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

51st House District: A Look Ahead

By Greg L | 12 November 2007 | 51st HOD District | 63 Comments

The aftermath of the election in the 51st District is prompting some interesting commentary that suggests that in 2009 there’s going to be quite a bit of jockeying for position for the opportunity to challenge Delegate-elect Paul Nichols for the 51st House District.  Already, the kool-aid addicts that think that Faisal Gill is a good candidate for office have begun to rally around their humiliated champion, suggesting that as usual, Faisal Gill will dispense with the sound advice he has been quietly receiving to back off from his political aspirations, and is determined to take another shot at this seat at the next opportunity.  The fantasy here that some have grasped for is utterly magnificent.

First, let’s take a good look at this district.

The 51st District has been constructed amidst what would otherwise be considered somewhat challenging territory for Republicans in order to establish a defensible district for Michele McQuigg, who until recently was the long-serving Delegate in this district.  It’s got some strong precincts for Republicans such as Lake Ridge, which can easily offset lower turnout and more Democrat-leaning precincts such as Mohican, and although it’s not quite as secure a district for Republicans as it once was when last re-drawn.  It’s really pretty good “turf” for Republicans.

It also overlaps the political power base for the popular Republicans Chairman Corey Stewart, and Supervisor Mike May.  Someone running as a Republican in this District can pretty much count on 40% or more of the vote just for having an “R” next to their name and the capacity to draw breath. McQuigg beat Porta here in 2005 by 54%-46% in what was a match-up between two quality candidates running competent campaigns.  I threw a bone here to Gill, referring to this district as a potentially problematic district for Republicans, and he’s not interested in it, so it’s time to label this district as what it really is — somewhere that only pathetic Republican campaigns can lose.  And every effort to do that was made here.

In what has become typical fashion, the current PWCRC leadership rigged a convention to ensure that Gill won.  It was the most bizarre convention many have ever seen, complete with a mass of Pakistani men arranged in a circle at the end jumping up and down and chanting in Urdu, after shouting an off-key “Happy Birthday” tribute to Faisal Gill.  Gill did an excellent job of packing the convention with his Pakistani supporters, managing what happened at the convention, and getting PWCRC Chairman Tom Kopko to try to slap down RPV advice about throwing out over-voted precincts in favor of simply certifying the election committee report without a floor vote (which would probably have certified them anyways) that enshrined irregularities as official results.

Faisal Gill’s fundraising also was an almost entirely Pakistani affair.  Now there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with being a candidate promoted by a specific immigrant community, but it’s darned irregular, and raises legitimate questions of exactly whose interests a candidate intends to advance.  If a campaign generally can’t raise money outside of a group of its own ethnic heritage, it doesn’t lend much credibility to a broader appeal.  Gill’s record in previous leadership positions is pretty abysmal, and his relationships with radical islamists such as his previous employer Abdurahman Alamoudi and current law partner Asim Ghafoor raises troubling questions of how someone could have repeated close associations with disturbing individuals and still be worthy of a position of public trust.  The baggage here is overwhelming.

On the plus side, when you listen to Gill as a candidate, it’s pretty easy to come away impressed.  Gill definitely has honed his ability as a public speaker, and has a strong grasp on how to expertly present public policy issues.  He comes across as a smart, well-spoken man who knows what he’s talking about, comes across as frank in his statements, and doesn’t seem to change his story in order to pander to a specific audience.  He has every qualification as a political consultant and has dramatically improved since his stint with the Steve Chapman campaign.  Regardless of what one may think about Faisal Gill, his demonstrated personal abilities deserve a lot of respect, and he has demonstrated considerable courage throughout his campaign.  It hasn’t been easy for him, and he has had to fight all the way, doing so in a way that is pretty admirable.  It’s not bad at all for a foundation for a future for Gill.

In this race however, Faisal Gill ran against an absolute neophyte.  Paul Nichols is a good man with many positive qualities, but a political animal he certainly is not.  His grasp on Virginia legislative issues is weak, he had little, if any, experience in political campaigns, and is hardly the strong candidate that Earnie Porta was in 2005.  He was not much more than a well-financed and non-controversial name with a “D” attached to it, and his campaign was significantly directed by the same out-of-touch DPVA that trashed every other House of Delegates campaign in Prince William County.  Every other House candidate in the county got utterly thumped.  But Nichols ended up being the sole bright spot in a county where every other Democrat House candidate crashed and burned, despite being the most inexperienced Democrat candidate in the county.  With all of this and local Democrats in some disarray, Nichols had the deck stacked against him.

Nichols won not because he was Paul Nichols, but because he wasn’t Faisal Gill.  Now he gets a chance to build a voting record, and if he’s relatively non-controversial in his voting record, he’s only going to come back in 2009 a lot stronger.  He’ll have plussed-up his understanding of Virginia’s legislative issues, gained experience as a politician, and gotten two years of mentoring on how to run campaigns.  It’s likely that all his current deficiencies as a candidate will be resolved by the time he faces election again, and unless he makes some major mis-steps that isolate him from the electorate next time around, his incumbency and experience are going to make his bid for re-election a lot stronger than his bid to initially gain this seat.  Novices without demonstrated experience as an elected official need not apply in 2009 for an attempt to knock off Nichols in the 51st District, which is what Gill will ultimately be.

However we have a flurry of postings by Faisal Gill acolytes trying to knock down BVBL’s previous commentary on Gill, which was pretty much suspended after the 51st District Convention that nominated him.  If this isn’t an attempt to rebuild the political future of Faisal Gill for a shot at the 2009 elections, it’s hard to see what else it could be.  If Faisal was going to take some time off and work on building some actual credentials, this wouldn’t at all be necessary.  You take your lumps, let things die down, and start constructively working to build a resume.  Given how closely some of these local pundits are with Gill, this is really looking like a directed attempt to quickly rescue his political career after a humiliating defeat, instead.   My suspicion is that Faisal Gill is already getting his campaign for 2009 in place, and this is the first salvo.

It’s utter insanity.

Mike May and Julie Lucas will actually be potential credible candidates in 2009.  Faisal Gill won’t.  They, unlike Gill, have actual positive experience as elected officials, don’t have loads of baggage, and have demonstrated that they can win in a General Election in the 51st.  Wasting time now burnishing Faisal Gill’s meager credentials is probably nothing more than an attempt to freeze Lucas and May in place during the next two years and set the stage for another, even more apocryphal shot by Faisal Gill against Paul Nichols, which will probably not yield any better results in 2009 than it did for Jeanette Rishell in her re-match against Jackson Miller in the 50th District.  It’s time to start building up better candidates, if the interest here is re-taking the 51st rather than rescuing someone’s defunct political career, and promoting Mike May and Julie Lucas are much more productive endeavors.



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.

63 Comments

  1. park'd said on 12 Nov 2007 at 7:50 am:
    Flag comment

    Until Kopko is removed, forcefully if necessary, you can expect Gill to keep coming back over and over again. Kopko should do the honorable thing and step down. He is a disgrace to his party and carries the weight for the results of this election on his own shoulders. Hopefully you people who are members of the PWCRC have told him that.

