Enforcement Officers in VIRGINIA. What you apparently are ignorant of is that Sheriff is A job- you are suppose to uphold the LAW in Vrginia. You need to know about the LAW in Virginia in order to do that. If you could get your nose out of the second admendment, you will notice there are lots of other parts to the constitution a Sheriff needs to uphold. You want to focus on one thing - that is just a bit myoptic for most intelligent voters. And I have to agree with other posters - since you refuse to cite your source, I believe that all your ranting about “anti-gunners” [ if that is indeed a word] is just more fallacy spewing forth from some pseduo-intellectual who seems to be getting a bit desperate….. Also known as BS…
MR. IP,
Lets talk then. SIR, I really do not think you have done your research on Hill. As a matter of fact I really do not think you will either. You think your guy is the best for the Sheriff’s office based his strong passionate beliefs. What you have failed to learn from the Hill supporters on this blog is that Hill is established, has an enormous amount of experience as a certified law enforcement officer in the State of Virginia and leads one of the best Sheriff’s Department in the Commonwealth. Where was your “guy” when that Sheriff’s office was in turmoil, disarray and flirting with crime? No it wasn’t Fotis that rescued that Office from disrepair it was Hill that stepped up to the plate and took the egotisical, self centered and out of control former sheriff out of office. You have painted a scary picture of Fotis to the citizens! You have officially put your guy out there as some “I am going to ride into Prince William County and demand this and that.” SIR it does not work that way here! The former Sheriff has left a very bad taste and we have not forgotten and we won’t forget for a very long time. With all due respect you may want to ease up a bit. I don’t think you realize what you are singlehandedly doing to your guy and his reputation. SIR that is just my advice based on your last 200 posts. Please do a better job of researching the candidates as most good solid, politically involved citizens do. Hill is the best candidate for the job no matter what kind of trumped up fabrications you attempt to put out there. Hill is our Sheriff and we will keep it that way!!!!!
By the way I am not impressed that you pee standing up and I am a bit concerned that you find it necessary to post that…keep up the good work for Fotis though….
VOTE HILL JUNE 12!!!!!
IP you really need some help talk to a Doctor or anyone that can help you with your rather limited concept of county politics remember they still need a dog cather in Spain, wow do you take drugs cause wow what a trip you are on and its not reality
Hill is the one and only Sheriff for our county
Super Trooper is awesome.
I am not completely convinced that IP is in fact a male. The peeing while standing could be just a cheap parlor trick by some experienced bar maiden. That aside, one thing is certain, He/She seems to be very selective on who He/She responds to. Another thing for certain is that He/She is very long winded and loves to type in a manner of redundancy. The same thing over and over and over. Bla bla bla. Stop the broken record and get to the matter of giving us a real concrete reason why we would elect an outsider to replace somone who has done such an outstanding job? Your lofty goals is that of a much higher office. I can’t wait until June 12th so you and the madness stops.
More murder and more robbery is Sheriff Hill’s legacy.
Check the stats yourself (http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/005943.pdf)
The department is closing fewer violent crime cases and property crime cases…that’s not good.
The murder rate…up more than 20%
Robberies…up 40%
Aggravated assault…up 9%
Rape is down…that’s good…but measured against these other facts…I don’t think anyone should sleep well tonight…or any other night until the badge is passed from Hill to Fotis on June 12th.
As I stated in the other thread where you chose to post your disinformation:
“Perhaps someone should talk to Paul Ebert about the increasing crime rate and the inability of cases to be closed. Then there is also the ever increasing rate of illegal aliens, undocumented and oblivious to our laws, flowing into the County. Then someone should look at the job description of our County Sheriff…which is administrative and does not include enforcement, adjudication or any of the things which would affect these rates.”
Although I am not generally opposed to people posting anonymously or pseudonymously on blogs, I am beginning to have a real problem with people posting lies, misinformation, and disinformation without the courage to put their name to it. These are the actions of cowards…so, to anyone who would take these accusations seriously, I suggest you consider the source and their lack of credibility. Not ONE of Glen Hill’s detractors has chosen to put their name to their accusations.
It is my observation that much of what is alleged here about the incumbent are simply false, unsubstantiated bold face lies. I suppose that may be the way of the blog, but come on - really….
I just received a mailer from Fotis - just another pack of lies. He, as IP does, asserts Hill is anti-gun claiming there is some “secret” form to fill out before you can buy a gun. The rest of that story is the guns in question are machine-guns, sawed off shotguns, and silencers. I, for one, appreciate the fact I can own a gun, and further appreciate that somebody is at least investigating the people who are looking to purchase these particularly destructive weapons.
Not finding this “anti-gun” form in the web, I went to the Sheriff’s Office and asked what I needed to do to purchase a firearm - they instructed me there was a Federal form one has to fill out to purchase a gun available at the dealer. I was also advise that if I wanted to purchase or transfer an automatic weapon, I needed an “ATF Form-4″ This form needed to be signed by a law enforcement person(Chief or Sheriff). I further found out that the Police Chiefs will not sign this form, but the Sheriff will, IF he can determine the person(s) having access to the weapon is not a mental patient, criminal , or garden variety terrorist. The questions on the “Sheriff’s Form” are the same questions that are on the ATF form-4. The Sheriff’s Form looks like it was designed to actually help one fill out the AFT form properly.
There is a line in the Fotis flyer that states “[The Sheriff] will not sign gun purchase forms” - seems he the only one who will.
Another line about not wanting people to keep a firearm loaded for self-defense - I remember my instruction from the NRA was to keep the ammo and gun seperated to avoid accidents - seems reasonable to me.
IP seems to have quieted down - I suppose busy with that flyer which is full of his misdirection and mis-truths. But he was right about one thing - engaging me. Superior intellect should be feared….
