Op-Ed by Jo Thoburn, Chairman of Virginia’s 10th District Republican Committee
As Chairman of the 10th District Republican Committee, I feel compelled to respond to Del. Mark Berg’s recent op-ed, and correct the misinformation about the RPV and the 10th District Committee.
Let me start with Mark’s statement in the last paragraph that “we’re on the same team.”
We were on the same team. When I first heard about the write-in campaign on October 5th, I called Mark and pleaded with him to do the right thing and endorse our Republican nominee. He refused to do so and said there is no way we could ever prove who he even voted for. When I then asked him to disavow the write-in campaign, he said his friends were running the write-in campaign and he wouldn’t do that to his friends. He also thought there was a good chance he would win the write-in campaign since he only lost the primary by 166 votes.
Putting aside the legalistic analysis everyone is trying to make of this issue, let’s not forget one simple fact. Mark was elected as a Republican to the General Assembly and he was a sitting member of the Republican State Central Committee. Notwithstanding the offices he held, this sitting Republican Delegate and member of the Party leadership not only refused to support the Republican nominee in the 29th Delegate District, he allowed his name to be used all over the District to campaign against the Republican nominee. That in of itself should be enough to disqualify Mark from further service in Party leadership.
Let’s also look at the numerous misrepresentations in Mark’s op-ed.
Mark was deemed resigned from three Official Committees by the RPV General Counsel (G.C.), not Chairman Whitbeck or anyone else. The Chairman, the Frederick County Chairman, and I are just the enforcers of the Rules. Official G.C. opinions are binding according to the Party Plan and no Chairman at any level has the power to refuse to enforce them. Mark has the right to appeal the Opinion through the proper channels if he feels aggrieved by the G.C. Opinion.
Mark is also claiming he has heard “second hand” that there is an appeal of the G.C. Opinion. That is just not true as he was notified like everyone else by email. The Party Plan requires that all Appeals be heard by the Appeals Committee within 14 days of the date of the Opinion. Mark sent an email to the 10th District where he indicated he intended to appeal. Chairman Whitbeck and I were not clear whether in fact that was an appeal but in an abundance of caution the Chairman deemed it a formal appeal (another example of us bending over backward to help Mark). He was then notified of the telephone conference to conduct a hearing on the Appeal this morning, about the same time as the Appeals Committee was provided the same information. There was also no “limiting of debate” as Mark claims and no limitation to a “yes or no vote.” What the Executive Director actually said was that Mark would get equal time with the discussion time to present his side. You can see for yourself with the emails themselves which I have provided.
In addition, Mark has flat-out lied in his op-ed in several respects.
First, he selectively uses quotes from the Winchester Star to try to justify his claim he had nothing to do with the write-in. If that was true, why didn’t he just email Chairman Whitbeck and me when he was requested to do so? The answer is he wanted to see if he could win and disavowing the write-in would have hurt those chances.
Second, look at this email from Chairman Whitbeck to Mark’s wife on October 28. He clearly is told that “new information” on the write-in had come to light and he needed to talk to Mark or Debbie Berg immediately. While Debbie did respond on October 29 that Mark got the email, that was the last contact we ever had from Mark on the issue before he was deemed resigned. Whether the press reported Mark had disavowed the write-in to me or not, new information had come to light and Mark should have responded rather than ignored the Chairman.
Third, my conversation with Mark that Chairman Whitbeck referred to in the press happened October 5th, several weeks before he was deemed resigned. At that time the Chairman and I thought that his statement to me about the write-in was sufficient as there did not seem to be any real campaign going on against Chris Collins (again, we were trying to help Mark). However, after the October 24th Winchester Star article came out, we were flooded with Frederick County citizens showing us photographs of Mark Berg for Delegate signs, mail pieces sent out using Mark’s name, radio ads using Mark’s name and social media about Mark. It was clear at that point that Mark was allowing his name to be used at worst, or, at best, he was doing nothing to stop the expansive use of his name to run against the Republican nominee. It was then that we decided to request guidance from the General Counsel who ultimately deemed Mark to have resigned from all Official Committees.
Fourth, Mark’s claim that he never received the Call to the 10thDistrict meeting and that notice was deficient is downright false. He was sent a copy of the Call.
Fifth, Mark’s claim that I gave the members of the 10th District Committee incorrect information is also false. At the beginning of the meeting I informed Mark that he could run for his seat again at that very meeting. However, nobody made a motion to nominate Mark for his vacated seat and Andrew Nicholson was elected by acclamation. This shows how unified the 10th District Committee was in support of the notion that it was Mark who caused this problem for himself, not the Party.
Sixth, Mark could have stopped this whole mess by simply emailing Chairman Whitbeck and/or me when he was asked to do so. He selectively quotes parts of Chairman Whitbeck’s letter but doesn’t bother to point out that one of the options available to him was to send an email to Party leaders. Chairman Whitbeck already made this point previously.
The fact of the matter is Mark is responsible for what happened here. After promising to be a staunch supporter of conventions, Mark chose a primary and was defeated. He then tried to win a write-in campaign and when that failed, only then did he disavow his involvement publicly. Mark wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Let me close by again saying that if you are in the State Party leadership you should support Republican nominees. If you don’t want to do that you should resign your position. Mark didn’t have to do that to stay a member of his Official Committees under current Party rules, but he did have to refuse to lend his name to the effort against the Republican nominee. He didn’t do so and so he is therefore deemed resigned from all Official Committees.
Mark, we were on the same team. One day, I hope we can be again. But for now, you need to step aside, accept the consequences of your actions and move forward to elect good Republicans in the future.
70 comments
Without a doubt the removal of Mark Berg from the GOP was one of the stupidest things 10th District could have done. Instead of spending this time gathering our resources to fight Hilary Clinton in 2016 10th district decided to use its resources to fight the conservative grass roots. Not at all smart.
Just curious, how many times has the Republican party booted a sitting, conservative, Republican Delegate?