  2. Anonymous said on 12 Nov 2007 at 8:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Kopko will not be the Chair. In making the change, the focus should not be on where we have been. That’s almost too sad to contemplate. The focus should and must be on where we need to go.

    The bitter among the readers here will want to make that leadership change a referendum on Kopko. This will be wasted energy. Yet I suspect the bitter will have their say and fulminate before they regain composure long enough to move forward on a positive note. The focus must be on the future. That’s where I will put it. So will most who understand that the best way to deal with tragedy is to learn from mistakes, not dwell on them.

  3. freedom said on 12 Nov 2007 at 9:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Couldn’t agree more, Anonymous 8:57

    …but it’s an uphill battle when tragedy is not recognized for what it is, mistakes are not accepted as mistakes, and as a result there is no learning.

    Now is the time to fix the problems, otherwise, the same mistakes will be repeated.

  4. park'd said on 12 Nov 2007 at 9:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Freedom: that’s exactly what I was going to say. Until you weed out the cancer you can never move forward because the same things will keep happening. It’s naive to think you can move forward without acknowledging what the problems were and actively attempt to fix them.

  5. Loudoun Insider said on 12 Nov 2007 at 9:46 am:
    Flag comment

    We in Loudoun County have our own horrendous “leadership” to deal with. I wish the non-kool aid drinkers in PWC luck in your endeavors. That convention was an abomination. We had convention troubles in Loudoun prior to the convention, but the convention itself was fairly run (although way way too long).

    Gill was a horrendous candidate who should be stricken from the bench. I’m glad Greg is back on the warpath against Gill and his horrible record. He must be put away for good. I’m sure there’s more to be dredged up about this guy. If they want to keep pushing him, we simply need to make the case even stronger about why he isn’t acceptable.

  6. Anonymous said on 12 Nov 2007 at 9:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Whoever the next chairman is needs to look at the job strictly from a technical point of view. How do we elect Republican candidates to office? Period.

    We need to build a political machine that has a solid grassroots component, updated lists of volunteers, updated voter lists of likely Republican voters, and candidate recruitment that looks at candidates blindly so as to find the best Republican candidate for the particular seat being sought. I don’t care if the chairman is personally to the right of Atilla the Hun or to the left of John Warner so long as the chairman does not let that interfere with the technical aspects of the job.

  7. dolph said on 12 Nov 2007 at 10:36 am:
    Flag comment

    9-11, 9-11, 9-11

    I am not a Republican but I might have to live with a Republican elected official so I feel it is my business what goes on in a convention. The chanting Pakistani men would have done it for me. That doesn’t sound real mainstream to me if your cheerleaders have to come from a group like that.

    Too much has been said about sleeper cells for me to even consider a candidate who came in with that kind of following. I think too much has been said from the PC police already. Attempts to guilt people into overlooking suspicious things has gone on too long.

    If I appear prejudiced, I really don’t care. Tough. No apologies no debate.

  8. Brighter Future said on 12 Nov 2007 at 11:50 am:
    Flag comment

    yOU CAN BET the GOP will not change locally. It has been a mess for quite a few years.
    I would not be surprised tha they put Faisil up for Chair.

    To say I don’t care is putting it mildly. I am no longer a Repb. in name,I am an Independent.

    If it is a good candidate for 51st. I will vote for them. Otherewise forget it. T
    There were at least 200 that walked out of that last meeting and I am sure none of them will return.

    So the Repb. Party can fold,roll over and die.As they can not raise money but then maybe Faisal can get his supportes to dish out money.

    Until we have a strong medium,middle of the road person who can change this Party. It is hopeless.

  9. Clean it up in '07 said on 12 Nov 2007 at 1:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Brighter Future –

    I understand your frustration, but if everyone walked away from it in disgust instead of regrouping and fghting to make the GOP what it should be, then the power-hungry crazies have won.

    Please do not confuse the problem with Faisal Gill’s so-called “conservatism” and being unelectable. It had NOTHING to do with being coservative. JUlie Lucas would have won and she was every bit of a conservative that Gill was, although she had a clearer more articulate vision of how things can be accomplished. In the 51st race this year, the problem with the message was the MESSENGER who had some serious flaws that he was never able to logically explain away. He hid behind his group of “nobody is PURE enough to be in our club” cronies who actually resorted to calling people RACIST if they didn’t dutifully and blindly drink the kool-aid and support Gill without any reservation.

    We are not going to win by being less conservative. It is not the need for middle of the road candidaies (what is that anyway)? It is the need for good, strong candidates who have built credible reputations in community service or in business and who have not done questionable things in their past so as to BECOME the issue and not be able to articulate and fight for our issues because they spend the entire campaign on the defense of the defenseless.

    We saw the power of ideas and solutions to problems with the rise of the immigration issue in Prince William. Our voters are still hungry for good problem-solving conservative candidates who have the respect and credibility to fight for the betterment of the citizens. I just don’t want people to think that running “please both sides” moderates will win us elections. They won’t. Solid reputable leaders like Jackson Miller and other up and coming conservative leaders WILL win.

  10. anon said on 12 Nov 2007 at 1:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    No matter how much you polish a turd…it’s still a turd. If Gill couldn’t win and open seat, he won’t win against an incumbent.

  11. freedom said on 12 Nov 2007 at 3:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Clean it up in 07″

    You’re absolutely right!! I don’t think there was much dissent at all within the Republican ranks with Faisal Gill’s stated views on the pertinent issues of the day, and he didn’t lose the election based upon that.

    The problem was with his background…and it’s not going to go away, nor will it be forgotten!!! They can continue calling me a racist, bigot, and “guilt by association” xenophobe (or whatever that word is) but I don’t care. I will never support a candidate with a record even similar to that of Faisal Gill. I love this country.

  12. Anonymous said on 12 Nov 2007 at 3:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe it’s just me but I’m not too keen on having any more Muslims then we already have elected to any office regardless of which party they may be from.

  13. whoa said on 12 Nov 2007 at 3:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does anyone have video of the chanting pakistani men? I’m just curious. What were they chanting?

  14. Batson D. Belfrey said on 12 Nov 2007 at 4:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have to agree with Anon 1:57’s assessment, althogh I wouldn’t have put it in such scatelogical terms. Gill was a poor candidate, because of his baggage. Whether or not the baggage is true is not important. As we can see in other races, the Democrats were not beyond “making crap up”, so if there was something even remotely true, as was the case with Gill, they had something to hit him with.

    Gill lost. Citizen Tom, James Young, and all the other bloggers who had a man-crush on him need to get past this. I suspect they won’t.

    And for those who call for Greg’s ejection from the party; you might want to rethink this. If Greg decided to challenge Kopko for the chair, he could beat him, easily. Greg has already demonstrated that he can build an organization. HSM has 2000 mombers, easily half of them PWC residents. You don’t think he could pack a convention? Beyond that, Greg was supportive of the nominee, once he was the official nominee. To me and everyone else, that was when the appeal was settled, and not before. ALso, for every one of you who shouted that Gill was the nominee after the convention, there were just as many REPUBLICANS disputing this, and thought Lucas had been robbed. I am in this group.

