Corey Stewart “Praises” Connaughton

By Too Conservative

“Virginia is lucky to have someone who cut their teeth on Prince William’s innovative road building program continuing in that role.”

Connaughton, who chaired the Prince William Board of County Supervisors immediately prior to Stewart, has been repeatedly heralded for his role in continuing Prince William County’s unparalleled local road building program. The outgoing Secretary of Transportation, Pierce Homer, has previously served as director of Prince William County Department of Transportation. Stewart says he’s hopeful for more action over the next four years.


Comments

  • James Young says:

    Why put praises in quotation marks? I didn’t see anything dubious in Corey’s comments.

  • Chris says:

    I’m with you James, Stewart seems pleased to have a friendly face. But I guess generally people who love Connaughton don’t feel the same way for Stewart.

  • James Young says:

    Perhaps it is exemplary of those who reflexively promote Connaughton projecting the converse of their attitude on those of us who do not, Chris. Perhaps they assume that we behave as mindlessly as they do.

    As for me, I don’t have reason to have much of an opinion on this one way or the other. Governor-elect McDonnell is entitled to have the people he wants in the positions in which he wants them. I thought Corey’s statement was quite magnanimous.

  • Brian S. says:

    And Vincent apparently didn’t. Yet James thinks his opinion is more valid, for whatever reason. what else is new? Go read Stewart’s statement. He spends half of it praising Connaughton for having served in the same job he currently holds. He said “I” more times than your typical Obama speech. Perhaps that’s what Vincent meant?

  • NoVA Scout says:

    Stewart has generally been supportive of Connaughton in public, and it is good politics to be so in Prince William, given the fact that even in a culture of short memories, many people do remember that Connaughton did an excellent job as Chairman. That he is not always as gracious in private probably causes some skepticism about the genuineness of his “praise.” My guess is that the quotation marks reflected TC’s reaction to the nature of the press release – it may have struck some as reflecting a tendency of Mr. Stewart to try to skim off some personal attention and self-congratulation from an external event. I don’t think that is unusual among politicians, but sometimes after one sees a lot of it, one sometimes wishes they would just not issue the statement in the first place. In this case, however, I agree with Young, that we might as well take the comment at face value. (“Magnanimous” might be a bit too grand a word, however.)

    We can be sure that there are at least six people in Prince William who wouldn’t have voted for Connaughton if the President had not appointed him to federal office and he had run again. We know who they are. Mr. James Young is one of them. Otherwise, Connaughton had very strong support in the County and in Northern Virginia. That he has strong residual attractiveness politically in the region is probably one of the reasons, in addition to his demonstrated competence at managing difficult governmental problems at the local and federal level,that the new Governor picked him for what will no doubt be a tough and thankless job in a time when the needs are great and resources are almost non-existent. That the Governor and his people were astute enough to make the appointment and Connaughton was public-spirited enough to accept is very good news for Virginia.

  • James Young says:

    Well, Brian, if Vincent doesn’t think the statement was very “magnanimous,” it might be nice if HE explained why. Or at least provide the full statement or a link to it (one that you don’t bother to provide, either) so that its questionable content can be read and judged by all, if it’s so apparent on the face of it. I don’t even challenge it, so much as ask for an explanation of it.

    My initial comment merely asked a question about a construction confusing and not-all-that-apparent in light of the content that follows, one which Vince hasn’t answered (hasn’t, that is, unless you’re acting as his press spokesman). And as for whether my “opinion is more valid,” once again: you’re projecting. I didn’t even EXPRESS an opinion — in fact, if you’ll read the comment and respond with something other than your spleen, you’ll note that I specifically said “I don’t have reason to have much of an opinion on this one way or the other” — much less imply that mine was more valid than anyone else’s.

    As for “NoVA Scout’s” comment, I voted for Connaughton twice (actually, three times, if you count the primary for his second term, when a Democrat in GOP clothing ran with Lee Stoffregen’s backing), and had he been the GOP nominee again, rather than getting out of Dodge when falling home values (not his fault) would have necessitated ending his nearly seven-year spending spree (decidedly his fault), I suppose I would have voted for him again. One needn’t be a mindless myrmidon to fulfill one’s duty as a member of an official GOP committee.

    I would venture a guess, however, that what is at work here is continuing bitterness from those who hitched their wagon to Chairman Sean over the fact that Bill Bolling distributed my columns at the time to what I have been told was great effect in his primary battle with Connaughton. Perhaps (and it may be speculative ego to say so) it even had something to do with the fact that Connaughton only garnered 60% of the GOP vote in his home county in his primary against Bolling, while Bolling garnered upwards of 80% or more (don’t remember the exact number) in HIS home county.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    There goes JY, tooting his own horn again!
    .
    Let me pen your response for you, JY:
    .
    There goes “Loudmouthed Inciter” again, spewing his irrational yet cowardly hatred for all things as conservative and pure as me, the greatest prognosticator to grace these smelly environs you so ridiculously call “too conservative”.

