You may have recently received an email from Patrick Muldoon, who is running against Bill Bolling for the nomination for Lieutenant Governor. That email is full of so much inaccurate information that I felt compelled to write and set the record straight.
While I always welcome competition as a method to strengthen our party, and
while I believe that we must hold our public officials accountable for their stances, it cannot be at the expense of the truth.
I’m sad to say that a small group, determined to derail our victory in November, appear to be attempting to smear and falsely attack a man who has been a faithful friend to our conservative cause, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling.
I have known Bill Bolling and served with him in the Senate for years, and I can tell you that his opponent is not telling the truth about Bill’s record.
Let me set the record straight, point by point.
Claim: Bill did not oppose making the Plan B Morning After pill available to minors.
Truth: Bill Bolling has consistently opposed making the morning
after pill available to minors.
While his opponent has no record on Plan B, as a member of the State Senate
- Voted to require parental consent before minors can get Plan B
- Voted against allowing Plan B to be distributed over the counter without a
- Voted against allowing Plan B to be distributed on Virginia's college
Claim: Bill supported mandatory HPV vaccinations for grade-schoolers.
Truth: Bill Bolling has never supported mandating HPV vaccinations
for grade-schoolers, or anyone else for that matter.
In fact, when legislation to mandate the HPV vaccine was introduced in the General Assembly Bill publicly stated his opposition to that legislation and he fought for the no-cause parental opt-out that was ultimately included in the legislation that passed the Senate 40-0. Bill’s position was consistent with the position of The Family Foundation and the Catholic Diocese of Virginia: that parents should be made aware of the link between HPV and cervical cancer, but the vaccination should be a choice that each parent makes for themselves.
Claim: Bill campaigned around the state supporting the HPV vaccine in exchange for contributions from its manufacturer, Merck Pharmaceuticals.
Truth: Bill has never encouraged anyone to get the HPV vaccine.
In 2007, Lieutenant Governor Bolling and his wife, Jean Ann, participated in a bi-partisan national effort called “Ending Cervical Cancer in Our Lifetime.” This program was sponsored by the National Lieutenant Governor’s Association and was aimed at helping women make the connection between the HPV virus and cervical cancer. The program encouraged women to go to their doctors for regular cervical cancer screenings. It did not encourage anyone to get the HPV vaccine. And by the way, the last campaign contribution Bill recieved from Merck was $500, and that was six years ago!
Claim: Bill supports a “hook-up cultural agenda” of promiscuity and unprotected sex, and he is a “favorite Republican” of Planned Parenthood.
Truth: This one is simply laughable.
Bill Bolling is one of our most consistent conservative leaders. He is a family man, a dedicated Christian and a Sunday School teacher. He fought Tim Kaine’s attempts to eliminate state funding for abstinence education. He cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of denying state funds to Planned Parenthood. But there are probably two statistics that sum it up best:
Bill Bolling has a 100% lifetime rating from the Virginia Society for
Bill Bolling has a 0% lifetime rating from NARAL/Planned
It is unfortunate that Patrick Muldoon feels the need to mangle the record of a good man in order to further his campaign, but the sad truth is that he has no positive record to stand on. By contrast, Bill Bolling’s record speaks for itself:
- 100% pro-family voting record from The Family Foundation
- Endorsed by the Virginia Society for Human Life (2005)
- Supported parental notification and consent legislationSupported a ban on
partial birth abortions
- Supported higher patient safety standards for abortion clinics
- Cast the tie-breaking vote to deny state funding to Planned Parenthood
- Fought to restore abstinence education funding that Governor Kaine stripped
from the budget
- Led the fight to pass the Marriage Amendment
That’s a solid conservative record that we can be proud of.
A little over a year ago Bill Bolling put aside his personal ambitions and decided not to seek the Governor’s Mansion. Our party has benefited greatly from Bill’s sacrifice. Perhaps others should follow his example.
If we are going to win in November, we have no time for the politics
of negativity and personal destruction.
I’m proud to support Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling and I urge you to do so as well.
Senator Mark Obenshain
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
April 28, 2009
Since first beginning to explore the possibility of campaigning to represent the people of the 52nd District in the House of Delegates, I have been humbled by the support and encouragement I received from across eastern Prince William county, and indeed, beyond. Having been honored to stand by Jeff's side for the past six years as he has served, I have had the opportunity to meet and get to know many of the people of this district. They have made this job a rewarding experience for both of us, and the lasting friendships will always remain.Today, it is with mixed emotions that I announce my withdrawal from the race to succeed Jeff in the House of Delegates.
