On October 29, 2014, just a few short days before her election, 10th District Congressional candidate Barbara Comstock appeared on the Mark Levin national radio show and attempted to illustrate her “conservative” credentials by using clichés like the following:
I believe in good, conservative ‘Reaganite’ tax policies to stimulate the economy.” And: “We have to cut business taxes so small businesses can grow.”
Many of us suspected that she was merely telling us what we wanted to hear, but she insistently re-assured us that she wanted to defund ObamaCare, to help reduce taxes, to control spending, and to make our education system better.
It turns out that we – including Mark Levin – were sold a bill of goods. She’s a liberal and votes with Democrats more than some Democrats!
In the year since her election, Comstock has already managed an “F” rating from some major conservative sources.
Eagle Forum scores her a 50%. (Yes. That’s out of 100%.)
FreedomWorks gives her a 48% score. In fact, she is the penultimate liberal Republican in Virginia. (Scott Rigell scores a 45%)
Heritage Foundation scores her at 45%. (Remember: that’s out of 100%!)
Conservative Review grades her a 25%. How bad is that score? Let’s put it this way:Maxine Waters (D-CA) scores a 26%.
In fact, only 8 republicans in Congress are scored worse. Needless to say, she has betrayed everything conservative.
Mark Levin joined many of us in lamenting his support of Comstock on Thursday, December 17, 2015.
My own congressperson (Barbara Comstock) has completely lurched left. It is completely amazing. I’ve known this person for decades. It’s not that she is a moderate, she is gone [liberal]. It is amazing what happens when people get power.
And on Friday, December 18th, in discussing the Omnibus disaster that had just passed,Mark Levin continued,
My member, Barbara Comstock (just) voted with the leftists for massive debt for my children and grandchildren.
State Central member Eve Gleason continues this theme, writing about the recent vote Comstock had on the Omnibus bill, “it is only symptomatic of bigger problems in Washington…We need leadership with the will to change the way things are done across the Potomac.”
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly laments about others including Comstocks’ vote this way, that it “violates every promise that Republicans made to the voters…”
Here is a brief summary of Comstock’s recent votes that failed her own Party’s beliefs and her campaign promises to the citizens of the 10th.
Jobs. Her #1 job, she said, was jobs. Then she voted for Executive Amnesty. Comstock voted with every single Democrat. Oops. This singularly hurts Americans who need jobs!
Pro-Life. Regarding H.R. 719 – Continuing Resolution that Funds Planned Parenthood, Comstock voted with every single Democrat, and agreed to refund Planned Parenthood. Incredible.
Education. How about the H.R. 3762 – No Child Left Behind Reauthorization? Many conservative groups disliked this bill from the get-go, pointing out that it failed to decrease the unconstitutional federal involvement in education. Comstock voted with every single Democrat to approve this 1,000+ page bill. Sound conservative?
Spending. How about the $1.1 Trillion Year-End “Omnibus” spending Bill? I’ll say this for Congress: if you’re going to have a $1.1 trillion bill, “Omnibus” isn’t a bad name for it. (Alternate name choices: “Ridiculous,” “Preposterous,” “Ludicrous,” “Outrageous,” or, if you really want a descriptive word, what about “Unconstitutional?”) This funds ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood, Syrian “Refugees”, Sanctuary Cities, “Dream Act” etc, etc, etc. Yep,Comstock voted with nearly every Democrat on that, too. One question: Does an eleven-thousand-billion-dollar bill sound “Reaganite” to anyone?
Liberal Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said,
Well, if you would’ve told me this year that we’d be standing here celebrating the passage of an omnibus bill, with no poison pill riders (read Planned Parenthood here), at higher spending levels above sequesters than even the president requested, I wouldn’t have believed it, but here we are.
Thank you, Barbara Comstock.
You know what every conservative in this district wants this Christmas? Here’s a clue: it’s what we’ve wanted every Christmas in America. But it’s what the Grinch keeps taking away. It’s called “liberty.”
Maybe we can elect a conservative in 2016 who remembers what liberty looks like.
Let me know if you agree.
237 comments
With the help of the Republican establishment, and the foolhardy endorsements of people like Levin and Hannity, Comstock rolled over some very solid Tea Party leaning real conservatives to win the Republican nomination. I have talked to NOBODY in the party who wouldn’t love to have a “do-over” on that one. Hopefully sooner rather than later a quality solid REAL conservative will rise up and take Comstock on. When that happens the establishment will no doubt fight tooth and nail to keep their little puppet on a string, but make no mistake that there won’t be LEGIONS of conservative Republicans ready to pitch in and rid the district of this pathetic nuisance called Comstock.
[…] How Comstock Stole Liberty (Hahahaha, gotta love it when the right wingnuts fight over who is right wing-nuttiest!) […]
Excellent article. What an incredible disappointment Comstock has turned out to be.
It is reliant. You have to vet who you allow to post a thread. Shak has already demonstrated why he is of questionable character when he sends a bizarre family photo like this. You even thought it was bizarre.
http://thebullelephant.com/lets-play-guess-politician/
Seriously, you haven’t heard about this?
http://www.howtobagarino.com
Connie S come out come out wherever you are and answer my question.
What did you exactly mean when you used the word”Bag” the RINO Comstock?
Seriously, you haven’t heard about this?
http://www.howtobagarino.com
I have but I also know several other meanings as well. Some not so nice.
Well thank goodness they are not shared here, TBE prides itself on decorum and a more genteel commenting crowd. Anybody says bag a RINO around here, they’re crowing about Brat against Cantor.
Let’s hope.
Many republicans who are not “true believers” are susceptible to the liberal flattery and arguments to be likable. Barbara is insecure enough in her character to want to be liked and so is easily persuaded to support the politically correct agenda without having the brain power to think these things through. She is simply shallow.
David now you are sounding like a insecure male. Barbara is highly intelligent,hard working, and is tough enough to handle any challenger she is up against. Calling her shallow and insecure is a childish response to a woman who has been described as a “fighter” and a Republican attack dog in the press. Hardly a caricature of someone you are saying is insecure and shallow.
Her record of winning elections sets her apart from others. She was viciously attacked in her primary and you saw how well that went for those folks. She buried them! She did not cave in to her critics and she won by a very large margin against Foust.
Grow some bxzc$ and focus on defeating the Dems.
Great, he’s sexist and you’re sexist right back. Double negative going on here.
Yeah right!
Ah yes, the typical “It was wrong when he did it but not when I did it.” Pretty common among college coach potato feminists and Gender Studies professors.
Wow! Such animosity towards women. Do you feel better now!
And now I’m sexist even though you were the one who made a sexist statement in reply to a sexist statement. Still got the double negative going on.
Like I said, all offense, no rational, no substance.
Why are you so fixated on gender? I’ve only seen this much focus on it at campus events and rallies that are specifically about gender.
Have you met or do you know Barbara? It’s this kind of garbage that leads to electoral adventurism.
Barbara Comstock is more liberal than many Democrats but has banked so much money that no one wants to publicly criticize her because Comstock holds a grudge better than most. If there was a conservative alternative with money, people would defect in droves because the number of people who actually like her is small. She attends lots of stuff, but doesn’t really connect with people because she’s such a cold fish. Most politicians move left a little at a time, but she lurched left faster than even her detractors probably imagined. Mark Levin has egg on his face and is still working to wipe it off by bad mouthing Barbara nationally. That pretty much sums up how most of her informed supporters feel. We’re all wiping egg off our face because we all know that we’d be better off with a moderate Democrat than Barbara Comstock, who is to the left of Maxine Waters…..Shak just put it in writing.
Magical word that “If”
Everybody is publicly criticizing her votes, (and her endorsements, her lighter side) but she’s an experienced politician, she can handle the unfair character smearing.
