Tag Archives: Dave LaRock

Dave LaRock for Delegate

Posted on by |

The Tax Pig's Admission

We beg your pardon, Virginia.

Anytime you find someone in the middle,
Anytime you find someone who is tepid,
Anytime you find someone who is lukewarm,
Anytime you find someone who has been in Congress for 25 years and no one ever heard of him,
You’ve got Oatmeal Man
Oatmeal Man, straddling uncomfortably, yards and feet of barbed wire
It’s hard to live in the middle all the time

Oatmeal Man, the man who said you could fit all of his black friends in the trunk of his car and still have room for the Republican elephant
Oatmeal Man — Gil Scott-Heron

If you live in Virginia’s 33rd House District, tomorrow’s Republican primary is the most important political opportunity in recent history. There is only one clear choice. Vote for Dave LaRock. It’s him, or “Oatmeal Man,” Sons of Confederate Veterans, real-conservative, 199% pro-life Joe May.

This may sound counter-intuitive. It’s higher political reasoning, proof by induction. Here are the reasons. Please meditate on them, quickly, and then run to the polls tomorrow morning.

VOTE FOR DAVE LAROCK IN VA’S HOUSE 33RD!

Here’s why:

Continue reading →

Dave LaRock’s social media problem

Posted on by |

In an article published Wednesday, Times-Mirror reporter Trevor Baratko explores the “wild, wild west” of campaigning in a still emerging online social media environment. Baratko approached my husband and me for this article because we had both been removed multiple times after “liking” Dave LaRock’s campaign page on Facebook. It’s common practice on Facebook to “like” a page for the purpose of monitoring the page’s activity and engaging in dialogue, and as I note in comments at the Times-Mirror, we have at no time been enabled to participate in discussion on that page although LaRock is campaigning to be our representative in the House of Delegates.

It’s an open question how exactly candidates for public office should navigate the new environment in which they find themselves. Many public figures and businesses have discovered that blocking critical comments from their Facebook pages only makes them appear imperious and as if they have something to hide. For an example of a different way to handle criticism (or in this case, open hostility and threats) see how the group Queer at Patrick Henry College dealt with PHC Chancellor Mike Farris’ comments on their Facebook page.

Facebook management isn’t the only area in which Dave LaRock has exhibited an inability to tolerate disagreement or criticism, however. A need for control coupled with entitlement, the sense that he has a special right to operate above the law, seems to be the character trait that most animates him. His 2012 arrest (final disposition still pending) for trespassing and destruction of property has become somewhat well known, prompting a falsehood-riddled “damage control” post (authored under an unaccountable pseudonym on a Republican blog) that LaRock is now distributing as his official statement on the matter. Continue reading →

Evan Mantel’s Whistleblower Letter

Posted on by |

Having worked for Dave LaRock’s 1789 Project, Evan Mantel, a recent graduate of Patrick Henry College, says he is now “cynical towards politics.”

I wonder if he’s also now cynical toward our local press. Mantel’s letter to the editor describing his unpleasant experience appeared in the Loudoun Times Mirror on May 2, and was removed on May 5. I’m still waiting to hear an explanation for the removal, but given other recent conduct by the LaRock campaign the application of pressure to the editor seems likely. If that turns out to be true, it’s very disappointing behavior from a candidate for public office.

Luckily, the original letter was saved in Google’s webcache. It reveals a pattern of self-indulgence, abuse, and theft of labor hours. See for yourself: The letter is reproduced here, just in case LaRock’s campaign to represent Virginia’s 33rd District is successful at bullying Google, too. Continue reading →

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 →

The Catoctin crazy, it burns

Posted on by |

Unbelievable. The folks running the Higgins campaign are in a snit because the Republican candidate for Sheriff has some bipartisan support. It’s hurting their candidate, they say, to have Catoctin voters with both Malcolm Baldwin and Mike Chapman signs in their yards. Think about this. They would rather torpedo their own duly nominated Sheriff’s candidate, actively working against him because he has apparently managed to gain the support of people other than partisan Republicans. They actually seem to think that’s a terrible thing. I’m guessing that the real problem for them, though, is that Malcolm Baldwin has gained the support of independent-minded, moderate voters who are not Democrats. That’s the way this voting thing works.

For what it’s worth, a commenter posted a description of a conversation about this that he witnessed (and for the record, I don’t believe the person is suggesting taking signs from anyone’s yard; he’s presumably talking about signs on public property here. Right?):

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

It leads to an interesting explanation for why everyone in the rural west can’t play nicely together. The same commenter reports hearing this directly from Blue Ridge Republican candidate Janet Clarke about the voters in the west who would be likely to support her: “Because Mike is so highly educated, etc., they won’t relate to him,” and that those voters prefer the “country boy image Simpson displays.”

Continue reading →

Stay away from this man in the potty

Posted on by |

[<i>Promoted by Liz</i>]

If you happen to see David LaRock, Director/President/Treasurer of The 1789 Project, in the restroom, stay away.

David LaRock - Director/President/Treasurer The1789Project.com

LaRock wrote a letter to the editor of the Leesburg today where he ponders.

But once you erase commonly-accepted boundaries that define normal behavior, we may face bizarre circumstances such as our children encountering cross-dressing county employees in public restrooms.

Really, David? Is that what you think about all day? When I’m in the restroom, I just want to do my business and get out. The last thing I want is to be in there with some pervert who’s obsessed with thinking about my body parts.

So folks, if you see David LaRock in the potty, hold it a little longer. Wait for him to get out. You really don’t want to be in there with him.

By the way, the 1789 project yanked the photos of their staff, making it very difficult to find the above photo.  I guess they don’t want us to know what they look like so that we can protect ourselves.