Post-Election Open Thread
By Greg L | 7 November 2007 | Prince William County | 130 Comments
While I continue to crunch numbers on yesterday’s elections, readers can use this thread to discuss what they saw happen, and opine on what this all means.
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.
130 Comments
Views: 2057
Loading ...
We got a lotta work to do.
Important to remember as the County landscape changes.
Yes issues and message matter, but you have to have a credible MESSENGER or it all means nothing.
Tom Davis is done in politics. JMDD’s loss is more a reflection on him than her.
Let’s keep up the fight until all illegals are gone. The breaking of our laws will not be tolerated!
“Attrition through enforcement”!
Agree with Clean it up - 10:04 am.
Most voters are not looking for the best Republican or
the best Democrat –they are looking for the best person
to represent them.
The local GOP has recently touted Steve Chapman and
Bob FitzSimmonds for legislative office - darlings of
the far right, but folks with no real credentials besides
being party loyalist and not a day of elected public
office at any level between them. Gravitas? Zip.
Compare to Jackson Miller - solid career as a policeman
and service as a officer in the military. AND
a former Manassas City Councilmember. His
only claim to fame wasn’t being the nominee
of his party.
Where do the GOP come up with their lies? I mean passing out stuff at the polls claiming Chuck Colgan wants to build Casinos in PWC was going a little to far… Plus the George W haters came out yesterday.
Big Dog- Preach it!!!!
The lesson from this election is to see what not to do in the future. Making it up as you go along is not a good strategy.
The party should be run by people with proven campaign experience. Why are we on our third PWCRC chairman who has never managed a successful campaign? Why was money put in to Shack Attack instead of things that could actually win elections? Why was there no unified campaign? Why do we have a party which trains its guns on fellow Republicans instead of Democrats? Why has our party shrunk to its smallest membership in years? Why did Kaine and Webb win Prince William County? How could Stirrup have won so big and Bob still lost? Is there a plan at all or are we just flying by the seat of our pants wondering why the plane is falling apart around us?
I don’t have much faith that the PWCRC will learn much from this year, because they haven’t taken the time to learn from other recent losses in the county (Kilgore or Allen) which rest at the feet of the local Party. Those in power, or at fault depending on how you look at the situation, will point fingers and assign blame instead of really sitting down and having a true post mortum. To quote Cold Mountain, “They made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say ‘Shit, it’s raining!’ “
Hmmmm…Bill, look at Big Dog’s comments above for that answer. Who fancies himself “leader of the anti-gambling forces” in his own mind…no other than Steve Chapman?
Big Dog, thank you for your comments. We think alot alike and I hope we can be on the same side in a campaign again sometime soon.
“out stuff at the polls claiming Chuck Colgan wants to build Casinos in PWC was going a little to far”
Yea, Manassas Park isn’t PWC.
Bill Manning, that’s the first I heard about Colgan’s desire to
build casinos in PWC. Had I heard it (if it were true), I might
have voted for Colgan. What a grand idea that is. Think of
all that revenue staying right here instead of going to WV, Md
and even Atlantic City!
I completely disagree about Tom Davis. If the party gets their act together becomes a party willing to accept all conservative, not just far right conservatives Davis could play a big role. Tom Davis is a good man, and a great Representative. He recognizes he must represent the entire population.
I completely disagree about Tom Davis. If the party gets their act together becomes a party willing to accept all conservative, not just far right conservatives Davis could play a big role. Tom Davis is a good man, and a great Representative. He recognizes he must represent the entire population.
Yesterday, I noticed quite a number of “naturalized citizens” voting.
Ive lived in FFx for seven years now, and thats the most Ive ever
seen at the polls. Protecting the interests of their illegal friends and
relatives I presume. I too voted against JMDD although the rest of
my ballot was straight Republican. Its too bad about the balance of
power in the Senate now, but it was time for her to go. Chap is more
conservative than she is and I suspect a lot of the Dems elected
yesterday are too.
Some general observation:
- Imagine Post Office folks are happy the election is over.
I’m a Manassas resident and got 52 pieces of campaign
mail over the past three weeks (plus three or four
robo calls a day). The communication “arms race”
was over the top - no doubt expensive and mostly,
especially at the end, unproductive
- Will be interested to see the individual cost of the local
races. This has gotten way out of hand, but not legally
sure what to do about it. Fear candidates will have to be
wealthy or end up or beholding to those who
will “invest” in them - too often with attached strings.
- Didn’t see the Colgan/Casino material, but did read a
posting very early yesterday morning on BVBL that
made a scurrilous charge about Bob FitzSimmonds.
(Assume Greg rightfully took it down as soon as he saw it)
I didn’t support Bob, but dirty politics is dirty politics.
With the speed and anonymous nature of the net,
stuff like this can just pop up and the candidate,
especially on the dawn of election day, is at a severe
disadvantage. Not a good development. Any ideas
how to pull the plug on this before the next election?
Well, now we will find out which promises will be kept and which won’t. Looking further ahead than today, it will also remain to be seen how the fiscal situation in PWC will be corrected and balanced against the promises. Yesterday’s election was pretty much a single issue referendum - now the rest of the issues must be dealt with and some quickly.
Congrats to all that won - let’s see what happens……
Well, fortunately there will be no Jihad in the HOD!!! …and that’s not racism that’s American patriotism….
Big Dog said on 7 Nov 2007 at 11:59 am:
Fear candidates will have to be
wealthy or end up or beholding to those who
will “invest” in them - too often with attached strings
If this happens at the local level we, as a country are doomed. I’ve all but given up on the feds. Some of the local promises were scary (funding wise).
Billy Boy,
I left a message for you on the previous thread.
I have never lived near a Casino and don’t want to. I would assume that crime would increase around the area of the Casino.
How did Ham Sandwich do? My family is on edge, we all put our votes where they counted.
Cheesy, but lettuce notice that Old Ham Sandwich
was eventually pickled and sliced by Paul Ebert.
