What is wrong in the republican party in Loudoun County

| | Comments (37) | TrackBacks (0)

It would seem that being Republican in Loudoun is far from an assurance of political victory. That would be rather hard to believe a while back. The county used to be firmly republican. Did the people in the county change that much? Or was it something else?

If you ask me, I'd say it was something else. In fact, I'd say that the problem is with the people that run the party in Loudoun. First, the move from a primary to a convention. The argument is that Democrats were voting in the primary and putting in people that are easier to defeat.
I don't buy it.
The real issue I think is the issue that moved the party to go to a convention. What is that? The people in power were seeing the rank and file Republicans looking not at putting them in office, but having real issues they cared about. A convention allows fewer people to have a larger say. If the nominee were done by primary, there would be absolutely no assurance the old boy network would be able to put up the winner, and the people might actually have a say in government. (They just don't get it -- DPM got kicked out of office, not gently, but with force. Her politics are dead -- and the nail was solidly placed in her political coffin this go round.) The old boy network has firmly in mind that the purpose of the party is to elect candidates. That is not what rank and file republicans feel. The rank and file want the issues they want. We don't want to be democrats with a different party tag. We are not about just getting people elected, we are about principles.

The people in power think the party is them. "I've been working for you in the trenches" is one of the things I heard at the convention -- and I couldn't think of anything that is more anti-Republican in principle. Do we really want power without substance? No. What is really sad, is that I see no any real difference between the Republicans in Loudoun and Democrats (in many cases, not all -- Eugene, Guerin and some others are solid issues and hard workers, not just figureheads).

What do I want to see out of this? I'd love to see the party reborn. If the old dead blood can get out of the way, admit defeat, and retire, we might just be able to get the right people running, get unity within the ranks, and work to get what we all wanted.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What is wrong in the republican party in Loudoun County.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1460


Jonathan said:


I generally don't help the opposition, but in this case, I find it to be my Christian duty. It all goes back to a November 10 2004 LTE that stated:

"As information has trickled in, it has become clear that the sine qua non for many voters was the moral values issue."

If that statement was true, voters compared the above rhetoric with years of actual behavior and smelled hypocrisy.

If Republicans are going to talk the talk, they've got to walk the walk. If you assign the loss to procedural mistakes, you're missing the boat.

ACC said:


I would definitely take Equality Loudoun's recommendations on how to win in politics. Look at how well they did in defeating the marriage amendment.

But seriously, it's been obvious to me that we were fighting in some unfamiliar turf for the last few years in Fairfax and increasingly Loudoun and Prince William. Six years ago, I really believed that Mark Warner's victory was a fluke, but it's become apparent that the old ways don't work anymore.

Rebirth is a key concept, but the real problem is that there is no leader at this point to come forward and lead us. We don't need the same patched tires (Gilmore/Senate or Dick Black/1st congressional district). That's not to say we need RINO's (just look at Tom Davis's wife), but rather we need smart conservatives who can lead both sides of the party.

Maybe we'll get a new Speaker in the House of Delegates this year who can step up to the plate? Maybe General Pace will run for Senate? Maybe John Hager will stop going to Presidential receptions on election day?

If only Richard Obenshain was still alive, he'd know what to do...

Jonathan said:


The Rovian strategy of attacking our strength won't work. Regardless of the results of the amendment, people in my community are still married. I've been in the trenches of the marriage battle and I've had many, many conversations with anti-gay conservative Christians, including pastors with large congregations, and they can't be "in Christ" and speak against same-sex marriage at the same time. They can't condemn same-sex marriage while pastoring to couples in committed covenant relationships. What is pastoral care if not face to face, soul to soul connection? The Bible doesn't support anti-gay activism. Make fun all you'd like. You just look un-Christian.

G.Stone said:

Jonathan :
With all due respect save the marriage ammendment for another day.

Rebirth is needed ! look at Ken C. He won staying true to his principles against a huge wave of Dem money. It can be done. He worked hard and smart at the same time in an ever changing political demographic and still won in Western Fairfax County. We can do the same in Loudoun County.