Depends on the word qualifications — Republicans booted one at Mark’s re-election primary. Mark booted hisself from State Central and thus 10th District GOP and now Fred County RC.
Think of it this way: If I’m in a sorority at College and I act in such a way that makes the sorority look bad and hurts my sisters’ feelings — doesn’t this justify my Sisters and the chapter to kick me out?
Or if I’m in a church, and I act against the teachings and dictates of the church — couldn’t the church include me out?
Nobody normal really likes seeing discipline enacted – it is uncomfortable and awkward to witness — yet we all have disciplined and have been disciplined. Sometimes a word, a raised eyebrow, a white gaze of hate, time-out, or banished to your room — whatever it takes to make the point and correct behavior.
It’s not an exact science and some need more than others to understand, but it is critical in order to have a successful functioning organization.
I think enough has been devoted to this and if we continue the argument in public like this, we run the risk of emboldening our real opponents, muddying the lesson, and preventing the opportunity to heal.
I think it time to let Chris Collins take his turn and let the district and the unit start fresh just as Bev Sherwood did for Mark. We can all fight another day, but we owe it to our voters to respect their choices… Because they are the ones who truly own the seats.
How is Mark Berg deemed to have automatically resigned from the party by Les Taylor is not? Taylor was a bigger offender than Mark – the independent constantly kept spouting off that he was endorsed by Taylor and Taylor never disavowed it. He sent thousands of letters with the endorsement, Taylor knew about it and never disavowed. Same with the website that was up for months. Then Taylor attacked Correll publicly ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION.
Kicking off Berg when Taylor was worse just plain smells.
Sounds like Taylor resigned as well. Take it up with the Winchester unit. What party offices did he hold?
Is he a member of a Republican committee?
Whoa, whoa. Why does the Unit have to vote Les Taylor off? That’s not what happened with Berg. He was just notified he was off. Why is Taylor, who is a member of the official committee, not given notification? He is Sheriff so he is deemed ex officio, like Berg.
Let’s be fair here. Berg was a member of FCRC yet he was deemed resigned by higher ups FOR THE UNIT COMMITTEE.
I am just getting real here. If Berg is gone Taylor must be as well. He was given notification after notification to publicly distance himself from his endorsements of someone against the nominee. He refused.
What is clear is that Berg gets one treatment, Taylor gets another.
The unit doesn’t have to vote him off, If he supported a non-Republican against a Republican, he’s off.
The Chairman of the Winchester committee will deem him so if he hasn’t already.
The Chairman of the RPV deemed the other guy off the SCC so his vacated seat was filled.
The bad action resigns you — it is the job of the respective Chairmen to deal with the vacancy.
I personally feel that many former Republicans demonstrated opposition to Republican nominees in many ways — it must suck to be the Chairman having to illustrate to grown men and women how acting like babies have cost themselves their leadership role in the party.
Taylor didn’t get anything less than Berg. Although electorally effective (and let’s hope the electorate are not disappointedly surprised in some way about it,) the anti-Beau party have chosen THAT over the Republican Party.
“Paid for and authorized by Mark Berg for Delegate.” Now if Mark personally put these up or they were “stolen” and put up unbeknownst to him, they still had his disclaimer and Mark refused to disavow their use.
I did see several of these on Election day and ‘write-in’ was taped prominently. Perhaps Mark didn’t see these at the polls he was working??
What you have sent as imaged proof was not used anywhere to promote the write-in for Mark, and of those old signs that were, MarkBergMD was pasted over, as was the tiny print, bottom right, saying “Paid for and authorized by Mark Berg for Delegate. Mark did not provide any signs to anybody, and the old ones that were used were collecting dust in his supporter’s garages and such. To prove my point, I’ll refer you to the Winchester Star Newspaper that ran this story Nov. 3 which tells how a known Democrat activist — Peter Buchbauer — sent an image of one of the recycled signs to Whitbeck to stir up trouble: http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/berg_s_status_in_republican_party_may_be_in_peril
“Buchbauer, who supports Collins, sent the newspaper a screen image of a Sunday text message conversation he had with Whitbeck in which Whitbeck indicated that Berg was out of the party. The image shows a picture of a Berg campaign sign in someone’s yard, with a handwritten sign attached to it that says “write-in.”
“Looks like Berg is actively [campaigning],” Buchbauer said.
“He’s out of the party as of yesterday,” Whitbeck apparently responded.
Jo – as I’d suggested to you earlier — ask Whitbeck for what Buchbauer sent him, and you’ll see for yourself that that image you posted has no semblance to what was used. BTW — don’t you think it a bit curious that Whitbeck was all too willing to take a known liberal activist’s word for anything? Perhaps he should be more careful.
Better than your word. But now that you’ve brought it up, who exactly paid for your write-in?
So it was you that ‘appropriated’ Mark’s signs and began to use them to damage his reputation?
About these signs that were collecting dust that were bought and paid for by a legitimate campaign but you hijacked for an independent and unauthorized campaign — how many were there and who approved their “repurposing?”
Who placed the signs in the public spaces and right of way?
What other campaigns or organizations were involved with this? Was the joint effort with a certain presidential candidate gathering signatures approved by Guy Lombardo???
Rocinante — or whatever your troll name is: If you think my word isn’t worth spit, and that a liberal activist’s word is better than mine, why don’t you go ask a few? Sounds as if you’d have no trouble finding a few within your weensy circle of friends.
What we did was done without Mark Berg’s blessings, and anyone involved in the write-in effort will tell you the same: He refused to discuss it with any of us.
Who paid for the write-in? That’s for us to know, but I’ll say this: Mark Berg cast not one single shilling into it.
And I’ll add this: Collins can only dream of having supporters as loyal as Berg’s, but since Collins was elected by Democrats, he may only dream of such.
It should show my disqus ID in blue at the top of comments — yours shows as ‘Franklin Fogle’.
Your reputation online is all I have to go on.
