Tag Archives: Candidates

Does Geary Higgins wish that his volunteers would just go away?

Posted on by |

The Higgins team is still hard at it, arguing that they should be allowed to go door to door and demand that anyone with a Baldwin yard sign hand over their Chapman signs. Consistent with his out-of-touch letter (I wonder if he cleared that with Geary first), David LaRock is out busily winning friends and influencing people. Not:

Thanks for letting me know there is disagreement with me suggesting Mike Chapman give some thought to separating his signs from Baldwin’s on the main drag in Hamilton, in Baldwin’s front yard or elsewhere where hundreds of people see them every day…

…As we all know, anyone who is part of the Republican team, needs to remember, that allows them to draw from the team and requires they give back to the team. Think about what would happen if Mike or someone speaking on his behalf, knocked on those 5-6 doors to say please don’t use my sign with Baldwin’s. Worst case for Mike is he could lose 5-6 votes… or maybe some of those 5-6 people would stick with Mike because he is a team player, net result for Mike in either case is very small… [emphasis mine]

Continue reading →

Catoctin getting slappy

Posted on by |

A couple of weeks ago, Without Supervision alerted us to two remarkably bad letters to the editor attacking Malcolm Baldwin, evidently cobbled together from the results of a FOIA request for constituent emails.

As it turns out, the readers to whom Mr. LaRock and Ms. Mann addressed their concerns are unimpressed by their efforts. Here is a short response:

Dear Editor: I couldn’t believe the letter from David LaRock attacking Malcolm Baldwin, a respected community leader, just because he voiced support for an ordinary non-discrimination rule.

Here’s what I want to know: Why is LaRock so hostile toward people who may be different from himself? Moreover, why is he thinking about other people’s sexual orientation and bodies in public restrooms? I (for one) wish he would stop.

If this is the kind of thing Higgins supporters are interested in, I’ll be voting for Malcolm Baldwin.

Indeed. I don’t think this is the sort of thing Catoctin residents want their supervisor doing, or thinking about, or encouraging others to think about. Yuck.

Another: Continue reading →

Guys, signs don’t vote.

Posted on by |

I was just going to make a quick update to the previous post, but then I witnessed what has the wacky wing of the Higgins campaign (note my assumption that there is an as-yet undiscovered wing) so scared of Malcolm Baldwin, and why the resulting implosion shows no sign of ending.

The previous post began by calling attention to this comment outing embarrassing Higgins campaigner David LaRock, who was upset at the number of Malcolm Baldwin yard signs next to Mike Chapman signs.

[David] LaRock suggest [sic] Mike go around and take down the signs posted next to Baldwin signs..

Now there’s this admission from the other one, Sally Mann:

Most of the signs are gone now.

Ok, I just swung through Hamilton on my way home, and if “most of the signs are gone now,” I have to ask how many were there before. Just on the main drag I counted five or six yards with both Baldwin and Chapman signs. All but one had no other signs that would help identify the owner as either a Republican or Democratic crossover voter (one also had a Shawn Mitchell sign). One of them was the home of a friend who is solidly Independent, so that’s not much help.

Keep in mind that these geniuses are demanding that the Chapman signs be “taken down.” The signs of their own guy. The Republican. Continue reading →

Loudoun Government For Sale?

Posted on by |

To date, the real estate community has given over $118,000 to candidates in this year’s local races. That may not seem like a lot, but it is 50% more than any other industry.
Photobucket
And there can be no doubt that those donations are going to come thick in these last days. In 2003 and 2007, the real estate business spent over 750,000 in each cycle to see their candidates elected. We live with the consequences of the Board that served from 2003 to 2007 every day, in crowded roads, stuffed schools and a crisis of foreclosures and underwater mortgages. Thankfully, the current Board has helped curb the excesses of that period, and introduced rationality and close consideration to the real estate development process.

These donations, however, are of a kind with others to Republican candidates that beg the question of whether Loudoun County’s government, when controlled by Republicans, is for sale?

Witness (Republican-turned-Independent) Sheriff Simpson’s history of benefits provided to his donors.

Or Chairman York’s vote in favor of every development project presented to this Board, and resulting plethora of campaign cash from the industry.

Indeed, some Republican candidates have taken to actually selling their services in return for political donations.

It begs the question of whether Loudoun’s Government will, in fact, be for sale come November 9th, if Republicans are given control. It’s something to think about.

Be careful out there, Ken has a large vehicle

Posted on by |

I see that Ken Reid continues to charm everyone he meets, already garnering a Turkey of the Year nomination from folks in his own party. Having made the acquaintance of several actual turkeys, both wild and domestic, I confess to having misgivings about the name of this award. Turkeys are often dignified and delightful creatures, while Ken Reid is not.

