It’s obvious that the [redacted] is going to attack anyone SHE can’t control.

She obviously missed the fact that Republicans she loathes did quite well in PWC, her efforts to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Ed note: comment edited.]

…and so, Tom Kopko supported Faisal Gill, his employer, jimmy; what’s your point? Guess I’d have to say that TK followed what you describe as “the contrary view”…:)

How funny this is…well, come to think of it, it’s not funny at all…:(

No one is suggesting that the chairman launch out on their own with their views, claiming them to be the view of the party.

Beefeldt is a likeable solid guy and I think his experience would make him a good fit. Initially I was just worried about his views on development. Instead of being reassured, I am now more worried after reading AWC’s defense. Beefeldt may not want that kind of defense as it isn’t going to help him in the committee.

The next thing you know, someone will be suggesting that Ed Wilbourn come back and head up the committee.

The notion that GOP Chairman should not “attempt to influence elected officials,” is the old debate over whether the Party serves its elected officials, or whether elected officials should be responsible to “those who brung ‘em.” If “getting Republicans elected” is the sole task of a Unit Chairman, then the sole task of a political party is the acquisition and maintenance of political power, a view which I associate with Democrats, not Republicans. It’s a continuing debate (hangers-on frequently resurrect the argument, probably because they lack the talent/ability to have influence other than by smooching the posteriors of those who already possess it, including elected officials), but the view that the sole function of the PWC GOP should be the acquisition and maintenance of political power was rejected long ago, virtually from its founding.

Republicans in Virginia, after all, HAVE adopted a creed (http://www.rpv.org/about.html), to which most everyone (some more than others) pays at least lip service. The contrary view means that a Prince William County Republican Chairman would be obliged to support a David Duke, were he to obtain the GOP nomination (as happened in Louisiana), a concept that died aborning when the County’s Party Plan was adopted.

As for the fact that Kopko engaged in opposition to the Brentswood project, he did so with the virtually unanimous support of the County Republican Convention (at least, I recall little vocalized opposition; I don’t think I voted on the issue), so there can be no complaint — at least, none that can be sustained on the facts — that he acted ultra vires. Indeed, there is no more authoritative act in the GOP than the act of its Conventions.

Moreover, the County Party Plan specifically makes the Chairman “responsible for the general execution and implementation of the programs AND POLICIES of the Committee.” Article III, Section E(1) (emphasis added). http://www.pwcgop.org/bylaws.htm#_Toc134038296

The County Party Plan therefore clearly contemplates that there will be “policies” of the County GOP, adopted through its Conventions and — between Conventions — Committee, and makes the Chairman responsible for their “execution and implementation.”

Therefore, one has to wonder why those complaining about Kopko’s entirely legitimate actions — indeed, REQUIRED actions — fail to mention those salient facts. I strongly suspect that they are attempting to camouflage their pro-developer agenda with selective application of purportedly objective criteria. It certainly has to cause one to wonder if this isn’t what set them off against Kopko, launching them into their smear campaign.

Thinking that anyone could do the job without being influenced to some degree by their own views, biases and associations may be unrealistic. However, the two candidates before us, Lyle and Chris, are clearly aligned with particular groups among Republicans in PWC.

As I wrote before, Tom has made some missteps and done some things that I would have certainly done differently. However, helping organize the opposition to Brentswood in 2006 was a very positive act on Tom’s part. Our ostensible Republican leader at the time, his lordship King Connaughton, and his merry band of stooges wanted to push Brentswood through to please their developer paymasters, demonstrate their loyalty and ensure future funding when they pursued higher offices. In a perfect world, the chair of the PWCRC would not have had to have become involved and would have remained completely independent. In the real world, the pro-development faction was pursuing their own agenda in the name of PWC Republicans, who overwhelmingly opposed what they were doing.

Presidential debates should also remain unbiased but Ronald Reagan paid the expenses for a debate in the New Hampshire primary in 1980 that was to include not only himself and George Bush (senior) but several other candidates as well. Bush objected to the participation of the other candidates and as Reagan was explaining his decision to include them, Jon Breen, the editor of the Nashua Telegraph ordered the sound man to mute Reagan’s microphone. An angry Ronald Reagan responded with his now immortal remark, “I am paying for this microphone . . .!”

Yes, AWCheney, the PWCRC chair should remain as independent as possible. However, that is sometimes not possible. With Connaughton usurping leadership of PWC Republicans to deliver for the developers, and a willing media in the form of the Manassas Journal Messenger and Potomac News aiding and abetting him every step of the way to ensure continued advertising sales from their development and real estate customers, someone had to speak out to let the public know that Connaughton, Covington, etc. did not speak on behalf of the vast majority of PWC Republicans. Given those circumstances I think Tom’s telling the public that we paid for the microphone and we’re taking it back was entirely appropriate.

