You are nothing, Jim, but someone filled with hate and contempt. You are not even a has-been, you are a never-were. Do us ALL a favor and crawl back under that rock you slithered out of. You are a disgrace to all people, you are a disgrace to the party, and you are a disgrace to the Prince William County GOP.

And before you get your panties in a wad, it would be nice if you would get your facts straight before you make posts. Your errors show your ignorance and your foul language against those with whom you do not agree shows your lack of maturity.

I think you twisted my point just a bit. While I do align myself more closely with Democrats than Republicans, it was not the intent of my post to say parties shouldn’t be involved in School Board elections. Rather, my statement was the role of the party in a “non-partisan” race like School Board falls on an equal footing with any other special interest group.

That said, I truly believe the Republican pledge does the voters a disservice in School Board races (and I would have the same issue if the Democratic endorsement carried similar strings). By adding the caveat that the “loser” in an endorsement race must drop out, the PWCGOP has created a de facto nominating process for a position that was intended to be outside the purview of the party machinery. That doesn’t seem to keep with the spirit of school board races. I know of no other endorsement that carries such a blood penalty. If a candidate seeks the endorsement of the VEA and doesn’t get it, there is no requirement to withdraw. If a cadidate seeks the endorsement of the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance, would there be a requirement to withdraw if the endorsement is given to someone else? The voters in the general election should be given the opportunity to choose their candidate (especially in a case like Brentsville where Arnaiz’s withdrawal would give Trenum the seat since there are no other candidates (that I am aware of) declared for the office).

That was more the point of my post. The weight of party influence in a School Board race is supposed to be to provide yet another way to identify the candidates views and beliefs. Once the “pledge” is layered on top of it, it is no longer an endorsement and becomes a back door method for maintaining party control of the candidate.

The answer is easy: Because the notion of a non-partisal election is an idiocy which serves only the interests of those who seek to control/degrade government education for their own purposes, i.e., teachers unions which posture as interesting in “public education,” but are political interests group pursuing the interests of their own membership (nothing wrong with that, so long as it’s understood), union leadership pursuing their own far Left political agenda (which they try to hide behind the mantra that “It’s for the children”), and political naifs who fail to recognize those facts.

It’s certainly an individual unit’s prerogative to choose whether to endorse, and I’m willing to respect that unit’s decision to choose not to do so. Were it that those who choose not to do so were willing to extend the same courtesy to those units that do.

Now isn’t THAT the understatement of the year!!

Maybe Prince William aught to rethink how they do things.

Really? From whom? Probably from the same type of sore losers that you embody, OP, i.e., those who are trying to discredit people they can’t beat in a fair election. I’ve heard no such things, and if they have occurred, I condemn them. The GOP has chosen its endorsee, and he is deserving of the support of the party and its officials (including Committee members). And I would support any effort to expel Arnaiz from the Committee, based upon his violation of his pledge, if he lacks the dignity to resign himself.

I suggest that you identify those engaging in such perfidy. I certainly support Trenum, for what that support is worth from Dumfries, even though I voted to endorse Arnaiz.

Were it that certain members of “Team Lucas” had extended to me the same courtesy when I was endorsed by the County Committee in my race for school board.

As for the notion of a “non-partisan election,” such an oxymoron is representative of the level of sophistication of someone who would take it seriously. I am happy to see that it’s apparent author is not so unsophisticated. Such a notion only empowers the educrats and teachers union, and their desperate effort to assume a preferred position in the debate over important educational issues and scarce public resources. Which is probably why Stephen Martin, a partisan Democrat, seeks to empower these dependably Democrat constituencies.

Turns out the problem is people tend to bend any set of rules to meet the outcome they want. They go to great lengths of rhetorical calisthenics to argue in essence, “What’s fair is what’s best for me.”

