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

11th District Appeal Denied

By Greg L | 28 September 2007 | PWCRC | 79 Comments

The Republican 11th District Committee met last night to consider Julie Lucas’ appeal of Tom Kopko’s decision, and the appeal was denied not on the basis of any arguments made for or against the appeal, but because Julie hadn’t obtained an additional twenty-five signatures to support it — a requirement not found anywhere in the Republican Party Plan. If you can’t defeat the arguments in a brief, apparently the Party can invent new procedural rules that weren’t followed because they hadn’t previously existed. How’s that for “Republican values”, folks?

Incredibly, one person on the committee also argued that the allowed time period for an appeal begins when a decision is signed, not when that decision is made available to the appellant. Under that basis, if there’s a thirty day window to make a filing, it would be acceptable for someone to sign a decision, hold it for twenty-nine days, eleven hours and fifty-nine minutes, and then deliver it to the appellant, leaving them with all of sixty seconds to craft their appeal of that decision and file it. Welcome to the law of the jungle.

How anyone can have any confidence in the integrity of the candidate nomination process within the Republican Party at this point is beyond me. This is a process that in fact is all about delivering pre-determined results rather than allowing Republicans to participate in a fair and unbiased means of selecting their nominees.

When these elections are behind us, we have some serious housekeeping to do.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. Anonymous said on 28 Sep 2007 at 11:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Apparently you didn’t look very hard:

    4. All appeals, under sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of this section must be made in writing within thirty (30) days after the decision appealed from and the appeal must be accompanied by a petition signed by at least twenty-five (25) Party members (except as provided below) of the respective Unit, Legislative District or Congressional District affected. When an appeal involves a mass meeting, party canvass or convention, then for purposes of this paragraph the term “Party members” shall mean mass meeting participants in the case of a mass meeting; canvass voters in the case of a party canvass; or delegates in the case of a convention. If fewer than one hundred twenty-five (125) persons voted in such mass meeting, party canvass or convention, then the petition shall be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the voters at such mass meeting, party canvass or convention.


  2. Legal2 said on 28 Sep 2007 at 12:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mom, are your initials SP?

  3. Fed up 2 said on 28 Sep 2007 at 12:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well,what else could we expect?? This has been the course of Repb. Party for the last few years.

    It is too bad,as we lost a good Candidate for Delegate, but the saving grace is she will proceed as School Board member and will be elected.

    Julie probably has learned the evil, conniving ways of several people,such as McQuigg who now falls to the far right,but she really is far liberal,after all anything to get elected.

    McQuigg is joined by Kopel, Gill and a few others.

    The Republicans has just given away that Delegate seat to the Democrats.

    When will they wake up?????

  4. opditch said on 28 Sep 2007 at 1:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Mom” apparently doesn’t know that Julie did submit 25 signatures of attending delegates to the 51st. Who, by the way would also be members of the 11th Cong District….. DUH… But I guess these delegates were not all “Party members” (whatever that means, since we don’t have a “Party” but a “Committee.”)

    From what I know about her appeal to the 11th, she wasn’t even asking for the election to be overturned, knowing it was too late do run a campaign for Delegate. Kopko stalled long enough to make it fruitless effort. So she was just trying to get Kopko to correct the record on Civic Center, and address some other problems with the Conventions in the future.

    I wonder how often “mom” posts as “anonymous” anyway? She seems to be such a knowledgeable expert on the party plan, she should identify herself and get credit.

  5. dolph said on 28 Sep 2007 at 1:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Please do not assume Ms. Lucas is going to win the school board seat.

    Consider the demographics of Neabsco District and recall that Manes Pierre has been out networking and glad-handing since his ‘removal’ from Prince William County Schools.

    This is not the time for complacency. It is imperative that Julie Lucas be re-elected to the Neabsco School board seat.

  6. Anonymous said on 28 Sep 2007 at 1:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    My apologies for not knowing that, but that is not the way Greg presented the issue. If she followed the proper procedures, so be it, you have a beef, but don’t present the issue as one regarding rules that don’t exist when they clearly do.

    BTW, I’m no expert on the party plan but I suspect JY will be along shortly to provide his insight.


  7. Legal2 said on 28 Sep 2007 at 1:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    From “mom’s” earlier posts on other threads, she is attentive to Greg’s attire at the supervisors’ meetings. My guess is her initials are SP, an entity who always shows up at the meetings, quite natty!

  8. Anonymous said on 28 Sep 2007 at 2:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mom only notices attire when it’s inappropriate, and no I’m not SP, I can’t pull off that pageboy, turkey-neck, bobble-head look.


  9. Legal2 said on 28 Sep 2007 at 2:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ha! But I gather from your posts to Greg that you thought his attire was inappropriate. Maybe there are 2 “moms”? Thanks for the info and wonderful mental picture of SP.

  10. Anonymous said on 28 Sep 2007 at 2:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    The only comment on made on his attire was the somewhat inappropriate t-shirt at the Boots and BBQ, not too hard to notice when everone else has a collar. BTW, Ms. Wood, IMHO your attire that day was a little borderline as well.


  11. RHarrison said on 28 Sep 2007 at 2:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can’t critisize the Republican Party for this one. The job of the I can’t criticize the Republican Party for this one. The job of the Party is to help Republicans get elected. In this case, Gill is our nominee. That cannot be changed. Any decision validating Julie’s petition would have weakened our nominee, and therefore be against the interests of the Party. It would also have aired the Party’s dirty laundry just before an election, harming all of our nominees. We have other candidates that need to be protected by letting this go.

    Not that I think Julie was wrong. The Convention was a farce. But the Party gives local committees considerable discretion on picking nominees. When a local committee decides to abuse the system, it is hard for the state party to stop them, at least in the short run. One would hope that the state party would now be willing to take the steps necessary to fix the PWC committee.

    Tom Kopko cost us a seat this year by rigging a convention in favor of a horrible candidate, and got paid to do so. Invalidating the convention at this late stage doesn’t help anyone. But something must be done at the state level to prevent this from happening again.

