Any blogger who continues to pubish anti-Faisal Gill material now that Gill is the HOD-51 nominee will lose his positions in the Republican Party. The Lee District Democratic Committee has a similar gag rule in place to prevent Democratic bloggers from criticizing Jim Moran.
I have no idea about the democrat committee, but as a member of the PWC republican committee, I can say that there has been no communication of a "gag rule", nor is there a need for one. As a member of the Republican Committee, whose purpose is to support all Republican candidates, I would expect to support all the candidates. People who actually vote in the Republican primaries or conventions pledge their intent to support all the republican candidates.
But there is no "gag rule". People aren't forced to be a member of the committee, they join BECAUSE they support the Republican party candidates. And yet every election, a number of committee members withhold support from some candidate or another, or give money to a democrat or another, or even on rare occasions actively campaign for some democrat. This is true in Prince William, it was true in Loudoun last year, it will be true this year.
The PWC Republican committee has not voted to remove a person from our roles in the years I've been a member. We've even had members who quit and ran against our candidates, and then returned and were accepted back into the committee. We certainly are discouraged from supporting other candidates, but there's been no "gag order", or any other order.
Greg over at BVBL has given John wide latitude over at the BVBL website to attack republican candidates. John pays him back by attacking Greg for kow-towing to this nonexistant gag rule:
If Greg L. continued to write anti-Gill material and publish it on BVBL under his own name then Greg L. could be kicked out of the PWCRC. Life is a series of trade-offs, and Greg L., who publicized Gill's deficiencies as a candidate for most of this year, can no longer play this role without sacrificing some of his long-term goals.
The suggestion that Greg needs the PWC republican committee is silly (frankly, I think Greg would gain credibility in his HSM role if he wasn't tied to a party). And the suggestion that Greg would submit to direction against his will is absurd. Anybody who knows Greg knows that, if he isn't writing about something, it's because HE MADE THAT CHOICE of his own free will.
To say otherwise is to demean Greg. What John is ignoring is that, while many Republicans thought Julie Lucas was a better candidate than Faisal Gill, Paul Nichols is no Julie Lucas, and on the issues, Republicans know Gill is on their side.
Greg said, and so far as I know still believes, that Lucas was more electable than Gill. But the key there is that Greg, and many other Republicans, want to elect a Republican. Unlike JM, it wasn't a personal dislike of Gill, it was the fear that Paul Nichols might win. So they supported Lucas, but they will now support Gill.
But the funniest part of JM's post was THIS LINE:
Someone told me that Greg Letiecg of BVBL.net is active in the Republican Party in PWC.
Somebody "told" him? JM has commented at Greg's site for months, and had to be clueless not to know that Greg was "active in the Republican Party". I don't think he's clueless, but I can't explain how he could now be suggesting he had no idea Greg was a Republican, or a member of the PWCRC.
Maybe he thought Greg went to our meetings for the fun of it.