Tonight the 10th district committee did as Barbara Comstock asked (demanded) and voted to give her a primary next year rather than a convention or a canvass. The vote was a tie with Chairman Jo Thorburn breaking the tie with a vote for a primary. Instead of the Republican Party running their own process for choosing their nominee, the state will conduct a primary costing the taxpayers over $250,000. (How does that make us fiscally conservative?) Deals were cut and threats were made but Comstock got what she wanted. Due to Virginia’s Incumbent Protection Act, Comstock may now consider herself “Congresswoman for Life.”
There was no reason next year’s primary had to be decided tonight. The committee had intended to vote in the fall but Barbara insisted that the vote be tonight, no delays. So of course the committee agreed.
A question we might ask, do we elect people to serve us, or are we here to serve them? It would appear the 10th district committee exists to serve Barbara Comstock. Apparently she doesn’t realize she needs ALL of these people to be on her side and not just the half of the committee that did what she demanded.
In a thinly veiled move to stack the deck for a primary, Beau Correll made a motion during the meeting to dissolve the Manassas Park Committee and thus make their chairman, Brian Leeper, unable to vote in tonight’s primary vs party process vote. Brian Leeper is known a supporter of a party process. The pro-primary people pulled out all the stops. Comstock left no stone unturned in making sure she gets her primary. Beau’s motion was defeated and a substitute motion was adopted leaving Leeper a voting member of the 10th District Committee.
Chairman Thoburn told the committee that the 10th district will have to have a convention next year regardless, because voters must elect members to the 10th District Committee.
One argument for the primary was the cost of party run process. Barbara Comstock made sure the 10th District would have very little money to support a party run process when she told the committee they could not have their annual Gala as the 10th District has had for many, many, years. She told the committee as a freshman Congresswoman she would have no time to support or attend the annual fundraiser gala. Again, the Committee caved to Barbara’s demands and the Committee cancelled their annual fundraiser. Then Comstock made sure the vote for a primary was taken before the Committee would have a chance to have a fall fundraiser. Well played Congresswoman! However, money isn’t really an issue as the 10th District proved in their party canvass last year. Candidates pay filing fees that more than cover the cost of a convention or a canvass.
Several members of the committee stressed that the committee should always give our Congressional representative what he or she wants. Again, does this committee exist to serve Barbara or was Barbara elected to Congress to serve us, the people? One committee member said, “Are we here to serve Barbara only, and not the people we represent?”
This divisive meeting could have been prevented. Comstock could have let the Committee vote in the fall. She could have supported the annual gala. She might have been gracious and let the Committee have a convention or a party canvass, knowing she would win either. By letting the 10th District Committee determine the method of her nomination, with no pressures from her, she would have had the full support of the Committee and the district. Every member of the committee would be supporting Barbara next year.
Her arm twisting, threats, and deals have left a very bad taste in the mouths of many members of the 10th District Committee and activists around the district. They will not be enthusiastic in supporting Comstock next year. Some have said directly that they will not be among her volunteers. One very active Republican in the 10th District said, “I won’t lift a finger to help her next year.” What a shame. Barbara Comstock may have won the battle and lost the war. We all hope that’s not true and we can all support her re-election.
We all need to thank the following members of the committee who were strong enough to resist the deals and threats and stand firm for the party, the grassroots, and Republican voters to control who will be their nominee:
Andrew Nicholson, Clarke County Chairman
Michael Haynes, Loudoun County Chairman
Brian Leeper, Manassas Park Chairman
Delegate Mark Berg, State Central Committee Member
Eve Marie Barner Gleason, State Central Committee Member
Kay Gunter, State Central Committee Member
Julie Williams, Presidential Seat
Heidi Stirrup, Congressional Seat
Those who voted against the people and a party run process:
Jo Thoburn, 10th District Chair
Mary Campbell, Fairfax County Representative
Andrew Robbins, Frederick County Chairman
Sharon E. Ashurst, Manassas City Chairman
MaryJo Rigby, Prince William County Representative
Beau Correll, Winchester City Chairman
Betsy McIntire, Virginia Federation of Republican Women Representative
Eric Johnson, Young Republicans Representative
Nathaniel Fritzen, College Republicans Representative
This question remains unanswered: do we the people exist to serve the needs and wants of our elected officials or are they elected to serve the needs and wants of the people? It seems the 10th district is evenly divided on the answer.