  12. James Young said on 28 Sep 2007 at 2:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    I guess if you can’t defend the arguments in a brief, you deny that technical requirements plainly stated in the Party Plan don’t exist.

    Then again, this isn’t the first time you haven’t bothered to look very hard when the facts don’t fit your meme, is it, Greg? Can’t let those facts get in the way of a good rant, after all, particularly when it’s against Faisal Gill, Tom Kopko, and anyone else who doesn’t share your vision of how the GOP should operate, whatever that is.

    My real question (stated in my post on the subject), is “Who is right?” Does Greg have it wrong, and 25 signatures appealing to the 11th Congressional District Committee WERE submitted, but somehow found deficient? Or did O.P. and the rest of the Team Lucas “Brain Trust” manage to f…, ffff…, fffffffff…. er, screw it up again, and fail to satisfy the plainly-stated technical requirements necessary to maintain the appeal?

    I hope to find out soon.

  13. AWCheney said on 28 Sep 2007 at 2:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK, that’s it…I’ve had enough. As a Republican activist for 38 YEARS, I hereby renounce the Republican Party leadership at every level, and by extension the Republican Party, as an overtly corrupted, power-hungry, self-interested entity that bears absolutely no resemblance to the Party of Reagan, or any other prominent and honorable Republican of the past. The rot has spread from top to bottom and it’s turned gangrenous! I declare myself an Independent and urge all other Republicans who care a wit about honor and integrity in politics; who care about our county, state, and our nation more than their own personal power and greed; who care about the future of our children more than the now; and who just plain care about somebody and something other than themselves to join me.

    I further appeal to those Democrats who are also becoming increasingly disenchanted with their own leadership for similar reasons to do the same. If all Republicans and Democrats of actual principle, who care about more than just themselves, join with Independents of similar mind, perhaps the politics of this country can shine again.

  14. dolph said on 28 Sep 2007 at 3:06 pm:
    Flag comment


    Welcome to my ‘party!’ I have been here for about ….5-7 years now. It is a process, not an event. I know nothing about local Republican politics so as an outsider, what I read disgusts me. The local Democrats affect me the same way. State and National pretty much hit me the same way, for different reasons.

    Dolph, the Independent

  15. dolph said on 28 Sep 2007 at 3:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    The above statement by JY is just a small snippet of root cause of the problem.

  16. John Light said on 28 Sep 2007 at 3:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mom writes: “Ms. Wood, IMHO your attire that day was a little borderline as well.”

    What has this become, “Queer eye for the Straight Guy”??? For the love of Pete, I remember George A. in cowboy boots at Bar B Q’s - lol

  17. dolph said on 28 Sep 2007 at 3:29 pm:
    Flag comment


    The statement made by JY that USED TO BE ABOVE MINE is just a small snippet of the root cause of the problem.

  18. Legal2 said on 28 Sep 2007 at 3:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m with you, AW, I’m leaving the GOP. Goodbye Old Pharts, Farewell RINO’s.

  19. Greg L said on 28 Sep 2007 at 4:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Of note, Julie Lucas has secured 25 signatures for her appeal. No provision of the RPV plan that I’ve seen requires that for subsequent appeals of the same issue you have to go out and have those 25 signatures re-done.

    Feel free to correct me, anyone, if you can find that it’s necessary to get additional signatures for each level of the same appeal. I’m not aware of that requirement ever being imposed on any other case.

  20. Anonymous said on 28 Sep 2007 at 4:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    “the appeal must be accompanied by a petition signed by at least twenty-five (25) Party members”

    The second appeal is a new issue and must be accompanied by a new petition. Generally, you can not use earlier petitions in support of an appeal to another body as the circumstance to which the petitioner is ascribing have been altered.


  21. redawn said on 28 Sep 2007 at 5:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mom, I wasn’t there, so I wouldn’t know. When I think of BBQ and boots, I do not see the image of collars but maybe on the family pet.

  22. OBIT said on 28 Sep 2007 at 5:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 28 Sep 2007 at 2:03 pm:

    ‘Mom only notices attire when it’s inappropriate, and no I’m not SP, I can’t pull off that pageboy, turkey-neck, bobble-head look.


    Perhaps, you perfer the giraffe with spots, head high in the sky looking down on everyone?

  23. redawn said on 28 Sep 2007 at 5:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    There is something to be said about that saying ” do not judge a book by its cover”

  24. CONVA said on 28 Sep 2007 at 6:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    After November 6th when the Dems take the 51st, the County Supervisors Chair, the 29th senate seat and many others, possibly then the so-called VRP will get the message. If not, the independent rolls will greatly increase. When Kopko took over the PWCRC he stated he wouls swell the ranks of the committee to 500. Currently the membership is 157, down from 234 and with 47 folks in danger of being inactivated related to non-attendance. I suspect the 47 are lost and many more to come. Now what would one think the problem is?

  25. Clean it up in '07 said on 28 Sep 2007 at 6:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Exactly, CONVA. We will have a Democrat holding the 51st Seat for 2009, so we might as well just start figuring out how we win this race with a good candidate next time. The first order of business is that the current PWCGOP leadership must be toppled.

  26. O. P. Ditch said on 28 Sep 2007 at 6:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    From Julie’s Campaign (not to be confused with her “Brain Trust”):

    It appears the majority of the 11th Congressional District Committee has a different interpretation of the Party Plan than we (the Lucas campaign) do. We filed the required 25 signatures with the appeal, which was acknowledged by Tom Kopko with his ruling. After Kopko ruled saying he would not correct the math error and decided not to address what action he thought should be taken with the over-voted precincts we continued with the appeal process to the 11th Congressional District. We consider the 11th District Committee’s involvement as a continuation of our appeal, NOT a new appeal; therefore, NO ADDITIONAL signatures would be required.

