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

This Is Just Getting Stupid

By Greg L | 25 September 2012 | Prince William County | 43 Comments

Seriously, if anyone wants to see just how to utterly destroy their viability as an elected official and candidate for higher office, this is a primer on exactly how to do it.

I really had thought things couldn’t get any more bizarre.  I was horribly wrong.

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.


  1. Badger said on 25 Sep 2012 at 5:54 am:
    Flag comment

    I think he’s destroying the viability for the office he currently holds. His LTG shot is gone and he will be easy to beat in 2015. All his opponents have to do is mine the blogs for material.

    At this point, I’m guessing that he is now toxic to Cuccinelli and Bolling as a running mate. Can you imagine the Democrat’s commercials?

  2. Done With 'em said on 25 Sep 2012 at 6:37 am:
    Flag comment

    He really needs to decide whether he wants to be a successful chairman or not? If he waits much longer, it will just get worse. Too bad. When he’s on his game and not running for this or that, he has promise. But you can be sure at this rate, he’ll have a GOP opponent for Chairman and not many friends to help him either.

  3. Loan Arranger said on 25 Sep 2012 at 7:40 am:
    Flag comment

    All Candland has to do is more of the same and he’ll be Chairman. Those who join him might survive their next race. Those who run with him in 2015 will win,

    Everyone loves an underdog, especially when the underdog is right,

  4. Micky said on 25 Sep 2012 at 7:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Sometimes hanging together results in actually getting hanged. It’s time for a few Supervisors with a little integrity left to get off the gallows and join Candland.

    I’m not sure how many actually have any integrity left.

  5. Not Fast-Just Furious said on 25 Sep 2012 at 10:16 am:
    Flag comment

    Are we sure of the validity of this? I mean, it is such and incredibly stupid move, so bizzare, so (running out of adjectives here)… that it challenges belief. If it is, well, Corey is done. Flip-him over. Put him on the bun. If it isn’t, the Sherriff might want to contact an attorney. How did he get the graphics? Was this “disgruntled staffer” really just a trojan horse? Incredible!

  6. Gerald Fuddrucker said on 25 Sep 2012 at 10:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Corey jettisoned his early land use supporters a long time ago in order to pander to developers. He’s now lost fiscal conservative and low-tax supporters. He’s not even credible on illegal immigration anymore. Despite all of the hullabaloo back in 2007, he’s never lifted a finger to impede the developers or any other businesses from hiring illegals. He continues to pour tens of thousands of dollars each year of our tax money to Mark Wolfe’s ballet, despite the rock solid evidence that came out earlier this year that Wolfe knowingly hires illegals. Who is left that he considers his supporters now?

  7. Mom said on 25 Sep 2012 at 10:50 am:
    Flag comment

    “Who is left that he considers his supporters now?”

    The local bartenders?

  8. Gerald Fuddrucker said on 25 Sep 2012 at 10:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Corey shuttered his “VA Rule of Law PAC” this summer - without even a “going out of business” event:


    Even he must realize that no one takes him seriously anymore. Those developers who fund his campaigns want the cheap labor, and for us to pay the cost of having them here.

  9. Ronald said on 25 Sep 2012 at 11:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Ha… Moron

  10. Anonymous said on 25 Sep 2012 at 1:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Stewart needs to go. He lost my vote long ago. We need to get rid of these career politicians!

  11. Steve Rogers said on 25 Sep 2012 at 2:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Republican Avengers . . . ASSEMBLE!

  12. Bruce Baxter said on 25 Sep 2012 at 4:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is very sad to read that Corey Steward is self destructing. My experience is about a decade old, but he made a good vice-chairman.

    It appears that his tirade was alcohol fueled. I’ve never been a drinker but my recollection as a junior officer was that by the age of thirty most either stopped drinking entirely or continued to do so in moderation. Those that continued the heavy drinking of their youth, eventually were required to go to rehab and of course it ended their careers.

    Have any of you considered an intervention? Frankly, he was a good man back then and your community would be well served to get the old Corey back.

    I can’t claim that we were ever that close but some of you probably are in a position to help. Perhaps after he fails to obtain the nomination and hits rock bottom, those closest to him can draw up a plan of action.

    God bless you Corey, somethings are bigger and more important than elected office.

  13. nova1983 said on 25 Sep 2012 at 6:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    To Not Fast–Just Furious: I can assure you, the story is real. Multiple people witnessed Corey’s drunken rage about Candland, and multiple people heard him threaten, promise, and insist he would use Candland’s former staffer to “dirty [Candland] up” and “bury him” in a way that would keep Corey’s fingerprints off the defamation. Rumor has it that Corey intends to reward Candland’s disgruntled staffer big time for serving as his co-conspirator; we shall see if that ends up being the case.