I hope someone kept a copy of old chuck’s tv ad convincing everyone that he 1) will be tough on illegal immigration 2) will not raise the gas tax, etc., etc. We must keep his message out front starting now, reminding him and everyone else of his “promises.”
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution / Take a bow for the new revolution / Smile and grin at the change all around / Pick up my guitar and play / Just like yesterday / Then I’ll get on my knees and pray / We don’t get fooled again.
In the Ballot Booths, No Fixation on Immigration
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 7, 2007; Page A01
Voters across Virginia chose candidates in state and local elections yesterday not out of anger over illegal immigration but based on party affiliation, a preference for moderation and strong views on such key issues as residential growth and traffic congestion.
With a few notable exceptions, the trend benefited Democrats and not those who campaigned the loudest for tough sanctions against illegal immigrants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/07/ST2007110700119.html?hpid=topnews
Voters have other things on their minds besides illegal immigration.
@Ducky
Please… stop with the tired article. Illegal immigration is THE most important issue in the U.S. right now.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/NATION/111070060/1002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071107/METRO/111070083/1004/metro
Last night had best be a slap in the face for the Republican Party of Virginia. The GOP caucus has not truly represented conservatism in it’s time in the majority and it is for this that they suffered a defeat last night. It is sad to see true conservatives like Mr. O’Brien take a fall and we must look to the upcoming session with some degree of apprehension as Governor Kaine will undoubtly call for a tax increase to fund his education plan while refusing to do anything to get illegal aliens out of Virginia. It is my hope that with Chichester, Potts and Mrs. Davis gone that now the GOP caucus will be a conservative one and will work to stop Kaine’s plans in the House of Delegates and State Senate.
More notes:
Municipal elections are in May of 2008 except
for Manassas Park who moved their election to Nov. 2008
- the day they vote for President, they also vote for mayor
and council.
As I understand it, the main MP reasons were
to increase voter participation and save money.
Manassas has opted to keep their city election
in May. The thought is a combined election would
diminish the focus on local candidates and issues with
bigger campaigns “sucking the air out of the room”.
Folks would need to get bigger yards to hold all the signs
and our traditional meager single mailings could end
up at the bottom of a huge pile.
Thoughts?
Carlton Huffman- that is exactly the attitude that lead to the GOP defeats last night. It makes no sense to think that voters picked Democrats becaust the REpublicans weren’t conservative enough. That is like someone saying, “I really want apple juice because it is the most healthy, but all I have is this watered down apple juice. Oh well, forget the watered down but still healthy apple juice. I guess that I will eat this Snickers instead.” That is what your argument sounds like.
Big Dog,
While I often agree with you, I simply have no opinion on Manassas Park. I try to repress it. I am still hung up over their arrogance of leaving the county when they had no commerical tax base. So far, MP has done nothing to make me think that they made the right move, although I sure do not want them back in the fold. There are some good folks over in the Park but their city government is, was, and always will be an embarrassment.
Big Dog,
Didn’t see the post about FitzSimmonds which someone must have taken down. I agree dirty politics is bad regardless of who is firing the shots. Paul Nichols could have had a cake walk but instead had a very close race, because people grew tired of his negative attacks on Gil. I don’t like Gil but think Nichols went to far.
Can’t find http://www.stopstirrup.com website, did I do something wrong?
CC.
Try using this website. Not sure that the stopstirrup site exists.
http://removestirrup.com/
If PWCRC’s leadership would have listened to the base and put forth a Jackson Miller quality candidate in the 51st, not only would we have retained the 51st HOD seat but also saved Jay O’Brien, and it would have brought Republican Chris Royse in for the win for the Woodbridge Supervisor seat.
I am sad to see good men like Royse and O’Brien go down as casualties of Kopko’s train wreck. Stop with the BAD candidates..no more Chapmans.
I see it’s http://goodbyestirrup.com & removestirrup
Thanks.
Since the MJM/PotomacNews strongly endorsed Pandak over Stewart for the post of PWCBOS Chairman, the readership should now ask the editor for a public apology and an explanation of why the newspaper is far out-of-touch with the readership!
Send in your letter to the editor as soon as possible!
Anonymous 3:21-
Since Greg L and BVBL endorsed FitzSimmonds over Colgan, the readership of this blog should now ask for a public apology from Grag and an explanation of why the blog is far out-of-touch with the people.
Get over it. Newspaper endorsements are not predictions of who they think will win. They are statements of who they thing should win. It’s an OPINION (and, thus, the reason endorsements run on the Op/Ed page, not front page).
On the goodbyestirrup.com website they infer that there was intimidation at Stonewall Middle School last night. What they fail to report is that it was one of the Mexicans Without Borders crowd that was doing the intimidating. A young lady approached me and demanded to know my name, and the name of the other people at the Republican Party table. After a few back and forth quips, in which I would not provide her with the information she requested unless she provide me with her name, she then asked if we were HSM members. I advised her that we were but we were not there on behalf of HSM, but representing the Republican Party. She then inferred “that’s the same thing.” She then stood about 10 feet in front of us staring at us for about ten minutes, trying to intimidate us. It didn’t work. I later advised Nancy Lyall of the inappropriate behavior of one of her people.
1:50 Anon: Conservative ideas–when thoughtfully but confidently propounded–win elections. Squishy milquetoast “moderates” with their say anything/compromise with anyone approach makes them different from liberals only in degree. When faced with that kind of choice in a hotly contested election, it’s not surprising that the squish will lose to the committed Democrat. Two cases in point:
#1: JMDD campaigned hard on gun control, to the point that her opponent got the NRA endorsement. She was not an anti-illegal immigration champion, and her opponent got to the right of her on that as well. She’s got a long record of compromises (aka tax increases) in Richmond, while her opponent touted his own fiscal discipline. She got only ~45% of the vote in a traditionally Republican area.