    Gill lost. Period. I hope the leadership of the GOP, post-Kopko will convince Gill that he shouldn’t try to take another bite at the apple. We’ll only get one good chance to take this seat back. We better make it count. It may be Lucas. It may be someone from the BCOS. Anybody but Gill.

  15. Unbiased Observer said on 12 Nov 2007 at 4:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    No one was chanting anything. They were just celebrating Faisal’s victory, as Lucas’ side would have as well had the results been in her favor. The celebration led into an impromptu rendition of “Happy Birthday” because it was Faisal’s birthday. That’s all.

  16. James Young said on 12 Nov 2007 at 4:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m always impressed by people who hide in anonymity discussing the concept of “honor.”

    “Amused” might be a better word. Or “disgusted.”

    And it’s absolute slapstick for those who carefully hide their own records to attack another man’s record with innuendo, half-truths, and guilt-by-association. Here’s an “association” that should have meant more to these self-described “Republicans”: Gill was appointed to a position of trust by a Republican President, and notwithstanding his critics, we never alleged to have done anything but serve honorably in a role which gave him access to some of the most sensitive intelligence collected by agencies charged with collecting it. EVEN by one author who wrote an entire chapter questioning Gill’s associations (which I saw in Borders today, published in 2005), THAT was the bottom line.

    How is it you people can continue to attack him notwithstanding such a bottom line? If you applied the same standard to pro-Lifers (perhaps you do), you would attack them based upon abortion clinic bombers and assassins of abortionists.

    As for your assessment, Greg, that the 51st is “somewhere that only pathetic Republican campaigns can lose,” that is an assessment informed only by Michele’s strong showings, not a long-term knowledge of a seat that was held by Democrat David Brickley, who would have held it for as long as he wanted, had Jim Gilmore not given him a more lucrative state job. To the contrary, Porta got 46% of the vote notwithstanding the fact that — though he is a fairly personable, likable guy — he was seriously wounded by his history regarding a sexual discrimination lawsuit.

    Like any other district, the 51st is one that the GOP candidate can win, IF the GOP unites behind the candidate. But what happened this year is that a childish contingent decided, largely for petty personal reasons (i.e, Greg, becuase Gill’s firm represents someone suing him; others, because they are frustrated at the fact that their “moderate”/Liberal views on taxes and other issues aren’t particularly welcome in the GOP; a few, simply because they are, in fact, bigots) that they wouldn’t accept the results of the GOP nominating contest.

    Perhaps there is a Republican candidate better than Gill who will present himself or herself in 2009. But dismissing him is a fool’s errand, and seems largely a function of those whose motives are dishonorable, and should have no home in the GOP.

  17. Anon. said on 12 Nov 2007 at 4:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    “No one was chanting anything.”

    That is crap. They were chanting. I heard them. What they were chanting, I don’t know. I don’t speak Urdu, but it was repetative and rythimatic, and thus Chanting.

    No worse than chanting “Si Se Puede”, but it was undeniably chanting.

  18. James Young said on 12 Nov 2007 at 5:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    And BTW, Greg, who is serving “Kool-Aid”?

    “the current PWCRC leadership rigged a convention to ensure that Gill won” Says who? You? The 11th District GOP Committee disagreed, in the fullness of time. Even Lucas was probably smart enough to realize it, and didn’t bother to appeal to the State Central Committee.

    “Gill did an excellent job of packing the convention with his Pakistani supporters, managing what happened at the convention, and getting PWCRC Chairman Tom Kopko to try to slap down RPV advice about throwing out over-voted precincts in favor of simply certifying the election committee report without a floor vote (which would probably have certified them anyways) that enshrined irregularities as official results.”

    “Packing the convention”!?!?! Yeah, that’s what the losers call it when the other side gets out a majority. And it leaves the impression that you’re treading dangerously close to bigotry by complaining about Gill’s “Pakistani supporters,” particularly since more important was the fact that they were all American citizens legitimately exercising their franchise.

    “RPV advice”? Again, says who? I’ve never seen any actual evidence that anyone at RPV actually gave such advice. Who, specifically, gave such advice, and when? Even if anyone did, it’s been demonstrated beyond question that such advice was in contravention of Robert’s Rules. You don’t disenfranchise entire precincts of voters if there is such a problem, under Robert’s Rules, you hold a new vote. Interestingly, Lucas didn’t suggest such a course, probably since to do so wouldn’t have achieved the end she sought (victory), but would have simply reconfirmed Gill’s victory. I suppose it’s easier to ignore that fact than to discuss what actually legitimately could have been done about the questionable precinct votes, but you don’t bother with the latter course. And, of course, you ignore the fact that Lucas’ “Brain Trust” didn’t pursue a legitimate course under Robert’s Rules, either.

    That’s some competent candidate you had there.

    I suppose you can say what you want about Gill’s credentials — that is, after all, largely a matter of taste — but their certainly no lesser than were Corey Stewart’s, Mike May’s, Michele McQuigg’s when they ran for Occoquan District Supervisor. Or, for that matter, Paul Nichols’, when he ran for the 51st District. Yet I didn’t see you attacking HIS lack of credentials prior to the election.

  19. Anon. said on 12 Nov 2007 at 5:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    ““Packing the convention”!?!?! Yeah, that’s what the losers call it when the other side gets out a majority.”

    Er…when you win because of a math error, that’s not a majority. When you win, because the election committee couldn’t count, that’s not a majority.

    However, Gill was the nominee. Was his nomination tainted by a convention that had undeniable errors? Yes. Even so, Gill was the nominee in the general.

    Mr. Young, it appears that Gill couldn’t get the “majority” when it really counted. So he played a good first quarter, and benefitted from some questionable calls. What matter’s is the score when regulation time expired, and he came up short.

  20. Anon. said on 12 Nov 2007 at 5:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “RPV advice”? Again, says who? I’ve never seen any actual evidence that anyone at RPV actually gave such advice.”

    Maybe because you weren’t there. The gentlemen representing RPV at the convention did reccomend that the over-voted precincts be thrown out. The chairman of the convention overrulled this.

  21. Clean it up in '07 said on 12 Nov 2007 at 5:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    James Young says –

    “But what happened this year is that a childish contingent decided, largely for petty personal reasons (i.e, Greg, becuase Gill’s firm represents someone suing him; others, because they are frustrated at the fact that their “moderate”/Liberal views on taxes and other issues aren’t particularly welcome in the GOP; a few, simply because they are, in fact, bigots) that they wouldn’t accept the results of the GOP nominating contest.”

    Here is the proof from the horse’s mouth. If you didn’t dutifully and blindly support Gill without any reservation, here is the playbook most were subjected to (and apparently we still have to listen to this garbage);

    Counterattck A: Why look into his background? That’s being petty and personal.