Unfortunately, some in the leadership of the Republican Party have demonstrated a greater interest in playing politics than in advancing our conservative principles and making life better for the families and the citizens of Virginia. I'm not interested in running for office to serve under broken leadership, where the Speaker compromises principle for what he perceives as immediate political gain. What so many entrusted with leadership in our party fail to recognize is that ignoring our core principles in pursuit of titles and power without purpose is exactly the behavior that severely reduced our ranks in the House, handed the Senate to the Democrats, and has resulted in one statewide loss after another.
Although my campaign ends today, it has been a pleasure to travel around the district and introduce myself as a potential candidate to so many wonderful people.
I want to first thank my friends and family for supporting me and encouraging me to run. I also want to thank Kris Morris and my supporters, who have spent hours volunteering on my behalf. To these people, I will remain forever grateful.
I'm excited about the future, and I will be working hard to make sure that people of principle who share Jeff's and my commitment to service are elected and re-elected this year. I'm confident that in years to come, our party will have new leadership and a new direction, which will bode well for fresh, new ideas -- and ultimately, handing our children a better Commonwealth than the one we inherited.
Monday, April 27, 2009
This was a campaign I had the opportunity to work on, and I would have loved to see Jim Tedisco as the next congressman from NY-20. That said he worked hard, the vote counting was fair and accurate, and when he realized the votes weren't there he did the proper thing and conceded. While Democrats are trying to use Tedisco's concession to get Norm Coleman to concede in Minnesota, they are two different races. In New York the vote counting was fair and untainted. Minnesota was full of wierd practices like finding votes in the back of a poll workers car. Those are issues that have to be dealt with. Hopefully after everything is said and done Coleman will be retain his seat in the U.S. Senate.
“This was a closely contested election that perhaps lasted a little longer than anyone may have expected or wanted. Ultimately, it became clear that the numbers were not going our way, and that the time had come to step aside and ensure that the next congressman be seated as quickly as possible.”
For some excellent analysis as to why Tedisco lost click here. It is a very good reminder of the importance of sticking to principles over polls, something I hope McDonnell does this year.
For analysis of what this election means to the GOP as a whole click here.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
This and other actions have lead to a very negative opinion of Arlen Specter by Pennsylvania voters. In a Rasmussen poll released yesterday Pat Toomey lead Specter 51% to 31%. Specter's negatives 55% while Toomey's were only19%. These are pretty one sided polling results. If Toomey decides to run it sure looks like Obama will lose an ally, and one more RINO will no longer be in the U.S. Senate.
When it comes to liberal Republicans, a liberal Republican from a blue distrct is fine, but a liberal Republican who undermines his caucus like Specter has deserves to be primaried. I hope Pat Toomey is successful in 2010 and becomes part of an amazing Republican Senate class of 2010.
Friday, April 24, 2009
from the Cuccinelli for Attorney General Campaign
The 2nd Amendment is one of those key issues that define the differences between conservatives and liberals. Liberals - and even some misguided Republicans - believe that the Government should have the right to impose restrictions on the purchase of any firearm - and what type of firearm a law abiding citizen should own.
Some (especially those on the left) believe that no-one - with the exception of law enforcement and the military - should have the ability to possess firearms. While this seems unrealistic, the left has for years followed through with a "legislative war of attrition" on the 2nd Amendment - seeking to ban incrementally, specific types of firearms, ammunition and sales.
As a State Senator, Ken Cuccinelli is the only candidate for Attorney General that has votes AGAINST attempts to weaken our rights as written in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
- Worked for the repeal of unreasonable restrictions on concealed carry permit holders and worked for the reciprocity between states that issue concealed carry permits (for example, a conceal carry holder in Virginia would be allowed to carry and conceal in any other state with similar laws)
- Drafted and successfully passed legislation that stopped some liberal county governments from requiring background checks via the U.S. Mail when purchasing a firearm, resulting in a waiting period. While Ken supports the current process of instant background checks at the point of sale - his legislation eliminated local governments' attempts to impose waiting periods with the additional, duplicative check.
- Worked to expand locations where law abiding citizens with carry conceal permits can carry - including state parks.
Ken's support and activism on behalf of the 2nd Amendment has never wavered - despite representing an area of the Commonwealth traditionally hostile to those rights. Ken Cuccinelli's support of our rights are not born from politics, but rather from a deeply held belief that Constitutional rights as written by our Founding Fathers are sacrosanct - and we should fight on all levels to protect those fundamental rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.
As you begin to learn the candidates' positions (or the lack thereof) ask yourself this question: What has this person actually done or accomplished on the issues we care about? Then look at the RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT from Ken Cuccinelli and you'll see that Ken's positions are not just political rhetoric.
Maybe that's why the Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League have both endorsed Ken's candidacy for Attorney General. Ken also has an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association. Ken is the ONLY candidate endorsed by 2nd Amendment organizations in this race.