However, we all should realize that we would NOT be better off with a moderate (pretending there is such a thing) democrat. And if we play the ‘Barbara is the Enemy’ game, and/or attempt to take her down without a viable elected alternative, we lose.
It’s pretty funny that Shak wishes to apply purity contests only when they are convenient for him. I, for one, am pretty upset that Dave Brat joined Nancy Pelosi in voting against free trade. The Republican party I’m a member of supports free trade, and I’m glad Barbara Comstock is a member of that Republican party.
A purity contest? He’s not applying that at all. He’s saying that in the POV of Conservatives, Comstock has failed to uphold Conservative ideals. That’s not a purity contest, that’s a factual statement based upon her record.
It could be argued that she is Conservative enough for the district, especially if Shak were to challenge her.
Ehhhh, I doubt it. Is she Conservative enough for you? You’ve told me that you’ve been talking to other people and they aren’t happy with her either.
She is Conservative enough until there is somebody better. Of course I’m not happy with her, no normal Republican is — But Shak running would put me into Barbara Volunteer of the Year territory and having me join the BC Tattoo club.
She is playing electoral chicken and winning.
You need to outplay her. If you won’t challenge her, she won’t go anywhere or change.
Yes, but that’s hard to do when she outplays us so well. The only fun part is watching her ‘Kiss of Death’ endorsements. It is a good indicator of who the establishment is anointing.
The 10th District GOP board gave her the absolute power to make these votes, we deserve the government we elect.
Then change the board. Yes, it is going to be hard. It needs to be done and if you don’t like the way things are going you’ve got to do it or accept the status quo of a representative who betrays her constituents whenever she feels like it.
Jeez, that’s almost as profound as Shak’s condemnation!
The 10th GOP, Half-Plus-Jo, gave Barbara the primary, they voted to spend $250,000 for a separate primary to select the Republican nominee.
Preserving Barbara in office was more important than anything else.
Barbara and GOP votes Obama for $ 1.1 Billion — that she wouldn’t have done if she had to face Republicans in a Republican Party nomination process.
Where was Shak and the whiners then? How did the Fairfax Rep vote? How did each of the “units” vote?
We have many talk-show patriots and keyboard soldiers debating pointless rhetorical battles and solving the ‘real’ problem in comment sections, but how many of them bother to hold, or manage to keep a leadership role in the local Republican units?
‘We deserve the government we elect’ is true for our parties as well as our government.
You don’t get an establishment GOPe without an army of enablers at the “grassroots.”
We get the RNC and establishment because we elect them at the local level.
You’re making excuses for why you can’t do something. Based on your statements, it’s the only thing you can do. Unless you are satisfied with how things are? If that’s the case, you’ve got the government you deserve, one that doesn’t represent you.
Okay.
Oh jeez what contortions did you have to go through to come up with that one?
Well this is primary nonsense.
Primaries aren’t nonsense, ask Eric Cantor about it.
“Republican wins in NOVA areas are dependent on the personal vote”. Look to the general my friend. #BarbaraComstock
Nope, not buying it. That district is R+2, meaning that it is a Republican leaning district, not a district that only can be won by Barbara Comstock. The indispensable candidate is a myth.
I literally quoted you bro.
From over a year ago and in reference to the Senatorial campaign. ALL Congressional campaigns, and primaries which are the subject of this discussion, are personal. From apples to oranges to excuses about Comstock’s behavior.
Also, as I said before, that’s an R+2 district. That’s a general reference to the partisan make-up of the district, that’s not counting the personal vote a candidate can pull. Meaning that Comstock isn’t the only candidate who can win there.
So you’re just flip-flopping when it suits you then? I thought that’s what your problem was with Congresswoman Comstock? #LetLibertyLightTheWay
::sigh::
Let me warn you I was looking at this post and the computer puts up a little warning “One person is typing.” Yours appeared within 30 seconds of my post, meaning you started replying without even considering what I said. Perhaps you pondered it while you were typing?
In order, this is what I said:
1. Congressional contests, as opposed to the subject of the post you quoted which was the Senate race, are always personal. They are always personality contests. My post, my ENTIRE post, that you quoted, was about the Senate race and statewide issues and tactics that apply to certain areas as it pertains to winning the Senate. Senators don’t win in NOVA without being from there and getting to know people. Hence why I said “Here’s the thing, we. don’t. win. statewide. elections. in. NOVA!” Before making my statement about the personal voting mattering so much up there.
2. The district in question is R+2. If you notice, the Republican Congressmen and women elected from the district usually win by more than 2 points. That means that that district is Republican by default, by a slim margin yes, but Comstock is not the essential factor between victory and defeat.
Flip-flopping? No. Taking the different situations as different situations? Yes. Anybody who judges politics will tell you that senatorial, Congressional, and gubernatorial races are different. Senatorial and gubernatorial races are more impersonal, hence the personal vote for Republicans from a certain area is an added bonus statewide. This is especially true in an area like NOVA, which elects Congressmen and women that are Republicans but goes blue in statewide elections.
Color me flattered that you sit beside your computer eagerly waiting for my response! But let me warn you, I can read 75 words in less than 30 seconds.
With that said, I’m glad I have your undivided attention. Now, if a Senate race is personal, then a Congressional is for sure! I’ve never heard of someone arguing that politics becomes less personal the more local it gets. Thus, if you believe a Senate race requires a personal touch, then the Congressional one does as well.
With that settled, not only is Comstock hands-down the best candidate for the district, but I’d rather focus my energy on winning back the White House to get the real governance America deserves than poking sticks at a Republican. #11thCommandment #sigh
I wasn’t, you started replying so fast that I caught it.
So can many people, but reading and thinking about what you’ve read are two different things.
That’s what I said, repeatedly. Congressional races are personal by default.
Congressional races and primaries are always personal, hence the candidate liked personally is the usually the winner, but ground game plays a role. However, the district’s R+2 leaning means that the district is Republican, and as such Comstock can be challenged and removed by a Conservative candidate without seriously compromising the Republican chances of winning the district. She’s running on the grounds that she is the only candidate that can win that district and the best one. The facts say that other Republicans can win and she’s not the best Conservative.
Reagan also ran in a primary when he thought that the other candidates weren’t Conservative enough.
I’m glad that you agree with me.
Yet, my problem here is that while you’ve conceded that Congresswoman Comstock has a solid grassroots network, she connects with her constituents, and she was able to win, the reason you don’t like her is because she doesn’t vote with your personal beliefs. You are one constituent, and I’ve never met someone that I’m on board with 100%. I simply find it fascinating that this is your focus.
Actually, you’re agreeing with me, as I indicated in both of the posts above.
Where did I concede that? I’ve never, not once, said she has a solid grassroots network. She’s the incumbent, no more, no less. Please don’t attribute words to me that I’ve never said.
My personal beliefs? She doesn’t vote for Conservative beliefs period. Hence the scores Shak Hill referenced. You’re supporting someone as a Conservative who isn’t a Conservative and you’re taking issue with me for calling her out on her behavior.
And I’m a Morgan Griffith constituent. I do, however, have an interest in seeing Comstock replaced by someone more Conservative due to her failing in being one herself.
Wait, so you’re someone living in Southwest Virginia trying to tell how Republicans can win the 10th District!? Do you understand that +2 in NOVA is the difference in saying “extremist” instead of “terrorist”? I have nothing but absolute love for the Fighting 9th, but the Commonwealth a diverse place.
Given that the analysis is impartial? Yes, I am. Facts and figures don’t lie, nor does past my experience with politics in general and NOVA in particular. Which, unfortunately for Comstock supporters, I do know quite well due my training.
No kidding. I never said that I was applying the criteria from my district to yours did I? In fact, EVERYTHING I’ve said has been about your district. You’re doing it again, attacking me, ignoring what I’m saying, and putting words in my mouth to try and dismiss my points. It doesn’t work because my points are supported by the facts of the situation.