    Counterattack B: If you question Gill’s electibility, you’re just some “squishy moderate” who likes higher taxes. If you don’t support Gill you are a RHINO.

    If all else fails, then they went to Counterattck C: “BIGOT! RACIST! How dare you question anything about this great candidate. It’s the color of his skin or that he’s a Muslim isn’t it”?

    Do you have to continue wondering why you can’t unite a party behind your chosen candidates and do you ever wonder why thy ALWAYS lose General Elections.

  22. One Voice said on 12 Nov 2007 at 6:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Tomorrow is the first BOCS meeting after the election. Think Mr. Stewart will have a check for police and jails like he promised to fund that illegal immigration enforcement plan he approved without money?

    He also promised more career firefighters RIGHT AWAY and to make a change in county code to give career the upper hand. By tomorrow night, we should have an ordinance change and be a career firefighting county with about 350 more firefighter positions being advertised on Wednesday morning.

    He also promised policemen an enhanced retirement that will cost the county about $2 million dollars. The state approved this in July and it is up to individual counties to approve. Lots of people like to retire January 1st so he should get that done right quick to keep that promise.

    He won the election and he is a no nonsense guy, so I’ve heard. He should be right on those things tomorrow!!! It’s pay up time.

    Unless he’s busy with RPV movin’ on……

  23. Loudoun Insider said on 12 Nov 2007 at 6:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gill was a horrible candidate with tons of baggage. Everyone knows how much influence Grover Norquist has at the Bush White House, so Gill staying employed at DHS doesn’t sway me at all. James Young is once again adapting the Al Sharpton playbook and whipping out the race card. How pathetic. I’d feel exactly the same way about Gill if he were a pasty white Irish Catholic.

  24. Jonathan Mark said on 12 Nov 2007 at 6:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"we never alleged to have done anything but serve honorably in a role”"”

    We allege that Gill acted dishonorably in serving as the Director of Government Relations for the terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.

    “”"which gave him access to some of the most sensitive intelligence collected by agencies charged with collecting it.”"”

    Did Gill tell Jim Young what kind of clearance Gill had? How does Jim Young claim to know this?

    Lots of people in this town, hundred of thousands, have had clearances. It is great to have had one. But it is not a big deal.

    If you were in the military, if you worked for DoD, if you worked for a DoD contractor, then you probably had a clearance.

    Even anonymous and non-anonymous posters on BVBL have had clearances. Perhaps some still have them.

    “”"EVEN by one author who wrote an entire chapter questioning Gill’s associations (which I saw in Borders today, published in 2005), THAT was the bottom line.”"”

    Infiltration. by Paul Sperry? It is a great book. Go to Sperryfiles.com to learn more.

  25. freedom said on 12 Nov 2007 at 7:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Kinda makes one wonder who’s buttering jimmy’s bread….:) :)

  26. dolph said on 12 Nov 2007 at 7:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    There is always the ‘better save than sorry’ approach. As long as Muslims are killing Americans, I will not support one for an elected office. If that makes me prejudiced, good. Then I am prejudiced, without apology.

  27. James Young said on 12 Nov 2007 at 7:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon said “The gentlemen representing RPV at the convention did reccomend that the over-voted precincts be thrown out. The chairman of the convention overrulled this.”

    Fine. Accepting this as true, you still don’t address the point that the “advice” of this still-unidentified RPV representative was improper under Robert’s Rules. You STILL don’t address the point that the remedy sought by Lucas and her “Brain Trust” wasn’t that the rules be followed, but that a remedy be imposed which was to her advantage.

    And another Anon is right: “when you win because of a math error, that’s not a majority.” ‘Course, Gill clearly didn’t “win because of a math error.” He won the Convention because he got the most votes. As has been proven almost innumerable times, if you treated overvotes as Gill votes and threw them out, Gill won. The better course would have been conducting a complete revote. ‘Problem is, nobody suggested that course, probably because Lucas feared the results because she knew she’d been outfiled. There are only two options here regarding her strategy: either she asked for an illegal remedy because she knew she would lose, and her team could continue to attack Gill, destroy his chances for victory, and she could portray herself as a victim in a future race; or, she and her team were incompetent. There is no third option.

    Frankly, I tend to believe the latter. That she couldn’t even perfect her second appeal to the 11th CD GOP Committee suggests a high level of incompetence.

    And “Clean it up,” you would have so much more credibility if you addressed what I actually said, rather than recasting it and misrepresenting it to suit your own purposes. It was not a progression of varying justifications: I noted the combination of childish behaviors attributable to discrete individuals.

    And no, looking into Gill’s background is not “petty and personal.” Insisting that his background is suspect even after being cleared by government investigations is, however, utterly irrational. Whether it was done for “petty and personal” reasons is something that I cannot answer as to most, like you, who cower in anonymity. I strongly suspect it is, precisely because you lack the guts to allow those whom you presume to debate to know fully what underlies your aspersion, but that is, and can be, only a suspicion. One given further confirmation by the fact that you have latched onto it as though I had actually accused you of it.

    The only critic whom I accuse of being “petty and personal” is Greg, because he identifies himself. I have no way of knowing if your criticisms are “petty and personal,” “Clean it up.”

    As for “question[ing] Gill’s electability,” that’s not something Republicans do after a nominee has been decided. I strongly suspect that those who did so are those who supported Lucas for the nomination. Tough. It was over. A Republican’s duty at that point was to support the nominee. Not lend aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Finally, as whether some of those who attacked Gill as racists and/or bigots, some here (though hiding behind pseudonyms) have plainly admitted it. Others, like Psychotic Racist and Liar Jonathan Mark, have it dripping from virtually every comment.

    However, some — like “Loudmouthed Inciter” — make it clear that it is the fact that Gill is a committed Conservative as the reason why they attack him. The tip-off is, of course, his reference to Grover Norquist. All that association demonstrates is that Gill has done more to advance the Conservative cause than “Loudmouthed Inciter” can ever hope to, and probably, more than “Loudmouthed Inciter” would ever want to, since there is little evidence that he actually IS a Conservative.

    As for PRJM, he states that he “allege[s] that Gill acted dishonorably in serving as the Director of Government Relations for the terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.” Of course, Gill did so YEARS before Alamoudi was convicted, and indeed, probably even investigated, for such behavior. Once again, to believe that Gill “acted dishonorably,” one has to believe that he shared his jihadist beliefs and illegal activities with someone in his employ for a mere six months, someone who was a Navy JAG lawyer. My grandmother used to refer to some people as “talk[ing] like a man with a paper a$$hole.” I really wasn’t sure I fully understood what that meant until I started reading PRJM’s rants.

