We all have professional obligations……maybe not as important to truth, justice, and the American way as yours…but jobs that make our livings nonetheless. It might be a good idea that you concentrate on that professional obligation in 2009 while those of us that understand the mechanics of a winning campaign bring the 51st District seat back into GOP hands. Oh…and your other losing campaign for State Senate, when the time comes you should stay out of that one too so that seat can be won for the GOP.

OH. I think I answered my own question. You are so busy with your professional obligations that you only have time to help a handful of candidates go down in defeat — all the others seem to win. THAT’S your contribution to the success of the GOP in Prince William County….I’ve got it now. haha

‘Fact is, I’ve never SOUGHT and have never had any desire to run a campaign — winning or otherwise — because my professional obligations — you know, fighting and actually winning court battles against the far Left and its most effective illicit funding mechanism — preclude it. So that’s a red herring. What IS a measure is who is LISTENED to when they speak, and I suspect that the fact that any elected official would say “Who’s that?” if your name were known is yet another reason why you hide your identity. Your jealousy fairly drips from your post.

As for supporting Faisal Gill, yes, like most Republicans in the 51st District, I supported him. Sadly, he had to endure the sleazy, anonymous smears of the likes of you. Surely, you have much to be proud of. You joined a smear led by a former Democrat to attack and defeat a Republican Navy and Administration veteran in a race in which a switch of merely 250 votes would have retained a seat in the “R” column. You are continuing your attempts to delegitimize the GOP by smearing those involved in its nomination processes, when you can’t seem to get anybody who actually gets to make such decisions see it your way. Yet you continue to hide your identity.

Calling you a “cowardly weasel” would give a bad name to weasels.

a) never run a winning campaign and;

b) was among those that thought in a time when both terrorism and immigration are the hot button issues of the day, it would be a great idea to saddle the GOP with a candidate (by whatever means necessary) who accepts funds from various entities with documented ties to terrorist groups and who for a living helps illegal immigrants fend off ICE to stay in the country longer.

Wow…now that’s a person we need lecturing us on what’s best for the Republican Party…haha.

BTW Jimmy, I also wanted to thank you for that compliment. That little “insider” group of yours is one to which no rational human being, much less a rational Republican, would wish to have an association. They’ve pretty much burned their bridges and made themselves irrelevant to the vast majority of electeds in PWC and beyond. Most of those who actually won had far more sense than to depend upon you and yours for a lot of help…they had their own organizations.

Insofar as being largely inactive, that is true by MY definition of being active and there are many who can attest to my political activities of those years…although I didn’t devote the vast majority of my time to it. Actually, I suspect that, if I were so inclined, I could produce a more impressive political resume than you during those “inactive” years. It’s all relative…what YOU would call active, I would call inactive. I just don’t believe in rubbing my activities into anyone’s face. I’ve got a healthy ego…not an overblown one.

Pretty bold words from someone whose halcyon days in the GOP was when it was “a small, tightly held club” rather than the “vast, inclusive organization” it has become under the leadership of those she loathes, i.e., those who aren’t interesting in watering down the GOP message. She apparently didn’t notice that while she was largely inactive while raising a family (not that there’s anything wrong with that), the PWC GOP went from an organization which could have held its meetings in a telephone booth, and had only a few elected officials anywhere in the County, into one which no one disputes is the dominant political force in the County. The OWW is attempting to turn history on its head.

Of course, it is of a piece with someone who find most of her support these days among those too cowardly to sign their names. She might want to consider that there is a reason for that.

The real problem here is that she isn’t part of “the club” any more, because the “vast, inclusive organization” which is, for example, the PWC GOP of today — you know, the one that won most of the contested seats in the County — holds her largely in contempt.

As for you, “Fredo,” you’ll sound a little more rational if you read what I actually said, rather than setting up your own strawman caricature to knock down. I’m perfectly happy with the pledge as it is (I note that “NoVA Scout” attempts to misrepresent it: first by calling it an “oath”; and second, by saying it “requires support for the GOP Presidential nominee in the general election as a condition of voting in the primary”, which even “Fredo” is smart enough to recognize is wrong).

And as for your “friend” (if you have one) whose “across-the-board Republican support … end[ed] with one vote on 6 Nov 2007,” if it was for the false, trumped up smears you cite, then I suspect that he probably was not a qualified, competent voter.

[Ed note: comment edited.]

However, knowing that a true “oath of allegiance” to a nominee would never pass muster, “intent” is included, but with the hope that participants will skip over it, considering themselves vote-bound in the general election.

The “intention” caveat remains a viable and essential escape, should the party “go off the deep end,” being shanghaied either by those who control proceedings of the convention or by a one-time participating religious/racist voting block.

I happen to have a friend who for the past 40 years has voted a straignt Republican ticket. However, that record of across-the-board Republican support had to end with one vote on 6 Nov 2007.

That’s it, isn’t it NoVA…the last thing this crowd would want is growth in the Republican Party which might in any way threaten the tight control by the few of the many. Better to keep it a small, tightly held club rather than a vast, inclusive organization as it once was.

I can’t tell from the links the exact wording of the oath. If the article in the Times is correct that it requires support for the GOP Presidential nominee in the general election as a condition of voting in the primary, I wouldn’t take the oath and I assume a lot of other Republicans would similarly refuse.

If the purpose is to ensure that Republicans (as opposed to Dems, La Rouchians, or Perotistes) are voting in the Primary, the oath (if we have to have one) merely has to require folks to state that they are Republicans.

I still think it makes the GOP look frightened and defensive. Primaries can be a great way to attract new voters to the Party. Put up a lot of barbed wire around the process and you turn people away.

Bear in mind, too, that — with few exceptions (Leslie Carbone comes to mind) — the people complaining the most bitterly about this are the same malcontents who frequently seek to water down the GOP message or, indeed, dispute the notion that there is a distinct GOP message at all.

Of course, that you fear the consequences of the general understanding of the pledge is probably the primary reason why you hide your identity behind a pseudonym. Such cowardice is inconsistent with the assurance with which you attack others.

Moreover, that you still allege that the GOP has nominated a “true dufus [sic]” or “a candidate perceived to be a risk to national security or sovereignty” demonstrates just how much invested you are in the CloudCuckooland inhabited by the Gill-Haters.

However, the “oath” is a statement of intention to support the eventual nominee; it is NOT a promise to support or vote for anyone in particular. While a delegate may “intend” to support a particular candidate, intention is one thing, a promise is quite another.

Being one of few, jimmy Young sees “intent” as forever binding. However, should it become apparent that the party erred and nominated a true dufus…perhaps even a candidate perceived to be a risk to national security or sovereignty, the “oath of intention” would surely and hopefully be cast aside without a lot of consternation.

You already did!