And I agree with your last comment AW - blaming the Sheriff for what Ebert does/does not do, is like me blaming IP for sinking the Titanic
Fotis has just sent a mailer out, I have had an opportunity to read it and it is a public attack on Hill. More importantly they are lies. So it seems we have two problems here. One, Fotis has publicly announced on his webpage that his campaign was going to be run a certain way and his first lethal mistake was and I quote “Unlike some, I am not going to attack the other candidates running for this office.” BIG FAT LIE # 1. Two, he stated in this mailer that our current Sheriff does not support gun safety programs. I guess that would be why SHERIFF HILL gives out free gun safety locks to any citizen that wants them. I believe that Henry has already addressed this little secret form which is no secret, as the form that Fotis is referring to is available again to any citizen that wants one. Again another lie! Hill has never publicly stated that you should not have a loaded gun ready/accessible for self-defense as this mailer states. Guess what? You got it another lie. Fotis, being the gun guru that he professes to be should know that in the State of Virginia as a sworn law enforcement officer you are trained to separate the ammo from the weapon. Oh that is right Fotis wouldn’t know that, he knows absolutely nothing about being a law enforcement officer in the State of Virginia. So basically Fotis has committed political suicide! He has underestimated the intelligence of the citizens of Prince william County. The citizens do actually research the candidates Mr. Fotis. Fotis’ propaganda will not fool the citizens of Prince William, Manassas or Manassas Park for they are too smart. Mr. Fotis should be ashamed of himself for the lies he has told and the attacks he has lodged. I say it is time for Hill to engage! But really Fotis didn’t have a chance in this race and he surely doesn’t have a chance now. Hill is a man of integrity and expects honesty from his staff and those he surrounds himself with. I doubt he will be having Fotis over for coffee anytime soon.
VOTE HILL ON JUNE 12
I got the mailer as well…actually, my daughter did. I guess I’m not on Fotis’ mailing list. I have to say Greg, I think you may wrong about Fotis. His mailer is precisely the same set of lies, misrepresentations, and other sundry excrement that IP has been spreading on this blog. That tells me that IP is speaking for Fotis. I don’t think that I’d be interested in seeing him run for any other office here in PWC. We’ve got enough of that sort already.
vote4hill said on 4 Jun 2007 at 7:32 pm:
IP,
I have two questions that I would like for you to answer.
1) What evidence (not your opinion) do you have that Fotis is a “better” leader that Hill?
2) Has Fotis ever been a law enforcement officer in the State of Virginia?
Please don’t dance around the questions…I have seen enough of that today!
OK OK I P ahhhh I mean Fotis Do your best to read the above and answer the F–ing Question. You have this deep intellectual stuff that the voters are supposed to take account of but the important questions lie above. Yea dont answer those
cause we dont want anyone to know the truth about your connection to our county. Ohh i forgot there isnt any. Fotis is the worst kind of politician, a fraud.
Stoffy was a fraud all smoke and mirrors no substance just the age old political game. And here comes Fotis just as sad, supporters that cant answer the tough questions, and a mailer that just tells lies, IP watch out cause god will stike you down for your garbage.
IP you wont answer the questions cause you cant: Fotis is a conservative, thats great but hes not a native and no one cares about his views, as he cant change a thing. He thinks so ;but stoffy tried that it didnt work.
Messiers signs say hes an honest man ,that worked for a criminal and yes several
VERY MISGUIDED AND SEMI MENTALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE REALLY GET THIS’
IP If Fotis got elected do you really think he can make a difference in all the areas he talks about AHHHHH NO the Sheriff has not the power or mandate to change any of the areas that Fotis Drouns on about. So would he be affective ?????? no
But After hes elected he can make the county Police Angry like Stoffy Did That was not good for the people of the county that pay taxes.
So as i have said before Fotis answer the ubove questions or MOVE TO SPAIN
And wow cant wait for the copyright litigation to start Fotis did you raise alot of money cause you will need it.
Is that the real Badge Fotis used on that mailing ?
Isn’t that some sort of trademark violation?
I am not impressed.
I think Henry, AW, and V4H are the only ones who have something worth saying - I think tha trooper guy needs an little help, NP is a lair, IP is a liar, and I haven’t figured out the rest (yet).
Mr L - you are a patient man…..
Are the incumbents’s supporters soo very scared of the political debate, the process of letting the voters make an informed choice that they are threatening the campaign with legal action for simply advancing ideas that they find contrary, exposing their candidate’s PUBLIC record, a record DIRECTLY related to why folks might want to vote for, or against him?
Sad. Desperate?
And using swear words…. come on!
You really are a great example of why Voters should, ‘trade-up’ and vote Fotis for Sheriff on June 12th.
Are any of you incumbent supporters willing to distance yourself from this “representative”?
I don’t recall swearing - but I did say you don’t talk straight (to IP) -
I don’t think I would vote for a liar , a cheat, or a thief. You have 2 outta 3 so far, so why don’t you cheat and get the hat trick ?
Jason I am sorry if you took my post about swearing as directed at you, it was not, sorry if I was not clear enough.
And as to lies for everyone:
I said there was a secret Hill, anti-gun form, even Greg L. cast doubt on my honesty/accuracy!
Now, all of a sudden… poof, there is a ’special’ form created by the incumbent Sheriff seeking re-election and it is over the top/anti-gun (is it legal?) and the Hill supporters are saying, ’so what. ‘
Now that Greg L. is not the only one to have a copy it is either ‘down in the weeds’ and unimportant or it does not ‘prove’ anything. I said it existed, Hill supporters said/implied I lied…. and now everyone seems to admit that it exists… where is the apology?
I said Fotis had the support of every major gun group/leader in both the entire Commonwealth of Virginia and Nationally and folks called that into doubt. The gun community endorsed Fotis because either he is better than Hill on the freedom to own/use guns for self-defense than is Hill. Those facts were called into doubt… now what….
Hill is anti-gun. The incumbent Sheriff’s secret form and his opposition to loaded guns, all the time, for everyone — advanced at taxpayer expense, BTW — is all coming out…!
I told the truth… anyone big enough to admit it?
Jason, what is it that you allege (imply) I stole…
See steal (petty larceny) commonly referred to as: The taking, caring away of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it….
You stole the badge.
According to you , you intend on permanently depriving the Sheriff of it - guilty.