    How do I know that Gill’s position “gave him access to some of the most sensitive intelligence collected by agencies charged with collecting it,” PRJM? Because unlike you, I’ve actually checked the facts, and I’m not trying to spin them into some pre-conceived world view that all Muslims are terrorists. It’s rather easy to find out, from open source material. Put simply, I picked up Sperry’s book at Borders today. I guess your dispute with the author is that he concluded that Gill acted entirely honorably in his government service, something that you fail to mention. On the other hand, Sperry downplays it, too. I guess it doesn’t sell books to construct a vast conspiracy theory and then have to admit that someone you are attacking hasn’t done anything wrong. Either that, or his or his publisher’s lawyers demanded that he concede, albeit bury, the truth.

    You’re very confusing, PRJM. “Gill is dangerous,” but he’s just like “Lots of people in this town, hundred of thousands, [who] have had clearances”? Perhaps, but “lots of people in this town, hundreds of thousands,” have not been “Special assistant, undersecretary, information analysis and infrastructure protection directorate, Department of Homeland Security.” I know it must be difficult to keep your lies and misrepresentations straight (that’s why it’s much easier just to tell the truth), but try not to ignore the easily-ascertained facts, like that Gill served honorably and honestly in a high government post. How else do you think he came to Malkin’s and Gaffney’s attention?

  28. Greg L said on 12 Nov 2007 at 8:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Goodness. It’s not like there’s only one reason to believe Gill was unqualified. Sure, there’s the Alamoudi conviction that has been talked to death. There’s also the fact that while Gill was working for Alamoudi, Alamoudi was out in Lafayette Park with Mahdi Bray telling everyone that he was a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. Gill staged a walkout from a White House meeting after Sami Al-Arian’s son was ejected from the meeting by the Secret Service because Al-Arian was under investigation for terrorism, and has now been convicted. His law partner is all tied up in the Holy Land Foundation, which is on the State Department list of terrorist-supporting agencies, and has gone on record in support of adopting Sharia law in the U.S. How many relationships with terrorism do you have to make before you pull your fingers out of your ears and stop babbling so you can’t hear?

    But there’s more. He ran the taxpayer’s alliance into the ground, did a poor job as PWCRC Vice-Chair, sabotaged Steve Chapman’s future political aspirations with the “that blog distracted me” excuse for failing to file for a convention, broke Navy regulations by using his uniform as a campaign prop, doesn’t adhere to height and weight standards for Naval Officers, and even managed to screw up a Labor Day picnic.

    His claim to fame is his work for the Bush Administration, where he managed to provide contradictory information on finance disclosures in order to qualify for a political patronage position he wasn’t qualified for, and brew up a political scandal a couple of months before the 2004 election. His biggest contribution was to become a political liability, and quietly shirk away after a couple of months after the Administration “cleared” him of any wrong doing. Not a glowing record of service.

    The guy has little else than baggage. While Steve Chapman was inexperienced and incompetent as a candidate, Gill is just downright disturbing.

  29. Anonymous said on 12 Nov 2007 at 8:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Listen to all of you. I wrote the Anon 8:57 comment and many of you are doing exactly what will not get us on the right track, recriminations against Gill, Kopko, et al. Only “Freedom” seemed to understand.

    Grow up and move on. Our party is a mess and we need adults to fix it. Quit your bickering and dig in. The measure of your commitment to fix this mess is directly proportional to the number of precincts you will captain, the polls you will work, the money you will give, and the phone banks you will participate with.

    Stop your belly aching and get to work.

    Now before you all have a kitty fit and attack this post, try this…list practically what you world do if you were Chairman of the PWC GOP committee. Don’t devolve to smart ass answers, be specific. Maybe some adult will read it and take note.

    Greg, start a list of practical steps to better organize our efforts as a committee…list them for reference. Let’s be productive. Dig in. Lots of you have experience. Share it. Reinvest in the process.

  30. Loudoun Insider said on 12 Nov 2007 at 9:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m glad to see Greg back on the warpath! Jimmy Young, I absolutely have not made it clear that I oppose Gill because he is some kind of true-believer conservative. James Atticus Bowden is my kind of true believer conservative. Gill is a poser, and one with disturbing connections to say the least. And I’ll take Pat Buchanan as a real conservative over Grover any day.

  31. Jonathan Mark said on 12 Nov 2007 at 9:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"he states that he “allege[s] that Gill acted dishonorably in serving as the Director of Government Relations for the terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.” Of course, Gill did so YEARS before Alamoudi was convicted, and indeed, probably even investigated, for such behavior.”"”

    The Washington Post reported the following on 12/1/03, concerning events in late 2000 and early 2001, a few months before Gill started working for Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council in April 2001:

    “”"Alamoudi was furious. When he arrived at a demonstration against U.S. Middle East policies in Lafayette Square on Oct. 28, 2000, friends recalled, he angrily took the microphone.

    “Anybody’s a supporter of Hamas here?” he yelled as the crowd cheered. “Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas! . . . I am also a supporter of Hezbollah!”

    Alamoudi later insisted that he had misspoken, that he merely supported self-determination for Palestinians. But soon other elected officials, including Reps. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) and James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), began returning his contributions.

    …Ex-colleagues say Alamoudi gradually became more isolated. Yahya Basha, a Muslim council leader, recalls seeing Alamoudi try to enter a reception sponsored by the Arab American Institute in honor of President Bush’s 2001 inauguration. “He was stopped at the door, and they told him he was not invited,” Basha recalled.”"”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23876-2003Nov30?language=printer

    The Arab American Institute knew in early 2001. GILL KNEW TOO!

    “”"Once again, to believe that Gill “acted dishonorably,” one has to believe that he shared his jihadist beliefs and illegal activities with someone in his employ for a mere six months,”"”

    Alamoudi shared his beliefs with THE WHOLE WORLD on nationwide television in 2000, six months before Gill worked for Alamoudi’s AMC: “”Anybody’s a supporter of Hamas here? [The crowd cheered.] Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas! . . . I am also a supporter of Hezbollah!”

    “”"How do I know that Gill’s position “gave him access to some of the most sensitive intelligence collected by agencies charged with collecting it,” PRJM? Because unlike you, I’ve actually checked the facts,”"”

    Great. What facts? Who did you check them with? Who told you what kind of clearance Gill had? Who told you what information he had access to? I don’t object to you doing research. I would like to know what that research was, so I can file it away and use it when the time comes.

    “”"and I’m not trying to spin them into some pre-conceived world view that all Muslims are terrorists.”"”

    (1) Alamoudi was a terrorist and is serving 23 years.

    (2) Gill was the spokesperson for a terrorist-led organization.

    (3) Most Muslims are neither (1) nor (2).

    “”"It’s rather easy to find out, from open source material.”"”

    What open source material?

    It is usually DIFFICULT to find out what security clearances someone held from open source material. It is even harder to find out what materials they accessed using those clearances. You make assertions about Gill’s clearances. I would like that information so I can use it someday.

    Since you make assertions I am asking you what the basis for your assertions are. Insulting me is not an answer to my question.

    “”"Put simply, I picked up Sperry’s book at Borders today. I guess your dispute with the author is that he concluded that Gill acted entirely honorably in his government service, something that you fail to mention.”"”

    I have NO DISPUTE with Sperry whatever. As far as I recall I agree with every word the man ever wrote in his book Infiltration.