‘He refused to discuss it’? Why was that? (Spock raised eyebrow)
‘Us to know’? So it is truly a secret? A non-disclosed independent political expenditure? No wonder it wasn’t in VPAP — Same outfit that did your sample ballot?
Mark didn’t pay any cash into the effort, were there any other in-kind contributions other than yard signs?
Who involved in the write-in effort COULD verify your claims?
So the non-Republicans supporting Berg (albeit smaller in number) are superior to the non-Republicans that supported Collins?
I’m sure that your loyal dream worthy non-Republicans will continue their pattern of electoral success.
I do not know enough about the particulars of this situation to comment specifically on Mark Berg’s removal BUT I will say that RPV seems to only expect absolute party loyalty from conservatives and has rather looser rules for those they consider moderate and establishment. Was Bill Bolling censured for his very public temper tantrums over losing the nomination for Governor to Ken Cuccinelli? Was he censured for his very public non-support of Cuccinelli? Did the party demand that Bill Bolling endorse Ken Cuccinelli or disavow Boyd Marcus after he endorsed and worked to elect our current Governor?
The party’s treatment of conservatives not only in Virginia and not only in the last few years (see http://spectator.org/articles/56401/sabotage-republicans for examples) is a disgrace and not behavior that engenders loyalty.
To paraphrase Bessie Smith: Supporting you, baby, is like rolling off a log. But if we can’t be your equals we sure ain’t gonna be your dogs.
We have to follow the rules of the party — Did Bill Bolling support someone other than the nominee? Was Bill Bolling a leader of the party at the time? If removed, did Bill Bolling get reinstated by his unit? Was Boyd Marcus a member of State Central or a unit committee? Support something other than a Republican nominee, get hit with the ‘Forget Me Stick.’ I expect my leaders to support our nominees and if they don’t, to get turned out. — Really not that complex of an equation. If we Conservatives don’t police our own, we don’t deserve leadership of the party — so of course we should hold conservatives to a higher standard. Putting Mark Berg in the same club as Bill Bolling, Boyd Marcus, and Russ Potts should indicate why his resignation was accepted.
From reading the other oped on this issue, Mark Berg resigned from nothing but was instead removed (deemed resigned) after refusing to act in a way that the party, according to its own rules, had no right to demand he act.
As I said, I do not know any more about this issue than what is included in these opeds and I definitely was not comparing Mark Berg to Bill Bolling.What I was doing was pointing out the very fluid nature of the party’s demands for loyalty.
And, yes, last time I checked Bill Bolling was still considered a leader of the Republican Party in Virginia.
To better learn the issue, read the articles, review the comments (I may have made one or two.) This district elected Mark to a leadership position and Mark didn’t behave like a leader. Electoral politics require leadership and winning — Mark didn’t accomplish either — for that reason, he is out. Bill Bolling gave a bunch of money to the RPV in 2014, so he may have made up for any real or perceived formal political indiscretions with that regime. As far as I know he has not supported anyone in opposition to a Republican nominee and has not ignored/pretended to ignore any write-in efforts on his behalf. Since I don’t think he’s on the State Central, (maybe on his unit committee) there is no danger of a resignation-by-deed event. He should be good to go for his Primary challenge to Congressman Brat… Let the games begin!
As I said, the party has very fluid expectations for party loyalty.
It is nice to see someone admit that the party can be bought. Does Mark Berg get a similar pass from you/the party for his perceived faults if he can come up with a similar amount of money?
Again, that was the last administration, and I have no idea what was the gift or what was purchased. But it was a nice gesture and I’m sure the party needed it. Did it buy him out of trouble? Nah, he was nothing in the party before, and probably nothing after, but it was a good show of faith.
As far as I’m concerned, no amount of money can make up for Mark Berg the electoral cost to the party, the degradation of the brand, and the disrespect for the electorate. I won’t vote to reinstate him into my unit, and his behavior has no place in party leadership. If he wants to give a bunch of money to the RPV, I don’t think it would help correct his real or perceived faults, but might be considered penance and help him to reintegrate after he sees the error of his ways.
Ohh YES! Boilling BOUGHT his redemption! What does that make the RPV?
If so, it went cheap, the RPV needed money for some computer something and Bill Bolling stepped up to help. I don’t think he held a party leadership role or was contemplating an independent run (that he didn’t do.) I think it made the RPV very appreciative at the time. (Remember, Bill Bolling didn’t exactly enthusiastically support Ken Cuccinelli — but he didn’t ignore a write-in against him either.)
“Kyle Broflovski:
Isn’t that fascism?
Gerald Brofloski:
No, because we don’t call it fascism.”
Mark Berg had a right to have the opportunity to be reinstated by majority vote, as Susan Stimpson said. If Ms. Thoburn discouraged her committee by publicly stating that Berg’s only recourse was to appeal, than of course no one would have spoken up to nominate him. Such can be evidence of intimidation as much as unity.
Also, I find it odd that Ms. Thoburn took note that there did not seem to be any real write-in campaign, until she was “flooded” with notices from folks attesting to the opposite. How many folks? Was it many, many individuals? Or just a few who complained many, many times – as some have on the comments sections of all these articles?
Regardless of how many individuals notified Ms. Thoburn afterward, how did she not notice?? She is the GOP Chair, and presumably involved in getting Republicans elected (well, except Blain Dunn).
And, well, if she did not notice the extent of the campaign, isn’t it plausible Mr. Berg also thought there was no significant campaign? After all, it’s not as if the masses (or the vocal few) would have felt the need to notify or complain to Mr. Berg about his name showing up everywhere!
See Jo’s response. Chairman Thoburn specifically told Mark at that meeting: ‘You, or anyone else can run to fill this vacancy.’ Susan Stimpson was not there, well, not in corporeal form. Your cheapshot accusation of party not supporting Blaine Dunn is an outright falsehood. Yes, Mr. Berg could plausibly not known about the write-in, just as plausible as Susan Stimpson monitors GOP meetings from her stealth blimp. Why would Dr. Berg NOT condemn the write-in? He’s a party leader, the party had a Nominee — Why the reluctance to do the write (get it?) thing?