  • James Young says:

    Well, [redacted] AKA “Loudmouthed Inciter,” some of us have horns to toot. Then there are those who are such nonentities that they merely pull up their knickers, jump up and down, and say “Look at me! Look at me!”

    And I don’t know if my columns had the reported effect. I just know what some — not all, or even many — people have said to me.

    Oh, and how the puerile behave here in response to anything I say, even something as innocuous as just asking “Why?”

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Oh James, we’re not going to play Guess LI games so your comment has been edited. I’m sure you can find that guy’s number and give him a call to have it out with him personally. Go for it.
    .
    Mom, what fun would any of this be if we didn’t have self important blowhards like JY to have fun with?

  • James Young says:

    Self-important?!?! I’M self-important? Bold words from a guy who offers his opinion while trying to hide his identity.

    And it’s not a guessing game, [redacted]. And I certainly don’t want to “have it out” with you. There’s a difference between that and holding people responsible for their misbehavior.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    James, I’ve had some strange goings ons around my house as a result of me taking on people in power. There are enough people who know who I am now that I am really no longer hiding myself. I do offer my opinion, and do it frequently and forcefully at times. But it is only my opinion. There are some very disturbed people out there and I would rather have some degree of separation between me and them (if only to keep them from messing up my surroundings with blood should they try to mess with me). Pseudonymity is a long established tradition in the blogosphere, even though you despise it. I’m not changing anything in that regard right now, and I won’t allow you to do it either on this site. Do whatever you want to do on your site. Have at it.

    We have actually agreed a good bit on many issues, but I do find you to be very pompous and grating, as do many others. And for what it’s worth many people find me annoying (BTW Mom’s comment above about me is frigging hilarious!). That is what makes both of us lightning rods and good sparks. The blogopshere would be mighty boring without types like us.

  • Brian S. says:

    James, sorry you haven’t figured out how to use Google. Here you go: http://www.coreystewart.com/blog/stewart-praises-connaughton-pick
    .
    You may not have had “much of a reason to have an opinion on this one way or another” but that didn’t stop you from posting. You must bill your clients by the word.

  • Too Conservative says:

    I didn’t mean anything by the “praise” quotations, and find Chairman Stewart’s remarks serious and appreciative.

    Don’t read too much into stuff.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    there – don’t we all feel silly now?

  • James Young says:

    Thanks for clarifying that, Vince. But I’m certainly not going to apologize for asking a simply question.

  • Brian S. says:

    Did anybody ask for an apology? Lord, you must be fun at parties.

  • James Young says:

    And yet, Brian, you felt the need to attack notwithstanding your ignorance. Indeed, you’re STILL attacking. What a maroon!

  • Brian S. says:

    You have an extremely low threshold for determining what is or isn’t an attack, James.
    .
    Merry Christmas.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    You know, if I had a blog, I would require anonymity. It makes people focus on the content of the comment, not the identity of the commenter. It also opens up the discussion to a number of people whose co-workers, customers, business associates, bosses, neighbors, or relatives might not react well to their candid opinions. The really nasty folks who trash the site thinking that anonymity grants license can be edited and/or chucked off, if that’s a worry. Moreover, as our most furious, over-heated commenter often proves, non-anonymity certainly doesn’t guarantee civil discourse or calm, reasoned analysis. So I simply would not allow people to use their real names. The policy would have the side benefit of protecting people against embarrassment and ridicule who lack sufficient judgment and self-awareness to protect themselves. It would be a kindness. I think those who find the blog convention of anonymity most frustrating are those who very much want to make issues personal, not substantive.

    I had almost forgotten how severe this pathology can be. This thread is bringing it back.

  • James Young says:

    Oh, “NoVA Scout,” you’re such a card! You clearly have no problem with people who “focus on … the identity of the commenter,” as long as those people focus their attacks on the RIGHT commenters, for example, those who recognized that your buddy had few (Conservative) clothes when he was an elected official. As you demonstrate with virtually the entirety of the rest of your post (“really nasty folks”; “our most furious, over-heated commenter”; “non-anonymity certainly doesn’t guarantee civil discourse or calm, reasoned analysis”; “people … who lack sufficient judgment and self-awareness to protect themselves”; “those who find the blog convention of anonymity most frustrating are those who very much want to make issues personal, not substantive”; “pathology”}. You even manage to betray your far-Left paternalism (“It would be a kindness”). Fortunately, your consistent pseudonymity (giving credit where a limited amount is due) allows the rest of us to recognize the — to borrow a belittling description — pathology of your continuing bitterness toward those who helped frustrate his ambitions.

  • Scout says:

    “Far left paternalism” relates to government programs, James. I was suggesting required blog anonymity not as a government mandate but as an act of personal grace, James, to protect folks who kind of fly off the handle in these blog environments.

Leave Comment