Moving away from Common Sense Conservatism in order to emulate the Dems is not the way to go.
Ask Jeannmarie Devolites how that shift to the middle worked out for her. She made Gun Control the centerpiece of her campaign and got her hat handed to her. As a conservative I am glad to see her go.

I know this to be a fact, but we had candidates who did not even know how to reach out to the core conservative groups for help, endorsements and money. These rookie mistakes cost some of our House and Senate candidates a shot at winning.

The local Republican Party was of little help to these new candidates. When a candidate the day before an election tells you , oh I did not know that or I wish someone would have told me that, then the party has failed.

The Loudoun county needs leadership with vision and the ability to talk to and excite the local base. But most of all we, need candidates who are more concerned about the county than their own position or advancement.

Charles said:

Jonathan, actually they can.

Your assertion would just as easily argue that if a husband leaves his wife and shacks up with some girlfriend, and they come for counselling, that the pastor wouldn't be able to oppose adultery and "pastor the couple".

I'm guessing you believe that the comparison is wrong, because in my example the man is clearly violating biblical admonitions. But once you admit that biblical admonitions exist, and that pastors must enforce those admonitions as part of their "pastoral care", we are no longer arguing the touchy-feely "how can a pastor provide care to covenented relationships and still attack same-sex couples", and onto the question of whether there is a biblical admonition against same-sex couples.

If there is no biblical prohibition of same-sex relationships, there'd be no reason for a pastor to condemn it. But since there is, it is the duty of pastors to condemn it.

I didn't make the rules. As a fallen human being, I'd much rather be able to "get along" with all sorts of sinful behavior. I'd rather not be the spoilsport who has to discuss rules.

Still, that's a religious thing. However, history is not kind to nations that lapse into a "do whatever you want" mentality.

Jonathan said:


You're pretty astute to bring up an adultery example because it is precisely the Scriptural prohibition of adultery that I use to make a Biblical case *for* same-sex marriage.

G. Stone,

I believe that you meant to address the statement:

"Jonathan :
With all due respect save the marriage ammendment for another day."

to ACC

Not that I entirely agree with Jonathan, but the focus on the "marriage amendment" is a sign of what's wrong with the Republican Party. When you get right now to it, two men or two women agreeing to a marriage relationship neither picks the pocket nor breaks the leg.

Government should get out of the issue entirely, allow churches or private legal arrangements to define marriage and leave individuals and parties free to recognize or refuse to recognize the arrangement. I'm baffled as to why government regulates and taxes marriage, when they don't do so for baptisms, bar mitvahs and BFFs.

It's no coincidence that the GOP fell apart once it focused on banning civil unions, banning Internet gambling and having Congress federalize the Terri Schaivo tragedy, while ignoring fiscal responsibility and individual freedoms.

If Bill Bolling, the House majority and Senate minority spend the next two years making sure every word that comes out of their mouth or gets on papers is about controlling spending, cutting waste and getting government out of people's lives, 2009 will be far different than 2005 and 2007.

Eric the 1/2 troll said:


To me it is clear that the R label in Loudoun (what drove many of this year's losers into office) IS indeed no longer a safe vehicle to the BOS seat. As to why? What has changed? That question is easily answered. There is one single underlying theme here. DEVELOPMENT (i.e., MONEY)

All of the R's that were ousted this time were pro-developers. All of the candidates who retained their seat (less one) were specifically NOT pro-development. The connection has been made in the suburban voter's mind that DEVELOPERS have created many of their woes.

As to DPM and the convention vs. primary. That too is all about DEVELOPMENT. Most of this started when York sided with a 4 person anti-development minority half way through DPM's board. The next election, DPM's crowd was upset with the primary because it allowed non-developers to run as Republican's (labelled RINO's by DPM's crowd) and therefore automatically ride to a BOS seat (that's the way it was then) - Scott York was example #1 and DPM HATED this. After DPM lost the primary and also the general election, she understood that in order for the developers to ride the R to power, she had to control the selection of candidates - no primary - must be convention.