#2: Jeff Frederick–a firebrand conservative in most people’s eyes–beat an opponent with well over half a million dollars (both money he raised and money spent by the Democrat Party) going for him, in a district trending Democrat. Frederick is just about the loudest opponent of any tax increases, and is just as staunchly and openly against illegal immigration, bloated government, abortion, etc. This has induced the governor and other state level Dems to repeatedly target Frederick with as much money and manpower as they can muster, yet, yesterday he won with 58% of the vote, even carrying precincts in his district that had been won by as many as 25 percentage points by John Kerry in 2004.
These examples don’t prove the point by themselves, of course, and there are probably counter-examples that can be pointed to. The fundamental lesson, though, is that nearly every time Republicans lose it is because they strayed from conservative principles. People want to elect someone with a shared set of deeply held convictions, which is why conservatives win on questions of immigration, taxes, defense, terrorism, fiscal responsibility, and cultural issues. However, people will recoil from someone who is either perceived to have no beliefs at all, or who has hypocritically betrayed the beliefs they espouse. This is the true source of Republican defeat–whether it be last night, or 2006, or 2005. The answer is to stop nominating (or otherwise empowering) people whose answer to Democrat success is to further surrender to them on issues across the board. Instead, we should find candidates who believe in conservative ideals, and aren’t afraid (or unable, ala GWB) to tell the world about them.
Billyboy - Please name just ONE thing that Paul Nichols said that was not factual, just one.
BullElephant - you hit the nail on the head. I was not up on who her opponent was until one day when I was at the barber shop I heard saw an ad on TV attacking him. They way it sounded, he was some Right-wing nutjob (pro 2nd Amendment, stand on abortion, etc). I said to myself, “Sounds like a guy I would vote for” and then just laughed. At the VERY end it showed JMDD’s pix and said that she paid for and authorized the ad.
Right then and there I decided that unless she (in the future) does a MAJOR about-face, I could never vote for her as what she stands for contradicts most of my beliefs. Tom dropped $400,000 into her campaign. Just goes to show that money CAN’T buy everything.
Open thread, post election. Here it goes:
New restaurant in the west end’s general manager is purportedly an illegal alien. Supposedly his wife is also. (not Hispanic) There are also strong rumors of cocaine use by this individual. I wonder what the owners think about the Stirrup resolution?
Billyboy,
I might just have that comment that you didn’t see. I will not post it here. And no, I didn’t post it originally. I did cut and paste because I figured it would disappear, and it should have. It was an anonymous with a caveat that Greg would not let them post on bvbl.
email: dolphin_moon@excite.com
Bull,
As a moderate Independent who very often cross-pollinates at the ballot box, I think you might be overlooking the fact that most people are neither very conservative or very liberal. Many of us look for candidates who do not paint themselves too far into either corner. Yes, there are exceptions, (the 13th congressional district comes to mind) but generally speaking, this is not what the majority of the voters seek in a candidate for office.
Anonymous,
“LiCreep - lets see you go after Frank Wolfe and Tom Davis on thier inaction on immigration. Oh sorry that have a R by next to thier name. They’re safe.”
So true. Frank Wolfe’s solution when localities ask for help has been to send them some info on ICE. Don’t expect a spine or right-wing “anti-illegal immigrant” agenda there (depending on your perspective). Seemed rather ridiculous to focus so much attention on PW County rather than the Feds.
Anon @5:47
It’s so nice to see you won’t post your name or even pick a screen name for yourself, but you can come up with nicknames for those that don’t agree with you. Thank you for your dose of comedy.-lol
I found it refreshing to vote without the party labels attached to the names. Although I did see a few hunched over a voters guides clearly guiding their decisions. Now if we could just do away with those pesky things at the polls people might have to know who to vote for by name and reputation.
It would be refreshing to have this blog reduce or minimize party labels and simply review elected officials by name and actions. I realize that this is a conservative blog (I’ve been hammered about that recently). Just as not all conservatives are Republicans not all Republicans are conservative. Learned that universal statement filp process forever ago in Formal Logic! Delighted to see it’s finally useful.
After all this is simply about results, right? Not a free lobbying group for one particular party?
Good quote from John Adams regarding political parties…food for thought.
The favorites of parties, although they have always some virtues, have always many imperfections. Many of the ablest tongues and pens have, in every age, been employed in the foolish, deluded, and pernicious flattery of one set of partisans, and in furious, prostitute invectives against another; but such kinds of oratory never had any charms for me; and if I must do one or the other, I would quarrel with both parties and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.”
I’ve posted three new pictures from Stonewall yesterday.
http://community.webshots.com/user/Lafayette13
anonymous#121,
City Grille?
Lafayette
Does the Supervisor Stirrup or the Police Department have those photos of the grafetti?
One Voice,
I forwarded the pictures to Stirrup’s office a little while ago. The police came yesterday morning as soon as they were notified. I’m not sure if the police took pictures or not. Several of us had a meeting last week with members of the Gang Task Force. They explained what we should do. Call the Non-Emergency number, and officer will investigate and respond to us. The police then make the request for removal.
I’m very pleased to say as of yesterday the other four taggings have been removed from the sidewalk.
The new stuff from yesterday is on private property.
One Voice: “Good quote from John Adams regarding political parties”…
Ah! Benjamin Franklin succinctly said…
“Ignorance leads Men into a Party, and Shame keeps them from getting out again.”
One Voice:
Adams is as right now as he was then. Party has trumped principle for most all those involved in politics as a career.
Lafayette– Great! Think any more about that Neighborhood Watch Captain job?????!!!!!!
Es/Rob Smalls — Agree with both comments. We all need to think about this some.
Enquiring minds want to know:
Where are the interviews with MWB/Lyall, et al? Isn’t anyone interested in how they feel now that the voters have spoken loudly & clearly?
How many ladders are legal on van rooftops? I see literally 12 on vans in Manassas driving around - an accident waiting to happen. Seriously, aren’t there regulations about that?
We need to contact our representatives and encourage this bipartisan bill, The SAVE Act: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23279
Heinz57,
Yes. according to the bar crowd.
No comment from JY regareding his Muslim friend?