As your next Attorney General, Ken will continue the fight to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and any attempts from Liberals in Washington, or in Virginia, to restrict those rights.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Our founding fathers believed self governance was one of the most important forms of government and critical to the success of a free nation. They also lived a self sufficient life. Most of the things people needed could be produced in their town, or at home.
Today people are not self sufficient. Hardly anyone grows their own food, and we buy everything from stores that have the products shipped in from every part of the globe. Most people can't hunt or live on their own in the wild for an extended period of time. We are also now worried of the possibility of a cyber attack from the other side of the globe taking out our infrastructure. Self government is also all but dead. Whenever things go wrong whether it is from natural disasters, economic problems, or medical concerns people expect the government to take care of their needs.
I think these relationships might be more than mere coincidences. I think that self sufficiency leads to a desire to be politically self sufficient and be self governed.
I am in no way advocating isolationism, or spurning technology, but simply whether or not there is a connection between self sufficiency and self government. What do you think? Please comment and let me know what you think.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
These are comments with which I heartily agree. With endorsements from Mike Huckabee and the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group closely affiliated with Ron Paul, Senator Cuccinelli now has endorsements that represent most of the grassroots activists from the 2008 Republican Presidential primary, and all the main conservatives running for president that year.
"At a time in our nation when fundamental, Constitutional rights and
protections are often ignored and twisted theories are contrived to circumvent the clear mandates of our founding documents, Virginia needs an Attorney General grounded in his faith and adherence to the core principles. Ken Cuccinelli is the person best suited to accomplish this for Virginia... We at FredPAC strongly endorse Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General and urge all Virginians, regardless of Party or political persuasion, who value individual liberty and constitutional government to support his campaign."
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was the runner-up Miss America. However, the internet buzz has all been about her stand against gay marriage, and her support of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
Here's some of what Focus on the Family wrote about the story. Read the full story here.
Miss California Sets Her Eyes on the Real Prize
At the Miss USA pageant, Carrie Prejean may have lost the crown but she won plenty of respect. Miss California, who was the odds-on favorite to capture this year's title, faced her biggest test this past weekend--answering a question from the judges about same-sex "marriage." To Fox News, the first runner-up said yesterday, "Out of all the topics I studied up on, I dreaded that one... If I had any other question, I know I would have won," she said.
Perez Hilton, an open homosexual who served as a pageant judge, pressed Prejean, asking if every state should legalize homosexual marriage. After a brief pause, Miss California responded in the same way that more than four million of her state's voters did during last November's election. "...I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be..."
Even though Carrie believes her answer "did cost me my crown," she told Access Hollywood, "I wouldn't have had it any other way... I see the audience would've wanted me to be more politically correct. But I was raised... that you can never compromise your beliefs and opinions for anything."
Later, Miss Prejean told Foxnews that she believed that God was testing her faith. You can read her inspiring interview here.
This young lady has stood her ground despite all the furor and anti-marriage attacks. It is good to see that there are still people out there who are willing to take a stand for what is right, even when it costs them.
This is a repost of an article by Will Estrada from the GenJ Blog.
There are two things I like to find in an ideal candidate: a commitment to conservative principles, and an ability to get elected. No case can be made that Muldoon has a better chance of being elected than Bill Bolling. Bolling has already shown he can win the Lieutenant Governorship, and has posted solid fundraising numbers (especially when compared to Muldoon). Muldoon has yet to win a single election. He lost bis bid for VA's 9th Congressional seat, lost in a race for Commonwealth Attorney, and his highest elected office is alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention.
Since Muldoon can not try to win on electability all he can try to win on is ideological purity. I am definitely an conservative who believes people should be true conservatives not just suddenly conservative during election season. That is why I have worked hard for Cuccinelli, Jeff Frederick, and Mike Huckabee among others. However Muldoon is just as ideologically impure as he claims Bolling is and does not have the long record of accomplishments that Bolling has. Earlier his connections to Barr Labs and the gambling industry were brought to light. Now Bearing Drift is reporting that Muldoon received over $10,000 from a group that has Barr Labs as a client, and has made donations to Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and others pro-choice Democrats. If Patrick Muldoon wants to have the audacity to criticize Bill Bolling for not being ideologically pure, he needs to make sure his own house is in order first.