Winners rebuke and forgive; losers are too timid to be forthright and too petty to forgive, you can recognized them instantly because their behavior is about settling scores and never has anything to do with winning the contest. There’s no room for petty grievances of this type in successful politics and the individuals that can’t step outside of it will not produce any meaningful results in the long term for any organization.
I’m not sure who the winners and losers are in this case. Right now everyone seems to be losing and that includes the Republican party.
Jeanine,
You are right! It’s time to focus on 2016 and put this behind us.
I like Mark a lot and had been a supporter of his since. But there is right and wrong. Mark is wrong this time. If he cared about the party and not just himself, he would let this go, work for candidates who shared our values and perhaps even run again in the future.
Mark is making Joe May look like a saint. Joe didn’t come demand a place in the party when he ran as an independent against Whitbeck. There is a price to pay for these actions. I told Mark this. He ignored me and everyone else who advised him to disavow the write-in campaign.
Jo Thoburn
Chairman, 10th District Republican Committee
Wow! You are comparing Delegate Mark Berg to Joe May? Seriously? Wow.
Both didn’t handle their loss with sufficient gravitas.
Chairwoman Thoburn, Your rejoinder is filled with different facts and qualifications. These increase our understanding of what happened. Could you please answer the basic question. What did Berg do, or not do, and what was the exact moment it occurred that triggered his resignation? The GC ruling, Whitbeck’s statement, and now your own statement are all vague on when the resignation actually occurred. If resignation is self executing as the three of you contend, there must be a moment in which Berg, through inaction, allowed his named to be used and he resigned from party position.
Mark allowed his name to be used as a write-in candidate.
We gave Mark until the 11th hour (Saturday before the election) to do anything to disavow the write-in campaign, before he was deemed removed.
The write-in campaign started with Mark’s “friends” writing letters to the editor.
However by the week before the election, a lot of money was clearly being spent.
There were radio ads, mailers being sent, campaign signs with Mark’s “Paid for by . . .,” and even Mark’s family picture being used. I was told Mark’s campaign committee was still open as well.
This wasn’t just a few friends, but a well-funded, orchestrated effort to write-in Mark Berg.
Any reasonable person would have been getting injunctions and filing lawsuits if their name was being used this way without their permission.
Mark remained silent.
Jo – I was one of those involved in the write-in campaign and wrote some of those newspaper op-eds, and Mark never endorsed that effort and refused to comment on it to any of us in any way. In regards to campaign signs you claim included “Paid for by . . . “, I challenge you to produce a photo of a single one, because they did not. You can thank a local Winchester liberal (Peter Buchbauer) for spreading that rumor via a photo he sent to Whitbeck, and you should ask Whitbeck to show it to you, because it did not contain the info you claim.
Regarding Mark’s family photo being used, you’ve clearly overreached for evidence. That was an image anyone could download, and it wasn’t copyrighted, so Mark couldn’t legally keep anyone from using it.
And did Mark sue Collins for this eleventh-hour flier sent on the eve of
the election portraying Dr. Berg as a chalky-faced ghoul who loves
pedophiles, which used a photo of Berg without his permission?
http://franklyconservative.com/collins-flier-portrays-berg-as-a-pedophile.html
Not only that, but Collins falsely claimed in other venues that Dr. Berg —
a medical doctor — sought to deny insurance coverage to autistic
children. Did he sue?
BTW — did Del. Marshall and Sen. Black sue Collins for claiming in another of Collins’ campaign fliers that he stood with them on the issues, when Sen. Black had this to say of Collins?
“I have deep misgivings about [Mark Berg’s opponent, Chris
Collins] – who was endorsed by the ultra-liberal Russ Potts. The last
time he ran, former Senator Potts promised that if reelected, he would
be ‘the most pro-life Senator in Virginia.’ But once he won, he was such
a venomous opponent of life that he received a national abortion-rights
award. Potts fought to raise taxes, elect Democrats, kill conservative
legislation and advance the liberal agenda . . . Anyone who sides with
Russ Potts might as well go all-in and just vote Democrat.” – Republican Senator Dick Black, 13th District
And you expect Mark’s supporters and all Republicans to support a nominee who used this gutter-crawl campaign, combined with courting Democrat voters to win a primary? If so, you don’t represent any party I’m interested in being a part of.
BTW — Check the campaign laws regarding when a “campaign committee” must to be closed, and you may surprise yourself.
Jo — use your head here: Do you REALLY want Berg’s supporters mobilized against the RPV? Consider the risks, and consider what they achieved in Frederick County alone, cut you losses and go home before it careens out of control.
Perhaps Mark Berg has mislead you. He seems more interested in becoming a martyr than telling the truth. We are not at war with Mark or his supporters. In fact, I was one of his supporters.
However, Article VII, Section C Paragraph 2 of the Party Plan states that it is not acceptable to allow your name to be used publicly in opposition to a Republican nominee. Mark allowed his name to be used and made no effort to stop it.
Mark and Susan Stimpson are trying to mix apples and oranges in what I consider a bizarre attempt to make Mark a martyr.
My advice to Mark (which up to now he hasn’t listened to), is to sit it out, re-build your base and run again in the future. Mark’s a solid conservative and it would be great to have him in elected office again.
If Beverly Sherwood had demanded to be on the unit committee, she would have been treated the same way.
Vince DeBenedeto was remove from the Winchester committee under similar circumstances. He’s no conservative.
This is not a questions of liberal vs. conservative. It’s a question of right vs. wrong.
Mark knew the rules, he chose to break them and now he has been deemed removed from the State Central Committee.
Kind of tragic, almost ironic. Mark losing the very Primary he chose, to a carpet-bagging, demo-loving, gutter-crawling (insert all your vitriol here) candidate who beat Mark at his own game. An incumbent delegate, who did such an awesome job, and who was so astute that he lost — got fewer votes than the bad guy.