Actually, Joseph is not one of her constituents.
Uhhh, nope. If there is no ‘Better-than-Babs’ candidate that can win the primary and the general, it becomes incumbent (get it?) upon us to see that she is not replaced in the primary or the general.
And myself nor anyone else other than crazed Shaktivists want that to happen.
And if there is? Given the make-up of the district, anybody that can defeat Comstock is likely to win the general.
Actually Comstock is that difference — if we can’t find someone better that can beat her and win general — we should not oppose her. Common-freaking sense and practical politics.
Anyone can run, and anyone can lose, but Barbara is not Anyone. She beat ALL challengers in a Canvass. She would beat all challengers in a Convention — I still have no idea why our 10th district board stuck it to the taxpayers with a $250,000 primary, but Barbara will win that as well. Unless a credible candidate that can win twice manifests themselves, it becomes a fools errand to run against her and only makes her stronger.
No, as I I’ve said before, that district is red. The indispensable candidate is a myth, so Comstock is replaceable. And anybody who can beat her in the primary could win the general.
Who, in your personal opinion, could defeat Comstock?
The district has gone both ways.
Barbara won by 16 ½ % — and Frank Wolf won by these kind of margins
Ed Gillespie won the District by 6 ½ % last year – although Mark Warner beat Gilmore soundly in the 10th
Ken Cuccinelli barely won it and was well under 50% — by under 1% in a state year – federal years are more difficult
E.W. Jackson lost the 10th
So NO, not any Republican can win it and it is one of the most expensive Districts in the country and the Democrats have already pledged millions to try to win it in a Presidential year. Comstock and Gillespie and Wolf type candidates win. E.W. Jackson types do not.
Apples to oranges Donna. You’re talking statewide, I’m talking Congressional. The district is Republican in Congressional politics, and wavers in statewide politics. Picking your Congressmen is very different from picking your Governor or Senator.
In other words, yes, a Republican candidate besides Barbara Comstock can win. The facts flat out don’t support your opinion.
I disagree and you are factually wrong. You have to look at the percentages in the 10 th district I mentioned. No one has been able to retake Barbara’s Delegate seat portion even with a great candidate like Craig P so it is not a safe district for Republican’s.
No one has demonstrated the ability like Barbara to organize, raise money, and more importantly get out the vote. This is a fact and you can take that one to the bank.
Right, an R+2 district where Republicans Congressional candidates usually win by 5 points plus is in danger. The Congressional voting records aren’t in your favor, never have been, never will be. The data from, Wiki, Google, Ballotpedia, the Cook Report, US government statistics, public voting records, et all, says you’re wrong.
Oh I will. Eric Cantor organized, raised money, and pulled the “I’m indispensable” spiel as well. It didn’t work. Even with his prestige and the thought of him becoming Speaker.
People get tried of their candidates stabbing them in the back. If Comstock was governing like she promised, she’d be fine. As it is, the Pro-life fiscal Conservative has voted for a bill that has funded Planned Parenthood and given Obama everything he wants. That’s betrayal.
Because of that bill Paul Ryan is in hot water with national Conservatives and his own district is thinking of fielding a primary. Will it succeed? Doubt it.
But Comstock isn’t Paul Ryan, she’s weaker, newer, and overreaching her authority and outwearing her popularity way faster.
Joseph, are you on a unit committee? Have you been involved in campaigns? I don’t think so as a practical political naivety is shining through. All politics is local and your R+2 and Shak talk just aren’t resonating.
A foolish run against Barbara will solidify her support and will see Conservatives who can’t stand her positions vigorously campaigning for her. There may yet be a credible opponent, but if there is not, we will all rally ’round the Babs to defeat a democrat.
Unit committee? Nope, I’m a grunt. I do the groundwork. The higher ranks of the Republican party over here are being reshuffled, one bit at a time.
They aren’t resonating because you’re resigned to having Comstock. The issue isn’t with what I’m saying, it’s what with you are getting out of my words. Which is nothing you want to hear as I’m saying you can do better.
And she’s counting on you to accept her as unbeatable and unite to vote for her against a Democrat.
Okay, so you don’t know how the Party or Unit Committees work. Will you be able to sign the Statement and vote in the Presidential Primary?
I won’t be resigned to having Comstock until the filing deadline and then we shall see.
Yes, and by me supporting Barbara, the terrorists win. Sigh.
I’m getting an insult to my intelligence and sarcasm in this post.
Both of which are attempts to disparage me and silence the debate, again.
You seem to be doing that a lot.
I would never insult your sarcasm. I don’t care enough to malign, disparage nor silence the debate, but am trying to figure out your Republican involvement to see if it’s worth spewing my continuing font of political wisdom.
Don’t like meetings, take names, get addresses, convince voters, and your postings are starting to imply extra-party activities.
Are you going to sign the statement, will you be voting in the primary?
Are you a Republican? Working on behalf of the organized Party? Precinct Captain? Poll Worker? Committee member? Attending Mass Meeting? Convention?
Please comment as much as you’d like, I think it’s a great learning experience.
That’s sarcasm, disparaging comments, and faux putdowns all at once. What on earth happened to you? You’ve turned into Brian Schoenemen.
Extra-party activities? Such as? You mean you don’t talk politics when you’re not working on the party’s time? You don’t try and convince people to vote Republican at your job or converse with friends about it?
Yes, I’ll be voting in the primary. Did I say or imply that I wouldn’t? No.
I’m a Republican, a volunteer, a convention goer, and a poll worker. Most of work is on the county level.
Am I a member of the party in that I am party of the unit committee? Nope. Am I member of the party around here and involved with the local party process, recruitment, fundraising, and campaigns? Yes.
I believe Lawrence Wood called you out on behavior similar to this recently. Did you take his advice?
You’re doing the party no favors with this attitude that anyone who isn’t on the unit committee isn’t worth anybody’s time.
Joe, all I know of you is your posts here. They don’t make much sense in my considerable, vast/deep political wisdom and experience.
Many posters and commenters on this blog delight in their non-Republicanism. Some are more creative than others in their question-dodging. Perhaps I am just reading too much into your postings.
I attempt to confirm these things to better understand where you are coming from when you post. This is a serial non-verbal communication and can be fraught with misunderstanding.
Let me explain and request clarification
a) Extra-Party activities: Political behavior in a non-Republican group or organization – Occupy GOP, TP, PPP, GOP Separatists, etc. Being at the other table, not the Republican table.
b) Voting in the Primary: Voting in the Presidential Primary in March 2016, requesting the Republican Ballot, signing the statement. Are you? Will you? – From your youthful zeal and enthusiasm, I could see you as a new and upcoming voter.
c) The seemingly careful separation “Republican, a volunteer, a convention goer, and a poll worker.” Is it safe to assume that you are a Republican volunteer, elected to represent at Republican conventions, a Republican poll worker (inside or out)? — Again I could see your youthful intensity as being a College or Young Republican (not that there’s anything wrong with that)
d) Not being familiar with your district or unit, I don’t know the customs of your district, but we have official formal members of the unit committee as well as folks who are just as involved or moreso who are not official formal members. There may be a third option beyond deemed or self-exiled. Here I get confused when you are not a member of the unit but involved with process, recruitment, fundraising and campaigns, I’m assuming your not the formal committee member type.
I type so much garbage it’s difficult to track. Lawrence Wood is perhaps one of the smartest commenters here and I take into consideration everything he says. (hence the malign reference)
I assign credibility first and foremost to people working within the system, participating in the Unit Committee, the grassroots building block of our party. That is my litmus test for validity. If you’re active in your unit, you’re part of the solution. If you’re working against the party, or badmouthing the party from outside, you have less use to me and less influence with me.
