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

His Royal Highness Bill Bolling Commits Political Suicide

By Greg L | 11 June 2012 | RPV | 25 Comments

Tonight I’ve heard that Bill Bolling is actually threatening RPV Chairman Pat Mullins with a lawsuit if Mullins doesn’t rule out of order any motion at Friday’s meeting of the Republican State Central Committee seeking to reverse course on the convention/primary debate.  Bolling is saying that if Mullins doesn’t fall into line and do everything possible to ensure there will be a primary in 2013, a suit will be filed by the end of the day on Friday.

I have no idea what the basis for such a suit might be, and consider the whole idea quite ridiculous.  Even if there was an actual basis for such a lawsuit, which would be legal novelty of the first order, having a candidate for Governor threatening the state party chairman with legal action if he doesn’t knuckle under is political stupidity of the first order.  What candidate seeking the nomination of a political party threatens that party with lawsuits if it doesn’t do what he says it should do?

Only those that go down in quite spectacular flames.



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. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

25 Comments

  1. sophie the dog said on 11 Jun 2012 at 6:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s my turn dammit!

  2. Chris said on 11 Jun 2012 at 7:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    So he is going to sue the state party in a presidential year where he is the Chairman of the campaign of the Republican nominee, costing the party thousands upon thousands of dollars that would hurt (badly) the campaign of the candidate who’s campaign he’s chairman of?

    Romney might not be able to win without Virginia . . . and Bill Bolling is threatening to sue the state party that needs every dime of resources available to fend off an Obama campaign that is very strong in this state.

    Wow. Just wow.

  3. Abc said on 11 Jun 2012 at 7:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    He threatened to sue me once too… Class act.

  4. Colin B. said on 11 Jun 2012 at 7:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t think he could win regardless if it were a primary or a convention.

  5. O.Gray said on 11 Jun 2012 at 7:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree with Colin B. Unless Cooch really screws up, the say he’s polling, he wins under any format. But I prefer a primary, myself. It’s just less of a nuisance.

  6. O.Gray said on 11 Jun 2012 at 7:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    “way”

  7. Wimpy said on 11 Jun 2012 at 7:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    How was the “Burgers Will Bill” event?

    I’ll gladly pay you with hamburgers on Tuesday for a vote for a primary on Friday…

  8. PatriotBradshaw said on 11 Jun 2012 at 8:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    I know that the Bolling camp is desperate to have a primary, but it still surprises me that they would go this far to get their way. Could I ask where this information was obtained?

  9. Loudoun Lady said on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Prior to the 10th district convention me and many other delegates received a call asking only 2 quetions - were we attending the convention and did we support Bolling or Cuccinelli. I answered yes and KC.

    Last night I received a call asking if there was a convention today for the Governor’s race - who would I vote for. Answered KC.

    It appears that the Bolling campaign has polled themselves out of Loudoun. I take this as a signal that he doesn’t want to fight for it, and if the reports are true (I hope not) he want to sue his way back into it.

  10. Riley said on 12 Jun 2012 at 8:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Bolling sent out an email today announcing his support from grassroots leaders including the likes of Jo-Ann Chase.

  11. Greg L said on 12 Jun 2012 at 8:41 am:
    Flag comment

    I saw that. Unbelievable. Who in their right mind would tout they have the support of Chase? Seeing Jim Rich and Anna Lee on that list just seals the deal.

  12. Loudoun Lady said on 12 Jun 2012 at 9:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Can you link or copy the email? For some reason I didn’t get it. (Maybe I have been removed? who knows…)

  13. pprados said on 12 Jun 2012 at 10:55 am:
    Flag comment

    I am so excited to see early procedural litigation from Bolling. The defense expense will probably be limited, as the matter will functionally end as a preliminary injunction is likely denied.

    It will be a huge black eye for Bolling, and he can never erase the fact that his name was on the opposite side of the “v.” from an RPV Chairman with broad based support the year before Bolling intends to be on the ballot statewide.

    Honestly I think he’s bluffing.

    If it is not a bluff I have one request to the Bolling Campaign: Please, Please sue in Fairfax - I want to watch! (I would also likely make the trip to Prince William or Loudoun).

  14. Colin B. said on 12 Jun 2012 at 10:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Let’s help Mr. Bolling save face and start a “Bill Bolling for Lt. Governor… Again” Facebook page.

  15. Freddie said on 12 Jun 2012 at 11:21 am:
    Flag comment

    I wonder what the distribution for that Bolling list was.

  16. Anonymous said on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    So on primary day instead of sending out encouragement to people to make sure they vote Bolling is sending out a list of people who support him in an election that is more than a year off. I guess we know what Bolling’s priorities are. 1. Bolling. 2. Bill Bolling. 3. Bolling for Governor.

  17. Anonymous said on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    The email/list:

    http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2012/06/12/13802/

  18. Chris said on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    There are a whole lot of “formers” on that list.

  19. Blue Max said on 12 Jun 2012 at 1:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bolling is such a loser….talk about putting your personal ambitions over the best interest of Conservatives and Republicans!!!!

    Bolling is going to cry if he does not get his way…..

  20. Loudoun Lady said on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    What, your forgot a couple: 1. Bolling. 2. Bill Bolling. 3. Bolling for Governor 4. Bowling with Bolling 5. Burgers Will Bolling 6. Burgers With Bolling 7. Bill is a Burger 8. Bolling for Lt Gov…Again

  21. Anonymous said on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    The polit burue of the old Soviet Union!

  22. Jon Wong said on 12 Jun 2012 at 3:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    What’s the big deal? Cooch is in for better or for worst. Cooch is going to be the candidate.

  23. Virginia said on 12 Jun 2012 at 8:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    There were many elderly voting today in the primary who will not be able to get to Richmond for a convention. It is sad that they will not be able to vote for the candidate of their choice. If there are enough of them upset about being left out of the process, your Cooch could lose in the general.

  24. James Young said on 12 Jun 2012 at 8:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    As I said in a couple of comments here and elsewhere, I support Bill Bolling for Governor, so what I say might be dismissed under that premise, but I hold to the following principles:

    1. On principle, I support conventions over primaries in the absence of registration by party;

    2. I think the State Central Committee decided the method of nomination ridiculously early. There is little justification for making that decision with an intervening statewide election, AND an intervening general election for SCC members. Arguably, it was without the power to decide a nomination process not occuring during its tenure;

    3. However, the decision having been made, candidates are entitled to rely upon that decision, which should not, save for the most compelling reasons, be changed.

    This is a mess made by an SCC presuming it can bind a newly-elected SCC. Bolling’s suit, if any, raises the question as to whether the reliance upon the old SCC’s decision trumps the new SCC’s power. I think the outcome is less than clear, but I do not specialize in election law. The outcome is anybody’s guess, but if Cuccinelli and his supporters are smart, and have any confidence in current polling numbers, they would be well-advised to drop this effort, and avoid the bloodshed. Better their efforts be directed at preventing the SCC from making such decisions so far in advance. That is the real outrage here.

  25. 11th District Voter said on 13 Jun 2012 at 9:21 am:
    Flag comment

    The 11th District Convetion is another example of James’ point.

    RPV ruled that the 11th District Committee did not have the authority to determine whether candidates would be elected by majority or plurality. Following this ruling Becky made efforts to change the convention to a plurality.

    I personally support having conventions decided by plurality (a debate for another time), but I feel that is regardless as the committee voted, and announced in the call that the convention would be decided by majority.

    The party, whether it is the SCC or a district committee, needs to follow the decisions they make and not change them in the middle of the campaign.

Leave a Reply



Views: 1681