Mark thought he could get more non-Republican votes in his Primary than another could and got beaten — handily. Once more, Mark CHOSE the method that allowed non-Republicans to participate and LOST! So Delegate-elect Collins was simply the better alternative to the citizens of the district. The people spoke and chose “the bad guy” to Saint Mark. What the heck does that tell you? And during the invisible write-in campaign, even less people supported him.
Please don’t think you’re the kind of person our Party wants. You may cast your vote correctly on Election Day (or before, or absentee) for our nominee, but please don’t think your political services are required in selecting our nominee. (or write-in as you seem to think this is spiritually significant)
Re: Berg supporters in the RPV — Both of them? Accomplishments in Frederick? Electing the non-Republican Sheriff? Running a pathetic write-in that barely got 1 in 10? You have no achievements worth mentioning other than mutual admiration societies and circular firing squads. Your value to the party is overrated, and you have embarrassed a good man and cost a good delegate a political future. Please stop helping and keep opposing the GOP, we can use the comic relief.
As far as I know and have read, Delegate Berg did nothing to encourage this write-in effort and yet you and others demanded him to publicly disavow it even though the party plan does not insist upon such things. What his supporters do is up to each of them and he cannot be held accountable for the write-in campaign if he had no hand in it. And yet you suggest that Berg should have filed a suit against his supporters? You suggest that he doesn’t have the right to remain silent? What kind of totalitarian are you?
From everything I’ve heard about this situation, you madam seem to be an enemy of the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought. It sounds to me that the 10th district GOP and the RPV as a whole is in a pretty sorry state. Perhaps politics would be improved in the district if the party deems that you have resigned your position.
Joshua,
You clearly don’t know me or wouldn’t be making such ridiculous statements.
I NEVER argued that Mark didn’t have a right to run as a write-in candidate. He just can’t do that and insist on being a member of the SCC which has it’s own rules. There is a reasonable expectation that a member of SCC would support our nominees. Without these rules, the party would be in chaos.
Article VII, Section C Paragraph 2 states that it is not acceptable to allow your name to be used publicly in opposition to a Republican nominee. Mark allowed his name to be used and made no effort to stop it. He told me he wasn’t going to on October 5, and it never changed his mind.
Let me point out that both my father-in-law, who was a Republican member of the House of Delegates elected in the 1970s (back then the votes were 99-1 — he was the only conservative in the House), and my brother-in-law ran here in Fairfax County as Independents against our Republican nominees for the Board of Supervisors in the 1980s and 1990s. Neither of them insisted that they stay on county committee, nor should they have. They sat it out for awhile. Then a few years later they both were delegates to the state and district conventions without challenge.
I do not oppose freedom of speech or freedom of though. Good grief, Ron Paul has parties at my house.
But RPV would be in a sorry state if they didn’t enforce their rules. Mark was well aware of the costs and decided instead to twist the trust in an attempt to become an martyr.
Mark is not a martyr.
— Jo
I look forward to the 10th district and LCRC holding responsible those Supervisors and delegate in Loudoun who refused to support our Republican nominee for Chairman and went so far as to have their own sample ballots printed omitting the name of our endorsed candidate for chair.
Yep, the sword cuts both ways. Letters to the editors, Facebook and social media postings, lawn signs, etc. Party leaders doing so should have their active resignations accepted and deemed their sorry backsides to political Elba.
Jeanine,
The 10th District Committee has 16 voting members and a few appointees.
Mark was removed at the SCC level and therefore also automatically removed at the 10th since his seat is predicated on serving on the SCC. He could not resign from SCC and keep his seat on the 10th because they are one in the same.
If any other members of the 10th District Committee needs removed, it has not been brought to my attention.
The LCRC has some serious house cleaning to do. But it’s up the them, not the 10th District to do it.
We are the committee for appeals, not enforcement beyond our members.
Any appeal which would come to us would only happen after all attempts to resolve the situation at the local level were exhausted.
We don’t have the authority to remove anyone from any committee except our own.
Ex. If a unit chair ruled an attempt to remove someone out of order, then it could be brought to the 10th. We’d tell the unit they would have to take a vote on it, but the vote and removal would still happen at the unit level, not the district level.
Thanks.
Jo
But the 10th CAN remove unit chairs according to a 10th chair of yesteryear. AND the 10th chair can be exchanged at the 10th convention in the spring, along with our 3 at-large state central delegates. However I am NOT endorsing Susan Stimpson for 10th District Chair should she somehow moor at a mast in the 10th. (Barbara beware tho, SS doesn’t have to move to the district to challenge YOU!)
Jeanine, please furnish proof of the fake sample ballots, or stop regurgitating the lie.
(p.s.–nice attack on “our Republicans” with that continuing lie, in districts where you do not lve–lol!)
I’ll keep waiting for an answer as to the actions AND, more importantly, moment as to which Berg resigned.
She (me) said, then he (John Whitbeck) said, then he (Mark Berg) said, then she (Jo Thoburn) said. And the story that isn’t close to resolved and not close to over. It will continue well into December when SCC meets.
I think we can all agree that it’s a shame when the Republican party takes the extraordinary step of removing from our party a sitting, conservative, Republican, Delegate. That’s just not good for our party.
Oops, I left out they (Bearing Drift) said. Strangely enough they seem to now like the party chair and RPV. Go figure. Loyalties change rapidly in politics.
Jo Thoburn denied Mark Berg the opportunity he was afforded under Article VII of the Republican Party Plan to be re-instated. “Such member may be re-instated by a majority vote of the other members of the committee.” Jo Thoburn did not even afford Mark Berg — a sitting delegate and *supposed* friend — the courtesy of the revised call when he requested it. When Mark Berg spoke before her committee she shut him down and said the appeal would go to state central. This is so obviously a blatant abuse of power. In the end, though, they have to answer for their deceptions. I’ll just keep pointing them out.
