"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Julie Lucas And Gil Trenum Get MJM Endorsements
By Greg L | 24 October 2007 | Prince William County | 12 Comments
The Manassas Journal-Messenger has endorsed Gil Trenum and Julie Lucas for the Prince William County School Board. Although I don’t expect I’ll agree with the MJM on many of their endorsements, when I can find common ground with the editorial board of the MJM as I have here, it should speak pretty loudly about the qualifications these candidates have.
Julie Lucas and Gil Trenum deserve this endorsement. These are good picks, but pretty obvious ones.
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.
12 Comments
Views: 975
Loading ...
Julie Lucas also received an endorsement from Prince William Education Association. The PWEA endorsement is a huge coup for Julie and speaks well of her ability to work with educators. I am surprised this wasn’t mentioned in the thread intro.
I agree Greg. However, when you consider Julie’s opposition, an endorsement of her is kinda like our agreeing that the sky is blue!!
Julie’s opponents remind me of Paul Nichols’ campaign slogan concerning Faisal Gill — they (like Faisal) are so wrong on everything, we can’t even imagine they’re running!!
I thought it was the Manassas Urinal-Messenger?
Nice to see you using the actual name of the paper as befits the serious political discussion that this blog represents. It would be nice to see a moratorium on derisive nicknames for the MJM, the Post, the Times, etc., as well as end the practice of mangling individuals’ names. And although Greg isn’t usually guilty of this, it would be nice to have discussion of opponents focus on their positions not on their weight, hair style, fashion sense, or attractiveness, as though any of that had any relevance whatsoever.
The MJM should always be the MJM whether one is agreeing with them or not.
Leila–
It’s always the Manassas-Journal Messenger when it’s news Greg likes. It’s the Urinal Messenger when it’s something he doesn’t agree with.
I think the Lucas endorsement is a no-brainer. Her opponents both lack any real credibility to challenge her.
The Trenum endorsement wasn’t really a glowing one. It seemed to be more of a “well, we’ve gotta pick one of them…”
Well TurnPWBlue, you may be right. It’s just too schoolyard for me.
Turn PW Blue & Leila,
I have to say I couldn’t agree with you BOTH more!
Leila,
With regards to the focus on their positions not on their weight, hair style, fashion sense, or attractiveness, as though any of that had any relevance whatsoever. There are several posters on bvbl that are guilty of these types of comments. “Mom” certainly likes to keep their eye on few here from bvbl.
I hope the two of you aren’t too surprised by agreement with you both.
**TPWB & Leila,
More proof of my open mindedness which some folks still haven’t caught on to yet.
Thanks for you well stated comments above.
“Well TurnPWBlue, you may be right. It’s just too schoolyard for me.”
Me too.
I agree. Me three.
Roll Call, I am here. (me four)
but leila, I must add that the agreement with you stops there.
:)
Leila’s right. As much as I disagree with her position’s favoring “illegal” immigrant lawbreaking, this blog needs to police its own regarding the tone and content of debated language and not stoop to name calling. It takes away from the impact of more serious and respectable positions. It “affects” the reputation of all individuals here when one or two, get derogatory in any way.
Let me point out my most fervent example. “Any” group that supports privilege or discrimmination, name calling or denigration of anyone based on race, religion, gender, or ethnic group is in the wrong and not to be respected by the majority respectful community. That very much includes “any” group (especially racially and ethnically dominated groups) who associate themselves or their arguments with ethnic group names, illegal lawbreaking positions and amnesty support, and name calling positions, gender group names and name calling positions, religious group names and namecalling positions and racial group names and name calling. The only legitimate anger that can be openly and justifiably expressed is “anger and advocacy” against individual people and groups who associate themselves by racial, gender, religious, and ethnic relationships who advocate for breaking the law to get what they want as a special interest position. It is this diametrical position that makes me against most of what Leila advocates. Racism happens when you “join” a group based on your own racial heritage and advocate hatred against another group you have designated as one the racially, ethnically, gender, or religious affiliated group does not like. Liela in my opinion does not understand “individual” advocacy against illegal lawbreaking and tries to define that as racism because she doesn’t agree with this non-gender, ethnic, racial, religious group aligned blog’s position and opinion. I think you could also find evidence to support an observation that democrat’s tend to be lawbreakers more often than republicans.