Bolling has a record of voting pro-life. He opposed the Warner tax increase when most Republican senators supported it. He actively opposed Tim Kaine's tax hikes and has actively supported Republicans across the commonwealth. He also had the wisdom to not step into the Jeff Frederick fight. Bolling has a proven record on the issues. He has proven his conservative credentials time and again and as a result I am proud to support him. If you are a conservative then please support one of your own, over a political unknown with huge question marks. This is our opportunity to create a strong ticket, sweep the executive offices, and increase our majority in the House of Delegates along the way.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
"John McCain has failed miserably in his duty to secure this nation's borders and protect the people of Arizona from the escalating violence and lawlessness," Simcox said. "He has fought real efforts over the years at every turn, opting to hold our nation's border security hostage to his amnesty schemes. Coupled with his votes for reckless bailout spending and big government solutions to our nation's problems, John McCain is out of touch with everyday Arizonans. Enough is enough."Chris Simcox is the head of the Minuteman Project a group that is leading the effort to secure our borders. They recieved notoriety over the past couple year by being willing to patrol the border with Mexico that the federal government should be patrolling already. Chris Simcox is a real American who loves this country and will take some much needed commonsense to Washington D.C. To check out his campaign website click here. I hope he is able to defeat John McCain in the primary, and if we do not have a senate election in Virginia in 2010, I would love to go to Arizona to campaign for Chris Simcox.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Ken Cuccinelli is unabashedly Pro-life. It's a position he has always had - and a belief that's based on more than just words.
It's one thing to say you're "pro-life" as a candidate for nomination to public office - everyone that wants a Republican nomination says it. It's completely different if your words are backed with action and an actual record.
How many times have pro-lifers been disappointed after electing someone who kept insisting that he was pro-life during a campaign?
As a member of the State Senate, Ken Cuccinelli has not just voted right, he has been a leader on initiatives that cover the whole spectrum of the abortion issue and is a recognized leader on the issue of life.
- Ken has introduced legislation to ensure that abortion clinics are licensed and subject to the same regulations as outpatient surgical hospitals;
- Ken authored the Senate version of the parental consent law;
- Ken has led the way with efforts to de-fund planned parenthood of your tax dollars;
- Ken has led the Senate effort to successfully block embryonic stem cell research;
- Ken has led the fight to ban the gruesome procedure of "partial-birth" abortion;
- Ken led the fight on the Senate floor to adopt the "Choose Life" license plate, which was just signed into law. Proceeds from the sale of these plates will go to crisis-pregnancy centers across the Commonwealth.
These are just a few of the reasons why such notable conservative organizations as the Eagle Forum Virginia PAC, and the Republican National Coalition for Life have ENDORSED Ken's campaign for Attorney General.
Additionally, the Family Foundation honored Ken with their prestigious "Legislator of the year award" for 2008 for his efforts to strip planned parenthood of state tax funding.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Now that delegates from across the Commonwealth have been elected to represent their county/city committees at the 2009 Republican State Convention, the Cuccinelli for Attorney General campaign is starting a series of emails that spell out Ken's positions - and his voting record - on these issues.
As Ken is the ONLY candidate for Attorney General with an actual voting record on important matters he may face as Attorney General, we want Delegates to know the facts behind Ken's positions. Unfortunately, we expect Ken's vast voting record to be attacked, grossly distorted and taken out of context. As the front runner, Ken expects it.
We ask you to keep these emails as your reference and your backup when discussing important issues, and dismissing the inevitable distortions which sometimes plague our political system.
We felt it appropriate to start this discussion on TAX day, a/k/a, Democrats' Day. Not because we believe we shouldn't pay ANY taxes - that's not realistic. But because we pay too much, and all to feed an ever-expanding and out of control government - local, state and federal.
As a member of the Virginia State Senate representing Fairfax County, Ken is the only candidate for Attorney General with a voting record OPPOSING TAX INCREASES, opposing government intrusion and protecting our property rights.
Perhaps Grover Norquist, the renowned national conservative and President of Americans for Tax Reform summed it up best:
"Senator Cuccinelli is the strongest and sometimes the only voice in opposing tax increases of all kinds in the legislature. He is working behind the scenes to try and bring his colleagues back into the anti-tax camp."
As a State Senator, Ken has:
- Led the fight against former Governor Mark Warner's 2004 tax increase, the largest in Virginia history;
- Led the successful defeat in the Virginia Senate of Governor Kaine's proposed tax increases in 2006 and 2008;
- Proposed measures to shift money within the current budget to transportation WITHOUT raising taxes;
- Led the successful fight against the 2002 sales tax increase in Northern Virginia;
- A 100% voting record as rated by the National Federation of Independent Business;
- Been named a "Hero of the Taxpayer" by Americans for Tax Reform.
As your next Attorney General, Ken has pledged to continue to support a favorable environment for starting and growing business in the Commonwealth, including using his political influence to fight tax increases. And while protecting Virginia consumers, Ken will direct the Attorney General's office in a manner that is as minimally burdensome on our businesses and economy as possible.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Also this is just being provided for the sake of full and open disclosure, and transparency, etc... Please do not use this to blackmail anyone. While we may need to remove some people from positions of party leadership, we also need to keep foccused on winning in the general election this fall. If you do not plan on at least voting for our amazing ticket in the general election, I must question why you are getting involved in the party fights of a party you don't seem to actually support.