Well as you noted, that failed her/them this time around. The developers now have no where to go - maybe PW county - as their path to power has been cut off.

You are right about one thing. The first step to reviving the Republican party in Loudoun must go through an open primary. Loudoun Republicans are by no means dead - conservative principles will still hold a lot of appeal. But the process needs to be opened up. If the LCRC chooses a convention and tries to follow the same old path to power, they will indeed be shut down again. It is likely that the Republican candidates selected in the primary will not be pro-development candidates but they at least would most likely be conservatives.

ACTivist said:

I partially (choke) agree with what Troll is saying but developement is not always a bad thing WHEN it is presented on the business view. After all, we have been told by many boards that we want Loudoun friendly to business. That was the mindset when York started using our taxes buying frivilous pieces of property and developement rights. When we do get business, we cottle them here with forgiving taxes in lieu of "tours?" or something else lame. We forgive business when they get arrears in their taxes. We have done everything possible to pick the pockets of homeowners INSTEAD of businesses as promised. And businesses promote growth and congestion.

Republicans need their conservative roots as well as doing what is right for the citizens. No one is listening to the people and that includes the Dems. Office holders may have different priorities on issues but NO issue presented by the public should be any less important than another. We need civil servants that care. Bottom line!

Jonathan said:


Going back to that November 10 2004 LTE, it also stated:

"This year saw many firsts: Viewers abandoned mainstream news sources for Fox News..."

Hmmm. Have you seen "Fox Attacks Decency"?


You've got to love those "moral values" "conservatives".

Anonymous said:

LOTS! they got went TOO far to the right and that's just WRONG!

To those that want to say the problem is with Republicans opposing conservative moral values, no. Not here. Loudoun still is a county with conservative moral values. (Jonathan, you should read your Bible before you go spouting off on what can or cannot be Christian and policy toward homosexual activity. You cannot be Christian and reject the Bible, and if you know what the Bible says, then you will reject homosexual activity as being morally wrong.)

1/2 Troll.

Strange that I tend to agree with you. I know many a republican that is not in favor of developers. I also know many that are in favor or property rights for land owners. The two issues are strangely wed within the Republican party, in that the party is more likely to be the party that has principle as its guide rather than pragmatism. Most Republicans would rather have the party loose than violate the principles they hold as truths. Thus, it will always be a second power unless the issues are so clear that the Democrats are being thrashed by the special interest groups to not take a stand, and the people see (at least for a while) truth.

This party is an "also ran" party unless they get the message out clearly and concisely--and the people see the truth--that the issue is character, and moral integrity. The Clintons of the world are always giving us "that depends on what your definition of "is" is". When the people are willing to listen to that drivel because they are getting what they want, the Republicans will loose. When the people wake up, those that debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (or argue over the meaning of "is") will win. If people see pragmatism as evil it is, the present leadership (if you can call it that) of the Republican party will be history (as will the Democrats).

1/2 troll, you are absolutely right about one thing. Those that are attempting to use the R as a means of gaining power are going to loose. That isn't how Republicans (real republicans) think. If anything, those that view the R as a means to power are the real RINOs here. DPM has got to be the worst of RINO leaders.

Jonathan said:

Brian Withnell says:

"You cannot be Christian and reject the Bible"

Oh Brian, you're such a dismissive bore. I'll go converse with somebody who isn't such an arrogant Scriptural know-it-all; someone who is humble before the Lord; someone willing to listen (who rejected the Bible?); and someone who doesn't claim to *know* what "truth" *is*.

Isn't the present leadership of the party Paul "Purity" Protic, a professor at PHC? If a PHC professor can't guide the "character and moral integrity" of the Loudoun GOP, who can?

What does:

"Most Republicans would rather have the party loose"

mean? Is that an admission of the state of moral values within the party? Perhaps God inspired Brian Withnell with the "gift of prophesy" to reveal a grain of truth.