Here are some other guideposts:
If you’re a Shakadvocate for elective office, experience and time will cure your naivete.
If you think Cruz, Rubio are natural born citizens and are eligible to be President, logic, research, and honesty will cure your ignorance.
If you promote anything other than the Republican nominee in a contested election, you have resigned from all party memberships and leadership roles.
One can say and post anything they want, it’s a free country (for now) but that Brian S cheap shot was below the belt. I am hurt and concerned at that micro-aggression — I now go to cry.
The problem with that is you’ve been openly trying to silence my remarks, disparaging them. That’s not the actions of someone trying to understand, that’s the actions of someone who either A. Understands and doesn’t like what he is reading or B. Doesn’t understand but has stereotyped the person he is talking to and is trying to silence that individual based on that.
My points are based on facts, figures, past electoral history and trends, as well as my past political experience for the party, that’s the standard political analysis and study.
I’ve never been involved with anything that wasn’t party of the local GOP, no occupy, separatists, etc. I’ve been involved with GOP rallies, meetings with GOP donors, luncheons, conventions, campaigns, and poll work.
As for the the Tea Party? Around here it is part of the GOP. All the local Tea Party members that I know are part of the GOP. The recently retired chief of the Republican Women considers herself a Tea Partier, so does the current head. So does most of the local Republican Committee. The local party has, bumpily, managed to make a coalition between the Moderates, the mainstream GOP, and the Tea Party.
Thanks, OK, silence no, disparage yes, because you continue to push Shak as electorally acceptable — not here, not statewide, too much baggage and drama. Still not comprehending, but I guess that is not necessary. So it’s a no on signing the statement?
I said I’d be voting in the primary. If that statement is still there, I’ll sign it.
Happy New Year!
Thank you. Happy New Year!
Yeah, I’m really going to insist you live and play in this district before you make pronouncements like that.
Rovian models and calculations like that will get you his same results.
I’ve been trained to deal with those districts, NOVA.
Like I said, trying to dismiss me because you don’t like my opinion won’t work.
Tell me, what do you think of the Presidential election so far? How things are going in Iowa? Based on your criteria, any opinion you have isn’t valid unless it applies specifically to Virginia where you live.
Feh. I’m saying this is my home district, I know the game and the players. The opinion of Shak as a viable challenge speaks volumes. The next President will be a NBC.
I know that, I also know the facts.
I like and respect you Rocinante, and I mean that. But this attitude that I’m not allowed to talk about the district and it’s politics based on the facts is old and it was never new in the first place. You’re not debating when you try that, you’re trying to silence debate.
Who said I was talking about Shak? His name comes up because he’s got the biggest name besides Comstock. That’s part of the reason I asked you who you thought could defeat her.
Because you’re not of the district, you see things in abstract, and draw conclusions like a parachuting consultant. It’s very easy to see the district as GOP +2 and think anyone can win if they beat Barbara — it’s simply not so.
Shak ran against Barbara, he lost against Barbara, in staggering numbers … All candidates did.
Shak’ biggest name is a testament to his self-promotion and his reputation. Is it as big as Comstock? Inside the party? Outside the party? Is it a good reputation or a bad one?
I’m not trying to silence debate in trying to remind everyone of the disaster that would be a ‘Shak Attack’ against Barbara. Right now, the best success Shak, or a greater fool could have, would be to somehow cause Barbara to lose in the general — scary part is, that is thought as acceptable or preferable even, to so many “Republicans” in this forum.
Besides being antithetical to Conservatism, it is politically naive and short-sighted.
It does utterly no good to broadcast the name of people seriously looking at the race. Conjecture is fine, but with Barbara’s votes and the 10th stupid decision to select a Primary, the grown ups of both parties are building their decision trees. And there are wild cards, and there will be proxies.
If/when a credible challenger decides to step forth, you will know it.
I see things the lens of political facts and figures which I have been taught to study. Unless of course the Leadership Institute’s way of looking at things doesn’t apply here?
It simply is so, that’s how politics work. There are constants that people look at, that’s why organizations like the Leadership Institute and the Cook Report work.
Again with the Shak thing! I just told you that I’m not suggesting that Shak is the only or best candidate.
Yes, you did try and silence debate. You tried to disparage and silence my opinion based on the idea that because I don’t live within the borders of the district a facial analysis doesn’t apply. That’s silencing debate, nothing more and nothing less. And political history isn’t on your side, otherwise campaign schools wouldn’t exist.
I disagree. Primaries are always preferable to electoral defeats. If she’s too entrenched right now, you wait and build resources. Strength doesn’t last forever, and her popularity is based on the perception that she is A. Unbeatable. B. The best that can be run in the district. C. Well-liked by the establishment, meaning she has powerful friends.
Only C is correct. Nobody in politics is unbeatable or the only one who can win in a certain area. Their are people that are the best in a certain area, but they certainly aren’t the only one that can win in that area.
And she is only the best that can be run from there if you accept her as the best, if you lower your standards and settle for her.
Go for it!
Either Shak or some other greater fool will or won’t mount a pointless challenge.
The ground troops and generals here are assessing the situation and will deal with it appropriately.
Yes, and when they decide that it would be inappropriate to challenger her, ever, what will you do?
Asking the people who put her in power and still support her to clean up her mess won’t work. Likely because they won’t see a mess to begin with and they will blame the person pointing out the problem.
You challenge when you can win, you prepare when you are not challenging.
Right, exactly. But the people who put her there will say that there is no reason to challenge her at all.
Yes, next year, it will all be better next year. Then we can fix things, then we can be Conservative and Republican and change the things that need changing. Trust us to Repeal and Replace all the bad things, and reform, and balance the budget. HA! We don’t have any more next years.
Then what will you do? And don’t say nothing. I keep getting the feeling that you don’t want to try and stop Comstock as it is.
I will not telegraph my intentions. And Comstock is there unless/until a more qualified, electable, Republican decides to run and win.
Do you have intentions to replace her? I keeping getting the feeling that you aren’t interested in actually removing her. Rather, you want to announce you’re upset but stick with her.
Uhhh, I have no response for that.
That’s what I thought.
Correction, Shak did not run against Barbara. I confused him with another challenger.
Ask Mark Berg as well. Now what? 59
The Brat/Cantor race and a Comstock/Challenger X race are nothing alike except they are both Congressional races.
‘Bag a RINO’ rhetoric has no place in the 10th.
If a better candidate comes along, we’ll check it out, but in the meantime, Barbara may not be Miss Right, but she is Miss Right Enough for the district.
Who would be that candidate?
Not forthcoming yet. If so, they would file close to the deadline.
Any potentials? Anybody sent out feelers to see if folks would be willing to support their candidacy?
Yes. Of course. But many factors still in play.
Hollingshead should run again. Now Barbara will have to run against her terrible record she’s amassed in barely a year.
Barbara helped and endorsed Stephen, I cannot imagine him running against her.
Good one, conventional wisdom would agree.
Yes, a veritable Political Punchinello.
If the messenger is a potential challenger, then the silly candidacy should be treated immediately before it further metastasizes.
One doesn’t Leroy Jenkins into Mordor. And one doesn’t primary Barbara without an adequate challenger that can beat her as well as win in November.
Shak, thank you for at least linking my email, even if you did take the quote you used from it out of context.
I am not happy with the omnibus but it underscores the need for a real budget, and a move toward justifying spending line by line, department by department, instead of funding the government with spending packages and continuing resolutions. We must deal with entitlement spending. Republicans in the House know that. Our congresswoman knows that. But do you really think the current administration cares about our massive debt?
The Obama White House has been entirely unwilling to work out a budget with the Republican controlled legislature. The House and Senate did pass a budget that moves things in the right direction earlier this year (http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-passes-budget-agreement-1430863263 ) but of course nothing so reasonable would be signed by this president.