    To Bruce Baxter: I can assure you of one thing: There is no saving Corey at this point. Any decency you once thought existed in him has been completely subsumed by the hubris that comes with perceived power.

  14. Doug Brown said on 26 Sep 2012 at 8:40 am:
    Flag comment

    “There is no saving Corey at this point.”

    If the incident reported is essentially true and accurate then he needs to save himself and take a break from public office, he’s lost all perspective. He’s a smart, talented guy if he needs to have a drink in his hand I suggest he take a temp job as a bartender, it’s a good place to regain one’s perspective if the drink is doing more talking than the man.

  15. may ferris said on 26 Sep 2012 at 10:07 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t suppose people want to hear this, but when you say about a person, “it’s the alcohol talking” - that’s not really correct. Believe me, it’s really the person saying exactly what he thinks (or believes that he thinks) - maybe not coherently, and certainly not nicely, but the alcohol itself is just the oil. I guess I mean that deep feelings and true intentions are involved in most such situations.

  16. Jon Wong said on 26 Sep 2012 at 5:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Internet is not anonymous. If Cory wants to litigate a claim against Sheriff of Sherwood Forest, some subpoenas would expose the Sheriff and all his “birdies”. Just depends how far Cory wants to go?? You can’t hide behind IP addresses for long.

  17. Virginia Transplant said on 26 Sep 2012 at 9:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    You seem to forget, Mr. Wong, that Corey is the one who went on the defamatory rampage against a fellow Republican. If Stewart were to attempt to “litigate a claim,” he would be subject to the testimonies of those who witnessed the event. Some of those witnesses insist the whole incident was far worse than the Sheriff has described; “nasty,” “profane,” and “full of religious bigotry” were just a few of the descriptions of Corey’s behavior. I don’t know how anyone can look at those graphics and believe Stewart has any plausible deniability; there is no question Corey needs to (a) give up the drinking and (b) give up the vicious antics.

  18. may ferris said on 26 Sep 2012 at 9:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh dear. Is this the same Jon Wong who, on June 28, wrote (in this blog):

    “If you don’t feel comfortable with this suggestion….bite me!”

    Are we now to understand that you seek to diffuse a situation? I’m a bit confused (and unwilling to “bite” you, of course).

  19. Prince John said on 27 Sep 2012 at 4:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    J. Wong: Good point. You are right. It’s one thing to disagree with Corey’s politics, but it’s another if you call him a boozer or an alcoholic, you could be guilty of slander even if Corey is a “public official”. I wonder just how much this blog and/or the Sheriff’s investigates the supposed derogatory information that the disloyal and disgruntled County employees secretly slip into his e-mail. If a law suit is filed, nobody who gave confidential information to this blog or the Sheriffs will be safe from prosecution. But, I guess they just don’t care.

  20. Greg said on 27 Sep 2012 at 7:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    @ Wong - if our elected officials were responsible there would be no “sheriff of nottingham”.

  21. Jon Wong said on 28 Sep 2012 at 6:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Wong is not defending anyone. Wong is just stating some facts. The “bite me” comment was a joke. Remember when “the worst candidate ever” tried to sue the original creator of this blog??? Duh!! Wasn’t “bite me” Greg’s response to the law suit???

  22. Ronald said on 28 Sep 2012 at 7:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Stewart is the worst drunk ever in PWC Politics.

  23. nova1983 said on 28 Sep 2012 at 9:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    @ Prince John, who has defended Corey mightily over at The Sheriff’s blog: I have perused The Sheriff’s blog quite thoroughly and never once seen the word “boozer” in reference to Corey; I have never once seen the word “alcoholic” in reference to Corey. Other than the comments made by YOU (and I suppose Ronald comes close), I have not seen those words on this blog either. As a general proposition, you are wrong: People have wide latitude when it comes to discussing public officials who have power over the citizens and who are paid salaries out of the pockets of taxpayers. Speaking of taxpayers, I have been told by those who are in a position to know these things that Chairman Stewart has gone to great lengths to hide the amounts of money that taxpayers have spent on his drinking. How likely is it that the Chairman would want those records coming to light in a court of law? How likely is it that the Chairman would like his drinking discussed at all by witnesses who are under oath? I have no doubt that in some circles your loyalty to the Chairman is considered admirable, but in my humble opinion your attempts to intimidate the birdies, deputies, and blog commentators are just that: attempts to intimidate that are typical of those who want and need to keep the truth in a deep, dark place.