Have a blessed day Brian Withnell.

Jonathan said:

Oh, Brian Withnell,

I forgot to ask, Did you enjoy the "Fox Attacks Decency" video? I bet you did. ;-)

Jack said:


First, thanks for the video -- I'll add it to my list of reasons for not having cable TV.

Second, Brian is right -- homosexual activity is incompatible with Scripture.

Eric the 1/2 troll said:

Wow, I am going to completely steer away from the old scripture argument. Suffice it to say, imo, I do not have the authority (nor does anyone) to say who is really a Christian and who isn't.

"I also know many that are in favor or property rights for land owners."

I know of no one who does not favor property rights for land owners. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

"This party is an "also ran" party unless they get the message out clearly and concisely--and the people see the truth--that the issue is character, and moral integrity.'

The overriding ISSUE in this last election (and most in the recent past in Loudoun - and likely the near future) is residential growth. If you try to focus the LC GOP on the moral integrity platform, you will lose again. Be aware, I am not saying that moral integrity is not important - it obviously is. Snow's little doctored car photo showed that. But it is not the overriding focus of the electorate.

The thing to do is to step away from the Jack Shockey CPR crowd and let the LC GOP run (via an open primary) slow growth conservatives - which will likely be what is selected in such a primary. Take that issue off the table and the DIFFERENCES between conservatives and liberals can shine through for people to see.

Jack said:

"Suffice it to say, imo, I do not have the authority (nor does anyone) to say who is really a Christian and who isn't."

That is because you do not read the Bible. Paul (1Cor.5:11) clearly tells us to judge those who are called "brother."

Eric the 1/2 troll said:

So you say this verse gives us authority to say that anyone who is greedy is not a Christian? One can now say that an alcoholic is not a Christian? Sorry, Jack, that is not what I get out for this verse. I get it to mean "choose your associates wisely" - not "label others as 'non-Christians'".

You believe what you want to believe - I'll believe what I want makes more sense to me. Are you then prepared to label me as a non-Christian as well?

HEY!! I said I was going to steer clear of this discussion.

suburbanite said:

Joe et al--make no mistake, the election was won by Voters for Loudoun's Future and not the LCDC.

The LCDC rolled over and threw Phyllis Randall under the bus for Waters, back by the money and power that is the real political force in Loudoun. It is just 1999 all over again--right down to Eugene as the only dissenter.

In Loudoun, the unfortunate fact is that "R" and "D" are only tags to herd voters with, which is indicative of the utter contempt thsat the real old boys have for the majority of the population.

If anyone attends Ben Dover's tc event at Old Dominion tonight, see if the two supervisors who are tooconservative and NotLarrySabato bloggers have the guts to reveal their identites as NotEveMarieBarner and Tired of Good Old Boys & Girls.

I doubt they'll admit it, but it might be entertaining to see if they just show up to congratulate Wolinski and Siker on helping them bring "integrity" back to Loudoun politics!


David said:

Voters for Loudoun's Future threw Phyllis under the bus - certainly not the LCDC. The rest of your comment is hilarious from someone posting under a pseudonym. Yeah, you're a real "insider," what a hoot.

I think y'all should go with the Sex Police Party as far as branding. Then you'll start winning elections again :)

Jonathan said:

Brian Withnell,

You should listen to Jack and David as you bring about the implementation of a Republican party of principles over pragmatism. Republicans will be brothers who in accordance with 1 Corinthians 5:11 are all morally pure. Here is your new tag-line.

Loudoun GOP - The Sex Police Party

The party can revise the bi-laws and add a sexual morality pledge. New members will pledge that they are sexually pure, and prior to each meeting, the members will produce a list of the previous months sexual acts and thoughts to be approved by the Chief Sex Police Officer (CSPO) - preferably a virgin or neutered servant who dresses in white polyester. If a member is found to be sexually immoral, their membership is terminated immediately. They are then presented with the scarlet letters "III" (for IMPURE, IMMORAL and ILLEGAL) which they will wear the rest of their adult life. Members in good standing will wear the letters "PPPCR" which stands for Principled, Pure, Patriarchal, Christian and Republican.