According to Henry, he got the form at the Sheriff’s Office - I hardly consider that secret. And also according to Henry, it only applies to machine guns, sawed off guns, and silencers - not exactlt what the average Joe needs for self-defense. I recommend a S&W 9mm 6906 - it will not fire without the magazine inserted, which taks all of 1 second for self defense - even though I suspect I will rarely need it.
I am going to go get one of those forms myself and see if it is as restrictive as you indicate - not to rush to judgement, but I suspect it isn’t - why don’t you get one too?
IP, you are becoming increasingly irrational and redundant in your tirades. I suppose that could be attributed to the fact that the Primary is fast approaching and you, or your candidate, still have nothing to offer the people of Prince William County. I suggest you take a pill, sit back, put your feet up, and try to find a more creative and compelling stream of excrement…because your current one is just not cutting it.
Where o’ Where is Greg L. when you need him…
Incumbent supporters suggest that criminal activity is afoot simply because someone has dared to challenge the incumbent in the Republican Primary…
And to top it off other such supporters accuse me of being irrational.
I would have thought that Greg had a policy of not allowing people to make wild accusations, especially those of a criminal nature…. especially those that are not supported, just to try and gain the upper hand in a political fight!
IP you tried it is okay. The problem is you and Fotis lied to the people and the people are smart…they have already figured this out….maybe where you come from the people don’t care or pay attention, but they do here and they have figured out your political slime and mudslinging…don’t weep, the posters here obviously support Hill. This man has done absolutely nothing wrong…The form is the form required for these type of weapons plain and simple…These forms are for ATF, you know those people that enforce firearms.
One more thing why do you insist on staying on this topic it has been addressed time and time again. Stop shoving this down everyone’s throat, we got the fact that you are you know one of those gun people….and by the way I legally carry a firearm and I personally keep mine in a locked safe (unless I am carrying it)…that is my right and I follow all safety precautions and I have never had a problem in this County with a violation of my 2nd Amendment rights especially from Sheriff Hill…I cannot believe I actually had to post that and I cannot actually believe we are attaching 2nd Amendments to a Sheriff’s race. IP this is becoming ridiculous. Can we please move on?
VOTE HILL JUNE 12
All due respect vote4, but the only documented ‘lie’ I have found is the fact that four long years ago, the incumbent Sheriff, when asking voters to give him a chance, when asking them to vote for him, solemnly promised, “I will provide the service and REPRESENTATION that citizens deserve and expect.”
On the Hill thread I have asked : That after four years the record should be replete… it should be literally overflowing with examples of where the Incumbent Sheriff has made good on his direct promise from four years ago….
I am waiting for some Hill supporter to step up to the plate…. tick tock….
When they fail to show a record to the contrary (and I said RECORD, not RHETORIC) I think that will just about prove this issue…
‘
Come on now… simple examples… public action…. the incumbent going toe-to-toe, ‘going to bat’ to fulfill his promise and ‘represent ‘ the people on some tough issue… some testimony, leadership, speech, press release… hell, lets include ‘baby steps’ how about even just one letter to the editor of the local paper on some ‘hot’ law and order issue/concern written by Sheriff Hill…
I’ll even help you all out…. here are some themes to start with… after four years I think the list is much longer but use this as a start…
Illegal immigration -
Disaster preparation -
Terrorism -
The Second Amendment -
Law Enforement Dead/Injured -
Public Safety -
Red Light Cameras -
Gangs -
Youth Violence -
Child Predators -
Growing youth violence……
I know… many Hill supporters will say that is not is his ‘job’; his job is only court security, transport and civil process… that is all..
NO that is not all…. there is more, much more… want proof: The fact that Hill has injected himself into one of the most ‘hot button’ political issues: Self-Defense and the Second Amendment… only, sadly for Hill, he is on the WRONG side of that ‘political issue’.
So after four years the only leadership example I can find where the incumbent found the courage/interest/motivation to stake out a position, the only place where he has ‘thrown the weight of the office of Sheriff’ into the mix…. Hill got it completely WRONG!
So much for a promise violated.
Sheriff Hill you lied when either you made that promise to ‘represent’ Prince William County’s Citizens and their interests, or you failed to keep your promise.
In either event, it is time for PW Co. voters to demand more, trade up and vote Fotis for Sherff, June 12th
One correction…
There is one other example that after weeks of research I have found where Sheriff Hill has “led boldly” where he has thrown his considerable political weight, the strength of the badge of office for Sheriff of Prince William County out into a ‘hot’ battleground…. when he appeared, proudly behind his badge of office, endorsing/supporting/mugging for the camera with the Independent candidate for the office of the Clerk of the Court…
The office where the endorsed Republican candidate is harmed by his leadership.
Now I know Hill apologists will say, but when he stood up with her — using his badge of office and the political weight of the Sheriff’s Department endorsement — she was not yet an ‘independent’ candidate. True. But, AFTER she became an announced Independent, Sheriff Hill pledged to withdraw this support and get behind the Republican Candidate for Clerk of the Court…
Another pledge easily made and still not done by Incumbent Sheriff Hill
Hill made that promise among a group of republican/conservative activists and from all that I can see he failed… worse yet, not one word was made public by him in any public forum, no letter to the editor, no update to his website, heck, not even a public ‘counter endorsement’ to announce that he is now supporting the one, only R candidate.
I guess that sometimes leadership (or the lack of it) can be shown by inaction. Inacton alone would not be so bad… except when he promises something better, something more, and then fails to make it a reality.
Go ahead, check it our your self….
http://lucy4clerk.com/
Then look for where Hill ‘publicly leads’ and makes good on this leadership promise to switch sides and get behind the R candiate (hint you won’t find it): http://www.hillforsheriff.com/
Now, weeks later, go to the R candidate’s site… and look for Hill’s endorsement, look for a photo of Hill with his badge of office standing with the R candidate… once again, Hill MIA on leadership
http://www.mcquigg4clerk.com/campaign/endorsements.htm
You know IP, your rantings are growing quite annoying…ESPECIALLY since you are postings the same rantings on multiple threads and trying to hijack each of them! Greg, why don’t you moderate this bozo!!!