WE NEED A CHANGE IN THE PRESIDENCY.
For those interested, this is what I said about the Omnibus, from my email (linked in the post above):
”
Who’s Happy with the Omnibus?
Seems like the people most happy with the shutdown averting omnibus spending package that passed yesterday are in the White House. 150 Republican combined forces with 166 Democrats to pass the spending bill; 95 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted against it. It should tell us everything that the Obama administration is pleased with the package, while many conservative leaders are not.
As frustrating as yet another last minute, gigantic spending bill is, it is only symptomatic of bigger problems in Washington. The government is funded on spending packages and continuing resolutions, and we go deeper into debt every day. Ultimately, the debt makes us vulnerable to our enemies and burdens the next generation. We need leadership with the will to change the way things are done across the Potomac. And the party needs all of us to participate in selecting the right GOP nominee on March 1st to make that happen.”
Omnibus is still not a budget.
2000 pages in 2 days is unacceptable.
Senate is unwilling to lead.
House is unwilling to lead.
The GOP Surrendermonkey Strategy and rolling over until November in the hopes that a Republican might win w
ould be a very lousy strategy. We didn’t elect the GOP to House and Senate majorities to NOT oppose the executive antics.
Consider this a showing of NO faith in Rep Comstock’s and the RNC leadership.
I would agree if the issue was only Obama, it isn’t. The fact of the matter is that when Conservatives run on Conservative ideals and than govern by their ideals, they do well. They succeed and the country is better for it. However, we’ve had the rise of the Democrat-lite Republicans who agree that winning elections trumps ideals and so they will run left to try and score, and when they do get into office they don’t do much to help the country.
Hence, the issue is that the Democrats and Republicans look the same to the third party, Independent, Libertarian, and Social Conservative voters. If you can’t choose someone to stand for your ideals, you vote for someone who stands against ideals you dislike, but lately we barely been given even that!
The difference is so razor thin that only the already committed vote, you only get the team you have but you don’t expand it. That’s the problem, not just the presidency, but that the politicians from our side are further to the left than the Democrats were in the nineties!
We have to fix our own problems, our own party, before we can try and tackle the presidency. Because if we don’t, the problems with the nation won’t be fixed. They’ll just have a band-aid thrown on them by Republicans who think they can fix everything the same way Democrats broke everything. And that just doesn’t work, not now and not ever.
Are you supporting Barbara Comstock and her record worse than that of Maxine Waters then?
A Babs in the hand is worth two Shaks in the bush.
I am sure the workers of Virginia replaced via the voted and funded H-2B legislation rammed through in this bill will agree with you on how “frustrating” this has been and that after all it’s only “symptomatic” of a larger problem (that you are not going to honestly face either) while standing in a 2016 unemployment line after being replaced by a lower wage foreign worker. I can’t quite figure out if you are truly clueless or the worst spin spinmeister since Baghdad Bob. I believe you may be one of the few in this failing structure that can see the reality outside of their own self interests. Time for word parsing is over just speak the truth and if you have a solution offer it, but enough with the silliness that a Republican elected executive in the WH is somehow going to miraculously change the governing trend lines when a Republican House and Senate majority can’t find the backbone or commitment to fulfill to their elected base ANY promises but rather accomplish nothing other then to support Obama’s final term agenda items. You say we need leadership, step one take on the personal responsibility to start acting like a leader yourself.
True budgetary reform on the scale needed to address our country’s fiscal ills requires one of two things:
1. A reform-minded House majority + a reform-minded Senate majority + a reform-minded President.
OR
2. A reform-minded House super-majority + a reform-minded Senate super-majority.
How else can a budget bill get passed? Which one of those two options do we have the best opportunity to achieve in 2016?
As I’ve said before, I have no devotion to the letter “R.” The entire reason for my civic involvement as a Republican is the advancement of a set of fundamental principles. Yes, the Omnibus is “symptomatic” but don’t take that word as minimizing; it’s not. When you have serious symptoms, the disease is very likely to be even more serious, and while symptoms might need to be mitigated, it is essential to treat the underlying disease. In this case, we might say the disease is a Washington culture that puts short term political interests ahead of the country’s long-term fiscal soundness. It is far easier to pass legislation of any kind benefiting a special interest group than to roll back economy stifling regulations or reform entitlement spending.
Still no excuse for our party and our Representatives surrendering without a fight.
I want opposition, not absence of opposition.
So are you saying that without a reformer like Trump our day will never come?
I don’t know who I will vote for March 1, yet, but I know I will vote for the most all around conservative candidate who I believe can win next November. So far, I honestly haven’t seen any evidence that Trump actually is a reformer though. His interactions with government and elected officials seem to have always furthered his own agenda and brand. His views on Kelo are scary and I’m so glad, with the leadership of people like Ken Cuccinelli and Mark Obenshain, we’ve limited the very eminent domain abuses in Virginia that Trump is proud of having used to his own advantage elsewhere.
@ Shak – I like Barbara Comstock, and I am an activist conservative. She represents a moderate district, in which I work. Most of my co-workers are affiliated with the federal government and they consider themselves “moderate, reasonable Republicans,” who are dead set against any talk of government shutdowns. While I would agree in principle with shutting down the government to deprive the Democrats of their unconstitutional power grab, the sad truth is that in Barbara Comstock’s district that would run against the grain of most of her constituents. The sad truth, Shak, is that our kind of conservatism does not play well in the 10th District. When there are only two parties, we must expect a huge variance in philosophy, outlook, tactics, and approach to governing within the same party. Given the demographics of the 10th District, Barbara Comstock is probably as good as it will get.
You can agree or disagree with Ms Comstock’s legislative record.
This is just shear hypocrisy on Shak’s part. According to his FEC report he is in the hole for over $100,000, certainly not conservative credentials.
Check out how little money he was able to raise for his last run for office. The campaign went into debt, and almost none of his donors are in the 10th where he lives. They know better!
He’s just trying to raise money to pay himself back! after his last spectacular loss.Folks should be warned that this is just a fundraising ruse to pay himself back.
Shak Hill is what my father would call,” A legend in his own mind” He is not what he appears to be. The blogs feed his ego.
So, Shak should not comment on Barbara’s record because he borrowed money for his last campaign? Please let us know who can critic Barbara’s record and who cannot.
Everybody is criticizing Barbara, that doesn’t make everybody a worthy political challenger.
The inability to achieve yet unable to retire such campaign debt makes him less of a fiduciary contrast.
Liberty is a beautiful thing Jeanine. Mr Hill can
comment all he wants about Ms Comstock, as I can about him and his motives. I choose not to remaIn I ignorantly bliss. Checkout his FEC report.
He raised very limited funds for his run for office which is a strong indicator of his lack of support. He has not officially announced a run for office but yet his expenses to include out of state airfare and hotel stays are outpacing his campaign contributions.One reporting period he raised only a $100.00.
In 2014, he was reprimanded by the FEC for failing to file his finance report in a timely manner not once but twice.
Happy New Year
Shak Hill lent his Senate campaign 105K. The campaign is in debt to the candidate. What’s the big deal here?
The big deal is he is still in the hole for $100,000 and the little money he is bringing in is less than his ongoing expenses.
Donna, clearly you did not understand my comment. Shak Hill (the person) lent his campaign (Friends of Shak Hill) 105K. His campaign is in debt to him. He can decide to forgive that debt and all of the sudden his campaign would not be in debt, but Shak Hill the individual would have lost money on his investment in Shak Hill for Senate Inc.
You make absolutely no sense bringing this up over and over again. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s like me putting 100K on my credit card, meanwhile having 100K in a bank account that I can choose to apy off the balance at any time.