123 comments
My family and I will vote against this leftist RINO. https://www.conservativereview.com/members/barbara-comstock/
Just reading this thread is Exhibit A as to why I eschew party politics and committees. Ugh. It is unfortunate that we have only two parties. Think of how complex the world has become in the 21st century and we are still stuck with Option A or Option B. Sometimes the Parliamentary System makes a whole lot more sense.
Oh dear, more mean girl crap. Last week it was Volpe and now it is Comstock. Further, I wonder how much of the above is really true, or just a figment of an over active imagination. Just going on historic facts here.
Leave it to a democrat to constantly demean women. I was at the meeting, as was LizD.
Barbara was a RINO from well before she was elected. Barbara and Frank were big supporters of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act which is just another cash cow for the certain elite consisting of hundreds of thousands of dollars of VDOT money.
Barbara’s all time low was orchestrating an attempt, which mercifully failed, to get one of the unit chairman, who favors a party run process, kicked off the committee with no notice to the committee that this item would be on the agenda, and with only days notice to the unit chairman. And yes, there were thinly veiled threats to candidates about cutting off her support unless they can make committee members who want a party run canvass to switch their votes to a state run primary. Barbara’s actions are consistent with a schoolyard bully, throwing her weight around and using her elected position to go after anyone who exercises their right to support an issue that runs counter to her own personal interests. Barbara Comstock is little more than Hillary-Lite.
I was told the some of the threats weren’t veiled at all. Frank Wolf would never have resorted to such tactics. I fear Barbara has lost many people who worked to help elect her because of these threats. That’s a shame. We could have been a united party moving into next year if Comstock had let the 10th district vote without her threats and bullying. I hope we can all come together again but there is much resentment in the 10th district. It didn’t have to be this way.
Jeanine please elaborate, “Her arm twisting, threats, and deals have left a very bad taste in the mouths of many members of the 10th District Committee and activists around the district. “
You will have to do your own research on that by asking the committee members what pressures were applied to them. That’s what I did. Also read Andrew Nicholson post here about the threats he received, http://thebullelephant.com/virginias-10th-congressional-district-faces-a-choice/
No I don’t need to research anything, if you are going to write a hit piece and make claims then you damn sure better back them up in the piece. It’s called journalism…..
It seems to be a constant issue with you. the others seem to be able to include proof in their pieces…
except for the link to a previous post by Andrew Nicholson …
“In closing, I am saddened by a comment made to me, “If you don’t support the Open Primary process you can kiss your chances of becoming a State Central Committee member good bye.” So be it. If I roll over on one of our core Republican principles like fiscal responsibility, I don’t deserve to be on State Central.”
so I just re-read post, no link in post…..and one anonymous quote One committee member said, “Are we here to serve Barbara only, and not the people we represent?”………. where is her quote to you in the piece??
Good grief. This has been explained to you twice. Read this link, all the way to the bottom, http://thebullelephant.com/virginias-10th-congressional-district-faces-a-choice/ OR you may read Chris B’s excerpt.
so you want me to read your piece then reference another piece? again YOU wrote this hit piece, YOU made accusations and YOU did not back them up….. I appreciate Chris’ excerpt but that is him doing YOUR JOB….. thanks Chris…
that is what i read^. Is this a threat to someone’s person? family? reputation? finances? it is politics!
No when sources ask me not to reveal those threats because they are afraid of more threats being rained down on them. When sources ask me to keep things confidential and not use their names, I honor that. It’s called journalism and ethics.
so you just report vague allegations?? Did you attempt to contact Barbara about the “threats”
#ABT … Always Be Trollin’
IT’S NOT “TROLLING” I read the article, it has holes…. you were nice enough Chris to fix her mistakes and defend her as usual….. maybe she should have you edit her posts.
trust me, nobody wants me editing anything.
I will not reveal sources. You’ll just have to get over it. Or continue to fuss and pout about it. Your choice.
protect your sources that’s a journalists obligation, but why so vague about arm twisting and threats?
Because the sources asked me to not be more specific! They don’t want what was said to get to Barbara! I don’t know how I can explain this to you any better. You’re on your own now.