    “”"On the other hand, Sperry downplays it, too. I guess it doesn’t sell books to construct a vast conspiracy theory and then have to admit that someone you are attacking hasn’t done anything wrong.”"”

    Gill acted wrongly in working as Director of Governmental Relations for the terrorist-led American Muslim Council. I make this judgement every time we converse, and you still seem not to understand that concept. You reply that Gill acted legally, which is besides my point.

    “”"Either that, or his or his publisher’s lawyers demanded that he concede, albeit bury, the truth.”"”

    I do not assert, and never asserted, that Gill committed a crime. Telling me that Gill committed no crime is meaningless to me. Gill ran for public office, and the standards for public office are higher than never-committed-a-crime.

    “”"You’re very confusing, PRJM. “Gill is dangerous,””"”

    Gill’s candidacy was dangerous, because it says that you can represent a terrorist-led group as its Director of Governmental Relations and then, if no one complains, represent the public in the legislature.

    That is dangerous to me. Gill is not a danger in the sense that he personally is likely to bomb a town. Gill and Gallinger partner Asim Ghafoor’s [former?] client, the Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity Al-Haramain, is dangerous.

    “”"but he’s just like “Lots of people in this town, hundred of thousands, [who] have had clearances”?”"”

    Gill’s security clearance is just like everyone else’s, unless Jim Young can show otherwise. But when I ask Jim Young how he knows what he asserts, he mumbles something about public records but doesn’t answer my question.

    “”"Perhaps, but “lots of people in this town, hundreds of thousands,” have not been “Special assistant, undersecretary, information analysis and infrastructure protection directorate, Department of Homeland Security.””"”

    And from THAT you determine what classified information he had access to? And how did you make that determination? Lots and lots of people have clearances. The stuff is kept in safes. They see what they need to know.

    So if you make assertions about Gill’s access to classified information, then you ought to be able to tell me what classified information he accessed, and how you know.

    “”"I know it must be difficult to keep your lies and misrepresentations straight (that’s why it’s much easier just to tell the truth), but try not to ignore the easily-ascertained facts, like that Gill served honorably and honestly in a high government post.”"”

    Gill behaved legally while a political appointee in DHS. Jim Young can append whatever adjectives to that service that Young wishes. But my objection is to Gill’s work for the American Muslim Council, and his current work with Gill and Gallinger.

    “”"How else do you think he came to Malkin’s and Gaffney’s attention?”"”

    Michelle Malkin’s “Who is Faisal Gill” and Gaffney’s “The Faisal Gill Affair” are extremely critical of Gill.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2004/06/22/who-is-faisal-gill/

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7BA5595219-68B6-4838-9E26-B491C3F50188%7D

    Only a foolish or mentally unbalanced person would cite Malkin and Gaffney’s writings as reasons to have supported Gill in 2007.

  32. Jonathan Mark said on 12 Nov 2007 at 10:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"As for “question[ing] Gill’s electability,” that’s not something Republicans do after a nominee has been decided.”"”

    Jim seems to view the PWCRC as some sort of weird cult, in which people don’t speak the truth but join in delusional group thinking instead.

  33. Hirons said on 12 Nov 2007 at 10:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lucas for the 51st in ‘09. May should hang out in the BOCS for his full term and run for 39th Senate in ‘11

  34. freedom said on 12 Nov 2007 at 10:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous 8:51 PM

    For starters….

    If the Republican party is to do better next time, we need a Committee Chairman and and party leaders that will watch, listen, learn, and act based upon a candidate’s record, all with the objective being victory rather than a combination of political and financial pay-back. A candidate who is known to be non-electable should not be nominated.

    If the Republican party is to do better next time, the concept of a convention will be abandoned. It is unnecessarily divisive and is excessively time consuming, which limits the number of those willing to participate. Some argue that a convention is warranted because it ensures that only Republicans will select Republican nominees; reality is that a convention presents much greater opportunity for manipulation to suit individual preference or to fulfill previously made commitments.

  35. Clean it up in '07 said on 12 Nov 2007 at 10:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hirons — You are absolutely correct! Freedom…great comments.

  36. Not JY said on 12 Nov 2007 at 11:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    I guess Jimmy has been given permission to come back on the computer. I see by the times of his two missives that the first is before dinner time, the second, right after. He must have said, “Oh wait, I best swallow this chicken leg, I just thought of something!!!”

    Put down your lightsaber, Anakin, and, in your own words, “Don’t be a sore-loserman” - rofl.

    See you at the next PWCGOP meeting, Jim, I will be the one LAUGHING at you - lol Or maybe I will be the one whose back is facing you. Either way, you sold your soul and for now, there is no turning back for you. It’s time you either get with the program, or just fold your cards and get out of politics.

    Who am I? Let’s see, “I remember back in 199….” lol

  37. NoVA Scout said on 12 Nov 2007 at 11:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    It surprises me that this thread could get so far down the road without mentioning (perhaps I missed it) the more egregious failing in PW of booting away the Senate pick-up by running FitzSimmonds (how many times is this?) against Colgan. That was an easy win for the Rs if Colgan had retired, but we tanked it by running a multiply unsuccessful guy of ambition, but no particular substance, against a candidate who no doubt would have retired it there had been some prospect of a respectable replacement of either party. The FitzSimmonds candidacy had more of a negative impact on the party alignments in the GA than the Gill candidacy. So however bad the process or the selection of Gill as a candidate, the selection of FitzSimmonds was even more wrong-headed. Both elements of poor judgment land on the heads of the leadership of the PWRC. But Gill at least was unproven and represented an important and growing segment of the demographics or Northern Virginia. He served his country in uniform, an attribute that counts for something. In his door-to-door work, which was energetic, he admitted to some of my PW acquaintances that perhaps he had used poor judgment in his alliances with elements of the local party that are so out of touch with the needs of Virginia. If he could break away from the millstone element of the local Party Committee, I wouldn’t rule out the idea that he might have a future. Surely FitzSimmonds has lost enough now that we don’t need to try that again.

  38. NoVA Scout said on 12 Nov 2007 at 11:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    PS: Dolph, there are Christians who are killing Americans also. I hope you would not withhold your vote from candidates of a particular religious background because some of its adherents are dangerously looney. That would leave you with virtually no choices at the polls.

  39. Jonathan Mark said on 12 Nov 2007 at 11:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"So however bad the process or the selection of Gill as a candidate, the selection of FitzSimmonds was even more wrong-headed.”"”

    Don’t forget that Fitzsimmons supported Gill prior to the HOD-51 primary and attended Gill’s 3/31/07 campaign kickoff.

  40. dolph said on 13 Nov 2007 at 12:02 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVa Scout,

    Actually, I am pretty careful about Christians also, but for an entirely different reason.

    Gill has too much baggage from everything I have read. I don’t live in the district so it doesn’t matter anyway. However, it would be real difficult for me to vote for a Muslim with questionable connections to terrorism while we are at war.