Obviously you have a bone to pick with Shak or you’re a big Comstock supporter (probably both) and you have nothing else to say as it relates to Comstock’s atrocious record that you’re attacking the messenger.
I am neither.Just pointing out shear hypocrisy on Shak’s part. Reminds me of that old saying ,”people in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones.”
I know for folks like yourself,who are glossed over by guys like Shak it is hard to learn the truth, but I like to point out when folks have been hoodwinked.
Last spectacular loss???Are you kidding me? He was out raised 100 to 1 and came within inches of beating Ed Gillespie who was the only Republican to lose in 2014.
“Inches?” “Only Republican to lose in 2014?”
Shak lost in a convention against an establishment Republican.
Shak lost in a canvass against an establishment Republican.
And now you think we should fund and help him the loser trifecta in a primary loss that empowers Barbara???
Losing is losing, inches or pretending unit wins are both different colors of lose.
Plenty of better places to put money than a ‘Sharity’ of political self-immolation.
You backed Gillespie – he lost. So much for needed a moderate to win…huh?
No, I backed Shak in the Convention. Then watched him lose the Canvass. No desire to waste resources on a pointless challenge.
Did I miss somewhere in the article that he announced a run? He was simply calling her out.
Shak never stops running, only the offices and the appeals change. Everyone is calling her out, Shak is rolling around in political blood and posturing to have another go and carry the protest vote banner as he searches for the next self-promotion opportunity.
We don’t need to waste a Barbara challenge on a ‘Constitutional-Conservative’ Jesse Shakson.
As we speak Shak is receiving donations for a primary run. He is known as a nuisance candidate.
Not by much against a well healed Democrat.. It would had been a landslide loss if Shak was the candidate.
And so what if he is raising money to retire campaign debt. It is an accepted practice. Have you ever thrown your hat into the ring for office? or are you just a critic of those who do?
Barbara is an accepted practice. Rubio, Cruz, McConnell illustrate what you get with funded backers. We’ve seen what we get with ‘follow the money’ — don’t care to play ‘follow the debt.’
Wake up Larry and take a look at his actual report. His expenses are far outpacing ant meager campaign donation he might be receiving.
I take it that you are not running? Why criticize anyone who runs for office? It is much MUCH easier to raise money when you are an “inside player” – Much harder when you are an insurgent. Why wont you criticize how much money Ed Gillespie wasted on his loss? Or Jeb Bush on his flailing campaign? No it is easier to criticize the conservative who won’t sell his soul or votes to the highest bidder than to talk about the corrupt practices of establishment politics.
Just criticizing Shak Hill. Ed put up some of his own money to run. Gillespie had to waste money on Shak Hill at the convention.
If Shak was such a insurgent why didn’t he raise larger sums of money across the state?Obviously, the voters did not want to waste their hard earn money on a candidate that could not win.
Because the grassroots aren’t rich. The consultants are rich, the advisors are rich, and when we go with them, we lose. Case in point, McCain and Romney. Look at how much money was outright wasted in 2012 and tell me that that is a winning plan.
Shak Hill had lower cash reserves due to lower name recognition, less financial support from the higher echelons of the party, and poorer areas of the state supporting him. I was at the convention, voted for Hill, and watched his supporters, none of them were people who could make big donations. But, they were people who would support their candidate and work for him until the end.
What do you mean no name recognition.Shak Hill is all over the place attending other politicians fundraisers to mooch off their supporters. Everywhere he goes he hands out his business card. He is also paying a marketing company to handle his emails. He claims to be a gifted speaker.Although the going rate is quite low for his fees, which is based on demand.He is actively seeking donations on various sites.
It is telling that most of his donations came outside of where he lives in the 10th demonstrating he does not have support there either. His supporters may not have a lot of money but they are certainly not showing up in the numbers to win a race.
I didn’t say “no name recognition” I said he had lower name recognition. Don’t put words you want me to say in my mouth that I didn’t say.
What he’s doing is a classic for politicians to raise name ID, get money, and connect with supporters. He’s building his reputation.
It is great he is building his reputation. He has place himself in the political arena so folks are questioning who he really is.
Standard practice. You’re saying Barabra didn’t attend rallies and given speeches? How’d she get elected if she didn’t interact with her base and donors?
Of course she has and gets more requests to speak than Shak who wants t be paid for his speeches.
You think Barbara wasn’t getting something out of showing up? She was getting votes, meeting donors, making allies. The same thing Shak is doing.
And by doing, and charging for his speeches, he’s making money to pay off the campaign debt you’re always talking about.
Good grief, you really are just blasting Shak for doing the same things you support Comstock doing.
This is rage you’re exhibiting, nothing more, nothing less. I don’t know why you’re so furious at Shak, but quite frankly it isn’t healthy.
@Donna W, I have never asked to be paid for speeches. Your comments about me are pathetic and absolutely without merit.
Because I care about our country and am willing to spend my own money, you find fault with this.
Please produce evidence or shut up! You have spewed much comment, without one shred of evidence. It is time to put up or shut up.
Good luck.
Bingo! Outsiders don’t get the big bucks, insiders do. Then the insiders sneer at the outsiders for having financial trouble and declare themselves the only viable candidates due to their cash resources.
Because when Republican’s are constantly losing statewide races, we should not be spending any effort unless the person as a real chance in winning. The liberals would bury a guy like Shak in a statewide race.
I support those that can actually win a race.
Just pointing out facts about Mr Hill as reflected in his own finance report by the FEC. Which includes expenses out pacing his contributions. This is a real eye opener for someone who has not officially launched a campaign for office. The lack of financial support is a strong indicator of Shak’s support as a candidate. He was even cited not once but twice in the same year for failing to file his finance report in a timely manner in 2014.
If you are putting yourself out there as a strong conservative as Shak is but you can’t even keep your own campaign finances above water, these are not conservative credentials.
Larry you sound like a relative of Shak or whatever name he goes by.
“You can agree or disagree with Ms Comstock’s legislative record.” Yes, which is the whole point of this article. But instead of discussing the article, you choose to shoot the messenger with an ad hoc attack. How Saul-Alinsky of you.
Every word Shak Hill wrote is spot-on; and he justifies them with FACTS.
C’mon Republicans of the 10th District, beat the bushes, find and run a worthy, Conservative candidate; and bag RINO Comstock.
Shear hypocrisy Connie coming from Shak and that is all. If you want to support a candidate like Shak that is your business who has a public record of campaign finance debt along with failure to file FEC reports on time that is your business.
He places himself out there as some “super
conservative” but in reality his fiscal conservative credentials fall short in regard to how he handles his own campaign finances. His expenses are far greater than any money he is bringing in, and he hasn’t even announced a run for office. He spends money like no tommorrow.
Shak Hill has the Liberty to blow his campaign donations anyway he sees fit.
And? Do you know the sheer number of campaigns that deal with campaign debt or filing deadlines? That’s not disqualifying or alarming given that it is a common element in politics.
He’s not saying he’s a super Conservative, he’s saying he’s a Conservative and Comstock isn’t. That’s a valid, and true, point.
We don’t need another Nominee whose expertise is spending money they do not have.
Shak is Conservative, Barbara is elected, repeatedly.
Shak running for the 10th drives most anyone who knows Shak into supporting Barbara.
He hasn’t indicated he’s running, he’s stated that he’s upset with Barbara.
Tell me, if he cleans up his act and runs, and I’m not saying he will, would you support him?
We know Shak is concerned. We all feel that concern and appreciate him pointing out the gambling going on in Casablanca.
He can’t clean up his nature — even if he weren’t Shak he’d still be the unwinningest gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
Personally, he’s ineligible due to his knowledge and understanding of the Constitution.
If Shak runs against Barbara, you unite most of the right side of the party with the establishment for Barbara.