April 4, 2009
State Central Committee
One vacancy: 77 eligible to vote
75% Votes needed to Remove Chairman
Votes cast in Motion to Remove Jeff Frederick as Chairman
Officers – 11 Voting Members
NO Jeff Frederick, State Chairman
NO David Rensin, Finance Chairman
YES Mike Thomas, Vice- Chairman
YES Paulina Campbell, Secretary
* Morton Blackwell, National Committeeman .
YES Kathy Hayden Terry, National Committeewoman
YES Kevin Gentry, Eastern Vice-Chairman - Absent - Proxy carried by Anthony
YES Juanita Balenger, Eastern Vice-Chairwoman
_---___ Vacant, Eastern Vice-Chairman
YES Trixie Averill, Eastern Vice-Chairwoman
YES Rick Neel,Treasurer
* Note: Morton Blackwell presided as Chairman and would only vote if his vote would
make a difference. One proxy was not allowed, ,and Blackwell’s vote would not have
made a difference.
General Assembly – 4 members
NO Hon. Morgan Griffith, Majority Leader, House of Delegates
YES Hon. John Cosgrove, Member of the House of Delegates
YES Hon. Frank Ruff, State Senator
YES Hon. Emmett Hanger, State Senator—Absent - Proxy carried by Sen. Stosch
1st Congressional District – 6 Members
NO Jim Bowden
YES Carol Dawson
YES Michael Lowe
YES John Van Hoy
YES Allen Webb
YES Tom Foley, Congressional District Chairman
2nd District – 4 Members
NO Gary Byler, Congressional District Chairman
NO Roger Miles
YES David O’Kelley
YES Chester “Chuck” Smith
3rd District – 4 Members
YES Bryan Meals
YES Cortland Putbrese
YES Chris Woodfin – Absent - Proxy carried by Aaron Gulbranson
YES Mike Wade, Congressional District Chairman
4th District – 5 Members
YES Bill Flanangan
YES Irene Hurst - Absent - Proxy carried by Wayne Ozmore
YES Linas Kogelis
YES Bob Wheeler
YES Jack Wilson, Congressional District Chairman
5th District – 5 Members
NO Renee Trent Maxey
NO Chris Shores
YES Rachel Schoenewald
YES Rayburn Gene Smith
YES Tucker Watkins, Congressional District Chairman
6th Congressional District – 6 Members
NO Jim Crosby
NO Mickey Mixon – Absent - Proxy carried by Andrew Jones was challenged and
YES Lynn Mitchell
YES Matthew Braud
YES Wendell Walker
YES Fred Anderson, Congressional District Chairman
7th District – 6 Members
YES David Fuller
YES Brian Plum
YES Marie Quinn
YES Kristi Way - Absent – Proxy carried by Davis Rennolds
YES John D. Tucker – Absent – Proxy carried by Edward Eddens
YES Linwood Cobb, Congressional District Chairman
8th District – 4 Members
NO Vellie Dietrich-Hall
NO Mike Giere
NO Mark Kelly
YES Mike Ginsberg, Congressional District Chairman
9th District – 5 Members
YES John Kilgore
YES Jerry Lester
YES Dr. Judi Lynch
YES Jack Morgan
YES Michelle Jenkins, Congressional District Chairman
10th District – 5 Members
NO Elizabeth Kay Gunter
NO JoAnn Chase
NO Howie Lind
YES Mary Gail Swenson
YES Jim Rich, Congressional District Chairman
11th District – 4 Members
NO David Ray
NO Patsy Drain
NO Keith Damon
YES Becky Stoeckel, Congressional District Chairman
Virginia Federation of Republican Women – 3 Members
YES Brenda Campbell, President
YES Carol Ford, SCC Representative – Absent - Proxy carried by Faye
YES Angie Hall, SCC Representative
Virginia Federation of Young Republicans – 3 Members
YES Lori Ann Miller, President
YES Neil Miller, Representative
YES Andrew Vehorn – Absent – Proxy carried by Sara Rose Cavalli
Federation of College Republicans – 3 Members
YES Kate Maxwell, President
YES Matthew Wolking – Absent – Proxy carried by Dale Dye
YES Ray Boyce
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
McSweeney made some good points about the new direction of the RPV, especially it's lack of support for social issues. However Mason Conservative very accurately pointed out that going after Bolling for these problems and with Muldoon seems rather counterproductive.