For a laugh, scroll down to Nov. 4 (Obama opens Saturday Night Live) http://www.howlinglatina.blogspot.com/
One Voice,
I’m still thinking on it. I think really just about the only thing we are missing at this point is the Neighborhood Watch signs. When they are up I’ll be sure and add them to the “Signs” album. Thanks.
Whatever happened to the pool hall business? (Rack and Roll?) You remember the guy who ran in the street and knocked someone down while cameras were running. For a while that was such an important thread. Now with the election over, will you go back to this?
Billy Boy,
Are you out there? I left a message for you on the Manassas Election thread.
Lafayette,
If we do neighborhood watch, I would like Billy Boy to be included.
Advocator said on 7 Nov 2007 at 12:57 pm:
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution / Take a bow for the new revolution / Smile and grin at the change all around / Pick up my guitar and play / Just like yesterday / Then I’ll get on my knees and pray / We don’t get fooled again.
VERY clever! Love the lyric of the song - “take a bow for the new resolution”…. and you should!
Patty,
Excellent idea! Perhaps, I’ll run into him at Mama Mia’s, and I can find out if he’s on “our beat”.
mcr,
The Advocator most certainly should take a bow!
Might someone please explain the following statistics found at:
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2007/
Soil and Water Conservation Director Prince William District
(PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY)
Last Reported: Nov 7 2007 8:19AM EST
Alex Pendleton Lucas III 36,597 31.42%
Austin B. Haynes, Jr. 38,057 32.67%
Matthew A. Brooks 41,266 35.42%
Write In 552 0.47%
Precincts Reporting: 65 of 65 (100%)
Voter Turnout: 116,472 of 182,687 (63.75%)
Chairman - Board of Supervisors
(PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY)
Last Reported: Nov 7 2007 12:07AM EST
Corey A. Stewart 30,318 55.34%
Sharon E. Pandak 24,336 44.42%
Write In 128 0.23%
Precincts Reporting: 65 of 65 (100%)
Voter Turnout: 54,782 of 182,687 (29.98%)
Same jurisdiction/precincts, same total number of registered(?) voters.
How is it that the number of votes cast for each of the Soil and Water Conservation Director Candidates are greater than votes cast for the Chairman - Board of Supervisors and also the voter turnout numbers, percentages ???
Dolph,
I’ll have to work on a better explanation of my point…I think I could probably write a book about it. But for now, please bear with me when I try to boil it down to something suitable for a comment post.
My basic thesis is that Republicans who confidently and consistently hew to a conservative message tend to win elections, while those who stray from principles in favor of a more “moderate” or “centrist” appearance tend to lose. It’s not an ironclad rule, of course, and there are a number of variables that come into play in each election (quality and individual characteristics of each candidate being the most important). My point is not, as you seem to suggest, that the electorate prefers someone who is “very conservative.” Rather, I think history proves that the electorate will follow a candidate who articulates an appealing set of principles–often whether or not they agree with every policy position flowing therefrom. Reagan’s two landslides, the GOP Revolution in 1994, and a dozen smaller examples come to mind, including that of many social conservatives and relative liberals enthusiasitcally lining up shoulder-to-shoulder behind Rudy Giuliani. On the flip side, George Allen had many flaws as a candidate this last time around, but to my way of thinking, chief among these flaws was an unwillingness to campaign on principles and instead rely on focus-group/consultant-driven messages aimed at pandering to one slice of the electorate or another (e.g., spending what seemed like 40% of his ad budget in the closing weeks of the campaign focusing on painting Jim Webb as an insensitive sexist–all to presumably shore up some weakness in his internal polling among women). So, the man who talked like Ronald Reagan to win two previous statewide elections suddenly started acting like Pat Schoeder and surprise–he lost. I’d bet good money that Jerry Kilgore had the same consultants.
Now, this is not to say that a whole lot of other things don’t also play a role in Republicans’ defeats. Indeed, it is quite obvious that other issues often exercise a decisive influence (e.g., macaca). But, all other things being equal, someone with an identifiable set of beliefs cuts a more attractive figure as a leader than someone whose claim to the office is that they’re good at making deals and satisfying the needs of competing constituencies and interest groups.
I’m not talking about just amping up the volume, or increasing the stridency of the message. There’s no need to do that. Simply speaking, people will vote for someone who believes in something a lot more often than they will for someone who believes in nothing. The old conservative proverb is that anyone who is not identifiable as a conservative is a liberal (on the basis that only conservatives have a consistent ideology, whereas liberals–short of hard-core lefties–instead worship at the altar of opportunism and pragmatism). For me it boils down to this: conservatives win when we play our game; when we squish, prevaricate, waffle, cut deals, or unnecessarily compromise, we play the liberals’ game and lose.
Sorry for the length of this post (and that’s the concise version!).
Bull,
Thanks for the explanation. While I may not agree with your every point, being a moderate Independent, I certainly respect your opinion and the thoughful way you have presented it.
Adhering to your theory makes finding a suitable candidate difficult for me. I have liberal leanings on some issues and conservative leanings on other issues. I would not say my feelings are without ideology. Just very few office holders share my ideology.
Krutis on 7 Nov 2007 at 9:15 pm:
RACK EM UP KRUTIS!
Befuddled…The answer to your question about the number of voters is that in the race for Soil and Conservation Director each voter could vote for three names. Therefore, if, for example, 100 voters voted for three, the total vote cast would be three hundred. In a single winner race, it would only be 100, using the same example. Hope this helps you out.
legal2 said on 7 Nov 2007 at 8:11 pm:
Enquiring minds want to know:
How many ladders are legal on van rooftops? I see literally 12 on vans in Manassas driving around - an accident waiting to happen. Seriously, aren’t there regulations about that?
====================================
That is definitely something the police should be checking on. The vans are “top heavy” to begin with and are prone to tipping. With all the ladders piled 3-4′ high makes them even more so.
Bull: The length of your post is exceeded only by its erudition. Excellent points! I agree wholeheartedly.
anonymoustoo on 7 Nov 2007 at 5:14 pm:
It’s Frank Wolf (like the animal.)