Why? To all of your statements here. You’re saying you don’t like him but you’re not saying why.
Shak-whacking is currently a local phenomenon that (fortunately) is slow to catch on statewide.
Look around, ask around, publicly airing dirty linen is never good form.
He may be a political figure, but he has still done many decent things without getting elected.
I don’t like any ‘Constitutional Conservative’ that promotes ineligible presidential nominees.
You’re acting and commenting based on those reasons but you won’t say what they are because it would be bad form? That’s a cop-out.
Do you have a reason to dislike him at all? If so, provide it. If not, you’re just shooting the breeze and not adding anything to the discussion.
Nope, no reason. Shak is swell.
Again, that’s sarcasm on your part.
I like Shak for no reason, I cannot think of a single elective office that would earn my support for him. I consider the shark jumped.
Based on your comments, I’d say dislike is more likely.
I would not based on his public record for any race.
I got that impression by your hatred of him, but I can’t really find anything that your dislike is based on other than him opposing Comstock.
I don’t hate Shak or anyone else. You are so hypersensitive to every question raised about Shak which makes me wonder your relationship to Shak? Maybe you are Shak?
Really? So far you’ve put words in my mouth, accused me of hysteria and hypocrisy when I’ve asked you to back up your statements, and now you’re accusing me of being someone else?
Every statement you’ve made so far has been either an attack on Shak or whoever you’re talking to.
Your comments are all offense, no rationale, no substance.
Yes I do. I have run a campaign before. I find it quite interesting that he is not receiving many donations and his wife is his accountant and they still can’t get it right. Meanwhile, he is relying on those donations to pay family members.
Grassroots and local or family oriented campaigns often have hiccups, doesn’t mean a thing once they’ve gotten themselves together.
Then maybe Shak and his campaign should have started with a local race if they did not know what in the hell they were doing, rather than running for the US Senate.
His ego got the better of him in that decision.
A US Senate race should not be the arena for on the job training in running a campaign.
Did it? Not based on the support he had. The support he still has, across the Commonwealth. And it seems to have paid dividends, given that he is one of Ted Cruz’s campaign managers.
A Presidential Campaign with local and national ties, that’s a good place to launch another bid for office from. If he wants to, that is. He hasn’t said that he is doing anything of the sort.
That support rolled in more than $3500 in 2015 alone! The operating expenses were $11,000 plus, so we’re not going in the right directions — lousy dividends of you ask me.
With Shak as Campaign Manager, makes me less concerned about Ted’s ineligibility becoming a larger issue.
Maybe Barbara is safe this time as Shak could run against Chairman Whitbeck!
Again, campaign debt is common. Political connections and statewide support are harder to get, and he got them. He’s still getting them.
Strange, it makes me more inclined to vote for Ted. Knowing that a Cynthia Dunbar, Shak Hill, and parts of Dave Brat’s campaign staff are all on Ted Cruz’s team? I like it.
You’ve said that before.
Go look at the financials. I say everything before. Sometimes I repeat myself… repeatedly.
And again the financials. Like I said before, campaign debt is common. It’s fine as long it is paid off.
Let’s do some math here:
Owes 100,000; Annually 2015 — 3,000 comes in, 11,000 goes out.
In Campaign Finance terms, this is not a good thing.
Unless you have one heck of a fundraiser, the Shakinator will not succeed in ANY political venture.
And if he fixes it? Then what? He’s going around giving speeches, meeting donors and rallying support, for which he is getting criticized as well.
Ah! Did not see that one coming. Well if he fixes it, it will be fixed. I didn’t realize he was going around giving speeches, meeting donors and rallying support. If he is indeed criss-crossing the state and pursuing Ted’s donors for himself, I can easily see him doubling the numbers this year. I simply cannot believe he would be criticized for that.
He is, and he’s getting flak for it. He’s got a twofold strategy going on. He’s offering his own services as a paid speaker, getting small amounts of money and meeting activists and donors from that, and he’s working on the Cruz team, meeting the big guns of party money doing that.
All that was he BS his way to Sen Stanley. The Cruz campaig has no clue about Shak. If they did, then that indicated poor decision making on their part. There are plenty of other military veterans who have longer than nine years of credible military service.
Also, Shak fits right in with some of the other EW Jackson types in that group.
Again, what are you talking about? You keep hinting at this big reason that you don’t like Shak but you dance around what it is and deflect the question when I try and find out what it is.
And when did nine years of military service become something to sneeze at?
Ted Cruz picked a Conservative like him, no other reason he picked Shak.
Yes, E.W. Jackson didn’t win. He was also the best Christian of the lot, gotta love him for how good of a Jesus and God loving man he is.
Joseph how do you know he was the best Christian of the lot? Do you stalk candidates to see if they are going to church or not.
What evidence Jackson the best Christian in the lot? The number of times he said Jesus in a speech?
Maybe because he’s a Pastor and a Bishop who has devoted his life to the Ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
How do you know he’s not?
Shak has been elected to public office, he’s ran for Statewide nomination at a Convention. He’s a State Chairman for a Presidential candidate. He’s awesome!
I’m detecting sarcasm, based on your past comments about the man.
Maybe a smidge. But he’s not elect-worthy in my book.
And that’s fine, but say it like that rather than the “Shak has an ominous past” routine.
Who said anything about an ominous past? I’d go with an ominous political future perhaps.
He has a future. Maybe not as an elected official, but given his current title he’ll be around for some time.
Quite.
And Barbara is an elected Congressman and Shak isn’t. Another equally valid and true point.
I never said he was a Congressman. I said he was and is Conservative and Comstock isn’t.
That was true two days and it’s true now.
Right, that’s kinda my point.
It doesn’t work if I didn’t make a point for it to counter.
And Shak ran for Senate, not against Barbara. He hasn’t tried for a seat as a Congressman.
Okayyyy. Try this one: Shak is an unelected “Constitutional Conservative” and Barbara is an elected “Republican” who’s voting record sucks wind.
Right, I’d rather get a Conservative, not necessarily that Conservative, in place of the Republican who is acting like a Democrat.
Yes, and I’d rather Ted Cruz was born in Texas or Virginia of Two US Citizen Parents. Yet here we are.
With Cruz looking good as the guy poised to hopefully take down Trump, it makes me happy.
Connie weren’t you and others the ones that wanted Congressman Daniel Webster as Speaker?
Well here is his record.
https://www.conservativereview.com/members/daniel-webster/
So the guy you folks wanted as Speaker got a “D”
Connie S.- What exactly are you trying to say by using the “BAG” RINO Comstock!
I’m pretty sure “Find a candidate against Barbara and challenge her in a primary.” I think it’s a safari/hunt term RINO – Rhino. Fairly common I thought.
Connie S- what exactly are you saying when using the word “Bag” RINO Comstock.
It’s a reference to the book about Brat beating Cantor. ‘How To Bag a RINO’ is the sensational title.
1. What does a government shutdown have to do with the majority of her voting record. The answer is nothing but a common excuse constantly repeated by her supporters.
2.The big lie that Barbara Comstock is a Republican “moderate”, NO she clearly is not or you have not looked carefully at her voting record. She votes consistently with the Democratic majority down the line so the only moderate she qualifies for might be as a Democratic.
3. Yes, she does represent the NTEU and AFGE quite well but she was elected to represent the state’s 10th district not Fairfax County. Additionally, I have never seen any reliable data on the breakdown of government vs non government employment in the total 10th district. If you have that information please provide it as I would be interested to see the facts. What I have been able to glean does NOT support the frequently repeated justification by Comstock supporters that her votes somehow reflect the top heavy majority of government worker’s votes in the 10th. Besides I find it strange that this argument is based on the shaky premise that the vast majority of the 10th district voters are “Obama program supporters” and do not include any such individuals as you claim to be or moderate Republicans you refer to in your comment.