While the RPV definitely has problems, Bolling has proven himself time and again to be a true conservative, and he has a very good chance at winning in the fall. Patrick Muldoon on the other hand has never been able to win an election, and has few real accomplishments and achievements that could make him a better nominee than Bolling. Honestly I have yet to see a real reason to vote for Muldoon. The only reason I see is that someone has a nitpicky problem with Bolling, or is trying to lodge a protest vote against McDonnell. Neither of those reasons though are reasons to support Muldoon only possible reasons to oppose Bolling.
NOMINATION OF PATRICK MULDOON
I make no pretense that this is the usual nomination speech. Frankly, I’m tired of the usual political speech.
As a party, we simply must begin to talk in a very different way than we have in recent campaigns or we will continue to lose ground.
We all know that the Republican Party today has no clear brand. The choice
is whether to develop a new one or to rediscover our tradition, but abandoned
That is not the only choice. The more important choice is whether incumbents and their consultants or the grassroots should decide what our brand should be instead of the grassroots.
I nominate Patrick Muldoon for Lieutenant Governor because he is committed
to the Party’s principles; to building a grassroots party and to having the
grassroots decide the most important questions facing us.
Patrick is an exceptionally capable, intelligent and hardworking fellow. Born and raised in Southwest Virginia on a family farm, he has earned both an engineering degree and law degree. In 1996 and 1998, he ran unsuccessfully for Congress against Democrat Rick Boucher in the 9th District. It also took George Washington and Vance Wilkins three tries each to win their first elections.
Patrick’s opponent is the incumbent Lieutenant Governor, Bill Bolling, who has forgotten that having a strong grassroots party means that elected officials must be accountable to the grassroots. After the 2008 Republican State Convention, Patrick’s opponent and an elite few decided that this convention should be as closed and restricted as possible. They decided that they, not the grassroots, would decide who our standbearers would be in 2009.
During the summer of 2008, this group of elites devised a Call for the 2009 convention that would make it very difficult for any candidates to enter the field who had not already announced. They used the only meeting of the State Central committee during the 2008 campaigns between May and November to push through the Call. Instead of planning to help our 2008 candidates, the Central Committee devoted almost its entirety of its September 2008 meeting to controversial procedural issues that had nothing to do with the 2008 elections.
As a result, a great deal of the Party’s energy and focus during the closing weeks of the 2008 campaigns was diverted from the essential tasks of enhancing turnout and promoting our candidates to organizing for the 2009 nomination contests. Lining up petition drives for 2009 candidates, raising money for 2009 candidates and generally speculating about 2009 had never before been allowed to interfere with the immediate challenge of winning the elections only weeks away.
What this group of elites never acknowledged was that they were abandoning
an unspoken, but reasonable and longstanding rule that all of our energy and focus be devoted to the elections at hand. Candidates for nomination in future races generally honored that rule. Patrick’s opponent and others in this group of elites put personal ambition and other concerns ahead of the best interests of our 2008 candidates and the best interests of the Party.
What is equally troublesome is that Bill Bolling and others in the elite group do not believe that Bolling should be required to account either for his past actions and positions or for the positions he intends to take during the 2009 campaign if he is nominated. The obvious conclusion is this: Patrick’s opponent and his elite group don’t want a public discussion about what our brand should be. They and only they will decide.
I am impressed with Patrick’s background and ability. Even more, I am impressed with his commitment to our principles and his willingness to hold fast to them in the face of vigorous opposition. I am impressed that he wants to rebuild this Party as a true grassroots party.
I am greatly disturbed that Bill Bolling has decided to abandon, downplay or remain silent about the principled positions that the grassroots of this Party has repeatedly
endorsed. His consultants have advised him that he cannot win the general election by advocating our well-established positions on social issues, limited government and individual liberty.
The new Republican message, we are told, must be that Republicans are better equipped than Democrats to solve people’s everyday problems.
Please take a moment to reflect on this new message. It necessarily means that ours has become a radically different party. We are no longer committed to encouraging individuals, families, religious organizations, voluntary associations and the free market to solve our problems. We will now look first to government to solve our problems, just as Democrats do. Our new brand is that Republicans can give people better government and maybe just a little bit less government than the Democrats. No matter how it is dressed up, that means expanding government.
This new brand is not one that the grassroots of the Party has ever embraced. Why should we blindly accept the brand chosen by Party elites?
Bill Bolling has decided that Republicans should either hide or compromise their positions on social issues. He never consulted the grassroots about that. We want candidates who will unapologetically defend those positions, not act as if they are afraid of them.
President Obama has reversed executive orders issued by President Bush to protect human life. Where are the Republican leaders who should be challenging President Obama for his actions?
Because many of our elected officials went along with higher government debt and spending while Republicans controlled the General Assembly, Congress and the White House, the Party has little credibility now when it calls for limiting government. The grassroots never endorsed this abandonment of the central principle of our Party, but we have not held our elected officials accountable for doing so.