AW you are vexed because I post a pro Fotis piece on the Fotis thread?
Are you mad that on an immigration thread I point out how Fotis is the only candidate in this primary who has gone out of his way to get involved… thereby showing up your candidate of prefernce, the incumbent, as the ‘do-nothing’ fellow that he has been over the last four years?
Why not tell the folks how ‘your guy’ has stepped up to the plate on that isssue…. that ’s right I know now, because he hasn’t! Darn, that must sting.
Are you mad that I made the point, on the thread about how Webb has done conservatives wrong on the immigration issue as a reminder of why it was so important to support conservatives…. even when you don’t see the real value, up front and obvious… are you anti-conservative, pro-illegal immigration or simply so anti James Fotis for Sheriff that you will complain about anything….
Why not tell the folks how hard the incumbent Sheriff worked to prevent that tragic loss… that’s right, you can’t cause again your guy was MIA, never even tried to really help Allen beat Webb, never voiced a concern about illegal immigration on that front too…. darn!
That whole reality/public record thing — or lack of it — must be why you want to muzzle the opposition!
Don’t worry AW, the election is almost here and despite your attempts to skewer Fotis and ingnore your candidate’s feet of clay, it will all be over soon!
You’re right it will all be over soon and you and your ilk will slug away, back into the shadows to where you once came. Is it June 13th yet? I can’t wait to see your posting the night of the election IP. Or will you have the stomach to muster one more long winded, self indulging, poo poo platter you call the voice of truth. Whew …… if nothing else you have given your best shot. I mean really. The endless tirades and myriad of prophetic visions of Fotis assuming any seat in this county has been more than impressive. But the end is near as you say. The end to your lies, fruitless accusations and down right mean spirited gamesmanship. That is all ok though. As long as you and your band of deranged Yankee mudslingers go home when this is all done, we will all be happy. Just be man enough to post one last thing before you go. “the better man won”. Oh and of course….. Bye Bye!
It is quite obvious to everyone reading these threads that IP is someone working with Fotis at LEAA. Does the membership of LEAA have ANY idea what their funds are being used for? That the concentration of the “organization” since mid- to late April has been nothing but to endorse Fotis’ candidacy. Perhaps LEAA should be spending their resources for the good of the organization and its membership rather than for getting Fotis elected to Sheriff of Prince William County!
OK, the lurker has to chime in at this point:
I don’t think anything is “obvious to everyone” except that the debate has left the playing field of fact and run headlong into hostility and snide comments. That is the fodder of the same old politics and I’m sick of it.
IP said that the incumbent made an election promise and has done zip to make good. If true, that puts the incumbent in the same “promise anything - deliver nothing” boat that too many of our career civil servants paddle around in.
What I was waiting for, and have not seen, is anybody from the incumbent’s camp jumping up with facts to prove it wrong. If someone claimed I didn’t work last Friday I’d have things to show in my defense. The best rebuttal is a direct, open answer. So where is it? Did he, or didn’t he?
Bottom line: Either the Incumbent delivered on his No.1 promise or he ducked out. I don’t care if a politician is on the right or the left, by God you oughtta do what you promise or you are worthless and a liar. Promises have become a political joke - wink, wink, sure I’ll do X… that nobody expects to be honored. Why the heck not? Why can’t a voter simply demand of an elected official some proof that they have done what they said they would do?
This forum serves a good purpose when it doesn’t spiral into name calling and raw conjecture. IP ante’d up with a harsh claim that the Incumbent hasn’t delivered and so far the only rebuttal has been to shoot rockets at IP (who may be a bit of a windbag, but the point remains nonetheless.)
I’m just an average guy but it seems to me like “put up or shut up” time for the Incumbent’s camp. If IP is wrong, it should be easy to dump the newspaper articles in his lap and call his bluff. But if IP is right, what are we supposed to think about ANY elected official who failed to take ANY action on what was supposed to be his TOP priority? That doesn’t get my vote.
Problem is, IP doesn’t say what that “number one promise” is. To my knowledge, Mike, Glen has kept all his promises which, in a nutshell, involve cleaning up the mess Stoffregen left behind. The Sheriff’s office is performing its mandated duties in an exemplary fashion; Hill has healed the breach between the Sheriff’s office and the local law enforcement agencies; funds generally earmarked for local law enforcement agencies (police departments) are not being demanded by the Sheriff’s office; and Glen Hill has de-politicized the Sheriff’s office and removed the “Boss Hogg” stigma. I’d say that he has kept all the promises for which he was elected.
And just as a sidebar Mike, the reason people are fed up with IP is that his questions have been answered by so many people in so many ways (the “Sheriff’s race” threads go much farther back than this), and he continues to say and ask/demand the same things over, and over, and over again…ad nauseum (sp?). He has raised the frustration level on this blog to the point that many, if not all, of us are ready to go pound the pavement for ANY candidate that Fotis chooses to run against, now and in the future.
And to IP, you better realize that it is largely real political activists who follow and/or comment regularly on these blogs. THOSE are the people you are pissing off.
With all due respect, and not trying to offend anyone, I thought I was clear and will try again.
In 2003 as a candidate for office of Sheriff, Glendell Hill promised, and I am quoting him now, ““I will provide the service and REPRESENTATION that citizens deserve and expect.” (From the very top of Hill’s website, the second sentence, circa 2003)
Other than what I have commented on above… I’d like a Hill supporter to show what Hill has done to take the leadership role on an issue to fulfill this promise. Please tell me/show me when/on what issues has Hill gone to bat taking the lead to represent the voters and what they wanted done, (related to one (or more) law and order issues).
This was his pledge… above and before any promise of ‘cleaning up’ the department.
Please give me specifics… the record… after four years and his number one promise, there should be some citable example… (should be many over four years?)
See what I mean, Mike?
re: AWCheney “See what I mean, Mike?”
Maybe I am missing something but my point was that somewhere back in this endless thread, IP made a claim which he appears to reiterate just above, and I don’t see any substantive rebuttal. “See what I mean” expresses your frustration (and I feel your pain) but it sorta sidesteps the accusation.