    As I stated earlier Julie Lucas was NOT asking that the nominee to be changed. She was asking that the record be corrected to show Civic Center as a regular voting precinct (since the records proved that) and for the 11th Congressional District Committee to rule on what they thought should be done about over-voted precincts. As it stands right now the official record for the 51st District Convention is not correct, there is a mathematical error with one of the precincts and two other precincts have more votes than delegates filed for the convention. The goal with continuing the appeal was to help set rules for future conventions. Rules should be established ahead of time with regard to any nomination process, not made up as you go along to help your favorite candidate. Integrity of the nomination process must be restored!

  27. O. P. Ditch said on 28 Sep 2007 at 7:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    This comment is from me, not Julie’s Campaign.

    James, you shouldn’t use the “f” word, even if it is supposedly disguised as you tried to do. This is a family oriented blog, isn’t it Greg? /snicker

  28. James Young said on 28 Sep 2007 at 7:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    If it is as you say, Greg, then you are correct on the facts, and wrong on the rules/law. The initial signatures were limited to the initial appeal, by virtue of the Party Plan, and virtually any rules of construction of which I am aware. Just as a litigant must submit a new notice of appeal when seeking review of a court’s decision, as multiple litigants in an action may make different choices (there is a Supreme Court case from the late 80s or early 90s that holds that each individual must be named in a notice of appeal or petition for a writ of certiorari), Lucas was required to submit 25 new signatures. Had she asked me — not as a supporter for that office (which I am not) but as someone who knows and understands the rules — that’s certainly what I would have told her. It was not only the necessary thing to do; it was the prudent and cautious thing to do, and she erred by failing to do so.

    Unless, of course, she couldn’t secure 25 eligible signatures because 25 people weren’t as childish as those here, and want to see the GOP retain this seat.

    Thus, “Julie Lucas … secured 25 signatures for her appeal” to the 51st District Committee. She apparently did no such thing — or more accurately 25 eligible signatories did not sign on — to take the appeal to the relevant superior body, the 11th District Committee.

    One thing you don’t mention, Greg, is the vote on the 11th District Committee (I’ve been occupied at a promotion ceremony for a fellow parishioner, and haven’t been able to find out what it was). Is that because it wasn’t even close, perhaps even unanimous? Is it because, by the “standards” that apply around here, the fact that it was would required some around here to declare the entire 11th District Committee, including Becky Stoeckel, is in cahoots with Faisal Gill, Tom Kopko, and whoever else is in today’s conspiracy? Or because such a construction would be too elaborate to maintain, and you’d (FINALLY!) have to concede that Faisal won legitimately?

    And oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, Dolph! I’m a root cause!

    You give me too much credit.

    Of course, the root cause of the problem of perennial GOP minorities was go-along-to-get-along Republicans who labored under the misconception that slower Socialism would win elections. It’s a principle that I — along with many others — reject, and it was that view that solved the problem of perennial GOP minorities in Virginia and generally in the 90s.

    Unfortunately, too many of that perennial GOP minority didn’t know how to act once they were in the majority.

    And if y’all are such leaders, why are you so afraid — with the notable exception of AWCheney — to sign your names?

    Probably because it’s less principle than petulance, the plaintive whinings of those who are angry because they don’t wield power, and have lost it largely because they don’t want it so much to DO something as to BE something.

  29. James Young said on 28 Sep 2007 at 7:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    And O.P., your pretensions to concern for “Integrity of the nomination process” are too elaborate to be maintained.

    Your purported “goal” can be more effectively and prudently addressed through the Party’s internal processes.

    Intregrity of the existing rules must be maintained, and you demand that the ‘integrity of the nomination process” be “maintained” through a process where Julie did not follow the requirements, just as you demanded (subsequently withdrawn) at the Convention that a remedy be imposed which violated Robert’s Rules, and not coincidentally, aided your candidate.

    Of course, to do so would not slime the nominee, which is, obviously, your real goal.

    If it is not, then why don’t you favor us (as is your obligation under the oath you signed to participate in the Convention) with your immediate endorsement of Faisal Gill?

  30. Clean it up in '07 said on 28 Sep 2007 at 7:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    James can’t answer right now. I’m sure he’s out knocking on doors for that candidate he wanted so badly in the 51st.

  31. James Young said on 28 Sep 2007 at 9:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Great response, “Clean it up.” Like most, you just resort to attack when you can’t answer facts.

  32. Greg L said on 28 Sep 2007 at 9:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    James, that standard wasn’t applied to Heidi Stirrup’s appeal of the 10th District Convention. Can you tell me if anyone has previously been required to re-obtain signatures for each subsequent appeal of the same issue? As far as I’ve been able to determine, it’s never been needed before.

  33. AWCheney said on 28 Sep 2007 at 10:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, Jimmy, you consider what “Clean it up in ‘07″ said to be an attack? Must be your conscience speaking then…he was only suggesting that you might be out doing your Republican duty for your chosen candidate. I guess support only runs so deep with you, and starts and ends with your mouth.

  34. Maureen Wood said on 28 Sep 2007 at 10:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “BTW, Ms. Wood, IMHO your attire that day was a little borderline as well.

    Although your comment is quite petty there are a few things I would like to know.

    1st- Do I know you?
    2nd- What does IMHO mean?
    3rd- What is borderline about a nice pair of kaki capri’s and a nice t-shirt with a design on it at a cook out? You make it sound like I had on a pair of booty shorts and a bikini top. So next time you criticize someone’s attire, maybe you aught to be more specific.
    4th- What were you wearing?

  35. Anon#13 said on 28 Sep 2007 at 11:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mom or should we SP?
    Ms Wood has asked you some questions. Please, answer. You need to be reminded it’s called “Citizen’s Time” and that is what WE are citizens, not candidates or lobbyist. You need to do something worth while. Do you look like you belong on the cover of Cosmo? Stop being such a snob. What are you doing to better the county? How long have you been here?

  36. O. P. Ditch said on 29 Sep 2007 at 8:40 am:
    Flag comment


    “clean it up” is an attack?