I believe that this new branding will guarantee God's grace and bountiful electoral victories.

God Bless.


It may interest you -- I don't watch a lot of TV. I get most of what I want over the internet, and I read a lot. So, while I understand that some people watch TV for news, I tend to use many other sources.

Let me ask you something though ... you, through sarcasm accuse me of not being humble before God, but suppose God really does condemn homosexual activity -- would you be humble before him and admit to error, or would you be the one to be arrogant? If you reject condemnation of homosexual activity, then you do reject the Bible. Read Romans 1:18 through 1:32. Regardless of anything else, it clearly teaches that homosexual activity is wrong. Before you launch into some argument of anything else, let me be perfectly clear -- look carefully at what I've said -- I have not condemned anyone, but just stated that a particular activity is wrong (sinful). I am not pointing my finger at anyone -- what I am doing is saying what the Bible says. God's word has the authority to condemn, not me. And while I may state without apology what the Bible says, I do not need to condemn anyone -- if they read the scripture, they will condemn themselves, or repent and flee to God. (I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first for the Jew and then for the Greek.)

God has spoken in his word, the Bible. The people that actively seek to understand what he has said by the plain reading of it, are not arrogant. If anyone is arrogant, it would be the creature that rails against the creator. Those that would set themselves up in judgment over the Bible, rather than submit to the judgment of the Bible. The pot cursing the potter for how he made the pot. If a person raises his hand in an angry fist against God, that is the person that is arrogant, not the one that acknowledges his actions are sinful from birth, and that he deserves the eternal fires of hell itself.

1/2 troll,

I don't believe this. We are going to agree on something yet again in the same blog topic.

I agree totally that nobody can definitively state who is or is not a Christian. There are things I can repeat that are the consensus of the first ecumenical councils as to what is required of a person to be a Christian: "I believe in God the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and it Jesus Christ his son ..." If you stay within the historic creeds and say that a person must accept those, you are on fairly solid ground as far as what a Christian must believe -- but to make a decision on the eternal destination of an individual, that is not up to me or any other person presently walking this earth.

Would you stop making sense! It's confusing to have you say something sensible!

Jonathan said:


Thank you for helping me to see the meaning of 1Cor.5:11. You've demonstrated three things:

1. You truly believe in your heart that the Loudoun GOP needs a CSPO. It wasn't new news. You're on the record.

2. In spite of your claim to Eric that "to make a decision on the eternal destination of an individual, that is not up to me", you arrogantly do make such judgments - "he deserves the eternal fires of hell itself".

3. Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

I'd refer you to Psalm 115:

King James Bible
1 Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake.

2 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?

3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

Read the words from your fellow Loudoun GOP member about Fox news:

"As information has trickled in, it has become clear that the sine qua non for many voters was the moral values issue."
"This year saw many firsts: Viewers abandoned mainstream news sources for Fox News..."

Apparently, Brian Withnell, your are blinded by your idols of silver and gold because you seem to think that everything is about *you*. Read the title of the thread "What is wrong in the republican party in Loudoun County" (Jack, you may grammer police to your heart's delight). Would you like to re-title the thread? Maybe it should be titled:

"If all Republicans thought like ME - Brian Withnell - the Republican party in Loudoun County would be right".


You seem to have problems with understanding the difference between my saying it isn't possible to say who, on an individual basis is or is not Christian, and that those persons that are actively and continually in rebellion against God are not Christian. I'm not sure why you have trouble seeing that difference.

You asked me if I thought something you posted about Fox was wonderful ... I answered that I don't watch TV. Then you attack me for answering what you posted? If you are going to post something asking for explicit feedback about a video you post, and I respond is doesn't really matter to me, I don't watch much TV, then perhaps you should take that at face value. You were the one that brought it up, not me.