Do not, repeat do not, tell the Boy Scouts about this.

This is a picture of Ken grandstanding at the recent 9/11 ride through downtown Leesburg (the ride turned out to be much less of a disruption than police had predicted; since it was so far behind schedule by the time it reached Leesburg, it passed through town pretty fast.) When I ran into Supervisor Kelly Burk and her husband a short time later, there was really only one question to ask: Why aren’t you striding majestically up and down King St. wrapped in a giant, desecrated American flag?

We had a different question for Ken (actually a series of questions): Why did you run a stop sign and almost hit us as we started to cross the street at Cornwall and Liberty? Were you in a tremendous hurry for some reason? You did see us, didn’t you? Do you think that Town Council members are exempt from the traffic regulations that apply to everyone else?

Ken’s response to our inquiry was to say “sorry,” in a tone that made it perfectly clear that he was not at all sorry.

Continue reading →

Fundamentalist postmodernism

Posted on by |

The clip below is a near-perfect illustration of the fundamentalist mind at work. Notice that Perry doesn’t even seem to grasp the concept of empirical evidence as something that ought to be considered in formulating policy, and is flummoxed that the question is framed that way. As an abstract idea, “abstinence works.” Pointing out that abstinence-only education doesn’t actually work in practice is missing “the bigger and better issue.” To the fundamentalist mind, it’s making sure that the correct ideology is expressed – not an actual reduction in teen pregnancy – that has become the policy goal.

This is not “conservatism.” It’s a form of insanity that rejects evidence from the observable, material world, and it’s undeniable that it has fully infected the Republican party. When it’s welcomed as a “brave act of political suicide” for a Republican candidate to stand up to the anti-science know-nothings claiming to speak for his party, there is an obvious problem.

In the interest of having a series of adult conversations about policy in the real world (and not a situation in which anyone thinks the best long term solution is to accelerate the implosion of the infected GOP by voting “for the most right-wing crazy-crack-pot candidates”), is there a Jon Huntsman figure in the house? Anyone? Or will we just get more of this: A primary race in which none of the candidates can be distinguished from Dick Black. A slate of candidates willing to suck up to Eugene Delgaudio, a man who has not only shown himself to be morally unfit to hold office, but whose persona is entirely driven by a postmodernist rejection of empiricism, an emotional caricature who makes up his own facts. Or how about this classic response to a policy question about protecting the source of Loudoun’s drinking water from silt and pollutants: “God gave us the land to use. Are you against God?”

As can be seen from the comment thread on the previous post, it’s possible for people of good will to disagree and struggle with each other about what works best to solve problems in the real world. The only premise required is that there is an actual real world in which to test those solutions. Is anyone willing to insist on that?

Unenforced Campaign Finance Laws

Posted on by |

I have the nerdish habit of surfing around the Virginia Public Access Project website from time to time. It’s an incredible resource, and completely funded by donations from wonks, politicos and like minded organizations. VPAP publishes campaign finance data that is publicly reported in an interface and format that is a lot friendlier than that which the State Board of Elections makes available.

(And while I’m at it, let me also promote Waldo Jaquith‘s brilliant brainchild Richmond Sunlight.)

Doing some research on VPAP, I discovered some interesting things. Like the fact that Ken Reid’s campaign is fully one-third financed (so far) by real estate interests. Or that some of Scott York’s top donors declined to provide their legally-required occupational data.

Photobucket

I thought that, perhaps, VPAP just had insufficient information, so I took it upon myself to give the State Board of Elections a call. Talking to the harried, but very helpful staff at the State Board of Elections was extremely illuminating. I was informed that the State Board of Elections, having seen its budget cut quite aggressively during this year’s state budget negotiations, no longer reviews campaign finance disclosures for accuracy. Indeed, when asked what recourse I, as a citizen, might have to get missing occupation information about donors who gave more than $100 (for example) I was told that I really had none.

The entire SBE budget, you see, is focused on the job of planning and executing the August primaries and November elections. And that is as it should be. Administering elections is the primary job of the SBE. Enforcing campaign finance laws is a secondary objective, and when budgets are slashed, secondary goals are often sacrificed in the process. It does beg the question, however, as to how many campaign finance shenanigans are going unnoticed in this unsupervised environment.

It also does a grave disservice to the voters, who have a right to know who is funding campaigns for offices throughout the Commonwealth. I would think that voters in Richmond, for example, might want to know if one or another candidate for School Board is receiving a lot of money from people in the charter school business. That seems, to me, to be a perfectly reasonable criteria for a voter to consider when evaluating his or her choices in November.