  24. Virginia Transplant said on 28 Sep 2012 at 9:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    @Nova: I think Prince John’s most recent defense of Corey basically made the argument that it is fine for Corey to be involved in authoring an attack blog if others (namely, the Sheriff) are involved in the same thing. I believe Prince John said something about “the pot calling the kettle black.” Now Prince John is on this blog claiming that everyone should watch out because Corey might sue. If, as Prince John initially stated, “the pot is calling the kettle black,” then couldn’t the Sheriff–or perhaps Candland (at least by Prince John’s reasoning)–sue Corey? Shouldn’t Corey be just as concerned about litigation that might get pointed back at him?

  25. Loudoun Insider said on 29 Sep 2012 at 7:01 am:
    Flag comment

    Vermin despise sunlight - keep it shining.

  26. joe p. said on 29 Sep 2012 at 7:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Last night I posted twice that Corey’s people seemed to be working at a high pitched fever to dismantle their blog. This morning I cannot see either one of those posts here, so I went over to the Sheriff’s blog, given my best guess that the information won’t get deleted over there. All of the excerpts that were available for viewing as of two days ago are detailed there. I wrote in last night’s post on this blog that I suspected they would begin dismantling the graphics shortly.

    As of last night, most of their nasty graphics were still available at the Sheriff’s link. This morning NONE of them are available there. However, as of a few minutes ago, most of them can still be viewed at this link: https://www.google.com/search?q=sshaddowland&hl=en&nfpr=1&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Q-VmUMmOFsXi0QHT44GYBQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1287&bih=651

    How long before that link gets dismantled, too? And why? If Corey has nothing to worry about, why is the evidence disappearing?

  27. Prince John said on 29 Sep 2012 at 4:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Evidence”?? Evidence of what? There was never any concrete evidence that Corey was going to imitate an “attach blog” (which is funny because this one and the Sheriff’s are attack blogs). That info came from a disloyal and disgruntled County employee. Maybe they just made it up, who knows. Nobody proved it ever really existed. Anyway, maybe it was taken down because he found it to be somewhat suspect.

  28. nova1983 said on 29 Sep 2012 at 4:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear Prince John–Below is a copy of your precise words following the revelation that Corey was involved in an attack blog against Candland:

    “What a two face floor flusher you are Mr. Sheriff of Hidingham (my nickname for you).You write a PWCBOS attack blog in secret from the droppings of disgruntled County stooges and rats that hate their jobs and bosses and want the County they serve to “look stupid”, and you fall for it. Now you now have the nerve to bad mouth Cory for wanting to do the same thing that you are doing. Look in the mirror at the kettle calling the pot black. You two are the same, just different objectives and methods.”

    Please emphasize the sentence in the middle that discusses Corey’s “wanting to do the same thing.” So your first post about this story tacitly admits Corey’s involvement; your second post tries to intimidate anyone who says anything about Corey; and now your third post tries to create an illusion that Corey had no involvement. At some point you need to get your stories straight.

    As to concrete evidence? Rumor has it that The Sheriff has been harboring some IP addresses of his own. Rumor also has it that one of those IP addresses shows work being done on Corey’s attack blog from a PWC government computer. Now wouldn’t that just be dandy if it were true?

  29. Jon Wong said on 29 Sep 2012 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    If anyone is doing anything political from a PWC computer…….They are MO…RONS!!!!!!!

  30. Peter Sperry said on 30 Sep 2012 at 3:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Something doesn’t add up here. I looked at the Sheriff’s blog as well as the commentary on BVBL and remain unconvinced by either one.

    Corey supposedly made these remarks to supporters following a downstate event sometime prior to the 23rd. Someone in the group either disliked Corey to begin with or was so offended they decided to bypass the WAPO which hates Corey with a purple passion and would hang him with this in a heartbeat, ignore the Potomac News, forget about any TV or radio outlets and turn a potentially game-changing story over to an obscure blog with a limited audience. Really??????

    Also they decline to provide any names other than Corey’s and neither the Sheriff nor BVBL provide any actual evidence of this nefarious plot other than some graphics that could be whipped up on Photoshop in 20 minutes and are conveniently gone when anyone goes looking for them. Somehow we are also supposed to take the supposed disappearance of these graphics as some sort of proof of Corey’s involvement with an attack blog that so far has yet to materialize. The birthers provide more compelling evidence.

    I admit to being unfamiliar with every twist and turn in the disagreements between Stewart and Candland. Nevertheless, the Sheriff and BVBL need to produce more evidence this rant ever took place before I give it any credibility. Some names of witnesses who are willing to make their allegations without the mask of anonymity would be a good start.