Hahaha, as if she would tell me what threats she made! You are too funny. I talked with numerous people who had been threatened. You’ll just have to take my word for it, or not. I really don’t care which you chose to do. You’ll have to carry on without me because I have exhausted this topic and exhausted by trying to explain it to you. You’re on your own. I’m too busy to continue this.
I’m happy that no hold barred meeting to unite the party worked so well….. Good job Jeanine, keep bashing incumbents….
jeanine, were these actionable threats? c’mon
oh, i got from reading your post (w/o reading Mr. Nicholson’s) that the threats were of physical, financial or of blackmail variety. but no…
Oh, and for those who keep talking about a convention not working, a convention was not even on the table. It was firehouse primary vs state run primary.
That was unfortunate. Some of those who voted against a party process were solid convention people when they ran for office. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice won’t happen.
For those of you who weren’t actually present, many of the people who voted for a primary did not talk about wanting a primary to best represent their constituents. What was said by numerous people was ,”I really like and support Congresswoman Comstock; therefore we should give her ‘whatever she wants.'”
Everyone in the room supports the congresswoman. The issue was not Barbara. A big problem with a state primary deals with the Incumbent Protection Act, which was discussed in Andrew’s post. No one should own a seat in Congress. I don’t care how much we like them. No one is entitled to an elected seat. If our candidates choose everything without any kind of checks, why do we even exist as a party– to rubber stamp what our candidates want? Our elected officials are servants of the people.
I am optimistic that Congresswoman Comstock has the integrity to seek party unity and not go after those on SCC and unit chairmen who voted for a party process.
if one does not like the Incumbent Protection Act, then one should seek remedy wherein the Act resides, not against Cong. Comstock.
Since it applies to Barbara it has to be a consideration in voting for a primary because it means a permanent primary, forever.
How were people voting “against Cong. Comstock?” That argument makes no sense. It’s a tactic used to divide people into “us” vs “them” when we should all be working together. It is not a vote against any person. I cannot say that any simpler for you.
If one does not attend meetings and see what really happens, one should not make silly comments.
All good points, except Comstock could have sought party unity last night by staying out of it and letting the committee make their choice without pressure from her. She chose not to leave the committee to their own decisions.
Quick question, isn’t there already going to be a primary next year?
Yes, and there will also be a convention in the 10th district.
Presidential primary in March. This would be the normal primary time in June, so a completely separate election.
thanks Steve, I wasn’t sure
The vote took place and the primary process of nomination won out!
If Congressman Comstock doesn’t have a primary opponent, we won’t have a primary and we will save the taxpayers money.
On the other hand,a firehouse primary would have required a lot of time,money, and effort in a presidential election year where we are going to have lots of conventions, and don’t need another one.
PWC Chairman Corey Stewart had to spend over $50,000.00 of his campaign funds in a firehouse primary against a poorly suited and unqualified candidate. It was so absurd for this tea party candidate to attempt to take out Chairmen Stewart, who is the only Republican that has won re election year after year
in a countywide election, in a majority- minority county that Obama has won each election cycle.
Now folks are attempting to do the same to Congresswoman Comstock. Barbara has the political organizational structure in place,a large volunteer base,and the ability to raise large sums of campaign funds. This is all needed to sustain a challenge from the Democrats over a long period of time. Barbara is the target of the Clinton political machine and groups like Emily’s list and Planned Parenthood. She is a common sense legislator who has a track record of winning elections. Why take her?
What purpose does it serve to run a candidate against Barbara in any nominating process who doesn’t have a snowball chance in hell of winning in the Democrat stronghold of Northern Virginia, only to waste much needed campaign funds that will be needed to go after the Democrats?
Gov McAuliffe is funneling money from all over the country into the campaign coffers of the Democrats. There is evidence of large sums be funneled into Puerto Rico and then making their way into Virginia. We all need to rally around our candidates rather than finding ways to take Republicans like Barbara Comstock who are our best hope of winning elections.
Wow, sour grapes much Jeanine?
yep.
Being a squishy establishment type does have its perks. Allowing Demwits the ability to help get you re-elected, priceless!
HOW was it that Brat beat Cantor?
Since you were out there knocking on doors in the 7th district, you tell me? I do understand your angst. Exchanging a representative with an “F” rating for one with an “A” probably does get your panties in a knot. Doesn’t make sense, but I think I can interpret you thought processes now.
