A few days ago I presented some evidence that Loudoun Chairman of the Board Scott York might run for Chair again but this time as an Independent since Loudoun Republicans have chosen their candidate, attorney Charles King. [read_more]
I now have evidence that Scott York may not be running. According to the state department of elections’s latest financial reports from Scott York show that he is giving away the money in his candidate account to other candidates. In January York gave $2,000 to the political campaigns of Shawn Williams, Matt Letourneau, Tony Buffington, Ralph Buona, Geary Higgins, and $3,000 to Roger Zurn in February. He also contributed $2,000 to an organization named “Bite Me Cancer”. That’s a total of $15,000 that York gave away in January and February. It seems unlikely that York had any thought of running again when he began to give away his money. Has he since changed his mind? One person who knows him well says Scott is not going to run again.
Time will tell.
13 comments
Like I said Pete, don’t take my word for it. Watch the debate video for yourself. Chapman was level-headed, mature, and professional. His performance was outstanding.
Noble was angry, agitated, and petulant. Can’t imagine anyone would want a hot-headed liar for sheriff… Except maybe his small following of hot-headed liars.
Avatar must have been smoking something pretty good because anybody, and I mean anybody, who was present for the debate would have seen that Mr. Noble clearly was the victor in every measure. Chapman’s posture and weakened voice were very telling of his despair.
So, what can we infer from Scott York’s endorsement of Sheriff Chapman? Does such an endorsement help or hurt Chapman? Me? I don’t think an endorsement from a lame duck carries much weight …
Chapman’s performance in the debate was excellent, but don’t take my word for it. Anyone can see for themselves, and I would encourage everyone to watch it.
You will see that Chapman was professional, even-keeled, and intelligent.
Noble was angry and petulant. He looked about one question away from having a Howard Dean moment.
So why hasn’t Chapman posted any of the videos or provided the links to them? You didn’t even do that, for crying out loud. I’m guessing in actuality that you are not overly keen on folks seeing them?
In fact, I’ll make a not so bold prediction … Chapman’s team has been busy this week creatively editing the debate videos and we’ll see them posted sometime next week.
Larsele: Did you not attend or watch the video of this week’s debate between Mr. Noble and Mr. Chapman? Chapman was asked a question regarding whether or not he would abide by his pledge, should he lose the Republican nomination, to shut down his campaign and support Mr. Noble for Sheriff. Every upstanding and trustworthy Republican candidate should unquestionably abide by this pledge that they have sworn to; one’s commitment to Republican principles demands this. He had three minutes to respond to this question but only gave a one sentence answer. He did not state that he would shut down his campaign and support his fellow Republican Mr. Noble. He merely said he would support Republican candidates. This was a simple and direct question and to me and many others his answer appeared weak and open to interpretation. It is well-known that Chapman’s camp is expecting defeat at the convention and is setting up for an independent run and this fact likely accounts for Chapman’s evasive answer. You can watch this on the video of the debate. The video is available on this site as well as on Noble’s campaign Facebook page. It is not, however, posted on Chapman’s page; likely because Chapman does not want people to see his weak performance at the debate. I say that as Chapman has always been quick to post any video of himself that he can and in this case he has not done that.
As to your comment about professional behavior I ask you this: In his answer to one particular debate question Chapman was caught on the spot telling an outright lie. Mr. Noble had the documentation right there for everyone to see. Chapman attempted to blame his commander (Noble) and claimed he didn’t know anything about the blown budget. Noble demonstrated that he had advised Chapman of the problem six months prior to the time where Chapman said he first found out and was caught off-guard about it. I hardly consider lying by the Sheriff as professional behavior.
All of this is right there to see on the video.
I absolutely attended the debate looking for clarity in view of rumors like this one about running as an independent and the negative angry messages I perceived in the campaign material from the challenger. I came away supporting Sheriff Chapman.
Well that’s a view that goes to your character. If you’re okay with supporting a law enforcement official who is supposed to be the epitome of integrity but lies at a debate and gets caught doing the same, well that’s your prerogative. We can only hope that all the other voters in this election have higher standards than you.
Well then that goes to your naïveté if you haven’t determined by numerous documented outside sources that virtually everything the challenger said was a distortion or an outright lie.
Could you please let us know what these “documented outside sources” are? I attended the debate and in my opinion Noble came across as passionate, sincere, and honest. It appeared to me that Chapman didn’t seem comfortable and was either ill-prepared or just familiar enough with the subject matter. He spoke a lot without really saying specifics.
Perhaps it’s time to put to bed the equally false notice that Sheriff Chapman had any intent along the same lines. I’ve always suspected that rumor was a straw-man to discredit Chapman’s candidacy by a challenger who admits to being deceitful through the use of anonymous attacks. Truly shameful behavior by a supposedly professional.
“…since Loudoun Republicans have chosen their candidate, attorney Charles King”….no one chose him, he slimed his way to be the only one on the ballot for chairman at the convention…what a choice…