    “O.P. and the rest of the Team Lucas “Brain Trust” manage to f…, ffff…, fffffffff…. er, screw it up again,”

    is not….. ha.

    …. while waiting for Lawyer James to answer Greg’s question about the 10th appeal….

  37. me-n-u said on 29 Sep 2007 at 11:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Just wondering, could MOM be kopko himself? Who is SP?

  38. Anon#13 said on 29 Sep 2007 at 12:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    SP=Sharon Pandak. Mom, should reveal herself!! She sure likes to name names. I think she should say. It’s clearly someone that is either at or watches every PWBOS meeting. I’m sticking with my gut feeling it’s Sharon. I hope this helps.

  39. OBIT said on 29 Sep 2007 at 12:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    “4th- What were you wearing?”
    It may not have been what she was wearing but what she was sitting on, a pedestal? ( such snobbery, good way for he to get people to take her serious)

  40. James Young said on 29 Sep 2007 at 3:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s really funny. You try to have a rational, reasoned discussion over the facts and law of a situation, and what you get from the likes of “Clean it Up,” “O.P.,” and the OWW are irrelevant attacks in response.

    Gee, O.P., I’m really sorry. I guess I should have been lingering over my laptop waiting for whatever brilliant comeback arrived rather than taking care of recruiting Cub Scouts for my son’s Pack. I’ll remember that the next time. You people sound a lot like Liberals, having your cake, and eating it, too. Try a little consistency next time. Perhaps all you have to do with your time is politics, generally, or to continue your efforts to weaken a GOP nominee for public office, specifically. How sad.

    BTW, I see you haven’t answered my challenge, O.P. Do we now add “dishonorable” to your list of “accolades”? You pledged, as a condition of participating in the 51st District Convention, to “support all of the Party’s nominees for public office in the ensuing election.” Is that the value of your oath?

    I don’t have cause to have a guilty conscience. After all, I earn my living by applying my professional credentials through my mouth, and my writing, as when I was part of the Party’s/President’s legal team in Cleveland in 2004. And I strongly suspect it’s worth a damn sight more than you’ve ever been paid for virtually anything. But I’m sure you meet your “Republican duty” by knocking on doors, and it’s likely the most valuable service for which you are qualified.

    Didn’t knock on a single door during the week before the election. Wanna attack me for that, too? Or just stop attacking and not make a further damn fool of yourself?

    To answer your question, Greg, I don’t know what happened in the 10th District. Given your mistake above, and frequent factual errors on issues related to the Party Plan, I have cause to doubt that your recollection is correct. I have further cause to doubt it because the “procedural posture” in the 10th would have been quite different, to-wit: any challenge to the Convention was a direct appeal, without appeal to any intermediary Committee (like the 51st here). Therefore, if Heidi had the signatures, they were sufficient for that purpose. Are you suggesting that she appealed to the State Central Committee using the same signatures? I simply don’t recall if she pursued a further appeal. If she did, then her appeal should have failed for that reason.

    [Ed note: comment edited.]

  41. freedom said on 29 Sep 2007 at 6:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy, I think I hear your Mother calling you for dinner….:) :)

    You may be qualified for something, I know not what, but you may be… regardless, one thing is for sure, you’re NOT qualified to evaluate candidates and judge which poses a threat to our country and our society. Try a little harder, Jimmy, I really think you could do it if you really, really try. :)

    The voters shant make the same mistake in November that our esteemed Governor made in his appointment of a Jihadist. Why take a chance, Jimmy….you know what he says but do you know his heart? Of course not!

  42. James Young said on 29 Sep 2007 at 8:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    “freedom,” my qualifications are attached to my name. I don’t hide them, and people are permitted to judge them. If I were rendering a medical opinion, I would deserve attack. I don’t render legal opinions. And as I am perhaps the only commenter here actually to WRITE a Party Plan (Prince William’s), and sit on an appeal to a congressional district committee (Ferrell Egge’s, to the 8th District GOP Committee), I quite probably know a little more about it than Greg (which he is enough of a man to concede) and almost certainly know more about it than you than you.

    Of course, you hide behind a pseudonym, so that your qualifications are, likewise, hidden. The only rational conclusion is that it is necessary to hide them in order to hide the fact that your bloviations are unsupported by any record or qualifications.

    But perhaps you are right about one thing, I am “NOT qualified to evaluate candidates and judge which poses a threat to our country and our society.”

    The people who ARE qualified to “evaluate” who “poses a threat to our country and our society” have done so to Faisal Gill, and rejected the smears so often appearing here, and apparently, buying advertising here. That their evaluation is held in such contempt here reveals that you don’t give a tinker’s dam about those who are “qualified to evaluate candidates and judge which poses a threat to our country and our society.” What you care about is creating a paradigm by which, if Gill loses, you will have fulfilled the far Left’s caricature of racist Conservatives abandoning someone who isn’t a white male.

  43. Anonymous said on 30 Sep 2007 at 2:13 am:
    Flag comment

    “a pair of booty shorts and a bikini top”, Hmmmm!

  44. opditch said on 30 Sep 2007 at 8:41 am:
    Flag comment

    “BTW, I see you haven’t answered my challenge, O.P. ”

    Jimmy boy, I don’t have to answer your challenge! Who made you the Republican Police anyway?

  45. freedom said on 30 Sep 2007 at 9:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, Jimmy, what an accomplished young man you are, but that’s not quite the issue. :)

    Apparently, at one time, Esam Omeish was thought to be a “good guy,” or perhaps there wasn’t enough known about him, or perhaps it was known, but thought to be unimportant…so, appointed, he was. In my opinion, regardless of the reasoning behind it, it was a mistake. Am I racist, Jimmy, for considering that a mistake? If so, then so be it.

    I don’t know what’s within the heart of Faisal Gill, but I happen to believe that his past association with a man who is now serving a 23 year prison term for supporting terrorists and his CURRENT association with a man who has filed suit against the feds for monitoring his communications with known terrorists, is more than just a bit significant.