At a time when the Democrats are further diminishing the role of the states in our federal system, where are our Republican leaders? Where is Bill Bolling? Is federal stimulus money so precious that Virginia should meekly accept any conditions that President Obama and Congress attach to the receipt of that money?
At a time when we face a serious threat of being disarmed by our government, where is Bill Bolling?
Because so few of our Republican elected officials and candidates actually understand or are willing to stand up for our principles, voters fail to appreciate the role that individuals, families, religious organizations, voluntary groups and the free market should play in solving problems. This has meant that the debate has been reduced to whether Republicans or Democrats are better suited to providing government solutions. Is it any wonder our Party is losing ground?
When we most need committed, articulate and principled candidates, too many of our candidates are listening to consultants who tell them not to tie themselves to controversial social issues or to advocate limited government because polls indicate that voters are opposed to those positions. Our candidates should be changing public opinion, not compromising our principles to placate public opinion.
The contest for the nomination for Lieutenant Governor offers a clear
· Patrick will campaign to
protect human life from conception to natural death.
· Bill Bolling has said that
Republicans must downplay their traditional positions on social issues in order
· Patrick wants to return to
traditional conservative principles of personal responsibility, community
self-help, parental control and reliance on private initiative and enterprise to
solve our everyday problems.
· Bill Bolling has a platform
that proposes new legislation to solve the citizens’ everyday problems and has
supported intrusive measures such as the human papillomavirus vaccination
· Patrick opposes legislation,
such as the 2007 transportation statute (H.B. 3202), that provides for the
imposition of taxes by unelected bodies, abusive driver fees and billions of
tax-backed debt without voter approval.
· Bolling supported H.B. 3202 in
The grassroots should choose candidates who will change minds, not change our principles. Patrick’s opponent has already decided that he will not be that kind of candidate.
That is why I am nominating a courageous young man who is fully prepared to defend our principles, even when the public appears to oppose them. I ask you support Patrick Muldoon. Let’s restore the proper, traditional conservative Republican brand that has brought us statewide victories in the past.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
April 4, 2009
in Virginia Split Sharply Over Leader
By THEO EMERY
When a conservative delegate to the Virginia General Assembly was elected chairman of the state Republican Party last May, he promised fresh leadership and the revitalization of an organization that many Republicans feared had lost direction.
Instead, Republican election losses in November and high-profile missteps have plunged the Republican Party of Virginia into months of ferocious infighting between supporters and opponents of the new chairman, Jeffrey M. Frederick of Prince William County. The dispute will be resolved on Saturday, when the state party’s central committee holds its quarterly meeting on the outskirts of Richmond to decide
whether to remove Mr. Frederick 10 months into his four-year term.
Many state Republican organizations are regrouping after November, but the process has been particularly venomous in Virginia, where Mr. Frederick’s supporters are battling with moderates and also some longtime conservatives as much over the party’s direction and political center as over its chairman.
“By Virginia standards, this is a pretty ugly street brawl,” the chairman of the government department at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, John J. McGlennon, said. Fifty-eight central committee members — the number needed in the 77-member committee to oust Mr. Frederick — have called for his removal or resignation, as have many Republican state legislative leaders and all five of Virginia’s Republican members of Congress. The party’s candidate for governor, Bob McDonnell, who resigned as state attorney general to run, has also said Mr. Frederick should resign.
The basis for Saturday’s vote is 10 grievances brought by members of the party’s central committee, the most serious accusing Mr. Frederick, 33, of failing to promptly turn over contributions his Internet technology company raised on the Web for the party. Other grievances accuse him of exceeding his authority, acting without the central committee’s approval and damaging the party’s reputation.
Mr. Frederick has denied any wrongdoing, calling the accusations “totally false.” In a letter to party members, he said he would not step down and accused “party insiders” of trying to nullify his election and regain power.
In an e-mail interview, Mr. Frederick said, “It’s no accident that an overwhelming number of those spearheading and supporting the effort to remove me endorsed my competitor in last year’s contest for chairman.”
“Some have just never accepted my victory, and have discounted the reasons why the grass roots voted for me,” he added.
A former United States representative, Tom Davis, a moderate Republican who has stayed on the sidelines in the dispute, praised Mr. Frederick as a “very able” lawmaker who has been subject to highly personal attacks, but predicted he
would be ousted as “part of the bloodletting that goes on when a party loses.”
Mr. Frederick, among the most conservative General Assembly delegates, was elected at the party convention last May with the support of anti-tax and anti-abortion activists. Many conservative newcomers saw his upset victory over the more moderate incumbent, former Lt. Gov. John H. Hager, as an affirmation of their rising power.