Yes I was knocking in the 7th, yes I worked the polls in the 7th, and yes I was wearing a Brat sticker at the Primary and the general.
Are you trying to make sense? A primary is the BEST way to dethrone a squishy establishment type in the ruling class? I’m starting to lean towards the crack pipe excuse for your obtuseness, my crazy, absurd friend. No wonder you were so quick to throw that out.
y’all want conventions and cuss and moan every time we get primaries, yet y’alls champion won via a primary….. yet Ed and Ken were chose via convention and lost……
SO the convention is to blame for 2013? Considering Bolling was too chicken to throw his hat into the ring, what makes you think he could have won in a primary and then the general election? Do you think the Demwit plant, independent candidate Sarvis, would have stayed out of the race had the anemic Bolling won a GOP Primary? If you can, try to make some sense on your answer.
I thought Brat was your champion too?
I’m pro-primary, he won…. this Sarvis argument is crap, 2 bad candidates, t-mac got like 47, Cucc like 45…. give Sarvis 8…. so split it or even give Ken +1. Ken still loses….. He would’ve never got all 8….
good read…. http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/02/virginia-governors-race-can-cuccinelli-b
So pushing our electorate towards total immorality is the goal. I think I understand you completely, my crazy, depraved friend.
nope, understanding that strict social conservatism is political suicide……..
I get it. Your idea is to paint in pale pastels and go after the degenerate voting class. Nothing says integrity like having no principled standards.
so social liberals are degenerate? therefore you would never seek my vote? would Mark Obenshain have sought these degenerate votes for AG?
You really need to define your depravity. Saying “social liberal” certainly doesn’t cut it. I didn’t know Dave Brat was a “social liberal,” too. Go figure.
you are parsing Reagan….. try this ”
My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created.
And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.
We’ve succeeded better than we know. Little more than a decade ago more than two-thirds of Americans believed the federal government could solve all our problems, and do so without restricting our freedom or bankrupting the nation.
We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin.
Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.
The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?
Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.
Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.
Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.
“
How do you intend on reapplying “America’s spiritual heritage,” by painting in pale pastels, right? Which social issues do you figure on ignoring? The killing of babies and then the illegal harvesting of baby parts? Redefining of words to encompass any lifestyle imaginable? You people really need to define how low you want us to downgrade our morality. Having no principled standards, I suppose that could be a difficult task. Do try.
how the hell did you get there from anything said here or anywhere else? somehow you got to killing babies….. I get Alinsky, take what is said, twist it around, then say I said something that I didn’t say…… you my friend are not good at it…..
You are the one that needs to define your morality, my crazy, complaining friend. You are the one that wants the GOP to be all inclusive and If you will accept one depravity, gay marriage, how are we to discern what floats your boat? Make it easy for us simple folks.
yet, you would rather exclude Gay Americans…… I will accept those of many stripes…. I’m pretty sure we were assured a recent TEA party meeting was about unity, your rhetoric and exclusive attitude is exactly what we were concerned about….A small tent cannot win or Govern the masses…..
I do not want to exclude anyone, my crazy, progressive friend. I just want people of good “moral sense” in the tent with me.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” –Thomas Jefferson
so those in favor of gay marriage aren’t of good moral sense…. I’m pretty sure Christ would rather me love thy neighbor and accept him than exclude them….and you chose another deist and Franklin’s student to quote…..
MY PRINCIPLES REST IN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS….. natural law…. how bout you Ron?
REALLY? It sounds like you prefer to win regardless of the consequences. Do babies in the womb have any rights?
does a gay couple who wants to get married?? yes, I believe life begins when the heart starts to beat and ends when it stops.
What a gay person does in their private life is their business. Changing the definition of marriage to embrace their lifestyle does concern all who believe that lifestyle is a sin. As always, depravity wins in your book of morality.
it’s a sin if they believe in your God, the Episcopal church accepts it.
I can only go by what the Word says, my crazy, disbelieving friend. IF the gay peoples were going to be satisfied with their new “right” of marriage, I would have no qualms. Sadly, the attacks on pastors and churches that do not believe as the episcopals do will only increase with the power that has been bestowed upon the gaystapo by that shameful SCOTUS decision.
So you attack a group for the few activist? I suppose you’re anti-muslim as well?
I suppose you have not heard of the gay mayor of Houston. A “FEW”, you are a hoot!