This guy claims to quote Hill’s website. Isn’t there SOMETHING definitive somebody can cite in response that supports Hill’s record for leadership / success? Maybe I’m a dinosaur but I believe that arguments end fast if you meet hard questions with equally hard answers — if I had the facts I’d just put it em the table and end this myself. What concerns me is that as easy as that ought to be for the Hill camp to do, I just don’t see the rebuttal. Maybe I’m a real cynic but that sorta makes my BS meter ping just a little as I ask “why not?”
Without argument we all know that Hill was a big improvement from Stoff but heck, Stoff was utterly corrupt so one would only need “not be a felon” to look awfully good by comparison. But that is a far cry from someone who is leading change, blazing a new path. If Hill really is doing more than just “not being as bad as Stoff” there ought to be dozens of news articles, press releases, crap like that to mark his leadership efforts. So why is it nobody has one to wave around?
Listen, I’m thrilled we don’t have felony indictments being directed at our Sheriff any more and thankful as hell that Hill didn’t maintain the old crony infestation, but I’m scratching my head to put a finger on some specific initiative or new program that he has launched to answer IPs challenge. Google isn’t coming up with much either. Doesn’t that give the argument some ground to stand on?
Uh oh… I wonder how the Hill supporters will handle this question.
Good manners stops me from posting something glib…. I can’t wait to see the answer. Over to you AW and all the other Hill supporters…..
““I will provide the service and REPRESENTATION that citizens deserve and expect.” (From the very top of Hill’s website, the second sentence, circa 2003)”
If you were in the County back then Mike, you know that the biggest issue was Stoffregen’s politicizing of the Sheriff’s office (the “Boss Hogg”) effect. His intent, and he loudly claimed it, was to make the Sheriff’s department the “chief law enforcement entity in Prince William County” (which IP is saying Fotis wants to do as well), with the local law enforcement organizations secondary to his will, even in their own jurisdictions. The citizenry recognized the danger in this…politicizing law enforcement throughout the County, at the whim of one individual with the power to appoint whosoever he pleased without oversight of any kind and an enormous potential for abuse seemed a bit like taking a step back in time to the 50’s and 60’s in the deep South. People were actually afraid of what this could lead to…and given Stoffregen’s ultimate indictment and conviction (a deal on lesser charges to more easily get rid of an embarrassing pain in the glutious maximus), the fear was justified.
If you read the above statement, and the fact that Glen DID turn the Sheriff’s office around into something we can all fully support and be proud of, he TOTALLY fulfilled his number one promise to the citizens who elected him. If you want specifics on what he has done, you will see them dispersed among the many threads, starting with “Primary Fight for Hill” on December 13, 2006. When you get to “Fotis Files” on April 20, 2007, you will see where our frustration with Interested Party began, and how and WHY it has escalated over the past few months. There is a search feature on this blog…try it out. I, for one, am tired of continually repeating myself.
You couldn’t be glib, IP, if you were personally tutored by Robin Williams…you’d just piss people off again in the attempt.
Mike,
If you were to look at Sheriff Hill’s website www.hillforsheriff.com and check out his “Read the Sheriff’s Message” to the citizens, he does spell out the accomplishments of the office.
VOTE HILL JUNE 12
We, in PWC, DID get the service and representation from Hill that we expected these last 4 years.
We got exactly what he promised.
Here’s the problem:
IP comes along now and comes up with 1,001 ways that HE and Fotis think the sheriff should “represent”. Fine and dandy for them.
But, THOSE THINGS ARE NOT what the citizens of PWC wanted when they overwhelming elected Sheriff Glen Hill. And I don’t believe they are what the citizens want to this day. (In fact, if you look at what IP/Fotis calls “representing” the citizens, you will see many, many activities that we specifically wanted OUT of the sheriff’s office and purview.)
We didn’t want our sheriff out leading the charge on the 2nd amendment and illegal aliens and crime rates and yada, yada, yada.
We wanted a sheriff to “represent us” by ending the corruption, serving warrants efficiently and effectively, running a secure courthouse, and having only fully qualified deputies. THAT’S HOW WE WANTED TO BE REPRESENTED AND SHERIFF HILL HAS DELIVERED.
Mike - here is a start - look at the Potomac News from Sunday March 25, 2007 - you will see lots of the Sheriff’s acomplishments.
He appears to be focused on his job - making positive changes to the department which will in turn provides better service to the community.
We don’t really need another “leader” in Richmond or on Capitol Hill paid for with local dollars, who ignores the job he/she is elected to do here, in pursuit of some ideology that is shared among the very few contributors who need to be something special in order to satisfy their ego.
anon said on 7 Jun 2007 at 7:54 pm:
We, in PWC, DID get the service and representation from Hill that we expected these last 4 years.
We got exactly what he promised.
KUDOS anon! You are so very right…the citizens knew exactly what and who they were voting into office…they asked for nothing else then to clean up the mess, focus on the core duties of the office and ensure those with bought badges were removed from the Sheriff’s department. Sheriff Hill has done that! The citizens are lucky to have him! I say we keep him….VOTE JUNE 12 for HILL
VOTE HILL JUNE 12
So, the very promise… the second line of Hill’s 2003 solemn pledge/promise to the folks on how he will represent them is skipped over when all I asked for was one example.
This pledge was not about cleaning house, making the SD work better, or mending fences…. he promised to represent the folks on (presumably) important law and order issues they cared about.
Four years later I can’t find one example. I have asked repeatedly and not one example has been offered.
I think voters might like a little more leadership from their Sheriff on key, important , potentially life-threatening issues, (esp those where the politica weight and influence of the office might help make things betters) criminal illegal aliens come to my mind as one example.
Perhaps the Hill supporters think that kind of representation would be bad…. I don’t know. I know Hill promised action on this front when he ran… and I can find no example that he has delivered and four years is a long time to ‘warm up’ for the big delivery!
Where Hill has struck a position of leadership it involves hostility to gun owners and not helping support conservative candidates (Allen, McQuigg, etc.) ideals.