Last post was mine, Advocator. Sorry.
Glad to see that the apologists thought so highly of me that they put me on the removestirrup drivel site. Tough night for you guys, wasn’t it?
Anonymous said on 7 Nov 2007 at 4:57 pm:
I’m not the BVBL Police but the name calling is a little harsh, and not appropriate in my opinion.
I notice there is very little news coverage of Corey Stewart winning the election. I bet it would be quite different had Sharon P. won.
BullElephant said on 7 Nov 2007 at 9:54 pm: - AMEN!!!
starryflights said on 7 Nov 2007 at 11:15 pm:
“I notice there is very little news coverage of Corey Stewart winning the election. I bet it would be quite different had Sharon P. won.”
Yeah, but it would be in Spanish - lol
Billyboy,
I agree 100% with you at 11:03.
What are you talking about ? Corey Stewart has been all over the news… Did you not see the Washington Post, or the Journal Messenger? No body has mentioned Chuck Colgan is number 3 in charge of the state now. That should be bigger news….
I am saying that Sharon P. would have been covered much more. I notice the media seems to be mostly interviewing people that are pro-illegal immigration…at least pro-illegal aliens.
starryflights,
You are exactly right!
starryflights.
Last post was from me, Lafayette.
Maybe Corey Stewart isn’t being written about so much because he comes over as not a very pleasant, likable guy. I know that that shouldn’t make a difference, but it does. There’s an aura of superiority about him that’s not good. (and I dislike males with soft chins and manicured nails)
Kru, some of us like men who stand up to lawbreakers and remain strong, in spite of name-calling or threats. And as someone who actually met and spoke with him, I can attest that you don’t know what you’re talking about. He is very personable and kind. He’s just not the waffler type that you support.
Krutis on 8 Nov 2007 at 8:17 am:
What kind of males DO you like?
Advocator,
Great use of a great song lyric! How ’bout we all sing the last lines together?
“Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss.”
999,
Yes, you’re right. I know too many non-animal Wolfes.
BullElephant,
I think Republicans will continue to lose ground if they’re too ideologically rigid. I’m an Independent (socially liberal, financially conservative)and candidates like Marshall will never appeal to me because as a woman, I’m not interested in a right-wing male idealogue making decisions that should be between a woman and her doc. Many of my midwestern Republican female friends feel the same way and will vote for a Democrat or Independent before they will vote for a rigid socially conservative Republican. In my opinion the Republicans are losing ground precisely because of their social conservativism…after all, it attacks a very personal part of what an individual stands for/against as opposed to the more community oriented other issues such as transportation, school vouchers, welfare programs, defense. It’s Big Brother in the bedroom and I’m not interested in a menage a’ trois (too lazy to look for the accent code).
Ha ha. As for Corey Stewart…it takes more than being chunky and blond to be seen as a replacement for Tom Davis.
anonymoustoo - maybe you should tell your mid-western friends to keep their legs closed so they WON’T be killing an unborn fetus. With all the birth control out there (pills, tieing of tubes, um, saying “No”) there is NO need for an abortion in the first two tri-mesters save rape or incest (yep, you heard me right). I may not support abortion, but in cases of rape or incest THAT is the only time when the man should not be involved in the decision.
The argument, “It’s my body and I should be able to do what I want” is one I will ONLY listen to if you ALSO believe in legalized prostitution and drug use since THAT TOO is making the choice what to do with your body.
In the news today:
Border-Security Funds Caught in Budget Crossfire
Billions of dollars for border security and immigration enforcement are caught in a political crossfire over the federal budget. The Senate has twice approved spending $3 billion, adding the money to spending bills for both the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon, but President Bush has threatened to veto the Homeland Security bill because of its overall price tag.
MORE: Arizona Republic
State and local law enforcement agencies have shown increased interest in a program to train officers to enforce federal immigration law, and Congress will soon decide whether to fund further growth of the program.
MORE: CQPolitics.com
Thousands of travelers who should have been barred from entering the country last year were allowed in by lax procedures of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, the Government Accountability Office reports.
MORE: New York Times
The Bush administration is easing its demand for tough national standards for driver’s licenses under the Real ID Act, acting at the behest of state officials who say the plan is unworkable and too costly.
MORE: Washington Post
anonymoustoo,
I actually had to look to see if *I* had written what you said in your middle paragraph. I totally agree with you regarding big brother in the bedroom. I find it so odd that people who claim to want less government seem all too willing to tell others what they can and cannot do about such deeply personal matters. I am not willing to give the government that kind of power without a fight.
Churches are perfect within their rights to dictate moral behavior to their parishioners. That is their job. However, churches (unless MY church) and politicians are not within their rights to dictate perceived moral behavior for me. I consider these kinds of laws an invasion.
John Light,
Most of my Republican female friends are too old to worry about pregnancies, but this is an issue that women in general care about. The failure to understand this doesn’t bode well for the Republican party. Yes, I’m sure there are socially conservative women in the country, but there are more of us. And that “us” includes women (and men) who vary in their beliefs about abortion but still want the practice to remain legal. And all the women know that this issue would be practically a non-issue if men could get pregnant.
Where is your suggestion that men get vacectomies, John Light? Unless you’re including it in “tieing of tubes”, you’re letting men off the hook for the responsibilty for the pregnancy but saying that they should be involved in the decision about abortion. You and I are never going to agree on this subject.
John Light said on 8 Nov 2007 at 9:29 am:
anonymoustoo - maybe you should tell your mid-western friends to keep their legs closed so they WON’T be killing an unborn fetus.
Totally unacceptable, sexist, patriarchal rhetoric. The flip side of that kind of crap is keep it in your pants, bucko, and you won’t have a thing to worry about.
Dolph,
“Totally unacceptable, sexist, patriarchal rhetoric. ”
And that, in a nutshell, is the right-wing Republicans’ problem in my opinion.
