What Is On The Line In The 41st

Reposted from Mason Conservative because some things just need to be read.


I'm hearing that the state party is going to stay out of Kerry Bolognese's race to flip Dave Marsden's delegate seat, thinking that they already have a big enough majority. I couldn't be more unhappy about that if it true, Bolognese ran a true grassroots, shoe-leather campaign last fall and deserves to finish what he started, and he deserves to have the full support of the entire apparatus of the party. The county committee is firmly supporting Kerry.

What Bolognese needs is money and he needs people. There is more going on here than just a special elections, it effects the remarkable turnaround of Republican fortunes in Northern Virginia, and the upcoming 11th district congressional race that might be the last time we get a chance to take down Gerry Connolly. Losing the Cuccinelli seante seat and the possibly losing the 41st delegate district stifles the momentum we gained by our wins in three delegate districts and the incredible numbers racked up by our statewides.

Also, make no mistake about it, Gerry Connolly is involved in these races and he's working on building Democratic momentum going into his reelection and embarrassing Republicans, particularly Pat Herrity who has many overlapping areas of the 41st, as an attempt to depress Republican activism. I can't say that it will work, given the victories here in Virginia and New Jersey and Massachusetts, Republicans are about as fired up as I've ever seen. But if Bolognese can check the Democrats and flip a delegate seat he almost won by less that 200 votes just a few months ago, I truly believe it will help either Pat Herrity or Keith Fimian in defeating Connolly. We need to prove we can win on his turf, and a Bolognese win would be a body blow to Connolly's reelection and proof that Republicans do have the ground game and the message to win.

GO KERRY! I encourage everyone to go give money, and then maybe some time when you have it. We have to win this!

Virginians for McDonnell

Bob McDonnell's press release concerning the new bipartisan coalition supporting Bob for Governor was just released, and Mason Conservative has some excellent analysis.

So who is Steve Shannon?

Now that both parties have their candidates, it is time to begin analyzing the Democrat candidates. If you have been reading this blog at all you have a feeling for who Ken Cuccinelli, and what I think of him. Now it is time to begin to explore who his opponent is in the Attorney Generals race, Steve Shannon.

Mason Conservative describes Steve Shannon by saying,

As for Steve Shannon, none of this trio fits the term "backbencher" better than Shannon, who's spent four years in the House of Delegates just smiling away, not doing much, but being young and raising money and convincing people that he's electable. Its the kind of guy that always emerges when one party starts to really prosper - young pols who get elected on coattails and seem to convince everyone they are the future based on nothing but fluff.

RPV Chairman Pat Mullins described him similarly in his election night e-mail by saying,

“Steve Shannon is looking to leave behind his status as a back-bencher in the legislature to continue to promote his belief in higher economic burdens on working families. His record reflects full-voiced support for higher taxes and staunch opposition to tax relief. When Virginians are hurting and are in need of new and better jobs, his view of the taxpayer as an unlimited funding source is the last thing we want.

These are a couple quick summaries of who Steve Shannon is, and I'm sure that in the coming months we will delve deep into his voting record. As a member of the House of Delegates from Fairfax County, Steve Shannon shares two precincts with Cuccinelli's senate district. It is interesting to note that Democrat blogger Ben Triblett of Not Larry Sabato wrote a detailed analysis of Shannon's electoral history and doesn't believe Shannon will be able to run away with NOVA. Since Cuccinelli resonates well in southern and southwestern Virginia, has been elected in Fairfax County, and Shannon may not do well in NOVA, Ken may be in a very good electoral position.

The one major advantage Shannon has is money. At the end of the last filing period he had atleast a 10:1 money advantage over Cuccinelli. If you support limited government, lower taxes, private property, and strong families please donate to Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General.

Ken Cuccinelli
for Attorney General of Virginia
$

If you are interested in hearing Ken's thoughts on the upcoming Attorney General primary, Ken shares them at the end of the following video.

Bearing Drift interviews Ken Cuccinelli from Beehive Video on Vimeo.

What else would you expect from a Clinton operative?

The day before the Democratic Gubernatorial primary in a last ditch attempt to stave off the meteoric rise of Creigh Deeds, Terry McAulliffe decides to issue a letter from a couple victims of the VT tragedy and condemn Creigh Deeds for his stance on guns. First of all being able to buy guns at gun shows and bring them to bars has nothing to do with the Virginia Tech shooting. It is also simply a way of pulling at emotional strings for political advantage and to assault the second amendment. I thank Creigh Deeds for willing to stand up for gun rights at times, and I hope that the voters of Virginia will reject these low tactics either tomorrow or in November. I agree with Mason Conservative that this is a very low political shot, and I would have thought political operatives would have realized that these attacks tend to backfire in Virginia.