Not a very good record as I see things. (Yes I know, but the upside is that he did do a better job as an administrator than did a bad Democrat….
I can see the campaign sign ….. Vote Hill doing a better job than a BAD Democrat!
vote4 —
I feel you owe mike and us an apology… read through the site you sent us to and their is not a single example of Hill leading the fight to represent the public on any issue whatsoever.
I get that you support Hill and that you think he is swell and clearly better at running the administration of the Dept than was the bad D — and that website touts that ’success’… but that was not the question asked…
Does any Hill supporter have any example?
If there are none can we mark this in the column of Hill chose not to deliver on his representing the people line — I’ll leave it to you all to put forward some excuse… uh, I mean, logical explanation of why he either broke his election pledge or changed his mind and simply forget to mention it.
Words have meaning, actions have consequences. Hill made a pledge/promise in exchange for the peoples votes/trust… Hill did not deliver. His chance should end.
If Hill made a promise and then changed his mind — perhaps to deal with some other priority — then just say so.. but you can not re-write history and take away the word/promise of your guy by trying to avoid what he promised in his own words!
It might look like this: Hill promised to lead and represent the folks, he made that pledge in exchange for the folks voting for him and putting their trust in him; unexpectedly for _______ reason Sheriff Hill (pick one or write your own: changed his mind after being sworn in; found he couldn’t deliver; was uncomfortable that to deliver on this promise meant that he would have to stand up, make a few waves and possibly face the risk of failure; didn’t understand the his own pledge; had no clue what the concept of ‘representing the folks’ actually involved when he promised it; never expected anyone to have a written record of his pledge… it was 4 years ago you know; Steve Martin’s old standby - “I forgot”; etc.).
Wouldn’t that be more honest?
So now this IP (expletive) is a mind reader and the know all of the community politic…in a county where he doesn’t even reside or have any experience. Like I said, if this is the caliber of support that Fotis attracts, he’s definitely not for Prince William County in any capacity. Every sentence IP puts up here only digs Fotis’ political grave deeper…and I’m going to be sure to tell him that, should we ever meet.
and the questions still remain out there Hahahahahah IP you are such a coward
answer the questions, but no sorry you cant cant wait for this election. The voters will tell you to go away !!!!
Then you really will be a joke.
If elected Sheriff, you can expect that among other things, James Fotis as Sheriff, will on certain law and order issues, attempt to represent the people/the people’s concerns about core, critical law and order issues.
Issues that might help make the residents of Prince William County more safe, make the communities a little better to live in.
Fotis as your Sheriff will defend the honest, law abiding citizen’s rights to own and use guns, including for Self Defense… He will respect AND DEFEND this right.
He will try, and use the office and its bully pulpit, to shine the light of reality on certain issues.. I think he will help hold the politicians ‘feet to the fire’ and communicate with the community and help focus discussion and encourage action on law and order issues such as: what is the best way to deal effectively with the criminal illegal aliens issues.
As your Sheriff, Fotis will not only do a good job running the administrative function of the office, he will remember that he was elected by the people to do a job, and part of that job is looking out for them, their rights, and representing them.
If voters want a Sheriff who promised to represent them and then did virtually nothing on the criminal illegal issue for four years — who used his office to abuse gun owners and dissuade gun use for self/home defense, then they should not vote Fotis for Sheriff.
If voters want their rights protected, respected, valued and acted on, then they should vote to ‘trade-up’ and vote James J. Fotis for Sheriff on Tuesday!
IP,
I owe you nothing, nor your cronie. Even if I did you would not get it from me under torturous attacks, which your out and out lies are close enough to torture. Let’s face it IP you have said absolutely nothing other than Hill is not out their stepping on peoples toes and rylining up whomever, or ticking off this person. We the citizens of Prince William (us) not the citizens of Fairfax (you) are quite happy about that and honestly we don’t want Fotis in office. Sorry! I know that hurts you but it is clearly the way it is. We never asked Hill to go into the Sheriff’s Office and hand out fully automatic weapons to nut jobs. Your definition is different of “represent” then most of us on this blog. Hill made promises and kept those promises. We are happy about that and HE REPRESENTED THE PEOPLE ON THOSE PROMISES. Please stop conjuring up thes wild ideas and thoughts or go see someone that can help you. I pity you.
VOTE HILL JUNE 12
“He will try, and use the office and its bully pulpit, to shine the light of reality on certain issues.”
You know, IP, all through these threads it occurred to me that you’ve used the term “bully pulpit” to refer to the job of Sheriff. That presents a really interesting vision of your guy’s apparent view of the job of Sheriff…Stoffregen was a bully, among other things. HE used the office as a bully pulpit. Sounds like your guy is just another Stoffregen in Republican drag. When you say “trade up” you do, of course, mean trade down and bring the Stoffregen legacy back, do you not? I thought so…
AW that is not even close…
I don’t believe anyone ever accused the old Sheriff of participating in a town hall meeting or gathering of citizens that are worried about their family being slaughtered by some serial offender who by all rights should have been identified, prosecuted and removed from society by law enforcment, but because of politics no one acted until it was too late.
I see Sheriff Fotis trying to help open the dialogue on such an issue. I see Sheriff Fotis, joining with the citizens (of HSM for example) and going down to testify before the BOS to help highlight ‘the people who elected him’ concerns. I can see Sheriff Fotis suggesting to the local paper that they do a story to highlight the danger such an issue presents to the public… and even ‘go on record’ with a quote or two. I see Sheriff Fotis standing up with a politcal candidate for office and highlighting that candidates ability/willingness to lead and vote to help protect life and property!
That is what I mean. If you think it is wrong for an elected Sheriff to represent his people that way than we disagree.. but please don’t make up stuff (fear mongering of the worst order in my opinion) when that is NOT what I am talking about, nor will it be the way Fotis will fulfill the job of Sheriff.