As more and more women see the kids off to school and then hop in the car to go to work, the men in their lives are viewed as partners and not their daddies. Secure men understand women and insecure men try to control them. (Don’t waste any religious arguments on me, anyone, because I’m not a believer and won’t be converted. It’s one of those personal issues that should stay out of politics in my opinion.)
anonynousetoo is so right, so right. If men could get pregnant there would be no question about abortion being available and LEGAL. It’s still a man’s world, alas!
Dolph,
Thank you. We are reasonable when it comes to this subject. It is a very personal choice. Abortion must remain legal to avoid back alley abortions. I think both men and women need to be responsible when it comes to birth control. However, it usually falls on the WOMAN to take birth control. Men don’t want to be snipped for the most part. So, for men that want leave that burden(birth control) soley on the woman they should not have a say in what women do with their bodies. They should’ve just kept IT in their pants if they didn’t want a woman pregnant. I would like to know how many REAL MEN out their have had the balls to get snipped. I did the responsible thing and had my tubes tied. One child is enough for me. I would hate to think of having a baby at almost 40. I hate these women that think they should start spitting babies out when they are ready to hit the “change of life”. They usuall have to go to fertility clinics, and have a doctor play God for them so they can have a baby, and yes a good majority of insurance will cover this expense. Disgusting in my book.
Hey has that Billyboy contacted you yet?
dolph said on 8 Nov 2007 at 10:06 am:
John Light said on 8 Nov 2007 at 9:29 am:
…Totally unacceptable, sexist, patriarchal rhetoric. The flip side of that kind of crap is keep it in your pants, bucko, and you won’t have a thing to worry about.
NOT totally unacceptable. I could easily say that maybe if you or women like you would keep your legs closed there would be less disease and unwanted children in this world, but I won’t. You feminists say you want to have control over your own bodies, then “Just Say No”. Obviously by your attack on me, you can’t and thus want to use abortion as a form of birth control, which is abhorrent.
And, to answer Lafayette’s question , yes, I have been snipped and did so during the marriage after discussion with the wife.
This is what I call the REAL “Walking Tall”
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1288108
John Light,
Whooo…how misogynist of you!
FYI, I have never had a kiddo or an STD.
BBL, I have a lunch date with one of my moderate Republican friends.
anonymoustoo said on 8 Nov 2007 at 9:54 am: …
You seem to have a love affair with abortion, I personally would like to see it end, but understand that in this world that we live in, it won’t. As long as there are rapes, incest, and other attacks on the woman I believe that abortion should remain legal, but controlled. I am 100% against having it as a form of birth control. Heck, even all three parties in Roe v Wade are now in 100% to limit abortion (Jane Roe found Christ later in life and changed her stance as up to that time she had received 7 or more abortions because she was using it as birth control and the child, who was born, obviously was against birth control).
That being said, I also believe in men getting snipped, as I stated above, I did it, though I believe that most men that refuse to get one are afraid it will make them less of a man (it won’t) or that it will hurt (it doesn’t).
I just cannot support you when you say that you refuse to say no but you want to have your abortion. It cheapens you (whether you want to admit it or not) and makes light of something that SHOULD be taken VERY seriously.
anonymoustoo - no, it’s a RESPECT for women, something which you obviously don’t have for either women in general or yourself.
Enjoy your lunch and try not to get an STD while you are at it, since you are obviously so casual about something so very serious.
Lafayette,
Shake it like you MEAN it. LOL. Tell it like it is. One REAL man in my house. 30 years ago when it wasn’t the IN thing to do. I took care of the dogs and cats too. grin.
You actually addressed my next response which was for males. Don’t like abortion, get a vasectomy. Having said that, cutesy remarks and sound bites really don’t inform people of some of the dangerous legislation out there in political land.
Legislation such as HB 2797 which attempted to define life as beginning at fertilization would effectively ban most forms of contraception except barrier methods and surgical sterilization methods like tubal ligation and vasectomy. Many local legislators voted for this bill. As a result, I did not vote for them. I don’t know if they are arrogant enough to think they can make these decisions for Virginians or if they were just ignorant of the implications of such legislation.
redawn - I saw that yesterday - how would you like to have HIM pull you over on a traffic stop - lol.
Back in the 90s I saw a VA State Trooper who was looking in the trunk of a car. This guy was so tall that he was looking DOWN at the license plate when the trunk was all the way up. The person he had pulled over was up to his chest.
John Light,
Thank you, it’s nice to see you are a REAL MAN! I don’t think Dolph and I think abortion is a means for birth control. There are way too many forms of birth control out there for an unwanted pregnancy to happen. Not to mention some of them stop a period all together, and that’s a bonus.
I was dating when I had my tubes tied, and took a fair amount of heat for doing so by my Catholic boyfriend at the time. I didn’t think this was any of his business. I was 35 at the time, and at age 35, pregnancy is high risk.
Anonymoustoo,
Good for you. I’ve only been pregnant once and have a child as a result. No STD’s here either!
Lafayette: I would hope not as a means of birth control. Now, when it comes to teenagers…as a parent my children know that they can come to me in times of distress and I will NOT pass judgment. They have seen first hand how I react and respect me for the advice I give.
Now I have 3 boys and no girls. My talks with the boys have been different, of course, than if I had girls. But one thing I have taught them is that they are to respect women as they wish to be respected themselves. However, if I did have a daughter, and she was to come to me crying or I caught her crying and found out that she was pregnant, I would talk it over with her and her mother, we would pray about it, and then live with our decision. I won’t say what that decision is because it has not and did not happen. But if an abortion was done, I would let her know that I still love her now as much as I did before and that IT WILL NOT keep her out of Heaven, nor will I punish her in any way. That being said, I would make sure that the boy’s parents were involved every step of the way (along with the boy) and that when the time came to have the abortion, he was big enough to get her pregnant, he will be big enough to be there by her side (in the waiting room) when it happens.
John Light,
You said, ‘NOT totally unacceptable. I could easily say that maybe if you or women like you would keep your legs closed there would be less disease and unwanted children in this world, but I won’t.’
But you did say it and Slick Willie weasel words do not cut it with me. In fact, your words reaffirm what anonymoustoo said far better than she or I could do.