I hope we don’t get into a situation such as that again. However, Covington is frothing at the mouth now over the prospect of being able to deliver for his developer and landowner buddies with Jenkins, Nohe, Caddigan (unfortunately betraying her solid past voting record on development just to spite Corey Stewart) and likely Principi as well all behind him. Stewart, Stirrup and May will not be able to hold back the tide. I will not support any candidate for PWCRC chair who is linked to the Covington pro-development faction. Ideally, we would have a truly independent chair. However, despite Tom’s shortcomings, I prefer a PWCRC chair who would turn to him for advice rather than to Wally Covington.

It is not the role of the PWCRC Chair to even attempt to influence elected officials. His job is to get Republicans elected, not to tell them how to vote AFTER they’re elected.

As I’ve said in numerous comments before, THE PARTY CHAIRMAN HAS NO BUSINESS SETTING POLICY FOR THE REPUBLICANS IN THEIR UNIT! Unit chairman have a specific job, and speaking for people with whom he has not consulted is NOT one of them. He can have his opinions…but he can’t speak for others, thus undermining other Republicans who may be of a slightly different opinion. It happens that the Republican ranks have shrunk because only certain opinions are allowed!

“Would Beefeldt feel comfortable doing that when a project like Brentswood comes back up (and it certainly will as they are already floating out proposals)?”

I HOPE TO HELL NOT! That happens to be something which should be left to the various elected officials, and those with a known interest in becoming an elected official. Party officials must give the appearance of neutrality when there is division in the ranks regarding various issues. Not everyone thinks alike, nor should they. There is a basic philosophy which attracts people to the Republican Party…most people will disagree on one or more of the sub-elements of that philosophy. That’s called the “big tent” folks…remember?

I understand when long-time residents of the Rural Crescent want to cash in on land they’ve owned for decades. That’s normal, rational economic behavior. However, when developers buy supervisors through campaign contributions and other favors (see www.vpap.org), and then the supervisor pushes through actions on the BOCS that favor a small number of land owners and developers, the rest of the community pays.

Rezoning Rural Crescent land for more density along with taxpayer-funded sewer is a windfall for the landowner and the developer, but takes away my property rights. I own less than a half of an acre that I bought many years ago expecting a certain quality of life. The rezoning and increased density in the Rural Crescent mean that I must either pay higher taxes or receive reduced services because residential development does not pay for itself. We’ve already discussed the Covington Coalition’s success at defeating the revised proffers, which would have helped some. I must also drive on more congested roads and put my kids in more crowded schools. All of this deprives me of my property rights to the benefits of using my small piece of ground and residing in PWC. All of this is done in the name of Wally and others delivering on the political contributions they received and creating a windfall for a small number of landowners and developers at the expense of the property rights of the rest of the community.

Committee members are just worried that Beefeldt would err on the side of development if push came to shove because of his ties. For example, the Republican committee was instrumental in getting the 7000 home Brentswood project killed. Connaughton, Covington and Nohe all supported the project openly (which they all denied after it was killed).

Although I don’t have any love for Kopko, he strongly opposed the project, giving reasons why Republicans and taxpayers should take a stand against Brentswood.

Would Beefeldt feel comfortable doing that when a project like Brentswood comes back up (and it certainly will as they are already floating out proposals)? Is he going to feel comfortable taking a stand against Covington? Or would it be likely that he just kept his mouth, and thus the committee’s mouth shut on the subject? I think Royse is too inexperienced (but might make a great vice chair), so someone else must be found.

Ruth, the next PWCRC chair should not have ANY OTHER AGENDA but cleaning up the PWCRC and setting it back on a course of growth, financial stability, efficiency of operations with a well-trained and enthusiastic corp. of available volunteers, and a level playing field for ALL potential candidates (thereby encouraging more qualified candidates to apply). Anybody that doesn’t believe that Lyle Beefelt is capable of that does not know him.

If you believe that anyone who “has ties to Covington, the developers and the “local boy” network in Western PWC who all want to cash-in and move out,” you’re offering a sweeping generalization that includes ANYBODY, including me, who has lived in Brentsville District for decades. I guess it’s more acceptable to turn things over to another newcomer like Kopko, who has not yet developed roots in the Prince William County community. I think I resent your implication. It also explains a lot.

I am concerned about Mrs. C’s constant reactions to the Honorable. It would be in her best interest to rise above it and continue with her up to now thoughful votes for PWC. I was very surprised with that Fireside vote. Hopefully, those close to her will do the right thing and point out that anger only shows as anger nothing more. Not in the best interest of PWC.