    Is this “guilt by association”? All of us are judged by our associates…right or wrong, we are…often because we lack full information and have to go with the best information we have. So, not knowing what’s true in the heart of Faisal Gill, I hold him responsible for exercising extremely poor judgment in his selection of associates, and I see no reason to expect that his judgment would be better in the future.

    You say, “…you don’t give a tinker’s dam about those who are “qualified to evaluate candidates and judge which poses a threat to our country and our society.” Jimmy, not being indicted does NOT equal “being cleared or exonerated.”

    You continue with, “What you care about is creating a paradigm by which, if Gill loses, you will have fulfilled the far Left’s caricature of racist Conservatives abandoning someone who isn’t a white male.” Jimmy, while I don’t know what’s within Faisal Gill’s heart, or your heart, for that matter, I DO know what’s in MY heart. So, if you wish to call me a racist, because I question Faisal Gill’s associations, knock yourself out.

    I’m sure that the Governor wishes he had checked a little more closely into the background and associates of Esam Omeish before appointing him. As voters, we need not and should not risk repeating the Governor’s error by taking a chance on Faisal Gill in November.

  46. James Young said on 30 Sep 2007 at 12:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I was just kidding, OPie boy! After all, no answer is an answer, and adequately reveals and memorializes your dishonor. You are a liar, sir, having pledged your “intent to support all of the Party’s nominees for election to public office in the ensuing election,” but really intending — like the petulant child that I have always taken you to be — that you would only do so if you got your way. It is my fervent hope that you will never attempt to darken the door of an official Republican Party function again. One would expect that a modicum of dignity and self-respect would preclude you from doing so, but a modicum of dignity and self-respect would have caused you to honor your oath.

    And it’s certainly ironic, “freedom,” that you choose that particularly pseudonym behind which to hide your woefully pathetic record, or lack thereof. Freedom is not cowardly, nor does it flinch at every shadow. Freedom stands up, proudly, in the sure and certain knowledge that freedom can withstand the assaults of competing ideologies.

    And of course, “freedom,” “not being indicted” is not the issue. “Indictment” for Faisal Gill was NEVER the issue, but rather, whether he was worthy of continued positions of trust, including security clearances, in national security agencies of the United States Government. So in this case, having survived investigations is quite a bit closer to “being cleared or exonerated” than you care to admit.

    Moreover, “freedom,” one of the reasons you doubtless hide your identity is because — were the same standards applied to you that you attempt to apply to Gill — we would doubtless learn that you could not withstand scrutiny. We all deal with many different people in our lives, and we cannot be responsible for every aspect of their lives. The best way to run a campaign of guilt-by-association and innuendo is to make sure that no one can EVER apply to you the same standards that you are attempting to apply to others.

    The entire campaign of innuendo against Gill is rooted in the ridiculous notion that he had to have known of those associates’ jihadist beliefs and activities. Of course, since they were illicit activities, one proceeds with the assumption that they had good cause to hide them. And that Gill has never endorsed them — unlike Omeish — ALL that you’re left with is guilt-by-association. If that is not “racist,” it is certainly “race-baiting,” as well as reliance upon racial and religious stereotypes. And it’s a despicable way to treat a man who wore his country’s uniform as a Naval officer.

    Perhaps the real problem is that nothing Faisal has ever said is other than a mainstream Conservative position. There is assuredly a great deal of identity between those few of his critics who have the courage to attach their names to their slurs and those who are self-styled “moderates.” Of course, by “moderates” I mean “Liberals lacking the courage of their convictions and fearing the electoral consequences of revelation of the same.”

  47. AWCheney said on 30 Sep 2007 at 2:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    “And it’s a despicable way to treat a man who wore his country’s uniform as a Naval officer.”

    You mean like John Walker, Jimmy?

  48. James Young said on 30 Sep 2007 at 4:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    No. John Walker was convicted of espionage; Faisal Gill was cleared of any wrongdoing, and maintained his position of trust. Therefore, Gill honored it, while Walker spit on it.

    Too bad you’re ideologically-motivated hatred makes you incapable of telling the difference.

    [Ed note: comment edited.]

  49. James Young said on 30 Sep 2007 at 4:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    And BTW, Greggy, why are my appellations edited, while belittling ones attacking me, are not? I know it’s your site, yada, yada, yada, but if you don’t edit that old, bitter bitch when she does it to me, then I should be permitted to respond in kind.

    [Ed note: I don’t believe “Jimmy” is crossing the line, when it’s a commonly accepted name freely given to children. What you call people would never be. Knock it off. That “Greggy” thing doesn’t help you make your case very well. ]

  50. AWCheney said on 30 Sep 2007 at 4:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    That’s right Jimmy (”John Walker was convicted of espionage”), but it took them nearly 20 years to catch him. ;-)

  51. AWCheney said on 30 Sep 2007 at 4:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s fascinating to see what Jimmy boy calls attacks. Perhaps there should be a thread devoted entirely to every comment Jimmy has made here. Unedited, it would probably be rated R and defamatory…and not just his comments devoted to me. For someone who claims to be such a mental giant, his vocabulary is remarkably common and repetitive.

  52. freedom said on 30 Sep 2007 at 4:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy….now, cool down boy, it’s not good for your blood pressure. Let me rest your little mind at ease, Jimmy…having retired following 20 years active service as an Air Force Intelligence Officer (to include a tour in SEA) and another 16 years as a DoD Intelligence contractor, I know a little about security clearances and how security clearance investigations are conducted.

    …and no, Jimmy, it’s NOT “…a despicable way to treat a man who wore his country’s uniform as a Naval Officer.” Rather, Jimmy, Faisal Gill’s disregard for Dod and Navy rules concerning proper respect and wear of the uniform IS what is despicable.

  53. James Young said on 30 Sep 2007 at 6:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gee, Greg, I guess you didn’t like it much. By which I was making my point. You make another one: you decide where “the line” is, and you decide it to suit your purposes. No one calls me “Jimmy,” and hasn’t since I was about seven. Those who do intend it as an insult (I suppose to imply juvenilism), ironically demonstrating their own peurile and sophomoric behavior. If you don’t like my response, I would suggest that you bear in mind that it is RESPONSE to gratuitous attacks.