  31. Prince John said on 30 Sep 2012 at 3:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Please emphasize the sentence in the middle that discusses Corey’s “wanting to do the same thing.” So your first post about this story tacitly admits Corey’s involvement; your second post tries to intimidate anyone who says anything about Corey; and now your third post tries to create an illusion that Corey had no involvement. At some point you need to get your stories straight.”

    Dear nova 1983: your post above missed my point completely. Stop putting words in my mouth. There were not “two stories” posted my me. Try to stop reading your own thoughts in what other people express and maybe it will easier for you to comprehend. So let me try to be more clear. STORY 1: I don’t know if Corey is planning to create an “attack” blog or not. Frankly, I don’t care, and if it was true, I would not condone it. I didn’t blog the story about Corey’s intent to start an attack blog, somebody else did. STORY 1 (continued) : My point was that this blog and the Sheriff’s are running personal attacks against PWCBOS and Staff individuals and their families, so they (Greg and the Sheriff) can’t complain if somebody else (like Corey) wants to do the same thing. Have a good evening and thanks for your comment on my comment.

  32. nova1983 said on 30 Sep 2012 at 4:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear Prince John: With all due respect, I did not put “words in [your] mouth”; I quoted you directly. Now I will directly quote Corey Stewart:

    “Now a blogger who uses their real name, I respect. But one who doesn’t have the courage to stand up and in their own name and speak their mind, I cannot have respect for that person.”

    Right. Just a couple of months after making that public statement he whets his whistle with a little too much alcohol and brags in front of multiple witnesses about using a co-conspirator to front up what? An anonymous attack blog against a fellow Republican on the BOCS. There is only one way to spell the name of Corey Stewart and that is H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

    And by the way, nobody’s complaining here. To quote Stewart’s favorite hench-woman: “Just sayin’.”

  33. Virginia Transplant said on 30 Sep 2012 at 6:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Right, Mr. Sperry. Let’s start naming the witnesses so Corey can retaliate against them, too. Nice try.

    When you see the reward Corey is planning to give to the henchwoman for fronting for him, then come back to this blog and do what you can to protect him.

  34. Doug Brown said on 30 Sep 2012 at 10:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Virginia Transplant,

    If the event happened as conveyed Corey already has a good idea who the witnesses are, unless he was blind drunk.

    The problem with Corey setting up a blog to respond is not so much the blog but using the resources and power of his government position to do it, which I believe is what is beiong alleged.

  35. Anonymous said on 30 Sep 2012 at 10:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    @ Virginia Transplant: You are correct that it is probably not a good idea to start subjecting the witnesses mentioned to Corey’s retaliation, but I believe Mr. Sperry deserves a more respectful tone. If I’m not mistaken–advance apologies if I am–Mr. Sperry has some affiliation with the Heritage Foundation and likely is wondering if their invitation for the Chairman to speak at a recent event was well advised. As I understand it, the Chairman was not able to make it to the event but is hoping to play on his connections at the Heritage Foundation (namely, John Stirrup) to help advance his run for Lt. Governor. If this is true, the Heritage Foundation would naturally want to know if they are promoting someone capable of the accusations currently leveled against him. There is no question in my mind–based on many discussions with people who would know–that Mr. Corey and his staff have colluded on the referenced attack blog, but I think an exceptionally important question for the Heritage Foundation is why they would consider supporting in the first place someone who fought to raise citizens’ taxes last year (and yes, Stewart absolutely threatened Candland with punishment for not agreeing to go along with the tax increases; he also saw to it that the punishment was carried out) and who has made fairly strong commitments to continue raising taxes for each of the next four years, assuming he remains on the BOCS. Corey also exacted revenge on Candland when Candland pushed for elimination of discretionary funds, and he later refused any support for Candland’s transparency in government initiatives. Respectfully, Mr. Sperry, I thought the Heritage Foundation was comprised of conservatives who do not support yearly tax increases (many of which end up being much bigger than the average numbers touted) and who would have encouraged elimination of discretionary funds without condoning the retaliatory strikes about which Stewart has been quite proud. If Mr. Sperry would enlighten us as to the Heritage Foundation’s inclination to support such a candidate, it would be a most welcome explanation.

  36. may ferris said on 1 Oct 2012 at 7:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous: The book club circumvents the first part of the potential problem you pose by not offering our speakers any alcohol until after the speech. As to the second, we have long since realized that our public policies and private actions do not represent parallel universes. Of course, in the book club, we enjoy the luxury of writing off all such differences to our god-given freedom of literary interpretation.

    When all the guests have left, we break out the sherry.