(I would ask again, why has the incumbent Sheriff, with four years in office NOT done even one of the above things… does he not care about the people who elected him; does he not think they care about this issue and would appreciate a little leadership from him on it; is he simply afraid to weigh in on a ’scary’ issue that might, someday cause him political hearburn? Why?)
vote4hill –
I’m sorry you feel that way. I think all of us who are trying to advocate for a candidate we think is best do have an obligation to not try to mislead/misrepresent our candidate of prefernce.
Zealous is fine, misleading, saying an answer to a question is in such and such a place, when you know it is not, does the voting public a disservice (and I believe is beneath you).
“….. but please don’t make up stuff (fear mongering of the worst order in my opinion) when that is NOT what I am talking about,…”
I’m not making up stuff…you’re the one that calls it a “bully pulpit!”
I see now you are calling him Sheriff Fotis - you got some balls on you - reminds me of the guy on TV who was saying ” we are in control of Bagdad” when the Marines were coming through the studio doors…. You appear to suffer from dilusional thinking - I can recommend a good therapist..
groan… the venom that suffuses this thread reminds me why I prefer to read quietly than participate. Sorry guys but it is neither constructive nor even very witty. At best it is tedious. I don’t appreciate being cast by either side as someone whom is owed an apology or something — I’m just an average guy with an open mind trying to look at both sides of an important question equally.
What I see here looks to me like a classic glass half-empty / half-full difference in perspective that reminds me (with chilling clarity) of a past manager I had years ago; for the purpose of analogy I’ll call him Tom. Now Tom took over our department after a complete train wreck of a prior manager got fired (not criminal like Stoff, but a total screwup.) Tom’s entire management philosophy was built on simply not screwing up like the guy before. He literally set out, with fanatical precision, to precisely hit the minimum level of expectation without fail on the logic that our department looked great if it never missed it’s mark, never came up short, but in the process we never excelled either. Some folks loved Tom, mostly those who had been with the company for years and had become absolutely twitchy about having a departmental fiasco bite them in the tail. They said that Tom “kept his eye on the ball” and embraced reliable mediocrity in the wake of stunning ineptitude.
I couldn’t support that view. The world is always moving ahead and if you are not moving with it, you are getting left behind. Those who felt that the department should “be all it could be” (rather than simply stay ahead of the worst it had ever been) looked at Tom as a guy who simply wanted to insure his own career. Take no chances and you never have egg on your face. Never come up with a new idea and you never get left holding a dumb idea. I understand it, I can even sympathize a bit, but at the end of the day that didn’t work for me. Simply maintaining the status quo, no matter how splendidly done, no matter how dire the history of failure, was not my idea of leadership — at best it was “maintenance” of the job, making sure that the gears just kept turning.
It was easier to see both sides after I left the company and got some distance. I could see how the pro-Tom side wanted nothing more than to get up and NOT have a turd dropped in their lap without warning (sorry, a vulgar reference, but it fits the time.) But I could not see the value in pure disaster-avoidance, I wanted to make a difference, to raise the bar even if it meant missing a mark now and then (my younger and more energetic days…)
I think Tom ran his department in good faith and to his credit he was a miracle worker given the act he followed. He was efficient, pragmatic, detailed… a whole lot of good things. But he was uninspired and lacked whatever spark it was that sees a challenge and rises to it. He was always reactive and never proactive, so we were always chasing fixes rather than planning ahead. To the company bureaucrats Tom was a hero and to the enterpreneurs he was a boat anchor. Both sides were equally passionate on their view.
I have no desire to take a side in this growing mudfest, the only reason I chimed in at all was that I thought a re-focus on the issues (and not the personalities) would be of more value to the rest of the average Joe’s like me who have no real interest in the whole blog thing and just want to get some facts. That effort seems to have met with minimal success so I am bowing out with my takeaway from all this:
Hill took over after a flaming train wreck and largely by not committing felonies, by getting rid of those who did, and by focusing almost exclusively on the mechanics of keeping the train on the track and nothing more, is the hero to many. Maybe that is enough for a lot of people, as you say AW, that is all the “representation” you are looking for.
On the other hand are the people who want something more. A new kid safety program, a new way to use inexpensive technology to protect citizens from violent crime, whatever. To them “just getting there on time every day” is not leadership, it is just efficiency. These folks look for leadership in the form of creativity, positive change, and not just in avoiding the potholes.
Nobody has cited some new program or initiative Hill has launched, in fact almost all of his supporters focus on his success in terms of rebuilding the fundamentals in Stoff’s wake. Fine. I don’t think it is a fatal indictment of Hill to say he hasn’t come up with some smart new idea given the debacle he inherited when he walked into the office - maybe he just didn’t have the bandwidth or maybe he just isn’t the “new idea” kinda guy (not everybody is, and sometimes what we need is just a good mechanic to keep things running.) But Stoff and his mess is now the past. The question now is where do we go from here? How long will “its better than Stoff did” be the measure? When do we say “Great job, last problem solved” and hand-off to someone with a different skillset who can take on the next generation of challenges? If you are progressive minded, that seems a fair and logical question, not a slam against anybody.
Lost in all the tedious verbal swordplay is simply the choice between what is put forwardby their respective camps as (and for pete’s sake don’t go on a flame war on this) “predictable/reliable” vs someone “more inventive/dynamic. ” I don’t think that either desire is inherently bad (badly argued maybe) — just a matter of what each of us is looking for in PWC.
I’m wrapped on this issue guys; thanks for the replies, weblinks, etc and for the courtesy shown to me. Best to all on the 12th.
Mike, the “mess” that Glen Hill had to straighten out was built over the course of 8 years, and it was no small matter. When he was in charge of the jail and detention centers, his innovative methods and approach won him recognition from experts all around the country, and I understand he often hosted colleagues who were interested in his programs. Glen is still only in his first term as Sheriff…let’s see what he comes up with over the next one. One thing I KNOW…he won’t become a Republican Stoffregen.
…and that is a good thing AW. I’d like to think that the Stoffregen’s of the world are infrequent disgusting anomalies to what I have largely found to be the finest of men and women involved in law enforcement. I don’t think either of the candidates here, or God willing anytime in the foreseeable future, represent that kind of hazard. I think we are all hoping for, and expecting (nay - demanding) the best from all of our candidates whoever they are.