In October during the campaign for the presidency, Mr. Frederick made headlines when he said that then Senator Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden “both had friends that bombed the Pentagon,” a reference to Mr. Obama’s acquaintance with William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground radical group in the 1960s. The comment drew a rebuke from Mr. Obama’s Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.
The turmoil deepened after Election Day, when Mr. Obama carried Virginia, where the Republicans lost a United States Senate seat and three House seats. Some in the party began calling for Mr. Frederick’s ouster, but the party took no action at its meeting in December. His opponents have now made their efforts to remove Mr. Frederick a centerpiece of Saturday’s meeting. Debate has become so rancorous that some Republicans worry it is overshadowing the governor’s race.
In a letter to party members late in 2008, J. Kenneth Klinge, a longtime Republican activist who was the party’s executive director in the 1970s, argued for Mr. Frederick’s resignation. “Having known personally all the state chairmen we’ve had in the party since the early ’60s, he is the worst,” Mr. Klinge said, accusing Mr. Frederick of divisiveness and refusing to embrace anyone who he feels is less socially conservative than he is.
But supporters of Mr. Frederick, like Willie Deutsch, a sophomore at Patrick Henry College who writes a political blog, are equally passionate. Mr. Deutsch, 19, who began a Facebook page and an online petition supporting Mr. Frederick, said the fight had become vicious. He worries that those who elected Mr. Frederick state party chairman will abandon the party if he is unseated. “These are the people who are going to be working hard for their candidates through the summer and into the fall,” Mr. Deutsch said. “If you want to tell all those volunteers, we don’t care about your vote in the party, don’t expect them to come out and campaign for you.”
If you would like to get involved in the We Support Chairman Jeff Frederick movement, please join us on facebook, or the RPVNetwork, sign the petition, and contact your state central members and theMcDonnell campaign.
"The anti-Jeff Frederick folks are losing their grip! I guess it’s only appropriate that the latest allegation against Chairman Frederick came out on April Fools Day! Now they are fulminating against the Chairman because he was traveling overseas, on state business, last September. And he allegedly directed the RPV staff not to publicize his absence. Let’s get real! This trip had nothing to do with our defeats last year, and not drawing attention to the trip was hardly unethical. Like so many other “charges” against the Chairman, this is no reason to abrogate the legitimate vote of our Party’s delegates at last year’s convention. It is just one more excuse, rather than a reason, to vote against the Chairman.
Many people may not know that one of Chairman Frederick’s main adversaries, Jim Rich, the 10th District Chairman, was out of the country when the filing deadline for candidates for the 10th district congressional nomination were due to be delivered to him. Jim was supposed to receive the primary challenger’s filing papers, but he obviously could not be reached. It created such a problem that Rich had to cut his trip short and fly back to receive the papers.
While I understand that Jim opposes Chairman Frederick, it would be the height of hypocrisy for Jim to vote to remove Jeff Frederick based on “charges” such as this. It would be more appropriate for Jim to publically disavow this new effort to tar and feather Chairman Frederick for foreign travel.
The Chairman should only be removed if it is conclusively shown that he has acted in either illegal or unethical ways. Otherwise, his opponents should respect last year’s vote of the delegates and, if they have better candidates for Chairman, run them in the next scheduled election for Chairman. Let’s move beyond this divisive diversion and get on with the business of electing Bob McDonnell and the rest our Republican candidates in this fall’s elections."
Friday, April 3, 2009
In case you haven't seen it yet, Jeff Schapiro did an excellent analysis of what will happen tomorrow.
Also for those who want to remove Jeff Frederick because he is and will lose us elections, please stop and think. Did Jeff cause the electoral losses this party has sustained since 2001? I sorta doubt it since he was only elected to the House of Delegates in 2003. If Jeff didn't cause those losses, maybe something more systemic lead to our 2008 losses and might lead to our losses in 2009.
Also three of the district chairs who have done the most to undermine Jeff Frederick are Mike Wade of the 3rd District, Tucker Watkins of the 5th District, and Jim Rich of the 10th District. Al three of these men have held their positions for much longer than Jeff has been RPV chair. How successful have these three men been in winning their districts for the GOP? Mike Wade is from Bobby Scott's district a very solid Democrat district, Tucker Watkins just saw his Republican congressman lose in 2008, and Jim Rich was unable to deliver his district for McCain last year. Maybe their is a deeper problem within the RPV that will not be solved by removing Jeff Frederick.
Last question, while every one has enjoyed hating on Jeff, who will replace him? If we replace him with someone worse than Jeff will we have gained anything through this debacle?
Final question is can you name me five prominent people who actively supported Jeff in 2008 who are supporting his removal now. Those trying to remove Jeff have argued that they have grassroots support for this, and some have argued the same convention who voted to install him would vote to remove him now if it could. If this is true who are the prominent 2008 Frederick supporters who are leading the charge to remove him now?