And by the way, comparing resumes would include everything that was done, not everything that was public, so again AWC doesn’t “blow her horn”. You seem to do so in almost every comment you make.

I’m curious: are you more frustrated by my refusal to practice unilateral disarmament, or by the accuracy of the appellation? Even liars don’t like to be called “liars,” after all.

[Ed note: comment edited.]

Yeah, you go with that.

Her psychosis is well-represented by her attack upon someone who dares to defend himself against her misrepresentations. Must be nice to be so oblivious to the rules of civilized behavior that one rejects as elementary principle as self-defense.

Perhaps I should ignore her lies. Perhaps Greg, too, should ignore accusations of racism. Sadly, Conservatives learned long ago that response to the lies of the far Left and their useful idiots is sadly necessary, risk of indignity notwithstanding.

And a “laughingstock” with you, and others who (mainly) hide their identities? High praise, indeed.

And you’re doubtless correct, SJ. Like I said, let’s allow the marketplace judge.

It’s a battle she cannot win, which is why you so scrupulously avoid the question.

And “Troglodyte”?!?! Yeah, I guess that’s how you characterize those who respond in kind to sleazy tactics. At least I don’t try to enlist the criminal justice system in service of political differences, or lie to do advance my beliefs. All Greg has redacted is my reference to your relative as “[AWC]”; it’s refreshing to see that he hasn’t redacted my relation of facts related to those aforementioned sleazy tactices of the [AWC]. Once again, a Cheney tries to advance their cause with dishonesty.

No wonder the far Left has such a field day with the Vice President of the same surname.

[Ed note: comment edited.]

I haven’t been able to read your real comments as Greg has been a gentleman and redacted or deleted the really bad ones. You are quite obviously not a gentleman and, if you really do every appear before the Supreme Court, I hope you have a better mouth when you “speak” to them.

As far as who has done the most for conservative causes, I doubt that when everything that you have done is compared to what AWC has done you would not even be in view in the comparison. You obviously have never really checked to see what she has done and probably wouldn’t be able to find out anyway as she doen’t like to “blow her horn,” but works quietly.

“I didn’t resign in a ‘fit of pique’…I resigned in protest….” (me)
“Why do you assume that I was referring to you, [AWC]?” (you)

What?? Who ELSE were you referring to? You are really brushing dangerously close to that fine line between sanity and insanity throughout the above comment. Couldn’t you at least come up with something witty?

It’s been suggested to me that I should, perhaps, feel sorry for you…maybe they’re right. The author of the above comment is truly unarmed and not up to waging a proper battle in a war of words. I must wonder if you are capable of even waging a proper debate. If you can’t do any better than that, how did your briefs even make it past a Supreme Court law clerk? You’ve got to be able to do better than that. You are truly a sad little man.

However, the author of the immediately preceding post demonstrates well that we don’t live in a perfect world.

Once again, the [AWC] is demonstrated to be ill- or mis-informed, so she changes the subject.

“I already addressed the reason for my non-participation during the Kopko years…and isn’t it interesting that those candidates who had strong personal campaign operations in the County were the ones who were successful in their areas?”

The point wasn’t about WHY you didn’t participate — I don’t much care — it was about THAT you didn’t participate, and therefore were obviousrly relying upon either your own fantasies, or comments by nearly-equally disgruntled children. As for what you find so “interesting,” identify a time when another situation governed, and then it will be “interesting.”

As for whether I can “recall something as important as a transition audit” — I can — has nothing to do with what I said. Indeed, your comment is such a non sequitor as to be virtually incomprehensible. What I can’t recall precisely is whether an audit is required annually or biannually. And it has utterly nothing to do with whether I am a “highly placed and active Committee member” — your words, not mine.

“I didn’t resign in a ‘fit of pique’…I resigned in protest….”

Why do you assume that I was referring to you, [AWC]? Guilty conscience? Or the sneaking suspicion that you chose euphemism, while I described your behavior accurately? It’s not a “lack of reading comprehension”: it’s an affirmative choice to use an accurate descriptive term. Someone who truly cared about the GOP wouldn’t behave as you over a personality, even crediting your opinion of Harry Parrish, whom I have reason to believe was equally capable of such fits of pique.