    Incidentally, isn’t it interesting how no one is attacking the 11th District Committee’s decision with facts? And isn’t it interesting how our respectful exchange (until my post today, neither of us had relevant facts) was interrupted with the offending parties chiming in, uninvited, to attack me? Perhaps you should bear that in mind before you imply that I am the one who has somehow initiated inappropriate comments.

    Neither have I ever said anything “defamatory.” To the contrary, there is only one person here (so far as we know) who has even been sued for it. If you think you have a case, by all means, take your best shot, Cupcake. I have called you a “liar,” and on each such occasion, documented your lie. Oddly, Greg edits it out on each and every occasion (I suppose because it’s a singularly inconvenient truth). As for the words I use, I use ones that those such as you will understand.

    And sure, “freedom.” I believe every word you say. That’s why you hide your identity. That, and so you can throw around your wild accusations with neither responsibility nor accountability.

    [Ed note: comment edited.]

  54. Legal2 said on 30 Sep 2007 at 6:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    While i might have some “common ground” with gill, i will never vote for a muslim to lead our country in any capacity, whether he is brown, black or white, home-grown or imported. i am profiling when discriminating which candidate to choose, but post-9/11, i do not ever want to forget the thousands who died in the name of allah and i will not take a chance unless and until we can secure our borders and enforce our current immigration laws. it’s already been 6 years. let’s roll!

  55. AWCheney said on 30 Sep 2007 at 6:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, by the way Jimmy, you may notice that the diminutive of your name is really catching on…you’ve started a trend!

  56. James Young said on 30 Sep 2007 at 9:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    I regret your sentiments, Legal2. I fail to see how that is not religious bigotry. If you believe it isn’t, please explain.

    Of course, if it is, at least I give you credit for honesty about it.

    It distinguishes you from so many (given his motivations, I would exclude Greg from that group) who attempt to couch their bigotry in other terms.

  57. AWCheney said on 30 Sep 2007 at 9:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Like I said (though not in these exact words) Jimmy, you never let the truth stand in the way of a good rant. I have said before (although not in recent years), and it has been confirmed by others to you, that I did not go to the Commonwealth’s Attorney with anything on Steve Chapman. I admit that I wanted to (when tried to resign the campaign so I could deal with the boy up front and personal), but I was asked not to (both resign or go to Ebert). That, Jimmy boy, is documented fact…and the last time I intend to address it. Now, I guess that it would be proper for me to call you a liar, huh Jimmy? :-)

  58. Legal2 said on 30 Sep 2007 at 10:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    similarly, if the terrorists on 9/11 were catholic, announcing catholic “jihad”, on a suicide mission in the name of the pope, with nary a word from bishops (imams) comdemning these terrorist acts, I would not vote for a catholic. substitute fundamentalists … in the name of jerry falwell … etc. etc. call it whatever you want, we need to wake up and take measures to protect our country. we are not advocating imprisoning these people, or wishing them any harm; but we certainly do not have to allow them access to policy-making.

  59. Legal2 said on 30 Sep 2007 at 10:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    p.s., because of the repubs’ support of gill and because some repubs cannot get behind 287g or even urge kaine to implement it to keep criminals out of our communities after serving their time, i am leaving the party.

  60. dolph said on 30 Sep 2007 at 10:51 pm:
    Flag comment


    I agree with you. I do not think I could vote for a muslim for public office at this time. If that is prejudiced, then I am, and without apology. When a borderless enemy kills our people in the name of Allah, then my prejudice will encompass all who worship Allah, unless they otherwise denounce these actions in both word and deed.

    My mother hated ‘japs’ until the day she died. Was she prejudiced? She lived during WWII. She didn’t have the same feelings about Germans or Italians following the war, but she never forgave the Japanese. She felt they were evil.

  61. redawn said on 30 Sep 2007 at 10:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    In response to what you said above, I saw that AWCheney professed something to the effect in another thread and I also told Greg this very thing,I have gotten in the game when it matters.( if you go back through the threads and I said I never got involved and …it’s never to late) I thought I was missing out( feeling guilty) but in actuality, this is the very reason for my NON participation.. to much BS….I have and will remain an Independent.

  62. Lafayette said on 30 Sep 2007 at 11:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve too have always thought of myself as an Independent, and have no plans of changing. I care about issues, not party affiliations.

  63. opditch said on 1 Oct 2007 at 5:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy boy, wow!
    “OPie boy! ….You are a liar, sir,…. like the petulant child that I have always taken you to be —”

    From “liar” to “sir” and back to “child”…

    Who is “attacking now” Jimmy boy….

    You’re losing it Jimmy.

  64. James Young said on 1 Oct 2007 at 9:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Thank you for your responses, “Legal2,” “redawn,” and “dolph.” I can respect you for your honesty, if not for your honestly-embraced racism and religious bigotry.

    One would have thought that, as an appointee in the Administration and a Naval officer engaged in the War on Terror, Faisal Gill’s credentials would have satisfied you (that would be “deed,” “dolph”; “word” would be the policies he has vowed to support regarding illegal immigration), but at least you make no pretense about your racism and religious bigotry. I don’t think either has any place in the American regime, in the GOP, or in official policy-making in either body, but that you disagree honestly at least makes it clear as to what it is that we are talking about.

    Were it that others were so honest. Then again, as a wise man once observed, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

    As for the ***, here’s what she said on a comment thread (and perhaps in the WaPo, if memory serves) elsewhere: “the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman other than reporting them when they came to our attention.”


    The *** was the campaign manager for Harry Parrish. Call it a “lie,” if you want, ***, but you are the one who admitted culpability and complicity while trying to deny it.

    As for you, “OPie,” I didn’t start the name-calling; you did. I merely offered you an opportunity to demonstrate that you are a man of honor, a man who keeps his word, and commented on your failure to do so after you responded with name-calling.