I am anti-peace loving muslim terrorist nutjobs. Those that think they are following that religion, the ones NOT cutting off heads, NOT blowing up people, NOT killing the infidels, or NOT raping women and children, I have no problems with. It is only the TRUE believers I detest. I suppose you have never been to the Middle East, either.
so a mayor of a city is gay…. uh oh a gay activist in office…. I’m happy to hear you’re not as bad toward non extremist muslims……. so are all Americans to follow Christian beliefs??
You should look her up. She loves attacking Christians, too.
I’ve heard about her…… so are all Americans to follow Christian beliefs??
Have you read the 1st Amendment, lately? You should pay attention to the “…prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” part. The gay mayor of Houston doesn’t read very well, from what I hear.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and viscous, they have more need of masters.” –Ben Franklin
how familiar are you with Franklin? http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/
as a deist his Virtues have little to do with Christ…
Always the “deist” argument. When are you gonna quote his stance on that gay marriage “right?”
“Let me, then, not fail to praise my God continually, for it is his due, and it is all I can return for his many favors and great goodness to me; and let me resolve to be virtuous, that I may be happy, that I may please him who is delighted to see me happy.” –Ben Franklin
How familiar are you with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
you do understand that a deist doesn’t deny God- Deist -belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. deism admits the existence of a God of infinite power and intelligence.
I DO understand that being a “deist” does NOT deny morality or virtues as foundations of freedom and ultimately our nation. Deism is NOT an acceptable excuse for that gay marriage “right,” either. But, you are certainly free to believe whatever you want. I’m just trying to enlighten you.
“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.”–Sam Adams
Ron, you going to answer? I answered you……. does a gay couple have any marriage rights??
They do if you allow the SCOTUS to change the definition of words. I suppose you embrace judicial activism, too? You are a libetard plant, right?
nope, don’t avoid….. yes or no, do you believe that a gay couple has the right to marry???
Pretty apparent that I do not believe in redefining words to embrace a certain lifestyle or the use of the Constitution, i.e the 14th Amendment, for things that it was not written to do. Of course, you are free to show me the writings of the authors of the 14th Amendment where they embraced gay marriage. I will be patently waiting…..
is there marriage in the Constitution??? I know there are Amendments protecting individual rights and freedoms. also one protecting citizens from a national religion….. I reiterate I’m in favor of getting marriage out of Govt….
I am not in favor of the SCOTUS redefining words or using the Constitution to bestow new “rights.” The fact that you are so accepting to that premise, says wonders my crazy, progressive friend.
nevermind SCOTUS…. show me marriage in the Constitution as defined by man/woman
Nevermind!? Is that how you and your progressive buddies argue all your positions. If you truly want to continue to reinforce your liberal bona-fides, we can keep going around all day, my crazy, radical friend.
we are discussing rule of law, I am taking the Constitutional Conservative angle of this discussion….. the TEA party SCREAMS CONSTITUTION UNTIL IT’S NOT IN YOUR FAVOR……………. YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS TO DENY GAY MARRIAGE…..
Does that mean there IS a Constitutional basis for gay marriage? Funny, progressives scream for judicial activism when the individual States rule against their idiotic whims.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. –John Adams
In no instance have… the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.
James Madison
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”–John Jay
In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.
James Madison
“The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the
power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave…
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the
institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”–Sam Adams
Unfortunately, we will never know what the chicken little Bolling would have, could have, should have done. Having no balls is a squishy establishment type trait. So is backstabbing true conservatives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/bill-bolling-to-drop-out-of-va-governor-race/2012/11/28/4b57a908-3916-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_blog.html
So, the loss of Demwit influence, was the reason for Bolling’s fainthearted decision, right? Was that too hard to admit?
define “true conservative”.
Let’s start with those GOP candidates that follow the GOP Creed. Have you read that lately?
oh the Virginia Republican Creed, is there a national one?
Considering we have been discussing Virginia representatives, does it matter?