I have nothing against John Gray, but I voted “no” when he joined the committee only a couple of months after running as a democrat. He is a fine person but should not be a part of the GOP nominations as he really can’t decide what he stands for. Desi has broken his word, but that will only matter if republicans can be convinced (not browbeaten) into supporting our endorsee.

http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2007/06/16/mr-perennial-political-candidate/

The rationale for a “non-partisan” School Board stems from the history of elected school boards in the state. Recall that up until the 1990s, school boards in Virginia were appointed by the local city/county government. In fact, there are still a few jurisdications in the Commonwealth that follow this practice. The independent idea, then, is that the school board is open to any and all to represent their district. By eliminating direct party involvement, school board candidates can’t be placed on the ballot by the parties (eliminating the need for primaries, conventions, etc., to select a candidate). The idea behind endorsements is that the local political party has about as much say in the school board as any other interest group. In theory, a school board candidate could have so much across-the-board appeal that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party could chose to endorse the same candidate.

The broader thinking is that people running for school boards would have the schools’ and students’ interest first and foremost so party affiliation was not essential. Today, however, the strategies of both parties include the use of lower level elected offices (like school board and sherriff) to develop the bona fides of candidates who then can be encouraged to go after bigger and better offices. Further, the idea is that a school board member should be above or outside political doctrine. School board races really should be about the issues, not about the R or D next to the name.

You make a number of fair points in response to my somewhat snarky post and I appreciate the helpful information you provided. One important role that blogs can play is getting facts and views out that don’t get covered by the MSM. There have, in PW County, been many instances of candidates running for party nominations in both partisan and non-partisan races, deciding that they will disregard the spirit or the letter of the pledges they signed and run for the offices in question or undermine the nominee/endoresee of their party. At this point, I think one of two things make sense. If the school board is “non-partisan,” the parties should just not, as suggested above, endorse candidates. Alternatively, and I think this is the better idea, is that school board races should be partisan. I know there is this idea that education, somehow, should be above politics, but I’m not sure why that is such a popular idea. Since education is a political issue, why not be realistic about it. Does anybody doubt that the majority of school board members in Fairfax County are Democrats and that the majority in PW County are Republicans.

As for Desi and the Brentsville race, I think Desi will, at least with GOP activists, take something of a hit because he did, as you say, go back on his word. I don’t, however, think that will hurt him with most voters, even Republicans. He will probably win or lose based on how voters view him personally and his overall approach to education. I think he will be a strong candidate and, as a voter, I appreciate the choice. I also, however, appreciate your perspective and thank you for sharing it with us.

You are correct that school board candidates run as independents and Desi is not violating that standard by running. He is just breaking his pledge that he made to the Republican Committee. We can not and should not stop him from running as that his right as our school board members don’t run under party afflilation. The Committee leadership and members are just pointing out that he broke his pledge. The citizens of the Brentsville District will have to be the determinate of the impact of that broken pledge. As I said above he might have a good reason to break his pledge (only Desi knows that) but he still is breaking his pledge. I would hope that he adhere to his committment and not compromise his long standing as a party leader with such a poor decision. I would like to see Desi issue a statement that outlines his decision and what republican “VIP’S” are asking him to run for school board or other office.

Just my Thoughts-

Furthermore, please see part of the rules passed by the full committee (including Desi):

I. Qualifications of Candidates for Endorsement by the Prince William County Republican Committee.
A. Each candidate shall be in conformity with the participation requirements of the Republican Party of Virginia’s Plan of Organization and the Bylaws of the Pr. Wm. County Republican Committee.
B. Candidates shall have declared their intent to seek endorsement to the Chairman of the Pr. Wm. County Republican Committee no later than March 1, 2007.
C. Candidates shall have pledged to honor the endorsement process in which they request participation by supporting the endorsed candidate and by not running as a candidate against the endorsed candidate.

These rules govern the process and Desi agreed to abide by them. Unfortunately he has decided not to do so. He might think he has a good reason to break his pledge but he is breaking that pledge in running in November.

Just my thoughts-