    I really prefer religious neutrality in politics. Very often it is difficult to find a candidate. Sometimes I do feel there are virtually no choices at the polls.

  41. Anonymous said on 13 Nov 2007 at 6:56 am:
    Flag comment

    …but Novscout….although there ARE Christians killing Americans too, name one Christian religion that encourages killing and stand on “killing Americans and Jews” as a primary tenet of their religion — big, big difference there!!

  42. freedom said on 13 Nov 2007 at 6:57 am:
    Flag comment

    oops, the 6:56 post was “freedom”…:)

  43. freedom said on 13 Nov 2007 at 7:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Not JY said….in reference to jimmy Young…

    “…I will be the one LAUGHING at you…”

    …and just how in the world could jimmy be expected to discern you as an individual from the rest of those laughing?? :)

  44. freedom said on 13 Nov 2007 at 8:47 am:
    Flag comment

    jimmy Young says…

    “””As for “question[ing] Gill’s electability,” that’s not something Republicans do after a nominee has been decided.”””

    Ohhhhhhh, Republicans knowing that Gill was not electable occurred well BEFORE the 400 block voters (and a few politicos who need their support) decided to make him the nominee.

    …and by the way jimmy, there were far more racists at the convention who supported Gill than there were who opposed him. Despite your persistent and worn-out name-calling, racism is not a trait limited solely to caucasian Americans.

  45. James Young said on 13 Nov 2007 at 10:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Wow! Anonymous cowards talking about “leadership” is nearly as entertaining as anonymous self-described Republicans who have broken their word talking about “honor.”

    The only commenters who can be taken seriously are Greg — who is at least man enough to have gotten sued for his alleged smears — and Hirons. Well, OK, there’s PRJM, who’s a Democrat who describes keeping one’s word as a “weird cult” (BTW, PRJM, on the “access to intelligence,” I was quoting Sperry’s book, which you endorsed when it suited you, and now attack when it doesn’t; could you make up your OWN mind before trying to persuade others).

    Scott, aside from the fact that she was reelected against two laughably-weak candidates, what makes Julie qualified to be a Delegate, or to run against a by-2009 incumbent who will take her apart in debates? Especially over Mike May?

    And “NoVA Scout’s” attack on running a candidate who’s lost on multiple occasions is just weird. I can think of at least one other guy who was a three-time loser, yet was nominated for a fourth time.

    His name is Frank Wolf.

  46. James Young said on 13 Nov 2007 at 10:09 am:
    Flag comment

    “Pat Buchanan as a real conservative,” says “Loudmouthed Inciter.”

    There was a time when Pat Buchanan performed yeoman’s service for the Conservative cause. And while I don’t agree that he is anti-Semitic, as National Review suggested a few years back, he is clearly a nativist, and a protectionist, two views outside of the mainstream of BOTH the GOP and the Democrat Party.

  47. Anonymous said on 13 Nov 2007 at 10:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Hey Dolph,

    At one point in my life, a whole bunch of Buddhists were doing their best to kill me and my buddies (and were quite successful). Why not add that religion to your list?

    Better yet, go bake some cookies.

  48. Anonymous said on 13 Nov 2007 at 11:46 am:
    Flag comment

    James Young will know soon enough who all the anon posters are on this blog, they’ll be all the folks storming the PWCGOP with 25 or so of their best friends to dump Kopko.

    That is the remedy to all the problems outlined here. James Young is just desperate for names now so they can start their blacklist that will once again block participation through one of their stack credentils committees.

    The wave is coming boy.

  49. Loudoun Insider said on 13 Nov 2007 at 2:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe all those wishing to join the committee can band together and hire Kopko for some consulting work! You would then be assured of getting your way.

  50. Batson D. Belfrey said on 13 Nov 2007 at 2:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    “There was a time when Pat Buchanan performed yeoman’s service for the Conservative cause.”

    Whens the last time James Young did this?

  51. Clean it up in '07 said on 13 Nov 2007 at 3:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    You know what really bothers me? Reading James Young’s posts…he really has no idea that he and his bunch have done anything wrong….that everyone is stupid except him AND if they run Gill and Fitzsimmonds again (Fitz for the 4th time! — haha…just like Wolf he says) then they think they will finally prevail over us stupid non-believers. It must be wild to live in a world like his.

  52. Batson D. Belfrey said on 13 Nov 2007 at 4:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    “that everyone is stupid except him AND if they run Gill and Fitzsimmonds again (Fitz for the 4th time! — haha…just like Wolf he says) then they think they will finally prevail over us stupid non-believers. It must be wild to live in a world like his.”

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Young and his ilk are no better than Rishell, Rommellt and Feder.

  53. CONVA said on 13 Nov 2007 at 6:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does anyone know what JY has done in the past 6 or 8 years besides running his mouth?

  54. dolph said on 13 Nov 2007 at 7:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous,

    Afraid you have missed the point totally. I am very careful when voting that the person I am casting a vote for does not have a hidden, or not so hidden agenda other than what is stated. Surely you can understand that. I prefer religious neutrality in government.

    Furthermore, I don’t bake.

  55. freedom said on 13 Nov 2007 at 8:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey, jimmy Young, why don’t you go help Charles at “Too Conservative,” he needs it!!

    I stopped in there today, just to take a look at what he was pushing. Well of his 17 posts on the front page, there was one comment each on three of them. That’s the kind of interest your and his brand of conservatism brings. Sigh….

  56. AWCheney said on 13 Nov 2007 at 8:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    “And “NoVA Scout’s” attack on running a candidate who’s lost on multiple occasions is just weird. I can think of at least one other guy who was a three-time loser, yet was nominated for a fourth time.

    His name is Frank Wolf.”

    We must all forgive Jimmy his lack of adequate research. He was FAR too young (no pun intended), and not in the area, to realize that the 10th Congressional District was dominated by Arlington County in those days, along with some very liberal areas in Fairfax County. Arlington County was no less liberal then (relative to the rest of the state, at least) than it is now. Comparing Frank Wolf’s efforts at a time when Republicans were hardly the dominant political party to those of FitzSimmonds is really a ridiculous comparison. We didn’t start doing too well here in Prince William County either until around the time that Frank got elected, and that was largely thanks to Harry Parrish.

    It really DOES help to have been there…so please forgive Jimmy his ignorance.

  57. NoVA Scout said on 13 Nov 2007 at 10:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    James: I think you (not for the first time) missed the point. My thesis is that, however blameworthy the hierarchy of the tiny, inward-looking group that has become the PWRC on the Gill issue, their isolation and detachment from the Republican Party’s obligation to the citizens to provide competent governance is far more apparent in their lack of discouragement to FitzSimmonds, a candidate who had no chance of success and whose record of defeats should have provided even the least perspicacious among them with the inkling that this was going to be a toss-away race. By failing to discourage such a fellow, they ensured that a race that was critical to maintaining Republican control of the Senate became a gift to the Democrats. In a year when it was largely appreciated that control of the state Senate was very much at risk, real Republicans would have done everything they could to have found a candidate who could have succeeded. This race, coupled with the suicidal behavior of the local Republicans in Tidewater who sidelined an electable Republican in favor of Tricia Stall, handed the state Senate to the Democrats. It is impossible to overstate how damaging the lack of quality control of these two Republican groups had on this year’s Senate results.