Please do not lump me in with "fellow GOP" members. I'll let you know that just because someone is in the GOP, that doesn't mean I think the way they do. One shouldn't presume all individuals think like a group to which they belong or prejudicially judge others by the actions of some. If you want to talk about what *I* have said, go ahead and do so, but please don't put someone else's words in my mouth. (Last time I checked, bigotry was looking at a portion of a group and stating the whole group is the same--regardless of what group to which one refers: "he must think *****, he's one of 'them'". I'm sure you don't want that.)

Perhaps you should try to understand those with whom you disagree. If you are shaking your fist at God then perhaps you thought my statements were directed at you -- they were not. If you are shaking your fist at God -- the God of the Bible, and not a god of your own making -- then perhaps you should stop, turn and repent (as every human must do if they are to be saved).

"Saved" is a loaded term, but let me explain what I mean by it. All (me, you, everyone) have sinned, and we all justly deserve the eternal fires of hell. God would be righteous, just and holy if he condemned the entire world and cast us all into hell. He chose not to do that by providing a means of escape -- a means that required justice be done, but allows mercy as well. God gave those whom he would save to his eternal son, and gave Jesus the task of redeeming them. It pleased Jesus to do all that his father asked, and he died for those whom the father gave him. Those who are being saved place their trust in Christ Jesus, accept him as Lord and submit their lives to him. While in this life they do so imperfectly, but always striving toward perfection. That is the gospel ... the good news is that some are being saved rather than all being lost. And none of this is due to one person being "better" than another, but only of grace. The evidence in this life of that grace is the change in attitude toward God. Instead of railing against what God has commanded, those being saved rail against their own sin.

David said:

If I recall correctly, without scrolling up to the top of the page, the topic of this post is "what's wrong with the Republican party" wrt continuing election losses. I think that we have exhibit A right here, in a person who can determine that someone else is "shaking your fist at God" and is therefore not part of the body of Christ, while simultaneously denying that he is doing so. It's this sort of blind arrogance that is causing the Republican party to choose equally arrogant candidates - who will, for the most part, lose in Nothern Virginia.

You, Brian, do not speak for Christians, nor do Christians have any special claim to moral values. Notice that I am not saying that you are not a Christian simply because I believe your understanding of Scripture to be flawed.

Sanuty said:

The Republican Party will continue to be in trouble in Loudoun County until they marginalize the RWNB's like Brian and Jack. These two, among others, (as I've said in another post) are so far out of the mainstream with their self-rightous interpretations of documents like the bible and the 2nd amendment, that there is a sizable (and getting larger) number of people that will reject the "R" label just because of the association with RWNB's.

Again, keep it up guys. I have no problem with all of you standing on principle and losing. I fear the day when the LCRC boots you out and gets real. Or, even worse, that you compromise your principles, at least in public, for the purpose of gaining power.

Instead, PLEASE DON'T LISTEN TO ME! (I know you don't anyway, which is good.) Please continue to just shake your head and assume we are all condemned to hellfire, and that you're trying hard to change us, but it just isn't working, and "Please God, give me credit for trying."

Please keep doing that while we "right thinkers" are helping to continue to move the human race forward, increasing human rights, reducing poverty and killing, eliminating inter- (and intra-) religious anger and hatred, relying on science as God's instrument for the pursuit of truth, and recognizing compromise as the right way to resolve disputes.

Would y'all feel better if us non-RWNB's just stopped posting so you could have a feal-good "coffee klatsch"?

(You guys just kill me. I have to admit I enjoy reading your dribble. Or at least until I begin to believe that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE the crap you spew. Then I just get sad and resolve to work twice as hard to marginalize all RWNB's, whatever "religious" pursuasion.)

Jack said:


Here's the thing -- you purport that your policies "increase human rights, reduce poverty and killing," but the facts do not support your claims. The Democrats favor First Amendment restrictions such as "Campaign Finance Reform." They favor Second Amendment restrictions, which are shown to INCREASE crime and killing. Their socialist policies increase poverty. The Democrat M.O. is to keep people dependent on the government, then promise to take care of them. The results of the Democrat policies do not match their stated intentions.