  37. Steve Rogers said on 1 Oct 2012 at 12:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Nothing ever truly disappears on the internet….


  38. Peter Sperry said on 1 Oct 2012 at 5:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous -

    1. It has been more than 10 years since I last worked at Heritage, so I cannot answer any questions regarding their invitation to Corey.

    2. For what it’s worth, I also have no opinion yet regarding the Lt. Governors race other than opposition to Davis who should be running in the other party.

    3. I do tend to react negatively to anonymous attacks on anyone. Greg operates as hard hitting a blog as you will find anywhere but puts his name behind it. So does Chris over at Mason Conservative, Eric Ericson at Red State etc. I put my name on my comments. The Sheriff does not. Neither does his deputy or his sources. They claim to be protecting each other from Corey’s retribution. If the allegations they are making are accurate, Corey’s career would be so devastated he would have no ability to retaliate against anyone. Anyone making allegations this serious needs to provide proof and put their name behind the accusations.

  39. joe p. said on 1 Oct 2012 at 7:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear Mr. Sperry: It would probably be a good idea for you to read The Sheriff’s personal answer to you. The fact is, Corey retaliates whether or not he knows who is disagreeing with him. Stewart regularly boasts about his political infighting and uses the power of his office routinely to harm those that do not fall into line to support him. In the current instance, Stewart promised the witnesses to his diatribe that Candland and The Sheriff would both end up with a “dead carcass on their asses.” Yes, that is a direct quote.

    Given the above facts (they are indeed facts), if Corey were after me, I would not put my name on anything. The fact that “The Sheriff” uses a moniker does not mean that Corey did not engage in precisely the behavior described, and it does not dilute the effect of Corey’s behavior. This is par for the course for Stewart, and citizens should understand that.

  40. may ferris said on 1 Oct 2012 at 11:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh dear me, boys. This exchange had the beginnings of a magnificent squabble followed by a true result, but it has taken on the predictable masculine reluctance to follow through … oh yes, if everything that has been alleged were true, then, my stars, the man (as a public leader) would need to be finalized - pronto, as they say in that south’o the border non-Corey lingo. But dolls, not one of you is going to try that one on. This is a county of corrupt, good ol’ folk, and you are just howling in the backyard … or am I wrong?

    If something is rotten in Denmark, then take it to the magistrate (for as you know, Ebert will do nothing). Otherwise, why bother to blather in this blog for the bloody few who care? [That’s enough B’s for me!]

  41. Anonymous said on 2 Oct 2012 at 8:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    May Ferris, you are quite obviously genius, particularly in your assessment that “this is a county of corrupt, good ol’ folk, and you are just howling in the backyard.” However, “blather[ing] in this blog for the bloody few who care” can actually be quite rewarding, if for no reason other than the psychological benefits inherent to venting.

    There may be additional benefits, however. One showed up quite prominently at the BOCS meeting today. County staff appears to be taking great pains not to look like the unbelievably bad actors they have been. It appears the Supervisors may not have rubber stamped a pre-determined budget just yet. There was a touch (just of touch) of relative civility that we have not seen since New Kid Candland fought the pack on the budget last year. Corey obviously can’t afford for voters to believe these oft-repeated stories about his love of the drink, his hatred for a colleague, and his Nixonian tactics, so perhaps he will behave decently for the next moment or two.

    If what comes of this is just momentary improvement, the blog blathering is worth it–not to mention just plain, albeit occasional, fun.

  42. may ferris said on 4 Oct 2012 at 7:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous - Yes, if the blogs could be constructively influential on politicians as willful as Corey Stewart, then I’ll have to bite my tongue and concede your point. (Will do so, gladly, in fact). Besides, no one wants to spoil anyone’s fun.

    I admit I’ve grown enured to and cynical about political stonewalling and non-caring officials - particularly in PWC. I will be truly surprised if any of this exposure concerning Corey’s drinking, religious sneering and smearing, apparent stone-age attitudes on race and gender, indifference to the real economic problems of his constituency, etc will have any negative effect whatsoever on his career. This is not the first time that he and other officials have gravely offended the people whom he (they) are supposed to serve. The Stewarts of this age seem to survive quite nicely, in fact. Their astonishing ability to control the media (even when they do stupid and even illegal things) accounts for at least half of their protection. The rest is built-in hubris.

  43. Anonymous said on 5 Oct 2012 at 5:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    May, you have proved my most important point: You are genius. Sad as it may be, every word you have written is thoroughly accurate, and each point you have made is unfortunate but complete truth. I wish I could deny even small parts of your 4 October post; sadly, I cannot.

Leave a Reply

Views: 2937