4. Conservatism doesn’t play well in the 10th is an opinion as far as I can ascertain since for the 30th years I have been in the district it has NEVER been offered a true conservative running on a conservative program agenda. We have had Frank Wolf and his mentor Barbara Comstock, that’s been it. This is another one of the frequently repeated excuses that as far as I can tell has never been put to a real test. Good conservative candidates win, bad conservative candidates lose.
5. Finally the self fulling prophecy that quasi Democrat Comstock is the best we can do given district “demographics” is the biggest spin angle of the whole sorry lot. If Trump carries the 10th district (which he may very well do) with many quite decidedly conservative positions on immigration, taxes, the economy and trade (TTP), what will be the new self rationalizing demographic excuse? Demographics is the lamest justification in the Comstock supporter rolodex of excuse cycles for her progressive voting record.
You may be satisfied with the excuses but I am most certainly NOT.
Absolutely, but you can’t beat a somebody with a nobody — a credible, electable candidate, is worth the effort — throwing Shak against the wall, isn’t.
Who would you run? Who is the credible, electable, candidate?
To rephrase the question — which credible, electable candidates WOULD run?
I can’t think of any right now — people are still calculating. Barbara would prefer several conservatives to run, splitting and embarrassing themselves thus solidifying her hold on the seat and district.
No doubt several are being approached and persuaded, but this should not be entered into lightly. (As opposed to the typical ‘anyone would send a message’ political stupidity.)
Make sense. But I’m wondering as to what your personal criteria for a candidate would be, who you think could defeat Barbara Comstock?
I’m going with more conservative that could beat her in a Primary and win the General.
AGREED. Run Shak, RUN….
Good God No! Another Shak flail at elective office just inoculates Barbara against an actual electable conservative.
Shak just iterated what everybody else knows about Barbara and her votes. ‘Me Too’ is not a mandate for elective office.
There are a number of viable challengers for Barbara across the GOP Spectrum, and if need be, we can pull them across the state.
While I’d prefer to replace Barbara with someone more conservative, I would more prefer to keep the seat in the Party. In this case, a 20% conservative is better than a 100% democrat.
But even more important is to NOT re-nominate Barbara in record numbers because we challenge her with the ‘Constitutional Conservative’ equivalent of Tarek Salehi.
And spare me the hyperbole of Barbara and Liberty — you want a real target for your ire for the ability of Barbara to vote the way she does, look no farther than the 10th Congressional GOP Board — it was this group that gave Barbara her Primary ‘Immunity Cloak’ — Barbara would NOT have been able to vote the way she has if Half-Plus-Jo had not ‘deemed’ it so.
You can blame Omnibus and every vote since on each and every 10th Board member voting away the only leverage conservatives had!
Fix your own party leadership before you pretend you have the potential to unseat ‘our’ incumbent who holds all the cards.
Jay,
I would encourage you to put your money on Shak so you can help him dig out the hole he is s in.
Jay,
For a point of reference. Go to the below FEC link and type in Friends of Shak Hill.
http://www.fec.gov/disclosurehs/HSCandDetail.do
Seriously? How is this at all relevant to how Comstock votes in Congress? Would you be happier if the post was under my name rather than Shak’s name? Would that give it more legitimacy?
Yes, because you don’t share the financial incentives of Shak.
Shak wants to be the anti-Barbara and pretend that the effort is worth the cost.
Running Shak against Barbara will just make Barbara stronger.
Barbara can’t be any worse than Maxine Waters, whom has a better score than Barbara….no matter how you slice it.
Now that’s just mean!
Shak is a political figure so he is fair game.
And this has what to do with Comstock’s liberal voting record? Nothing.
Jeanine,
I wonder what the Cruz campaign thinks about their co-chair losing votes for them in the 10 th if Cruz wins the nomination?
I think the Cruz campaign is probably pleased as punch about Shak attacking a sitting member of Congress that theoretically could support the other ineligible for President post-Convention.
Given that he won’t lose a vote that could have been won by Cruz anyway? Probably nothing. On the other hand, the votes they are gaining are the ones they want for the primary.
How do you know that! What little support base he has wil dwindle once they find out the real facts about Shak.
Let me see, if you won’t support a Conservative challenger like Shak Hill, you won’t support a Conservative like Cruz. Simple, easy, logical.
What facts are going to bring him down?
Not trying at all to bring him down. You are overreacting. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
What on earth?
You said: “What little support base he was will dwindle once they find out the real facts about Shak.”
I said: “What facts are going to bring him down?”
I’m overreacting by asking what you’re talking about? That doesn’t even make sense. It sounds like you’re reacting to something I didn’t say, putting words in my mouth, again.
Support base for what? Again, what does this have to do with Barbara Comstock? Shak has never run against Barbara.
Cruz is a conservative. Comstock is not. As much as you would like to connect this to Shak, you can’t. Sorry!
Bingo.
The Shak fan base appears to be on this blog which is no help to Cruz. Shak Hill mouthing off only alienates the folks in the 10 th who are saying,” What in the hell was the Cruz camp thinking asking Hill to co chair the campaign.”
Jeanine keep backing Shak and while you are at it please donate to his Friends of Shak so he can continue to pay his kids out of his campaign contributions. He has a real scam going on in that regard.
Telling the truth about a Congresswoman who has failed to live up to her promises is mouthing off? No.
Cruz was thinking Hill was a Conservative like him, he’s right.
I don’t know why you seem to hate Hill but that’s a problem. I think everybody on here who disagrees with Comstock does just that, disagrees. But you seem to despise Shak Hill and I don’t know why.
What on earth are you talking about? Shak has never run against Barbara. Nor have I supported him.
Jeanine, weren’t you a big Comstock fan during the Primary? I might be remembering wrong.
You are. I did not support Barbara in the Firehouse Primary. But I did support her and help her campaign after she won the nomination.
Never said Shak ran against Barbara.
Your name as the author of an article has never added to its credibility.
Thanks for sharing Bruce!
Unlike Schoeneman, I’ll freely admit that I love you.
I’ve often pondered Brian’s apparent unrequited feelings for Jeanine. It’s the only reason he would think about her so much and with such fervor. He’ll bring her up in situations she was nothing to do with…
But that behavior has been shown in the wild with Jeanine as well. Those two are a veritable “Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom”. Just without Marlin Perkins & Jim Fowler.
Alas, I think Jeanine doesn’t return Brian’s ardor.
But if your analogy is correct, where does that leave Stephen Spiker? Could she have two admirers? Is Mrs. Martin a man magnet for moderates without realizing it?
Stephen Spiker was eliminated in our last episode because he made the mistake of only going to Victoria’s Secret for Jeanine’s Christmas present. Brian’s choice of Adam & Eve was strategery that only he would have considered based on his Congressional experience. Lucky for us, the home viewers have voted Rhinoheart Redenbacher back into the house for the next week. Hilarity shall ensue in the quest for Jeanine’s Love.
Ouch! Methinks Jeanine would start running for the hills with that crowd after her.
Fairfax Fatigue and Loudoun Envy.
True. Brian has been obsessed with me for years. Everyone finds it bizarre but he continues on. I can’t begin to explain it, nor can anyone else.
Obsession to the degree he and his boys are showing can’t be explained. It’s just unhealthy for them.
Wow!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Either way, employing a futile perennial candidate is not the public works project conservatives should be undertaking.
Right on! Could not agree more! After she had some time in office, I got a telephone solicitation to contribute to her as I had initially sent a very modest contribution to her general election campaign after she defeated my preferred candidate in the primary. I asked her caller, “As a conservative, why would I want to help re-elect another supporter of Obama’s socialistic programs?” Not surprisingly, that question did not get a satisfactory answer to induce me to contribute.