Christianity DOES work to eliminate religious hatred. True Christians believe that ALL people are loved by God. God has given us the way to salvation. We do not object to the teaching of Islam or Buddhism, because in such an open environment, Christianity will win. That is why the Islamic countries ban Christian preaching.

I do agree that science reveals God. The more we see the complexity of biology, for instance, the more we know that it cannot be an accident, as the atheists would have us believe.

Compromise is fine, when it works. We compromised with Hitler. How did that work out? We compromised with the USSR, how did that work out for eastern Europe? Israel tried to compromise with Arafat. How did that work out?

You cannot compromise with those who want nothing but you dead. Iran wants all Jews dead. So how should we compromise? Just allow them to kill half the Jews? They won't be satisfied. So then want, kill half of the Jews you didn't kill last time?

The same goes for gun control advocates. They want ALL guns banned. So we compromise by banning "assault rifles." Well, since that doesn't reduce crime any, they want further compromise by banning "Saturday Night Specials." Now the poor have no way to protect themselves, but the criminals did not turn in their guns. So gun crime goes UP. So more compromise is required. Finally, as in Britain and Australia, ALL guns are essentially banned. Violent crime still goes up. That is the "compromise" the gun banners want.

Jonathan said:

Brian Withnell,

While Jack is not an expert on Loudoun GOP issues (he's not from Loudoun), and while his last comment was a non sequitur (the topic is the local GOP), his comment:

"We compromised with Hitler. How did that work out?"

may have evoked Godwin's Law:


I applaud your attempt to fix the Loudoun GOP. It's going to be a long hard task. Keep it open and transparent. It's going to be fun to watch.

p.s. If you look at Equality Loudoun's latest post, you'll see that David is calling on all GLBT Republicans and Equality Loudoun allies to come to your aid.

"Following its crushing losses in this election and attempted violation of state party rules, it is very likely that the Loudoun County Republican Committee will be disbanded and reconstituted with new leadership. The obviously needed reordering of priorities along more sensible lines will finally make it possible for Republican Equality Loudoun members and supporters to participate in their local party. We strongly encourage our Republican friends to get involved at the very beginning of this process, and help rebuild and guide the new LCRC back to the principles of individual liberty and limited government. We will all benefit from an environment in which both political parties can engage in real policy debate, and not have one of them off in the weeds nattering about “protecting marriage” or whatever the wedge issue of the moment is."


It may be that the discussion is getting old. I'd like to say that at least your most recent post seemed more thoughtful.

I would like to state that I do believe there is a need for the Republican party to return to its roots. The party was formed in reaction to the other two major parties not taking the evil of racial slavery seriously. There were many people that saw the abuse of blacks as heinous in the extreme, and they formed the Republican party to push for a moral value that was informed by a careful reading of scripture. Abe was the first president of the party, and even though he attempted to first hold the union together, his election was a sufficient "threat" to southern slave owners that they attempted to secede from the union.

The moral issue of slavery was the origin of the party. The origin of the Democrat party was that of division of power not over moral issues, but views of central government and states' rights more than anything else. I suppose a Democrat that wanted to return to roots would support states rights and slavery?

Jack said:

Jack's Law:

"Whenever a legitimate comparison to Hitler or Nazis is made, the person losing the argument will try to end discussion by mentioning Godwin's Law."

The comparison is quite apt here, Jonathan. Hitler wanted the Jews dead -- all of them. So do Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians. What compromise would be reasonable with that as the demand?

G.Stone said:

We will win when the Conservative principles for which the party was founded again become the catalyst for finding committed candidates. Pretend conservatives who are more intrested in serving the intrests of entrenched power as well as those whose core beliefs are so weak that they change political parties at the drop of a hat need to be shown the door. This is step number one.

This means finding candidates willing to do the hard work of funding their campaigns via citizen intrests as opposed to the entrenched power brokers.
This is easier said than done.