    A man who surrenders his honor for short-term political gain says I’m “losing it”?!?!? Funny. Here, among the anonymous, the vile, and the racist, you have a receptive audience. Among the honorable? I think not.

    [Ed note: comment edited.]

  65. dolph said on 1 Oct 2007 at 10:07 am:
    Flag comment

    I have religious bigotry, not racial bigotry. I would feel the same way about a Bosnian Muslim. I bear no hostility against the Japanese. That was my mother and I used that illustration because of war.

    We are at war with a borderless enemy who kills in the name of its version of Islam. I would not vote for any Muslim right now. That community has done very little to step up to the plate and denounce terrorism. Given the MO of terrorist cells, I would rather be prejudiced than risk aiding and abetting anyone who might put our country at further risk.

    I don’t live in the 51st, nor am I a Republican, so Gill is safe from my prejudice.

  66. k. o'toole said on 1 Oct 2007 at 10:30 am:
    Flag comment

    jy, ever hear of quisling? Serving your country is not the same as serving up your country. Too bad the republican party is making some bad choices.

  67. James Young said on 1 Oct 2007 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve heard of Vidkun Quisling, k., and I know what a quisling is. According to at least a few, I introduced the word to some in my late newspaper column.

    Too bad that there are those who will indulge the racist — or try to hide their own racism — by attacking a man on ridiculously contrived and flimsy charges that have been investigated by those paid to be suspicious, and rejected.

    And BTW, Greg, I don’t know why you think my appellation for AWCheney is not “commonly accepted,” or would never be. In fact, it is commonly accepted… at least, a portion of it is. You must not get out much. So your standard is this: belittling but inaccurate name-calling is acceptable, but widely-accepted yet profane name-calling is not?

    Dolph, the operative phrase in your comments is “its version of Islam.” You have no evidence — and there is considerable evidence to the contrary — that Faisal Gill’s “version of Islam” differs from that to which you refer. Yet still, you oppose him.

    As a reasonable man (at least in this exchange), certainly, you must understand that your position is untenable by its own terms.

  68. AWCheney said on 1 Oct 2007 at 3:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    “the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman other than reporting them when they came to our attention.”

    OK Jimmy…and where does it say that I reported anything to the Commonwealth’s Attorney? Like I said…YOU are a liar. The campaign CONSULTANT (You do know what a consultant is, don’t you Jimmy?) brought the information to Ebert, as was reported in the Journal Mess and WaPo. This has been pointed out to you time and again yet you persist in your attacks and lies. For more than two years I have put up with this and I’m sick of it.

    (Note to Greg: If you delete or edit the remainder of this comment, I will never speak to you again…I promise!)

    I wouldn’t try that with Greg if I were you Jimmy. There are FEW people that would consider that a threat coming from you…it would be more like a blessing. You are a carbuncle on the **s of the world, a bane to all that is right and reasonable in the world of politics. Your lack of civility, open-mindedness, couth and your wealth of arrogance, selfishness and, of course, gutter language has made you the laughingstock of the blogosphere…which has done my heart good. You are a little troll in thought, word, and deed…and you look like one to boot, especially in those shorts. I’m sick of your flagrant prevarications, your small-minded meanness when it comes to anyone who happens to disagree with you, and I’m just sick of you in general. You add nothing to a discussion other than vitriol, and I have almost three years experience with that. There are very few people in this world that I truly wish ill, and you are probably at the top of the list. You ran like a jack rabbit at the 51st District Convention when you realized who I was, and you were followed by laughter. Next time it may not be so benign.

    There, I’ve got it out of my system. Anybody want to join me?

  69. dolph said on 1 Oct 2007 at 3:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    I actually don’t care one way or the other about Gill. I have never commented on him here. I do not live in the 51st district. Please leave me out of the Gill argument since I have never defended nor criticized him.

    I simply stated how I felt about Muslims in public office. I will not vote to put one there. Feel free to attack me on that issue. I will not debate it. My personal feelings are my own.

  70. freedom said on 2 Oct 2007 at 6:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Couldn’t agree more, AWC…and I KNOW there are lots more, even those who do not visit BVBL… Actually, it’s sad. While Jimmy is so critical of those who use pseudonyms, his family would be better served if HE used a pseudonym.

  71. freedom said on 2 Oct 2007 at 6:51 am:
    Flag comment

    dolph, we disagree on some issues, but on this issue, your 1 Oct/10:07 post says it as it is - perfectly. As I’ve said all along, “why take a chance”?

  72. freedom said on 2 Oct 2007 at 7:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy, if you wish to label me as a racist, a bigot or whatever, because I don’t want Faisal Gill in the HOD, then knock yourself out. Should I shudder in fear because of your accusatory label? I think not.

    You’re certainly welcome to your opinion, but by now, it should be fairly clear that your opinion (on virtually anything, btw) doesn’t carry a lot of credibility.

  73. James Young said on 2 Oct 2007 at 10:29 am:
    Flag comment

    One doesn’t need to be “a racist, a bigot or whatever, because [he doesn’t] want Faisal Gill in the HOD,” “freedom,” and I have never called Greg that, because his motivation for his attacks is well-known: Faisal Gill’s law firm represents someone suing him. Perhaps he is “a racist, a bigot, or whatever,” but nothing attributed to his name makes such a conclusion necessary or sustainable.

    What leads to my conclusion that you are a bullying, belittling coward? You hide your identity, obviously fearing attribution of your bloviations to your name. The most you’ve offered to this little exchange are childish comments. Perhaps “Fredo” is a better and more reflective moniker.

    I may be mistaken; I may be wrong. I may even be wrong about Faisal Gill. But I only draw conclusions based upon the evidence at hand. And have the courage to attach my name to them and face the consequences of doing so.

    Now, I conclude you are a religious bigot, too, by your endorsement of “dolph’s” post admitting the same. I couldn’t conclude that before, but now I can. I suppose that it is well that you hide your identity.