While it gives me no added credibility on this issue. I had a number of friends who were at Tech on Apil 16th, and I lived 40 mins away at the time. So don't tell me I don't care about what happened.

Two Different Views of the Judiciary

Yesterday we had two major announcements concerning the courts. One was the California Supreme Court 6-1 ruling on Proposition 8, and the other was the announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as Obama's nominee for the supreme court. These two events display two completely different views on how the judiciary should act.

The California Supreme Court ruling upheld Proposition 8 and allowed the marriages performed before Proposition 8 was adopted to stand. In the decision, the court acknowledged that it's job is to interpret the laws, not inject their own political and personal opinions into the decisions. On page 3 of the majority opinion the court lays out this principle.

In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases... our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.

In contrast President Obama's supreme court nominee seems to believe that the courts are a policy making body and that you can and should use your own personal experiences to make this policy.

"The court of appeals is where policy is made."

In a quote that is becoming more popular Sonia Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Here we have a judge who believes judges should make policy based on their personal experiences. (This New York Times article has a number of other interesting quotes from Judge Sotomayor.)

This is distinctly different from the view offered by the California Supreme Court that the courts should just interpret the law and can not inject their personal opinions.

When John Roberts was nominated he compared being a judge to an umpire accurately calling balls and strikes. Do we want an umpire who will call balls and strikes, or one who will make up new laws on the spot. That is the choice we have in this supreme court nomination battle, and it is the distinct difference between the judicial philosophies of the Bush and Obama whitehouses.

For an excellent article comparing the Sotomayor nomination to the Miguel Estrada hearings by Mason Conservative, click here.

Patrick (McSweeney) on Patrick (Muldoon)

The day after the state central committee removed Jeff Frederick, Patrick McSweeney issued a letter supporting Patrick Muldoon for Lieutenant Governor in what appeared to be an attempt to capitalize on the growing discontent in many conservatives. While Patrick McSweeney went to far, he definitely turned heads with his letter. Mason Conservative came out very strongly against McSweeney on this issue, and Tertium Quids agreed with McSweeney in part and disagreed with him in part.

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
brand.

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
choice.
· 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
to win.
· 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
legislation.
· 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
2007.

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.

Thank you.

Patrick McSweeney

McDonnell Rally

So first of all, congratulations to Bob McDonnell for a very successful kick off tour on Saturday. Bringing 700 people together in Annandale to listen to a Republican is pretty impressive, and hopefully that bodes well for Bob's chances in NOVA in November.

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, the Washington Post ran a very good article on the event. The subtitle on the article was "Leadership Turmoil in GOP Threatens to Steal Spotlight." In light of this article I think those supporting Jeff Frederick were definitely successful in Annandale, and while they may not have gotten media attention, there were definitely Frederick supporters at the other events. Also I don't think Bob has seen the end of Frederick supporters at his kickoff events.

As one of Jeff's most vitriolic opponents, Loudoun Insider decried the efforts of Jeff's supporters as unsuccessful. I would have to wonder what more you could hope for than to totally color an article in the Washington Post with the event.

In other news, Mason Conservative once aagain had an amazing post in which he responded to Loudoun Insider and further explained why he supports Jeff. Another very good article is Michael Giere's letter supporting Jeff.

11th District Congressional Committee on Jeff Frederick

Yesterday the 11th District Congressional Committee tried to pass a resolution to support Jeff Frederick from office, but failed to pass it.  

Crystal Clear Conservative broke the story, and Mason Conservative has some excellent points about it.  If a resolution like this can't pass in NOVA, how can the executive committee claim to have overwhelming grassroots support for removing Jeff Frederick as RPV chairman?

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.

Party Activsts Declaring this a Race for the Future of our Party

I am excited to announce that Mason Conservative is now on board. At the beginning of the month he posted to regretfully ask for Jeff to step down. At the time it was one of the most pro-Jeff pieces I had seen on the internet. Now we are excited to have him as a partner in the "We Support Chairman Jeff Frederick" movement.

That's what has finally changed my mind, because a stand has to be taken. If its not Frederick, it will be the next outsider/grassroots conservative that makes a run for the top that will be torn apart... If I roll over on Jeff Frederick, then there will be more of these purges from these establishment puritans who don't want activists, independent thinkers, people who care more about what the activists say and less about what the leadership, the lobbyists, and the consultants say... This move by the state central committee is a slap in the face to people like me who work hard at the grassroots level, who went to that convention and voted for Jeff Frederick.

Without referencing Jeff Frederick, James Atticus Bowden described the grassroots vs. establishment fight that is occurring in VA, and argued for a rise of Constitutional Republicans.

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 the McDonnell campaign.