    As I have said previously, I doubt Colgan would have even run if a serious Republican had declared. But Colgan is a substantive and honorable man who would not cede his seat willingly to a caricature of everything that is wrong about certain pockets of commandeered Republicanism in the Commonwealth (the comparison with Harry Parrish is apt). It was the local committee’s job to find a credible candidate and to bring him forward. They didn’t even try, as far as I can discern. No excuses, please. It’s absolute malfeasance.

    Frank Wolf’s history has nothing to do with this.

  58. Jonathan Mark said on 13 Nov 2007 at 10:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"on the “access to intelligence,” I was quoting Sperry’s book,”"”

    Am I supposed to be psychic? You made a statement about Gill’s access to intelligence.

    I asked you where your information came from, and you insulted me but didn’t tell me where. Now you tell me, as if I knew all along.

    “”"which you endorsed when it suited you, and now attack when it doesn’t;”"”

    I haven’t attacked Sperry’s book. I haven’t even disagreed with it. I love his book, entitled Infiltration. To find out more about it visit sperryfiles.com.

  59. freedom said on 15 Nov 2007 at 4:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey, jimmy…..

    How about Nada Nadim Prouty, the 37-year-old Lebanese native who is related to a suspected Hizbullah money launderer…”

    Looks like she and Faisal were both kinda like “exonerated,” huh??

    Ya kinda beginning to get the picture??

  60. James Young said on 17 Nov 2007 at 7:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, many would say I do it every working day of my life, “Batson,” in my professional capacity as a Staff Attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Here’s just a partial list of historical activities: founding a chapter of the Federalist Society at my law school, and remaining active in the Lawyers’ Division to date (and by that, I mean TODAY); YR Chairman of the nation’s best YR club; writing the Pot. News’ most influential political column for seven years.

    Now, I suppose some wisea$$ will accuse me of “bragging.” Tell me: how does that make you different from the Liberals who attack no matter what one does, especially when one dares to defend himself?

    When did you EVER provably “perform yeoman’s service for the Conservative cause,” “Batson”? And when did you ever do anything but run YOUR mouth, CON Artist … er, “CONVA”?

    Oh, that’s right. You both hide your identities so your meager credentials can’t be compared to mine, and/or because you fear association with your comments. But to answer your question about the last 6-8 years, Con Artist … er, “CONVA,” to give just one example, I was in Ohio in 2004 (you know, Ground Zero of the prospective controversy) as part of the GOP-Bush/Cheney legal team. Was even called back as one of the more highly-qualified litigators on Wednesday morning before Kerrey conceded. I was working a poll for four hours just a few weeks ago, in a district where a “Republican” Supervisor of whom you probably approve not only didn’t lift a finger for a GOP candidate, but actively endorsed a Democrat. What poll were you in?

    And I have “no idea that [I] and [my] bunch have done anything wrong.” Well, I know what you SAY “[I] and [my] bunch” — a characterization that I would dispute, BTW — have “done … wrong,” but unfortunately (for you) what you say “[I] and [my] bunch have done” is not “wrong.” You’re just complaining because the internal GOP outcome doesn’t suit you. And because it doesn’t suit you, you petulantly and childishly have attacked the Party’s nominees. Now, I suppose that Conservatives could have done the same thing to JMDD, or to Glen Hill (not Conservative enough for some), or even to Harry Parrish, when his campaign slimed a Conservative challenger in 2005 to maintain his hold on power, but Conservative’s didn’t. To the contrary, Conservatives got behind the Party’s nominees.

    It is a comment on your character — and that of those of your ilk, like “NoVA Scout” — that you do not extend the same courtesy. Or, if courtesy is not a concern, the same hard-headed pragmatism, in recognition of the utility of doing so. Probably yet another reason why you conceal your identity. It would be disastrous if Conservatives responded in kind to you and your candidates, wouldn’t it?

    The key is noting the criticisms rendered here are now also against Bob FitzSimmonds. Have y’all forgotten that he was UNCHALLENGED for the GOP nomination?!?!? Criticisms against him are gratuitous, and reveal the ideological nature of complaints that you unsuccessfully misrepresent as complaints about the integrity of the process. You can’t beat somebody with nobody, and those of you who now criticize him offered no alternatives. And I would remind you that I supported Dave Mabie for the GOP nomination in 2003.

    So “NoVA Scout’s” statement that “I doubt Colgan would have even run if a serious Republican had declared. But Colgan is a substantive and honorable man who would not cede his seat willingly to a caricature of everything that is wrong about certain pockets of commandeered Republicanism in the Commonwealth” is, in fact uninformed. No less an authority than Tom Davis called me shortly after the failed sales tax referendum in 2002 to inform me that Colgan had been prevailed upon by Mark Warner and Lee Stoffregen to run again, and I’m sure that the same thing happened this year.

    Colgan “is a substantive and honorable man….”?!?! Hardly. Colgan is, and has proven himself to be, a partisan hack. Moreover, the next four years will give whoever runs against Colgan a wonderful opportunity. He has been pegged as someone who can deliver for Northern Virginia. Not that he ever did so (any more than Harry Parrish did in a similar position in the House) when the Dems were in the majority. All they ever delivered was higher taxes.

    People like “NoVA Scout” believe that the notion that we are paying enough of our income to government is “commandeered Republicanism.” Fortunately, his type of “competence,” “responsibility,” and/or “respectability” have been rejected by the majority of Republicans. It’s only considered “incompetent” for the type of Republican for whom “slower Socialism” is an adequate theory of governance. I had the privilege of hearing Phyllis Schlafley speak today. I believe the relevant title of her book is “A Choice, Not An Echo.”

    BTW, those are certainly bold words in light of the unfortunate shellacking that JMDD took in Fairfax. Talk about divorced from reality as to what constitutes a winning GOP strategy.

    What do you people think got us to majority status in Virginia? Or, for that matter, in the House and Senate in 1994?

    Perhaps you truly believe that your limp-wristed brand of “go-along-to -get along” is a winning strategy. That’s not only absurd on its face; it evidences a willful blindness to historical fact.

  61. James Young said on 17 Nov 2007 at 7:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    And “Fredo,” Nada Nadim Prouty has nothing to do with Faisal Gill. Why would I care about her at all?

  62. Anonymous said on 19 Nov 2007 at 1:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Nada and Faisal may have been in the same social circles. We don’t know who Nada talks to.

  63. Anonymous said on 22 Nov 2007 at 10:03 am:
    Flag comment

    How is Faisal suppose to win with stories like these.

    The Dems never really pulled out all the dirt on Faisal. If the election were perceived to be closer, terrorism would have been the big issue.

    http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=280367130714172

Comments are closed.


Views: 2733