Yes, thank you for your prescience and ability to remotely perceive the obvious. Chairman Jo made it clear to all who attended the meeting, that Mark was in no way blocked or prevented from filling the vacancy. Her blatant abuse of power resulted in a unanimous support to fill the vacancy with not-Mark. The entire committee MUST answer for their deception in the end. Thank you for monitoring the 10th district meetings from your command center and pointing out the deceptions. We really need someone with your special visions in public office. Have you thought about running for something recently? You’ve done local and tried Delegate, how about another run at statewide — I think a run for RPV Chairman would be most entertaining. Please channel (Ramtha or whoever) to the necessary meetings and realize you’ve got lots of support.
Susan,
Once again, you are commenting with misinformation on something you know little about.
Mark was not shut down. Since he was removed from the State Central Committee and his membership on the 10th District is solely as a State Central Committee member, we could not re-instate him. Only the State Central Committee can do that.
In the meantime, our committee wanted full representation at the next State Central Committee meeting. We held elections for that seat. Mark could have run if any member of the committee wanted to put his name in nomination. He was told this, by me, at the beginning of the meeting. I let him speak, though it was technically out of order, when his name was no longer on our rolls.
The fact is, no one on the committee nominated Mark. Andrew Nicholson, our Clarke County Chairman, won by acclimation.
Best regards,
Jo Thoburn
Chairman, 10th District Republican Committee
You made it clear that any discussion with Mark was over. You said he could take it up with SCC in December. I have spoken with members who had NO idea they could nominate Mark to be re-instated to the committee.
Yes, discussion about Mark’s appealing the decision recognizing his self-resignation. However, Jo said Mark could be elected to fill the vacancy to Mark at that very meeting. Perhaps the members you spoke with should better familiarize themselves with meeting rules and their political environment. Members of the 10th were not pleased with Mark’s behavior, he would not have been voted to fill the vacancy.
Actually, it is pretty much over. Deemed or otherwise, Mark has resigned. At least two chairmen have explained as much as they need to explain. The SCC will meet and the 10th will be well represented.
Mark took the extraordinary step of not honoring the results of an election, and demanded the option of a second chance. He was not removed, he chose himself over principle and party, thus resigned.
Mark was not sitting, he stood for re-election and lost the nomination.
Mark was not conservative, he chose an open, taxpayer-subsidized Primary.
Mark was not Republican, he did not support the nominee and “indulged” a write-in challenge against the Republican.
Mark was not re-elected delegate, he was twice-rejected by the electorate in ever-increasing numbers.
Mark was not good for our party with these behaviors.
Loyalty like Mark showed the party and nominee? Loyalty like he showed his Republican ticket? Loyalty like he showed those that supported him in party elections?
The following letter to the editor written by Jo Thoburn — Republican leader who supports Republican nominees [sometimes] — was published October 24th. Republican nominee for the Board of Supervisors Blaine Dunn did not have Ms. Thoburn’s support.
October 24, 2015
Don’t be ‘fooled’ . . .
The Republican Party has nominated outstanding candidates in Winchester and Frederick County. Do not be fooled by “Independent” candidates claiming conservative ties or values.
As chairman of the 10th Congressional District Republican Committee, I ask you to fully support our GOP candidates. These include Terry Bohan for Frederick County sheriff, Chris Collins for the House of Delegates, Beau Correll for Winchester commonwealth’s attorney, and Gary Lofton for Frederick County supervisor.
Each of these gentlemen is well qualified for the post they seek, and I am proud to offer them my support. They will all be a great asset to our community. So, on Nov. 3, I ask that you support our Republican nominees. They are all trustworthy candidates who will bring common sense to government.
JO THOBURN
Chairman 10th District Republican Committee
Blaine Dunn was the Republican Nominee. Chairman Jo said support our outstanding nominees. “They are all trustworthy candidates…”
Susan,
Blaine Dunn was a great canidate and it was an easy Republican win, as was David LaRock who also wasn’t mentioned. Blaine and David certainly had my support.
If you knew the first thing about the 10th District, you would know that in the four races mentioned we had “Republican” independents actively running against our Republican nominees. There was a lot of confusion in those races over who the Republican was.
To the best of my knowledge, Blaine Dunn’s opponent did not claim to be a Republican or have Republican Party members actively supporting him. If he did, no one ever pointed this our to me or asked that I get involved. There were over 80 races in the 10th District this year.
Best regards,
Jo Thoburn
Chairman
10th District Republican Committee
Susan,
Blaine Dunn was a great canidate and it was an easy Republican win, as was David LaRock who also wasn’t mentioned. Blaine and David certainly had my support.
If you knew the first thing about the 10th District, you would know that in the four races mentioned we had “Republican” independents actively running against our Republican nominees. There was a lot of confusion in those races over who the Republican was.
To the best of my knowledge, Blaine Dunn’s opponent did not claim to be a Republican or have Republican Party members actively supporting him. If he did, no one ever pointed this out to me or asked that I get involved. There were over 80 races in the 10th District this year.
Best regards,
Jo Thoburn
Chairman
10th District Republican Committee
Jo I can continue to show other examples of where you are not being consistent but what is the real goal? All we are asking for is a fair process. Clearly there are problems with how this all rolled out (violation of the 7 day notice, your instruction to the 10th district committee, subjective definition of “allow,” scheduling an appeals hearing without the appellant knowing it was done on his behalf, etc). If your goal is to be “right” well, then there’s no helping it, you are just going to bring open revolt to our Chairman’s feet. Telling people “no you’re not on my team” will guarantee continued push back. But if we have the same goal of winning on Republican principles and electing Republicans to office, then we recognize along the way there may be some disagreement on how to achieve it. In the process, though, we treat each other fairly as we work our way through the disagreement on strategy. We have had to push back because in our eyes, the rules have been broken and the process ignored. You may not agree with that but it doesn’t change the perception. As a leader, how you can help your General (John Whitbeck) gain the confidence of his army so that the goal can be achieved? John deserves credit for canceling the appeals hearing that was scheduled for tonight. That’s a very good first step. If we recognize there’s a perception problem of fairness – remember perception is reality whether we like it or not — then the way around that is to rewind this and let the governing body (state central) consider and weigh in on the General Counsel ruling/process before people are summarily purged from the party. I speak for myself but if the process is followed, if the facts are able to be presented, weighed and discussed, then whatever the governing body decides, I will accept and move on. I may not like the decision but if the process is followed and the ambiguity is clarified, then that’s really all we can ask. But if the army doesn’t have confidence in the system, the army is weaker and it will be much harder to achieve the goal.