“As far as Stevie is concerned, there is no need to create conspiracies…over the course of time he has managed to convince pretty much everyone of his ineptness and lack of character, lending considerable credence to the probability that he is quite capable of doing just about anything stupid.”

Soooo, now we’ve gone from “A bunch of people were engaged in this specific conspiracy” to “Steve Chapman is capable of doing any stupid thing of which the [AWC] accuses him”?!?!?! That’s quite a leap. No wonder rational people dismiss you, [AWC], or are loath to have their real names associated with you. The nice thing about truthfulness is that it removes the need to keep your lies straight.

And one more thing, [AWC]: I didn’t “claim … superiority insofar as political activism is concerned;” I merely pointed out facts that belie your implicit claim to be sole arbiter of facts, and claims regarding matters with which you were not involved, and which you did not witness. Saying “I happened to be there, and you weren’t” about a specific event is a “claim [of] superiority insofar as political activism is concerned” is irrational, and simply wrong. But I guess it’s par for the course for someone whose primary rhetorical weapon is belittlement, not facts. Rather than address facts, you set up one of those phony challenges (”political resumes at 20 paces”) so popular among the childish blogosphere. I might be willing to indulge you, but I fear that you would get lost were you to search for the “field of honor.” Either that, or burst into flames upon stumbling unwittingly on it, much like a vampire in sunlight.

Besides, judging the quality of a resume is a subjective exercise, in any case. If you want to judge relative worth, I suppose we could choose the market as a judge. How much is it you’ve been paid for your contributions to the Conservative cause?

[Ed note: comment edited.]

Jimmy, I already addressed the reason for my non-participation during the Kopko years…and isn’t it interesting that those candidates who had strong personal campaign operations in the County were the ones who were successful in their areas? I guess my prediction wasn’t far off the mark. Insofar as being privy to knowledge, I guess people just don’t talk to you to keep you up to speed. After all, for such a highly placed and active Committee member as you, it’s rather strange that you can’t even recall something as important as a transition audit. I’ve never had that problem.

“I have NEVER resigned in a fit of pique because I didn’t get my way, though it has happened occasionally…”

Actually (your lack of reading comprehension aside), I didn’t resign in a “fit of pique”…I resigned in protest of the treatment to which someone of Harry’s stature was subjected. As far as “not getting my way,” you may recall that no such resolution was actually passed by the Committee. I always take care of business first before I leave fools to their folly.

” As for Chapman, it appears that you are once again re-writing history to create deep, dark conspiracies to serve your own purposes.”

As far as Stevie is concerned, there is no need to create conspiracies…over the course of time he has managed to convince pretty much everyone of his ineptness and lack of character, lending considerable credence to the probability that he is quite capable of doing just about anything stupid.

Last, but certainly not least, whatever you and your inflated ego may believe (professional qualifications aside), your claim to superiority insofar as political activism is concerned has produced little in the way of specific accomplishments. To address that, I repeat my challenge from the post which Greg dedicated to you (“Tom Davis Gets A Bizarre Endorsement”…aren’t you flattered?): I’d gladly meet you on the field of honor with political resumes at 20 paces.

The weighted vote was:
Jim Hyland - 1,071.88
Kamal Nawash - 178.12

PWC folks who had material on the tables at the Fairfax Convention included OP Ditch for National Convention Delegate and Don Scoggins for State Central Committee.

As I said, “CONVA,” not surprising, as he is required by the Party Plan to do it. I don’t recall if one was conducted in 2007, but I assume so, since I believe that one was required. As for the membership of the Committee, I would really be interested in knowing why you think that declining Committee membership between Conventions is a new phenomenon? Those of us who have always been there and active know that it is a sadly typical phenomenon. I know this doesn’t fit into the “Kopko-Is-Satan” meme, but it is true, nonetheless.

As for you, [AWC], are you really as stupid as you sound? Of course, I know that you were nominally and occasionally a Member of the Committee over the years, not that you were ever known to do much, and certainly had no leadership positions; I was obviously referring to the period since Kopko was elected Chairman, when you participated in the Committee not at all, and therefore can not have been privy to the knowledge that you (typically, without basis) claim.

