http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2394448/posts

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/12/crooked-carol-browner-obamas-ethically-challenged-energy-czar/

“Lying is forbidden in America. President Barack Obama will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts.”

“The Americans, they always depend on a method what I call … stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies.”

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

A hoax too big to fail.

Its called sarcasm…get over yourself.

Life is short…

You don’t need to be Spock to see, “bogus carbon credits to paranoid environmentalists” as an emotional statement.

My advice is to leave the shrieking to the liberals.

Just because you say they are emotional does not make them emotional. I am pointing out a fact….Horinko is a member of a select elite group of federal bureaucrats….plain and simple….

Comments like this from GregL seem emotional:

“Buying carbon offsets strikes me as a modern day purchase of indulgences from the Church of AlGore, so this doesn’t impress me very much. CarbonFund.org is certainly playing off the cult of Obama and his nutty collection of “anthropogenic global warming” adherents, given the design of their logo and the breathless tripe on their website about “saving the planet”. Someone professionally promoting this philosophy might well deserve a few questions about their position on the job-killing “Cap & Tax” legislation moving through Congress.”.

Comments such as this from Local GOP seem emotional:

“Independent Voter–Marianne Horinko served at the upper echelon of government bureaucracy…she is the definition of Federal Bureaucrat. She than took that influence and translated it into a company that sells carbon credits. She has no business experience, she has federal government influence and ‘consults’ and sells bogus carbon credits to paranoid environmentalists.”.

I don’t know what sort of emotional upburst you are responding too. You are making the same mistake that you seem to be attacking; focusing on Honrinko. As I said before the reason that she is the focus of attention is because she is the hardest to figure out and has little track record. Filling in those gaps can either came from her own camp or be filled in by conjuncture. The choice is hers not mine. If she is not clear about her stances and statements I’m not obligated to give her the benefit of the doubt, her job is to be clear to and avoid such confusion. At least that is what I expect in a public offical.
Regarding, Hunt and Nance, that is where the discussion should be focused. Hunt is a creditable solid conservative with proven electoral success in the 37th. Nance has some interesting connections to bring to the table. If I lived in the 37th I’d support Hunt because I value and trust Hunt’s public service and policy decisions; at least more so than the others.

Here are what seem to be legitimate concerns:

1. She is not 100% conservative, especially on environmental issues.
2. She lacks political experience (although you could certainly say that about Keith Fimian too).
3. There is a better candidate in the race.

Here are what sound like petty and emotional complaints:

1. She once was a government official with the EPA.
2. She runs a business that is involved in buying and selling carbon credits.
3. She is only trying get elected to further her economic interests.

#3 is really funny. She’ll spend a fortune getting elected if she gets elected. Then she’ll work her butt off for $18,000 per year. Somehow, she’ll use her influence in state government to further her carbon trading business. She ought to take the time and money she’ll spend seeking office and donate that time and money to multiple politicians for their next election runs. She’d get a lot more influence that way.

I don’t like the federal income tax. I think it’s idiotically complicated. However, I don’t balme tax accountants for that. I blame Congress.

And, in the interests of symmetry, tell me more about Mr. Fimian’s home inspection business. He’s in the real estate ecosystem. The same fraud laden industry that almost put America into bankruptcy? In fact, I think US Inspect does quality inspections (termites, radon, etc) rather than appraisals. However, as I’m trying to illustrate, a cursory look at his business might lead you to ask unfair questions about where he earns his money.

This woman Ms. Horniko is willing to put her time and effort (as well as some money I guess) into running for office as a Republican. Shouldn’t she be accorded the benefit of the doubt regarding her motives? Shouldn’t criticism from other Republicans (like those writing on this site) be limited to an unemotional, factual discussion of her qualifications?

The Republicans are on an upward trajectory in Virginia and, I’d argue, nationally. Don’t blow it before McDonnell even gets inaugurated.

The other candidates, and especially Steve Hunt, clearly meet this
threshold of clearly expressed viewpoints, openly debated, and backed by a livetime of service to the community and the conservative movement (and the GOP). The reason that Horinko gets so much focus on this blog is because she is unlike the other two candidates in not being clear or open about her views on a variety of issues.

The conservatives are worried that Horinko might win the nomination if conservatives split their votes between the other candidates. The best way to prevent this is to focus on the virtues of the conservative candidiates you support (Steve Hunt for myself) not just attack Horinko; although that has its place.

Keith Fimian owns and runs a real estate inspection company. The government is subsidizing companies which make loans based on real estate inspections. That is also a major conflict of interest.

Keith Fimian is probably a fine guy. However, he lacks experience and holds a job that could easily be seen as a conflict of interest with his desired position.

Marianne Horniko is probably a fine woman. However, she lacks experience and holds a job that could easily be seen as a conflict of interet with her desired position.

However, GregL likes Fimian and doesn’t like Horniko. Why?

I assume that GregL secretly wants one of the Horniko’s opponents to win the primary. That would be logical. However, GregL’s disingeneous criticisms of Ms. Horniko are a challenge. If GregL thinks there is a better candidate then that’s what he should write. He should not hide behind a fog of blather about Ms. Horniko’s company or her inexperience. He should just say that he likes someone else better.

This type of elliptical, vague commentary should be left to the liberal Democrats. Conservative Republicans need to “think straight and talk straight”.

I suspect that is not happening here.

So, the other candidates are better candidates?

Good by me.

That’s what GregL should say rather than some mombo-jambo about carbon offsets and political inexperience.

My question for GregL is about his negative attitude about Horniko. Why do you show disdain for a Republican candidate based on her supposed inexperience when you don’t feel the same way about an observably inexperienced candidate named Keith Fimian?

The question is really just that simple.