Article VII, Section C Paragraph 2 of the party plan states that it is not acceptable to allow your name to be used publicly in opposition to a Republican nominee. Mark allowed his name to be used and made no effort to stop it. Enough said.
Let me summarize….Mark is GUILTY (for not taking affirmative action) until he proves himself INNOCENT (by taking affirmative action). So essentially Jo is stating that the RPV plan compels a candidate to take action, lest the action be “deemed” to have occurred (the guilt).
All this occurred as John Whitbeck stipulated that Mark let him know he wanted no part of it.
I like to see corrupt republican party apparatchiks work tirelessly to shrink the party. Addition via division. Friggin’ brilliant.
No, no, no, your summary is incorrect. In the VA GOP, a leader who supports other than the nominee is considered resigned. Because they wouldn’t be very good leaders of a party if they opposed members of their own party.
Are you at all familiar with political parties or how they work? You might consider getting involved with an actual political party to learn more.
How did your unit Chair vote in this matter?
Who’s we? Did you get elected to something and are just not telling anyone? You do know that Mark resigned from the SCC as representative for the 10th (not your district?) Are there any other districts that you monitor for fairness? Your paragraph above is creeping me out! If you were to read it aloud in a soft voice while walking toward me, I would be noping and running away.
And that’s precisely why the RPV is frantic: Bohan lost the Sheriff’s race in a landslide, Correll lost the commonwealth’s attorney race in a landslide, eight-year incumbent County Supervisor Lofton eked past with 46 votes against a grassroots-backed political newcomer and Independent. Collins ran unopposed, but only garnered 85 percent of the vote.
Here’s what’s really telling: There was one Republican that Jo chose not to mention, and chose NOT to give her support to. That’s Blaine Dunn, another newcomer who ran as a Republican against an incumbent County Supervisor, Jason Ransom who was seated as a Republican. However, when Ransom realized his challenger had grassroots support, and therefore would likely lose, Ransom became an Independent/Libertarian. Dunn won in a landslide, but since he’s not worthy of mention because his profession as a Financial Planner makes him a fiscally conservative Republican, and the local GOP despises him because of that, Jo thinks him unworthy of mention.
Jo doesn’t realize that alienating the conservative base further is perilous, although the GOP backed candidates just took a serious shellacking at the hands of the conservative base. Note to Jo: The RPV is bleeding in the water, and you’re about to put more sharks in the tank.
What? You’re a conservative? If so, you’re not helping your cause. You cost Delegate Berg his seat in his Primary, then lost even more votes in the invisible write-in. And as a result helped him resign from his party positions. Your DEM-endorsed Sheriff did worse than Bohan, and you couldn’t manage to help Beau in Winchester. Republicans won in most of the districts, none of your non-Republican candidates won. You are not the Republican Base, you couldn’t win with a sitting incumbent. Your team has actively resigned from the Frederick County Republican Committee and you are an embarrassment to any of us identifying with Tea Party ideals.
When you have no principles, you become politically adrift while holding nothing. Take your time out to figure out what being a conservative is and come back in a few years to the principled party that means conservative. You may then help Delegate Collins run for another re-election or higher office.
Rocinante, or whatever your name is: You have “ignorant” tattooed on your forehead. No – I did not cost Berg his seat in the primary, but at nearly 250 known Democrats who were identified by the voter list did. That’s in a primary that was decided by 166 votes, and that’s only the Democrats that were easily identified, which means there were many more than 250, so you are “ignorant”.
Collins openly courted the Democrat vote, as was reported by The Winchester Star on March 20, and the Winchester-Frederick Co. Democrat Committee Chairman boldly admitted that “I’m so glad my Dems voted for Chris Collins!”
And, you are “ignorant” to believe that conservatives supported Beau Correll, or even wanted to, because they did not. Because you are “ignorant”, you missed the fact that Abrams entered the race as a Republican, and when Correll decided to challenge as a Republican, Abrams ran as an Independent to avoid the financial cost of a primary, and he won in a landslide against Correll, and I’m quite happy about that.
Regarding your pretense that “Your DEM-endorsed Sheriff did worse than Bohan”, you are once again “ignorant”. The only “DEM-endorsed Sheriff” was Lenny Millholland, who was previously the Winchester City Sheriff who identified himself as a Democrat, but when he ran for the Frederick County Sheriff’s position, it was as an Independent. And he won.
In regards to your premise that “Republicans won in most of the districts, none of your non-Republican candidates won”, you are dismissing the obvious: In Frederick County, there were five Supervisors up for reelection, with only two of those races contested. Of course, the Republicans won all three uncontested races, but the other two have an interesting twist:
In the Red Bud District, it was indeed a Republican that won, but he was the grassroots-supported newcomer, Blaine Dunn, who won in a landslide over the GOP’s supported sitting incumbent Supervisor, Jason Ransom. Ransom was seated as a Republican, but turned Independent/Libertarian when Dunn challenged him as a Republican, and Dunn won in a landslide. Dunn was who we supported, not Ransom, and we — the grassroots people — won.
There was the Back Creek District race where eight-year incumbent Gary Lofton was challenged by the grassroots-supported Shawn Graber, and Lofton barely eked past with 46 votes of 2,595 cast.
In other words, you are “ignorant”, because (pardon me for pointing out the obvious) the only thing that saved any face for Republicans in Frederick County and Winchester was that there were so many uncontested races. And of the four that were (Lofton, Bohan, Dunn, Correll), you guys won one, because Dunn was our guy, not yours.