    Interesting company you choose to keep. And it is I who lack “credibility”?!?! You may have some with the KKK, skinheads, and/or the American Nazi Party. I prefer to have no credibility with people such as that.

  74. Patsy Jones said on 2 Oct 2007 at 10:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Young,

    You may deny knowing me, but I remember you well. So well, that I remember you as a person of high moral character, integrity and honor-bound by his word. I also remember your editorial columns and looked forward to each publication. You possessed a a writing style that was logical, thought-provoking and persuasive. The only name-calling I can recall from your columns was in reference to the “Great Prevaricator”, an adjetive about the former President which you easily defended.

    I am new to this blog and this particular thread is the only one I have read completely. Imagine my surprise when I saw your name attached to many of the comments above. In particular, I will address your response to Mrs. Cheney and comments to the editor. Mrs. Cheney asked you about John Walker. You responded with your rebuttal, but apparently that was not enough. You wrote on to say:

    “Too bad you’re (sic) ideologically-motivated hatred makes you
    incapableof telling the difference.”

    I have to infer that calling Mrs. Cheney stupid was not enough and you continued, but the editor saw fit to delete your next comment. Then, you respond to the editor (Greg?) with simplistic school-yard logic. She called me a name and and you won’t let me call her one back. I may be naive, but is calling you “Jimmy” so horrible to invoke a response that had to be deleted?

    You then went on to call Mrs. Cheney an “old bitter b***h. This is beyond reason and I thought that it must be in the heat of the moment, but in later postings, you made the same veiled reference to her. I know Mrs. Cheney and she is anything but an old, bitter b***h. I expected more class of you and you owe her an apology.

    For someone who claims to always be motivated by the facts, you seem to bog yourself down and diminish your point by letting personalities get to you. If the above represents your best, something I had always known you to do in the past, then perhaps it is time for you to retire your keyboard.

  75. James Young said on 3 Oct 2007 at 2:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ms. Jones,

    I wish I could place a face with a name, or even remember the name, but I am notoriously forgetful about things like that. Please accept my apologies.

    “Ms. Cheney,” as you call her, is a lying political hack (the lie was documented in the post that Greg deleted). Perhaps you are correct that responding to “schoolyard” name-calling with schoolyard retorts is inappropriate, but I did not choose the terms of this debate; she did. I am merely indulging her wishes. I fail to understand why your post is directed at me when she has chosen a juvenile form of my name (or worse yet, to equate me with Jimmy Carter). Do I resent it? Not hardly. But as I have said before, “Jimmy” is my son (my wife’s idea, not mine). He’s eleven, and I wouldn’t expose him to the likes of “Ms. Cheney.” My friends call me “Jim,” or “James.” Others call me “Mr. Young.” What I resent is the sanctimony underlying it, particularly from one from whom, in my opinion, righteousness is unknown, and self-righteousness is utterly uncalled for.

    Furthermore, you are unaware of the e-mail exchange that I had with “Ms. Cheney” some months ago. I commend it to your attention.
    You’ll note that the very first paragraph of her very first e-mail (she calls it an “olive branch”!) contains two attacks/insults.

    In short, I owe her anything but an apology. What she is owed is having her attacks and her belittling insults (while sanctimoniously criticizing others, usually for their response in kind) answered.

    Perhaps your criticism is better directed at “Ms. Cheney.” I prefer to ignore her. However, I learned a long time ago that one risks have lies and attacks accepted as truth if one allows them to go unanswered.

    “I didn’t start this” probably isn’t the response for which you were looking. Nevertheless, I certainly find it odd that you would level criticisms exclusively at me under the circumstances.

  76. AWCheney said on 3 Oct 2007 at 4:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not as bright as he thinks is he.

  77. Patsy Jones said on 3 Oct 2007 at 6:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Young,

    I wish I had the time and energy to ferret out who said the first words, but as my mother would say when spanking me for something my bother started: “I DON’T CARE”.

    What I do care about is that you have reduced this dialogue to the vulgar. This diminishes your entire argument on any subject. You say you find it odd that I would level criticism exclusively at you, but your comments were the only words improper for this forum. As for lies and attacks going unanswered, I have found they die a quiet death if left alone.

    Quite frankly, I expect something better from conservatives and from you in particular. The vulgar would not be tolerated in a court of law or on the pages of our local newpapers - two venues in which you have great experience. This is why I fail to see why you resort to it here.

    I don’t know why you have trouble calling (and my calling) Mrs. Cheney by title. It is the same consideration I extended to you.

    Finally, I repeat my original request: “I expected more class of you and you owe her an apology.”

  78. James Young said on 3 Oct 2007 at 9:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Perhaps not, AWCheney. Almost certainly not as bright as you think I think I am.

    Then again, at least I can put together a comprehensible sentence.

    As I said, Ms. Jones, I respond in kind. It doesn’t take much to “ferret out who said the first words”: you could click on the provided link, or you could do a “find” function on this thread, perhaps on “Cheney,” to see who started the childishness on this thread. It would certainly seem appropriate before leveling your criticism at the other side of the dispute. I didn’t start it, but I certainly don’t have to sit back and take it. I do appreciate, however, and am humbled, that you expect better from me than from the individual who DID start it. Speaks volumes about her.

    ‘Fact is, you do speak with respect, as I have to you, as my default, and unless provoked otherwise.

    The individual whom you haven’t seen fit to criticize (except by implication) seems incapable of that courtesy, even inflicting herself in our little exchange.

  79. AWCheney said on 3 Oct 2007 at 10:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Then again, at least I can put together a comprehensible sentence.”

    Would you REALLY like me to go through all your comments and pull YOUR typos and careless errors, Jimmy boy? I don’t call you on them because that would be petty…but it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist in the hundreds.

    I meant, as you well know, “Not as bright as he thinks he is.” The “He is,” at the beginning of the sentence, is implied.

    And you wonder why I call you Jimmy.

Comments are closed.

Views: 3161