Perhaps even more interesting is that, so far, none of the major media who cover the Commonwealth’s elections have noticed these campaign finance discrepancies (even as they notice others) and made the same phone call to the State Board of Elections that I did this week. A local sheriff doing a favor for a major campaign contributor is definitely news, but isn’t the breakdown of the very system of full disclosure that makes such a story even possible a more important tale to be told?

Continue reading →

Scott York is Right at Home

Posted on by |

It’s a trending observation among Loudoun’s political establishment: Scott York has shifted way back to the right this year. He’s endorsed paleo-conservative clan scion Dick Black, developer-darling Ken Reid, and virulent homophobe Eugene Delgaudio with a now-famous hug. At Leesburg Patch, Jim Barnes distills York’s history and contrasts it with the campaign he’s running today.

This year, York surprised many observers by announcing his decision to run for the chairmanship as a Republican, which means that he will first have to defeat conservative Steve Stockman at the Republican convention to receive the party’s nomination. Another surprise came when York and Delgaudio expressed support for one another and literally embraced one another. Strange bedfellows, indeed!

York has now publicly endorsed Dick Black for the Virginia State Senate. When serving in the House of Delegates, Black was regarded as one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly, known mostly for his crusades and political stunts in opposition to abortion, gay rights, and “pornography” in the libraries.

York also recently secured the endorsement of Black’s son-in-law, Mick Staton, who served on the Board from 2004-2007, and who was a member of the coalition that stripped York of some of his powers. – Jim Barnes

It’s telling that Mr. York sought the endorsement of Mick Staton. Mr. Staton is a man who helped disempower the Board Chair to the point where Mr. York had to seek recourse from the General Assembly in Richmond to restore his authority. It is also telling that Mr. York has spent the past four years endorsing and working with our great Democratic leaders, like Kelly Burk and Mark Herring, only to abandon his principles and friendship in order to secure his right to the Chairmanship nomination from the Loudoun Republicans.

Mr. Barnes is right to speculate, “But I also can’t help but wonder if his endorsements of Delgaudio, Black and others will be hard to digest for independents and Democrats who have supported York in the past, but who may find Democrat Tom Bellanca to be the more appealing candidate in the general election this fall.” Tom Bellanca is a knowledgeable, passionate businessman from the Dulles area, and a long-time member of Loudoun’s community. His quiet, consensus-building leadership is the antidote for the severe, and attention-grabbing shift of Scott York. Or rather, an appropriate answer to Mr. York’s return to his roots on the far right of Loudoun’s political spectrum.

Dave Butler Stands Alone

Posted on by |

The Loudoun Times-Mirror carries the story of Jim Magner’s withdrawl from the race for the Democratic nomination in DEL-10.

“First, the creation of this new district offers a real opportunity for the democratic party to make a difference both in Richmond and here in Loudoun County, and I feel that a protracted primary fight would only hinder the party’s chances for realizing that potential in the general election,” he said in a statement.

In addition, Magner, an attorney with Washington, D.C.-based Leiser, Leiser & Hennessy, said a recent victory in Loudoun County Circuit Court has caused a drastic increase in the demands on his law practice and has “left me unable to dedicate the time needed to effectively manage may campaign.”

Magner’s client, Daniel Campos of Sterling, was recently awarded $282,000 in compensatory damages in a case against retail giant Wal-Mart. Campos was allegedly accosted and accused of shoplifting by Wal-Mart security guards.

In his statement, Magner said he is pledging his support for fellow Democrat Butler.

PhotobucketFirst, thank you to Mr. Magner for his efforts to defend the rights of our neighbors, like Mr. Campos, in court. Our community benefits greatly from his service as a defender of those rights in cases like the one cited above. And thanks also for pledging support for Councilman Butler, a man positioned to make a real difference in Richmond.

Dave Butler held a series of kickoff events for his Delegate campaign this past weekend. He traveled from Leesburg to Winchester, the length of the 10th District, making the case for his candidacy. He talked about his family, and his experience as a businessman and father in Loudoun county. He talked about his service on the Town Council, and his experience bridging divides to find answers to difficult questions of public concern. And Dave talked about what was missing. He talked about how our area does not get its fair share from Richmond, and how we can, and should, have a Delegate who will fight for us, and our jobs.

In that, he stands alone as a candidate for the 10th District. While others vying for the seat talk about blame and platitudinous issues that Delegates do not deal with, Dave Butler shares his experience with us and focuses on what can be done, now, to address the needs of the 10th District. We will do well to elect him to the General Assembly on November 8th.