Thursday, August 02, 2007

GoodByeKen attacks BVBL, claims non-existant "gag rule"

Jonathan Marks over at GoodByeKen has another one of his posts full of speculation without basis. Claiming PWCRC Prohibits Republican Bloggers From Criticizing Gill, John says:

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 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.


James Young said...

Just one more example of the fact that JM is psychotic.

Actually, Charles, the PWCRC has NEVER expelled a member, and I think I speak with some authority on that issue, since I have been present since the creation.

However, two or three years back, some sort of resolution was passed regarding negative comments about nominees. I don't remember its text; I opposed it with every fiber of my being (it was largely sponsored by Connaughtonites angered over a certain Pot. New columnist who dared to suggest that the emperor had no clothes, many of whom seem to have gravitated to the Lucas campaign and BVBL). It was narrowly adopted, and just as quickly forgotten.

It might be nice of JM had the guts to name names, though; I would certainly like to expel any PWCRC member who showed up.

Anonymous said...


Just because some Republicans like Paulie, don't mean you can kick them out of the party. As long as Dr. Mark ain't casting aspertions about anyone's manhood, his comments seem to have been getting better.

Anonymous said...


OH....And by the way Paulie has been in the county since the 70's. Sent all his kids to local schools. How long has Gill lived here? Compared to Paulie, Gill is the carpetbagger. Sorry... the truth is the truth.

Anonymous said...


Oh...Oh..And by the way you know damn well you met Paulie over at RA's house. RA is one hell-of-a-Republican. So don't be crappin' on Paulie.

Charles said...

"Paulie" doesn't seem to be a very respectful way to refer to a man who has signed up to run for public office.

We can disagree about people's position on issues without being disrespectful.

I don't mind republicans showing up at Paul's event. I'd rather them not give money or support, and if they are, I would expect them to quite the PWC republican committee, since the committee exists to elect republicans, and is in effect the campaign staff for ALL republicans.

Surely nobody would argue that a candidate should keep a person on their campaign staff if that person decides to support another candidate.

In the same way, the REPUBLICAN committee exists to provide a base of support for the republican candidates. If a person wants to support a democrat, they are free to do so, but they should not remain on the REPUBLICAN committee doing so -- it makes no sense.

I suppose JM thinks I should be allowed to join Roemmelt's campaign, even though I support his opponent. Or maybe he is under the mistaken impression that a REPUBLICAN committee is actually some grand social club open to all that has no business supporting candidates.

But just as a pro-life committee only expects members who are pro-life, and a church only expects members who are believer in whatever religion the church espouses, only people ready to work for ALL the republican candidates should bother joining up.

The effectiveness of the committee is destroyed if a number of people join who are opposed to the committee's purpose.

When the committee allows itself to be distracted by inter-personal squabbles, it hurts ALL our candidates, who then have to build their own volunteer support, since they can't count on the committee.

I can't imagine how hard it must be for the candidates now, wondering if when they ask for support from a district, some of the "members" will instead be visiting their opponent to provide HIM with support.

I would note that there is a big difference between expressing objection to policy positions of our candidates, and actively supporting their opponents. The first is something that can be expected, the second is something that should cause ethical people to resign from the committee.

Anonymous said...

Oh ye who tread the Narrow Way
By Tophet-flare to Judgment Day,
Be gentle when the heathen pray
To Buddha at Kamakura

Mahbub Ali Gill will lead you astray
and bind you forever to the Wheel-Of-Life. If you follow the Babu, you will be reborn as a snake. You will never find THE WAY.