Furthermore, Anonymoustoo and I were having a reasonable discussion as a result of comments made by bull elephant. You jumped in with ‘anonymoustoo - maybe you should tell your mid-western friends to keep their legs closed so they WON’T be killing an unborn fetus.’ And YOU were attacked? I think not.
I will just assume that you don’t know any better. Women do consider remarks like that sexist and unacceptable. Now you know, I trust you won’t say things like that again. You will never be given the authority to make deeply personal decisions for me or mine.
Dolph, nor would I want to make “deeply personal decisions for me or mine.” becuase that would mean I care. Have a nice life where you can live with your choices, you have only yourself and your God to answer to.
Changing topic and VERY off-topic (though sometimes here on BVBL it can feel like what you are about to read, lol), has anyone here ever heard of Chess Boxing? If not, check it out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7084494.stm
Lafayette,
I agree, it wasn’t any of the boyfriend’s business. That is the whole crux of the issue. It isn’t anyone’s business but yours.
No contraception is 100% reliable. Responsible people make the effort. Yes there are irresponsible people out there. Surely no one is suggesting that we punish them by making them parents?
Women will handle their reproduction as they choose under current laws. Should current law change, women with means will always be able to make decisions that are morally appropriate for themselves. Women with limited means will be at the mercy of those who have attempted to seize the moral authority over them. I hope those same people are reaching into deep, deep pockets. So far, I have not seen any indication that this same compassionate right wing conservative mind set is going to be willing to do that.
A friend recently asked me why I still cared so much, as a mature women with grown children, obviously not still into ‘birthin’ babies.’ The answer is very simple. I have sons, a daughter, and granddaughters and a grandson. I care deeply that they are not sent back to an era where men and churches made all the personal decisions for everyone such as happened in my mother and grandmother’s day.
Dolph,
You are so right. My mom’s way past the child bearing years, and like yourself she says it must remain legal. This is a key issue with her when selecting the candidates she votes for. She like you has grandchildren, and doesn’t want them sent back to the “dark ages” on abortion.
John Light,
We agree on so many things here on bvbl. However, on this one a guess we must respectfully agree to disagree, sir. Hey, why tell Dolph to have a nice life? Does that mean you will have the IGNORE button on her comments? I sure hope not, she brings something here that some seem to be lacking an OPEN MIND.I myself am very open minded, and don’t write someone off simply because we disagree. I think Dolph and I both are being polite here believe it or not. We could debate this issue with you, but we are busy ladies. Although I think we could shed some LIGHT on the subject for you.-lol
Ms. Pannell
Ms. Pannell - it seems that Dolph has some issues with God and the church and thus has closed her mind to being reasonable. It might do her good to see what the Good Book says on this but if she is not a believer, it might help her understand why those of us who do believe in what the Good Book has to say about this believe the way we do. Sure we are all sinners, but the Bible is the standard by which we Christians (again, not knowing Dolph’s religious or not religious beliefs) strive.
Yes, you and I will agree to disagree on this but for someone who has closed her mind concerning the Right to Life and her love affair with abortion, (love affair meaning NO compromise, for example, I may FULLY support the 2nd Amendment I REFUSE to back the NRA on ALL their positions) I will not debate on here with her anymore about it.
And by the way, I, too, am a busy man, which is why you don’t see too many back-to-back posts from me
John Light,
You have confused Dolph with me. I’m the non-believer.
There’s a reason most people don’t discuss religion and politics in general society. We all have different ideas of what is moral or appropriate and these differences are personal. We’re not easily won over on these differences. They stem from our upbringing, different religious backgrounds, our education, our experiences, and our hardwiring. Your opinions are no more valid or appropriate than mine and vice versa.
That’s the reason socially conservative Republicans need to butt out of others’ personal affairs. The intrusion is viewed as unwarranted. In my mother’s words, “Mind your own business.” And I’ll mind mine.
If you want to debate a general, nonpersonal issue such as transportation, education, even illegal immigration, I don’t think most people have problems with that even though they may disagree with your view.
“Anonymous said on 7 Nov 2007 at 4:57 pm:
“And on your way back, go by the Coverstone 7-11 and look at the illegals hanging out there or the homeless ones living in the woods by Rosemary Dr. Oh yeahm there wont be any at the Sr. Citizen Center. Beaver Cleaver and Dudley Do-Right sold you guys a bill goods that will do nothing. ”
I hope the homless living in the woods by Rosemary Dr
are not turning it into a place like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1plBae1Qoy8&feature=PlayList&p=76628A2C165B2880&index=13
and/ or this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RoHR1zveagI
anonymoustoo - I see you are back from lunch - welcome back - lol
Big Government of the right is not more desirable than Big Government of the left. Remenber that the Berrigan Brothers and their partners brought us “Christian Activism” and then the Lost Peanut Farmer got elected based on his Evangelical positions. People have a right to be wrong - but I have no responsibility to pay for the consequences of their choices thru my taxes. The American people are - and have been historically - socially liberatarian….conservatives build the argument on fiscal and economic arguments.
I’ve got two points to make regarding the above exchanges involving John Light, anonymoustoo, and Dolph.
First, you might have guessed that I’m pro-life, and would like to achieve an ideal world where abortion is against the law. I know my reasons for this are unlikely to persuade anyone to change their position, but I feel compelled to at least defend my own position against certain of the sentiments advanced above. I realize that many pro-lifers are motivated by an abundance of religious zeal, and still others can be downright misogynist in their positions, both of which tend to be unappealing and offensive to large portions of our fellow citizens. It is said that Republicans are hypocrites when they argue for limited government and greater individual autonomy on the one hand, while at the same time calling for intrusion into “the bedrooms” of private citizens on the question of abortion. I think this is a false dichotomy. I maintain that there is a large plurality of pro-lifers that have arrived at their position after thoughtful consideration, and base their views–like I do–on an understanding that one of the fundamental purposes of government is to protect the lives of its subjects against the violence of others. If one believes that womb-based life is just as valuable as any other (or at least that we cannot be certain it is not), I have difficulty understanding any other position. However, I do realize opinions on the latter question differ, and I respect reasoned arguments on the other side. I hope that people who disagree with my position can be persuaded to respect mine, without imputing unsavory motives on my part (e.g., that I am a theocrat, chauvinist, etc.).