And since you seem to want to compare participation (yeah, I know; now I’m just bragging, yada, yada, yada, but I wasn’t the one who brought it up), I have been a Member of the PWCRC continuously since its founding in late 1991. I have NEVER resigned in a fit of pique because I didn’t get my way, though it has happened occasionally (so who is it who’s the better Republican?). Did I knock on doors or drop literature? I did my share, back in the day. However, some people’s talents are suited to writing, rhetoric, management, and setting the agenda; others’ are more suited to … well, as you phrase it, “actually real and not all talk.” To be sure, I do talk a lot … in court, and in pleadings in my professional capacity, which IS, if you don’t recall, in a Conservative movement organization. So I guess I’m paid what my activism is worth, and you are paid what yours is worth. Is that the source of your bitterness?

As for Chapman, it appears that you are once again re-writing history to create deep, dark conspiracies to serve your own purposes. While I was certainly aware of dissatisfaction with Harry’s go-along-to-get-along tactics (specifically, running a joint fundraiswer with a Democrat; why don’t you mention THAT, I wonder?) in 2003 (prompting the effort to which you refer, which pre-dated Kopko, and in which I did not participate, except to vote), my impression always has been that Chapman came along later, because he sense an opportunity in that dissatisfaction, not that the effort was made “because (the ever-mysterious and oh-so-conspiratorial) they wanted to put Stevie Chapman into the position.”

[Ed note: comment edited.]

That’s really quite amusing Jimmy, considering that I only resigned from the Committee a few short years ago in protest over the atrocious way they chose to treat a Republican icon in our county, Harry Parrish, (they attempted to pass a resolution demanding his resignation as member of the HOD because they wanted to put Stevie Chapman into the position…and I have the proof of that in an email which Stevie himself sent to me) back in 2003. I then saw no useful purpose in going back after Tom Kopko became Chairman, because I envisioned it going downhill fast from there. Prior to all that I had been a rather active member of the Republican Committee here, probably going back to before you were born, with only short gaps in that membership.

The difference between my activism and yours, Jimmy boy, is that mine was actually real and not all talk, and I really do try to refrain from blowing my own horn too much…I don’t need that ego rub like some other people.

As for your comment, “legal2,” that “we are told we must vote for any republican candidate we are stuck with just to defeat a dem,” that is simply not the case. The obligation to do so is one freely taken, as a condition for participation in official GOP activities in Virginia. Private associations get to do that, just like the Boy Scouts get to say “no” to open homosexuals who want to be adult leaders. No one “tells” you anything. I might well agree with evertything you say about McCain, for example. I might even have a few things to add. But if I want to assume a leadership role as a Member of the County GOP Committee, I must put my personal differences aside and pledge my aforementioned “intent,” assuming that McCain is the nominee. Just as those participating in the 51st District Convention in 2007 were required to do.

That some lacked the honor to do so speaks volumes about their character, and the meaning of their “word.”

And thank you, “Fredo,” for your version of what constitutes “wisdom.” That’s working out quite well, I hear, for the pro-life voters of the 51st District.

And “Wbg. taxpayer,” your comment is a fine example of seeking controversy where there is none. I was responding to the suggestion that an audit is necessary by pointing out that one occurs in the normal course of business. Yet you still feel the need to belittle me. I wonder who is more subject to belittlement: the one who knows the rules, and points them out, or the one who suggests something untoward has occurred with no evidence whatsoever? A healthy skepticism is a good thing, but a presumption of wrong-doing is not a healthy skepticism.

I wouldn’t disagree with you about the need for more detailed reports at meetings, but how is Kopko to blame for that? Under the Party Plan, the Treasurer has independent duties. If he or she has failed to fulfill them, that person should be approached, or dealt with. Of course, there has been a “budget to follow.” One is considered and passed annually, and I have voted on one every year that the PWC Committee has been in existence.

[Ed note: comment slightly edited.]

Kopko &Co. has torn the committee down and caused us in losing good candidates the past few years.

Yes an Audit has to be done each year but it seems when the person changes an audit needs to be done.

Since a detailed report is not given out at the meetings,I wonder if there has been a budget to follow?

The money has disappeared?Where is it?

We need a fresh start and hopefully Lyle will do this.