And I will exit by saying this: You and your cheerleaders for the GOP establishment best learn something, and school-up quickly: If you want to win future races, you’d best learn to work with conservatives instead of purging them from committees and parties. You don’t need to create more enemies, because the results of this last election shows that you already have plenty.
Rocinante is not my real name. Please tell me you were not confused by that.
You cost him the election by your clearly demonstrated political ineptitude. Your campaign could not compensate for what you claim to be 250 democrats.
Since you’re not that familiar with the party, you wouldn’t understand the selection of Beau as a nominee — and I think Winchester just confuses you.
You guys picked the primary that was the most open to non-republicans (wonder why) and now you’re complaining that the other side got more non-republicans than you did. It’s not their fault that you didn’t have more non-republicans (but it certainly seems that you should have)
Clearly from the kind of bizarre campaign you ran, the democrats should have been crossing over in droves in order to keep the clowns in the front of the circus. I’d expect the DEM chairman to claim exactly the same thing if you guys hadn’t fumbled your way out of victory.
Because you seem to be new to elections and politics outside of student government and voting for pizza toppings at sleepovers, I’ll leave it to you to figure out how the Dems played you by endorsing Madigan.
So if I want to figure out your interesting twist, 5 Republicans ran for supervisor and 5 Republicans won supervisor. Ooh, perhaps I’m not sufficiently nuanced to see your bizarro logic.
First you yahoos claim to be the Republican Base and now you’re claiming to be ‘The Grassroots’ when really you’re a bunch of disaffected weirdoes trying to pretend your cults of personality have any kind of political relevancy — better stick to standing outside the library yammering about Glass-Stegall and Nazi Bases on Mars.
Nobody purges anyone, alleged Republican ‘leaders’ working against Republican nominees chose to resign and the Chairman recognized their decision.
If you want to be a RINO, you’ll do it from outside the party leadership. Thank goodness Conservative Chris Collins is returning dignity to the position and the office and is already bringing more real republicans and genuine conservatives back into the party. We’re a big tent party, but you have to be able to fit your fat head under the flap.
Hey, it’s not my fault you cannot read. I did say that five Supervisors ran, and three won because they were “uncontested”. Duh.
Of the two races that were “contested”, one Supervisor — Gary Lofton, an eight-year incumbent Republican — barely held on by 46 votes against our guy, Shawn Graber, a political newcomer Independent, or slightly more than one percent. Pretty weak showing for an eight-year incumbent Republican in a Republican area.
And of the other race that was contested: The GOP backed incumbent Supervisor turned Independent — Jason Ransom — was appointed by his fellow six Republican county board members to fill the seat of Chris Collins after he stepped down to challenge Berg. Ransom was seated as a Republican, but changed party affiliation after our guy — Blaine Dunn challenged Ransom as a Republican.
No, the local GOP establishment lost that race, because Ransom was their guy, so do the math, or as they say: “Be sure that your brain is engaged prior to putting your mouth in gear”.
Good, then we are in concurrence on how elections work — 5 GOP Supervisors ran, 5 GOP Supervisors won. 1 GOP Delegate candidate ran, 1 GOP Delegate won.
As a Republican, I’m pleased with those numbers and I’m glad you were able to consider and vote for our nominees.
I like that we are able to present you with candidates with which you can identify. Hopefully we will continue to do so. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Rocinante — You’ve obviously half a genius if you’re please that the only way Republicans can win in Republican districts is if they’re uncontested. Once again, Blaine Dunn was not the GOP establishment’s nominee, and I refer you to a letter Susan Stimpson posted 4 days ago, in which Jo Thoburn refused to ask Republican voters to support him. (Dunn was the grassroots supported nominee we conservatives supported when he challenged the GOP establishment’s nominee, a Republican turned Independent turned Libertarian, Jason Ransom:
“October 24, 2015
Don’t be ‘fooled’ . . .
The
Republican Party has nominated outstanding candidates in Winchester and Frederick County. Do not be fooled by “Independent” candidates claiming conservative ties or values.
As chairman of the 10th Congressional District Republican Committee, I ask you to fully support our GOP candidates. These include Terry Bohan for Frederick County sheriff, Chris Collins for the House of Delegates, Beau Correll for Winchester commonwealth’s attorney, and Gary Lofton for Frederick County
supervisor.
Each of these gentlemen is well qualified for the post they seek, and I am proud to offer them my support. They will all be a great asset to our community. So, on Nov. 3, I ask that you support our
Republican nominees. They are all trustworthy candidates who will bring common sense to government.
JO THOBURN
Chairman 10th District Republican Committee”
Correll lost, Bohan lost, and Lofton barely kept his seat by 1.7 percent of the vote. Dunn beat the GOP’s supported candidate, though Jo Thoburn couldn’t say she supported an Independent/Libertarian. You guys lost more contested races than you won, and if you still deny that, you need to see a shrink.
Jo Thoburn did you support Republican nominee Blaine Dunn for Frederick County Board of Supervisors in your endorsement letter to the editor in the Winchester Star? No, you did not. You pick and choose and you’re not consistent.
OK Susan, it’s time to quit monkeying in our district and quit preaching lies and sowing discord. You don’t know the 10th, nor the units, nor the districts. I’m not sure what game you’re playing here, but knock it off. Either move to the 10th, or go pretend to be politically relevant in your own neighborhood / mutual admiration society.
Maybe she has eyes on the 10th district chair? Or perhaps Stafford soil and water commission.
Stafford isn’t in the 10th, but she COULD run for Congress against Barbara (VA allows and even institutes carpetbagging.) I can’t for the life of me figure out why she’s frolicking in the 10th. Perhaps she wants to establish a Stafford chapter in every district? Soil and Water is an elected position, so that leaves out most on Team Stimpson/Berg. (but Soil and Water is non-partisan, so they might have a better shot at that.)