Second, anonymoustoo responded to my earlier comment/essay by saying that she and others like her are not comfortable with some “right-wing male ideologue” telling her what to do, and that rigidly ideological social conservatives make unattractive candidates for her. I totally agree that conservative positions aren’t going to appeal to everyone, and even more so that stridency and extreme rhetoric are often pff-putting. However, when one responds to my earlier argument that conservative positions–when confidently and consistently articulated–win elections, one should be careful not to confuse that point with a point that I DID NOT make (namely, that truly conservative positions will attract ALL votes). I am only saying that an identifiable set of core principles (the kind that can predict how a person would vote on most kinds of legislation) tends to make voters want to follow the leader that consistently and confidently espouses them. But, regardless of whether a person agrees 100% with everything a particular candidate says, the candidate that believes in something identifiable will always punch above his weight, relative to the candidate who (a) defines him/herself in opposition to conservative positions; (b) takes positions based on the direction of the latest flit of public opinion; or (c) directs his/her policy choices on the basis of which has the greatest political opportunity to satisfy the appetites of various constituencies or interest groups.
I could go on, but I’ve got a job (and you all probably have better things to do than read essays from me). I just wanted to point out (in partial response to the “rigid ideologue” language) that there are a lot of respectable but nonetheless widely divergent interpretations of conservative core principles, and conservative positions actually can and do have a fair amount of diversity (hence, Rudy Giuliani being the GOP frontrunner). There’s even a fairly philosphically consistent conservative case to be made for state-sanctioned gay marriage, regardless of the fact that most conservatives would reject it. Whatever the identifiably conservative position, though, it is distinguished from modern liberalism in that the position springs from what its adherents would like to think of as immutable, time-honored truths. Liberalism (short of outright left-lunacy) is, at best, merely a technocratic pragmatism rooted in nothing more than the subjective, relativist viewpoint of each of its perpetrators.
There…I’m done throwing gasoline onto the fire.
Mr. Light,
Does that mean you have been muzzled since you are not going to debate me on my love affair with abortion?
Actually, you have no idea how I personally feel about abortion or about God and it is presumptuous for you to think you do. I have not discussed my religious beliefs here. They are deeply personal and not for public purview. I also have not said how I personally feel about abortion. I have spoken only from a political framework.
I am long past the stage of debating abortion. Women have them for a myriad of reasons and they will continue to have them whether you or I like it, approve of it or not. They have had them throughout history, although not with the same degree of safety as one finds today.
My position stated here is simply political. I do not give the state the right to make deeply personal decisions for me or those I care about and who are descended from me.
Uncivil discourse never solves anything.
Here is the news story about the youtube postings at 3:02
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZcMkvylnLM
redawn
Thanks. I loved the words “undocumented worker” and “illegal immigrant”.-lol. When will the media starting calling them what the are ILLEGALS ALIENS?!?
FYI-The place you speak on Rosemary Dr. has been checked out recently, and the same goes for the woods behind the WestGate Giant. About three weeks ago, a friend of mine that’s a senior citizen called me. She told me that Neighborhood Services and the PWCPD were checking that place out, and was very pleased to see this happening. She’s a real fighter when comes to illegal immigration. When they left Rosemary Dr, they then went to the woods behind Giant. I applaud her efforts of watching this efforts by the county. She is the person that made the call to Neighborhood Services, Stirrup’s office, and from there the ball was rolling. I think it’s pretty telling that our PCE(Property Code Enforcement) inspectors need to take the police with them. Remember, someone was MURDERED behind Giant about year ago. We have these “shanty towns” right here in OUR HOMETOWN. Citizens need to contact the county when such things are seen.
I will go on a hunch ( more so, the smell of campfire smoke in the air)
that I have smelled in my early route to work,over by the 7-11 by Yorkshire Ele. heading toward Fairfax. That something similar maybe going on. There is that stream ( BullRun) and also under the bridge on Rt.28…..of course you see people fishing there…yucko! Next to the OLD
water treatment plant that townhouses have been erected on.
and yes, I remeber the murder behind the Giant but Novec…..
*BY NOVEC ( the dumpster)
Lafayette
I did see Mr. Colgan knocking doors near King George and Strasburg. I believe he will work on the illegal issue. He will not beat his chest and scream like others. He will simply do it.
I agree that he should Thank Westgate. My point is he has and continues to you. Patty seems to believe his family forgot where they came from and nevers nears Westgate, that is simply not true.
Remember some of Colgan’s Grandkids are attending the same school as the kids as ours in Sudley.
Strasburg St.,
I was also one that had actually thought Chuck forgot about us. He has always had a good reputation. It was easy to feel that way, as we Americans across the nation are feeling this way.
I last minute, chose to vote for Chuck. I think that so much attention has been made and it has not gone unnoticed and MORE SO will not go unnoticed. The attention has been watched ( he has been alerted) and will not leave his term ( after all these years) on a bad note.
I believe he will come through…and Chuck, we are watching…
Timmy? Howdy
REMEMBER YOUR CLASSMATES…your friends that are still here!
Redawn,
Glad you had change of heart and voted with your head.
lafayette and Redawn,
There is a homeless campsite …aka…mini shantytown…over near the city water company…back in the woods…down the street from where that girl was killed this summer.
Dolph,
So more or less behind Kidercare and Parkside?
redawn,
Exactly right! This is UNACCEPTABLE!!
dolph said on 8 Nov 2007 at 5:16 pm:
“Mr. Light, Does that mean you have been muzzled since you are not going to debate me on my love affair with abortion?”
No, it means that I am not going to engage in a debate with you on here any more about abortion or God. I let it go…can you?
John Light
yes, truce.