I’m not so sure about Fotis, Mike. You should check out those investigative report links, and a previous thread in April (April 20th, Fotis Files) that I was just made aware of…I don’t know how I missed it. My instincts with regard to politics and politicians are generally not far off…and I suspect they’re spot on in this case as well.
Good comments Mike, and good followup by AW - It does not bode well to set sail on a sinking ship - and bailing the water does little good if you don’t fix the leak - I would like to see now that the leak is fixed, and the water has beed removed, where will that office be sailing to - also. That will take another term or two I would think.
AW I udnerstand you are a conservative… MOST (not all) of the trash that has been thrown against LEAA has come from:
George Soros funded operatives
The Trial Bar
Various defeated Democrats (judges and politicians)
and folks like Molly Ivins and Sarah Brady….
We do the conservative movement a diservice when we do the bidding of those folks for the short term fun of attacking an effective conservative group like LEAA…. don’t you think?
Back to the Sheriff’s race.. I would note for those following along, unless I missed it, still not one example of the incumbent taking the lead to step up and fight a good fight to represent those who elected him… not a single example… over a multitude of possible options and after four years.
Think about it… attack me all you want but where is the record of your candidate on THIS SPECIFIC campaign promise…. Remember it was his words, not mine!
Sorry Not Again, AKA Interested Party, AKA Ted Deeds but, although I am a conservative, merely calling oneself a conservative doesn’t give anyone a pass to bend the rules, and perhaps even break the law, to serve your own personal ends. Claiming the cause of principle doesn’t work either…the concept of “the end justifies the means” is purely UNprincipled. You have come here and proceeded to continuously insult our intelligence and attempt to drive us to distraction, and that’s no way to win friends and influence people, now is it? You’re a loser Teddy…and your boss is going to lose too.
I think I left out a very important point in that last comment: I am a conservative, but I’d rather deal with a principled liberal than people like you any day!
“Mike” posting on this thread is more than likely the very same Mike that also at one time worked for LEAA as their webmaster and is a very close personal friend of IP’.s Of course he would be in IP’s / Fotis’ camp!
Any one who supports Sheriff Hill out there want to offer a single example of where he has represented ‘the people’ who elected him?
Time is drawing to a close…
We’ve offered them numerous times Teddy…want to offer a single example where you and your guy Fotis have acted for the members of LEAA without first taking care of yourselves? Want to open THAT can of worms. Trust me, the research will begin.
Does anyone know why Fotis left Virginia 3+ years ago to relocate to Las Vegas? He moved back to Virginia a year later and speculation that I’ve head is that he was hoping to replace (retiring) Craig Sandler at NRA. Sandler was NRA’s Executive Director of General Operations. Fotis has apparently fallen from favor in NRA and wasn’t considered for that position. But, why the move to Las Vegas? Just how committed is he to PW County?
I seriously doubt that Mr. Fotis has any commitment but to himself, Steven. Consider, he no sooner moves to Prince William County and decides to take over the Sheriff’s Department, apparently with the same corrupt agenda of Glen Hill’s predecessor with a R attached to it rather than a D (based on the ravings of his mouthpiece and employee Ted Deeds), and immediately proceeds to try and smear probably the most universally popular Republican in the County since Harry Parrish through his mouthpiece. Yeah, the guy really cares about the County.
The sad thing (or, perhaps, luckily for us) is that, by using these tactics, he has underestimated the activists in PWC who are able to recognize a line of excrement when they see it. Any political hopes Fotis may have had here have been dashed in their infancy…or certainly will be. That doesn’t say much for his judgement.
UN_IP2: ummm, yeah… right. As the only “mike” in the entire world I am not only that web guy but also the basketball superstar, the one-gloved singer and sometimes I bite ears when I box.
Ironic that a guy who hides behind a pseudonym invents conspiracy theories about somebody who uses his real name (that happens to be like one of the three most common names in the country).
My apologies to the rest if my tone was less the civil; I have an aversion to loonies.
So, Ted Deeds is characterizing everyone who questions the integrity of Fotis and LEAA as; “George Soros funded operatives,” “The Trial Bar,” “Various defeated Democrats,” and “folks like Molly Ivins and Sarah Brady”?
Is this guy on crack? Has everyone had a chance to read some of the investigative reports that I posted links to? If you only have time to read one report, READ THIS ONE!!!!!
Bankrolling Beltway Badges
Meet the Law Enforcement Alliance that violates the law with IRS impunity
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=1713
And THEN ask yourselves if Jim Fotis and LEAA have been trying to mask what is (at the very least) grossly unethical behavior.
SC,
Wow! Thanks for sharing that link…my oh my if everyone reads that Fotis is dust! That behavior is beyond unethical….above the law attitude gets one nowhere….ask Stoffy and Messier…..
The results are in!!!!
Fotis got skunked!!!!!
Glendell Hill 3,971 votes = 61.20%
Michael W. Messier 1,340 votes = 20.65%
James J. Fotis 1,177 votes = 18.14%
Now, where are Ted Deeds and Jeff Doyle hiding? Are they back under the rock they crawled out from under?
Oh I am sure they are both gone, not to be heard from again. Until of course, Fotis and gang decide to run again for who knows what? As was implied before, this was just an opening for Fotis to get into the political arena. Fotis, LEAA, or both?
I don’t know if any of you noticed this or not, but the “Fotis for Sheriff” website was pulled within 24 hours of the aftermath of the election. It’s as if Fotis is trying to erase any trace of his failed run for sheriff. There wasn’t the usual “thanks to those of you who supported me with your time and money” courtesy - just a disappearing act.
www.fotisforsheriff.com
It’s now fully apparent that Jim Fotis, Jeff Doyle and Ted Deeds have shown their true colors. A campaign based entirely upon lies, denials, obfuscations and personal insult is no way to get elected. But these guys were so dirty that they apparently believed that they had no other alternative but to distract people away from their record of gross mismanagement at LEAA.
Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, where will they scurry to next?