Sunday, March 26, 2006

Why I don't like...

Gossip.

Over at the New TooConservative, Vincent received via e-mail a report from the Republican Central committee, which he was all too happy to share. It had three pieces of information that Vince thought was important, the first of which was:

Lt. Governor Bill Bolling spoke early attacking Tim Kaine’s ads and “basically announced for governor” stating how many more days were left in Tim Kaine’s term.

The quotes are likely from the e-mail, not Vincent. But absent more information, a republican counting down the days until the end of a democrat's term as governor is hardly the same as announcing for the position. I'm counting the days and I can assure you I won't be running for his spot.

The 2nd was some internal party stuff that I won't bother to repeat here, as frankly I'd rather not publish our strategies to the world, even if others including our party itself decides to. If I read it in the paper, I'll be happy to report it if I care.

The 3rd was important enough that Vincent made it the headline of his post:

3)Perhaps the biggest news is that the committee passed a resolution in favor of supporting the Virginia marriage amendment. It was proposed by Russ Moulton then moved by Mary Gail Swenson and Seconded by Jim Rich It passed with no debate by a very large margin.

Now, Vincent has previously expressed his opposition to this amendment, and this post has nothing to suggest his opinion one way or another.

What was truly interesting is that Jim Rich, who "Seconded" the Marriage motion, and also was reported to have seconded the other motion I didn't comment on, is running for the 10th district chair against two "more conservative" opponents.

And what was MORE interesting is that Jim Rich was not actually AT the meeting. When this was pointed out, Vincent claimed he knew all along Rich wasn't there, that Rich's PROXY was used to make the vote in his name. That would have been good to know up front, as it is a useful distinction. I have no idea why Rich was not at the meeting, that would have been interesting I suppose as well.

Anyway, Rich is often cited by the the moderates as their idea of what the republican party should be, and by others as part of the problem which requires more ideological purity.

If this paragon of the "big tent" crowd took the time to send a proxy and specifically requested that proxy to make sure to SECOND motions that were going to be seconded anyway, can it really still be argued that the marriage amendment is a tool of the far right?

Update 6:17PM: Over at TooConservative, some readers argued with TC over this incident, and I added a question as to whether TC would re-think his opposition to the amendment. He responded:

Charles I did not say I was opposed to it..
but that I needed to think about it more. —Too Conservative


Wanting to ensure I didn't have the story wrong, I went back and found the original thread, and posted a comment backing up my claim:

TC, the thread I am referencing was Allen vs. Webb=Jefferson vs. Jackson
In the post, you said:Even President George W. Bush supports civil unions, and I don’t understand anyone’s opposition to them.

Then 10th District said (comment 3, 5:12pm):do you oppose Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage because it precludes civil unions? will you be voting for it this fall?

To which you responded (comment 4, 5:21):10th District-No I absolutely do not. Yes I hear the arguements, but it simply sounds like spew. In the end of the day..gay people are people too. And it’s not the governments business to intrude into lives.

To which 10th dist, to clarify your statement, said (comment 5, 5:28 PM): so will you support the marriage amendment this fall, seeing as it bans civil unions?

TO which you replied (Comment 9, 7:24pm):No I will not then. —Too Conservative

I suppose that in some other later thread you might have softened this stance, but I didn’t see it. And this thread does NOT support your contention now that you just said you would have to look at it. You didn’t mention looking at anything.

I’ll be happy to accept that you now say you will look at it, and will update my blog to reflect that statement. But I feel comfortable in sticking with my claim that you said you opposed it, without qualification, and the quotes I provide here are my evidence. —Charles-conservative one


Any way, that is only to back up my claim that Vincent HAD said he was opposed. He is certainly free to express a different opinion, and I want the record to show that as of 6:24pm on March 25, Vincent's position is that he needs to look at it more before he decides whether to support or oppose the amendment.

2 comments:

Shaun Kenney said...

Thank you for seeing through the veneer.

too conservative said...

as you corrupted my site with italics..I will respond here...

I don't know my thoughts on the marriage amendment, and I still will not take a definitive stance.

I do support civil unions.