Funny, I didn’t see much about moral depravity in the RNC platform, either. Maybe you can point it out to me. You might want to pay attention to the defense of marriage and protecting the unborn sections in this. For your enlightenment:
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
If Brat would have had a convention he would have won in a convention. Polling never showed Brat even close to Cantor because pollsters can’t sense what’s under the surface and the angst against Cantor, the environment, was what did him in. Not paying attention to his constituents nor their positions on the issues, such as immigration. Immigration was the single biggest issue that cost Cantor his race, with his views of amnesty and a less than conservative approach to dealing with illegal immigration and being in bed with cheap labor and the Chamber of Congress.
ok, this argument about cheap labor holds as much water as our current southern border, the labor for illegal immigrants is much cheaper than legal. Also the laborers are not permanent. They pick them up and cut them loose as needed. BUT if legal or documented they cost more to employee, you gotta pay unemployment insurance, workmans comp, various taxes….. this myth that employers want to hire legal labor over illegal is a complete farce…..
Many folks called it a miracle which is why it made national news.
Jeanine and Ron…. Ron made a reference to the Meme…. I find it funny y’all HATE PRIMARIES when Dave won via a PRIMARY!!!! http://vpap.org/candidates/12-eric-i-cantor/
What is your point? Cantor won 79.44% to 20.55% in the 2012 primary. All I want to know is how does allowing Demwits to vote in the GOP nominating process help in electing true conservatives.
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/A2E23EAB-7EA6-40E2-AF41-3CE22C787EA4/unofficial/6_s.shtml
because voters matter……
Which ones? The Demwits????
all votes matter. everytime a Republican can reach a new voter or convince an independent, that is a gain. elections are won by a process of addition.
What a “strategery!” Standing for nothing will win elections! You people should be political consultants.
Apparently the people in Cantor’s district got tired of his tactics. You can only pretend for so long. Cantor’s time was up. He didn’t serve the people, just himself. So in due time people in the 10th will get tired of this, too. Maybe sooner rather than later.
” You can only pretend for so long. Cantor’s time was up.”… I voted for Brat…. 3 times
Not me. No skin off my nose what they do.
Thank you Eric! Thank you all who showed some common sense and voted for a primary! 🙂
Looks like the unit Chairs who voted for the party process represent about 46% of CD10 voters: http://www.vpap.org/offices/us-representative-10/district/
LocalityVoters% of DistrictLoudoun County211,07242.70%Fairfax County138,50728.02%Frederick County51,75410.47%Prince William County40,6258.22%Manassas City21,4594.34%Winchester City14,2642.89%Clarke County9,9362.01%Manassas Park City6,6841.35%
Nothing like rewarding the lack of conservative values. I suppose her “F” grade stands for FABULOUS! Funny how the squishy establishment types continue to ignore the lessons of Cantor. Another teaching moment, perhaps?
https://www.conservativereview.com/Scorecard
That rating is a JOKE….. Brat is the only Virginian with an “A”…. Really???? Randy Forbes get’s a “D”….. come on give up the crack pipe
So Forbes floats your boat? Good to see that mediocrity can impress you. Comstock must truly arouse you.
http://congress.freedomworks.org/keyvotes/house/2014#state=VA
http://congress.freedomworks.org/keyvotes/house/2015#state=VA
Heritage gives Forbes a 75…. sooooo….. Steve Albertson said it well in another response ”
Steve Albertson 8 minutes ago
I recognize there are good conservatives on the other side from me on some of these things, and that no single one of these is a good litmus test (and that together they represent but a very narrow slice of any Congressman’s voting record). Ratings like this are an inherently subjective exercise that reflect the priorities and biases of the ones doing the ranking, and should always be viewed as such.”
SO, smoking crack has nothing to do with your opinion, then? Voting for TPA, like so many of our “conservative” Virginia representatives did, makes their ratings moot then? Sorry, an average “C” grade bestowed by three different conservative groups does not inspire me. Our country does not have time for pale pastels!
show me their pastels, show me the negatives of the TPA????
I see, color blindness. If you can’t see the negatives, I fear my ability to get past your disabilities on this simple post is a bridge too far. I can certainly understand your desire to let Demwits nominate and elect your legislators now.
oh, RH got a “D”.? who really believes that? c’mon man
I do. Granted, Robert has been better than the munchkin-like Perriloser. Rankings from other conservative groups still put Comstock with a big fat “F.” What standard do you use to judge your representatives, pray tell?
http://congress.freedomworks.org/keyvotes/house/2015#state=VA
As a YR I’m glad to know that I have solid representation. Thanks, Eric Johnson for your vote!