Sanity said:


You've surpassed even your lofty rhetoric achievements! I didn't think it was possible! I think it's obvious to most of us that my term "compromise" was meant to be between Delegates, Senators, Representatives. I don't think most Democrats would want you "dead", other than politically.

Even if you are "right" in your positions (which you're mostly not), only you can decide whether being "right" and losing is better than being "mostly right" and winning. That's the Republican question.

Brian, Jonathan,

It is kind of funny (ironic?) that in Lincoln's time the Democrats were the conservatives, and the Republicans the liberals. Interesting how things evolve (not unlike biology, Jack, you poor idiot, who would rather believe a 6000 year old book than modern science).

One more thing: Jack, you seem like a smart guy (if blinded by religion). Do I need to list all of the past events (Crusades, for example) where Christians were fomenting religious hatred? Are you that biased that you can only see bad things in other people and good things in folks like you?


A couple of things. First, the original Republicans where what I would call conservatives. They insisted on a Biblical view of morality and insisted the moral position was worth pushing toward the eventual elimination of slavery. Lincoln's party was one that stood against the then democratic party which was a huge majority, and wrested the presidency from them. The issue was a morally conservative point of view -- racial slavery is wrong, and the Bible does not allow calling someone who is human anything less than human, and does not allow denigrating the image of God in any man. That is a moral conservative view -- what is morally right ought to be enforced upon all men everywhere. That is moral conservativism at the core (and what moral liberals complain about today.)

Just "one more thing" to your one more thing. Do you really need anyone to point out that just because someone says they are Christian, it doesn't mean that what they do is in agreement with Christian doctrine contained in the Bible? And of course, just because someone claims to be a Christian, Jesus himself said that is not enough to make them a Christian. Those that say "Lord, Lord" are not those that are his, but those that do what his father commands.

10 feet tall and Bulletproof said:

{suburbanite said:
Joe et al--make no mistake, the election was won by Voters for Loudoun's Future and not the LCDC.}

I think I need to thank you for the credit, bonehead. As one of the republicans to sit on the original bipartisan steering committee of that fine organization, let me thank you for your recognition.

{In Loudoun, the unfortunate fact is that "R" and "D" are only tags to herd voters with, which is indicative of the utter contempt thsat the real old boys have for the majority of the population.}

Boy, are you on a roll? Call the voters "cattle" and dismiss the intellect that just whooped yer ass at the polls? And then follow that up with a charge of utter contempt for those by the GOBN?? The Gang of five demonstrated the only contempt I witnessed for four years.

{If anyone attends Ben Dover's tc event at Old Dominion tonight, see if the two supervisors who are tooconservative and NotLarrySabato bloggers have the guts to reveal their identites as NotEveMarieBarner and Tired of Good Old Boys & Girls.}

I'd be ashamed to admit to the blog readership that you're that stupid. The ONLY supervisors to ever use the TC blog were Eugene Delgaudio and Staton. And to be totally honest, York made ONE appearance to defend himself when it was implied that he'd seen the FBI letter. Yeah....that one blew up, too.

{I doubt they'll admit it, but it might be entertaining to see if they just show up to congratulate Wolinski and Siker}

A couple DID attend, and they didn't congratulate us. We thanked THEM for stepping in and allowing us to unite behind a single focused beam in each race. Sounds like you've got some sour grapes over there, and you'll have 4 years to digest them.

But hold on... the best part is yet to come. I just needed the seats to be filled for the next act, and now I can get busy assuring the county that the wrong kind of politics never gets played again in this county.

jacob said:

The crusades were a response to 300+ years of Islamic expansion by the sword. Put things into context boy. Were the crusades brutal? You betchya. The world was and still is brutal. War is brutal.

The Muslim Jihad had conquered North Africa, Persia, Palestine and gone into Spain, all at the point of the sword, with much murder and mayhem along the way. Would you care to tell me how the "religion of peace" was doing something other than looking for a fight?

Common Idiot said:

Coincidence that the topic of the Loudoun Republican Committee has devolved into a comparision of radical Muslims and radical Christians?

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here