A Bad Day

In the 28th, Richard Stuart appears to be the Republican nominee for state senate. Thats fine, but I'm a little wary of a guy who actually gave money to his opponent in the past, and has the total support of John Chichester. But I suppose being a bit more moderate will help him in the election, and perhaps he has the best chance of beating Al Pollard.

Now in the 33rd, Patricia Phillips defeted John Andrews. This is what drives me nuts about Northern Virginia Republicans at times. Its just plain as day that Andrews is plenty conservative, but he has real experience and is strongly positioned to take on Mark Herring. Instead, Loudoun Republicans decide to nominate a candidate who mirros Dick Black and Mick Stanton--both '05 losers--and actually AGREES with Herring's transportation vote, his greatest liability. Leave it to Loudoun Republicans to have a Democrat state senator who voted against millions of transportation dollars for his own distirct and then nominate someone who agrees with him. Ugh.

Comments

[Bruce]

"but I'm a little wary of a guy who actually gave money to his opponent in the past"

It worked for Webb.

[David]

Since "Laurel" from Sterling is expected to show up here at any moment defending the fraudulent Phillips campaign mailer, we'll just correct the record.

Fact: The "praise" that Mrs. Phillips falsely attributes to Equality Loudoun is actually a Loudoun Times-Mirror editorial archived under "Editorials and Letters to the Editor" on our site in a history of the play policy controversy.

Equality Loudoun opposed the policy, and warned the School Board that it could result in a costly lawsuit. It's all documented here: http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?page_id=247

I'm sorry to tell you this, but Patricia Phillips lied.

[Ghost of A.L. Philpott]

Bruce-

Actually it didn't, Webb never gave money to George Allen, or any Republican for that matter.

[charles]

David, don't know who is supposed to show up to do what.

But I generally don't attribute to malice what is easily explained by ignorance.

I've seen the post on your web site, and while I, being familiar with web sites and blogging, can see that it's a copy of someone else's work, it's easy to see how someone who expects that words on a web site are the person's own words, and not stuff taken from somewhere else and copied onto the web site, might easily have thought they were either the words of Equality Loudoun, or at least expressed the opinion of EL.

[Laurel Muller]

Chris:

Yes, I post to multiple sites. Especially when I see a person of fine character being maligned repeatedly in the blogs. This was going on before the election and even more now since she won the primary.

If you look at what Patricia Phillips said, she was forthright and did not exaggerate. To the contrary, John’s handlers advised him poorly when they had him run his mailer repeatedly calling her a liar. Anyone who has more than a passing knowledge of Patricia knows that is absurd.

Jonathan & David notwithstanding, the letter, editorial, whatever was posted on the Equality Loudoun website in a section that ran, from the gay perspective, positive articles. Whether either of them penned it, or simply posted it, is immaterial. It would be a totally different thing had that article been posted in Equality Loudoun’s “Know your Enemy” section, where they put articles and letters with viewpoint’s opposed to their own. (It wasn’t, at least as of election day.) If it had been in the “Know your Enemies” section and she had used it (which she wouldn’t have) you could yell distortion.

Anyone who looked at that site and checked out the other articles in that section, and compared it to the things in the “Know your Enemies” section in an unbiased way, will have to concede that the article was 1) posted on Equality Loudoun’s web 2) was positive to John Andrews, and 3) had no negative comments posted in response to it by either the Weintraubs or any other pro-gay writer. It was a puff piece for John, pure and simple. Patricia Phillips simply stated a fact that voters were entitled to be aware of.

Of course if you look at other items on the Equality Loudoun web site, you will find that the Wientraubs have vehemently disagreed with Patricia and her work for Concerned Women for America. So it stands to reason that they would try to attack her reputation for honesty.

Laurel
Sterling

[David]

Ghost:

What Laurel says above demonstrates that Phillip's false attribution wasn't due to incompetence on the part of the campaign, but rather to an assumption of incompetence on the part of the voters.

Laurel,

I'm sorry to have to correct you again, but this excuse just doesn't cut it. The Loudoun Times-Mirror editorial in question was the editor’s response to the "ugly garbage" and "invective" contained in letters to the editor that are posted in our Hall of Shame, as well as in speeches before the School Board - some of which were by Mrs. Phillips herself. What the editor may have thought about the proposed policy or of Mr. Andrews really wasn’t the point.

The central fact of this dirty trick that can’t be spun away is this: The Phillips campaign reversed the positions of Equality Loudoun and Patricia Phillips in order to create a false distinction and deceive the voters.

Fact: John Andrews fully supported and voted for the policy.

Fact: Patricia Phillips said that she was "very pleased" with the policy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061500953_pf.html

Fact: Equality Loudoun vocally opposed the policy and warned the School Board that they were headed for a lawsuit (an action that, as I recall, rather angered Mr. Andrews).

There's just no way of interpreting what the Phillips campaign did here as anything other than a flat out lie. Laurel, if it was you who came up with this brilliant plan, it's time to admit it was a mistake, and time for Mrs. Phillips to apologize.