Alternate Titles*
Mark Sell Snatches Defeat From The Jaws Of Defeat
Mark Sell Rallies Uber-Conservatives By Employing Roberts Rules Of Torture
It’s late and I’m exhausted after an utterly exhausting LCRC meeting. Major items on the agenda included the call for the upcoming Party Canvass and modifications to the LCRC Bylaws to conform with recent RPV Party Plan changes. The first part of the meeting went quite quickly and smoothly, until we got to the bylaws. Then the real “excitement” started.
Someone remarked to me that they are reading a self help book that breaks down situations into four classes. And that the ensuing drama was easily classified into the “Not important and not interesting” category. I unfortunately (please cue the screams as I poke my eyes with hot needles) agree wholeheartedly.
Mark Sell, purported real conservative “leader” running for LCRC Chairman, made a motion that the bylaws be considered one by one rather than as a whole. Mind you, Sell sat on the committee that drafted these bylaws and voted to move them forward to the full committee for a vote WITHOUT RAISING SO MUCH AS A PEEP ABOUT THEM.
Except that he really didn’t make a stink about them himself. He made the motion, then his puppet handlers lept into action. Suzanne Volpe (drafter of the RPV rejected call several years ago) made all the substantive verbalizations about supposed problems, with the vile Dimitri Kesari making endless calls for division, sometimes assisted by noted parliamentarians Bob Maistros, Joanne Chase, and John Grigsby. All while Sell, the purported “leader” of this cabal, sat in his chair like a bump on a log.
What a complete debacle for Sell. Candace Strother gave a great speech spelling out why she wanted to be Chairman and where she would take the committee while Sell came up and tried in vain to explain why he had just wasted everyone’s time by making a motion and letting others lead the charge. Many people who came to the meeting pre-disposed for Sell left shaking their heads and vowing to work for Candace Strother. I wholeheartedly agree – do we want another puppet in the Chairman’s seat or an accomplished woman who worked for Ronald Reagan and has political credentials these naysayers could only dream of? This is no longer even a contest.
*Suggested in comments by Jonathan Weintraub, of all people, who was unfortunately there on loan from the LCDC to see the LCRC in “action”.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Jan 26th by Loudoun Insider
Agreed.
If I could have strangled Mark Sell tonight, I would have. He made the meeting torturous, sealing his own fate in the process. If anyone in that room was undecided about whom to support for chair of LCRC, they are no longer. Who the heck would want a chair who puts us through ridiculous charades like tonight’s meeting? This was by far the longest, and least productive, LCRC meeting that I have attended, thanks to Mark Sell. Many of us will not forget Mark’s contribution, and not in a good way.
We have a few uber-parliamentarian types in the FCRC as well. I don’t know why they seem to enjoy it, but Robert’s Rules lost their luster for me after college. People’s time is too valuable to waste on nonsense procedure. That’s one of the things I like about Anthony Bedell’s leadership – we don’t have any meetings like that anymore. Nothing kills of membership and keeps young people away from meetings than parliamentary goofiness.
Yup. When it all began it reminded me of the old FCRC meetings and why I stopped going to them.
I still have not figured out what those people get out of making the rest of us miserable. It sure isn’t popularity!
So LI, did he make a statement of concession, or is the title of the thread figurative?
When I first read this I thought Mark Sell actually conceded. Last night’s meeting was long and strange. I think there was sincerity when Mark indicated he wanted to open up dialogue and debate, but given that he helped draft the by-laws and had the opportunity to quickly list his specifics issues with any changes at the meeting (via Bruce Tulloch’s plea) proved he had ulterior motives. So, Dimitri Kesari is a State Central Committee member and was there with a proxy? Where is he from?
*
Glen did a good job last night. He expedited (as much as possible) the whole process – I think we could have literally been there all night if he hadn’t efficiently gone through the changes with John Milhiser (sp?) – so kudos to them for keeping everything in check. Monk and Stone were probably tired of counting, but they performed their duties well.
*
I look forward to Candace as Chair. As she stated, everyone needed to take a deep breath and now we move forward.
I believe figurative Barbara – good morning early riser!
Well, I too was tortured last night – - poking hot needles in the eyes isn’t strong enough, in my opinion! We made a positive move forward – - and hopefully sent a message that we support very qualified women…something the Dems couldn’t quite do!
I look forward to working with Candace!!!
“Nothing kills of membership and keeps young people away from meetings than parliamentary goofiness.”
.
As someone who truly believes that greater citizen participation in local politics (regardless of party) is good for us all, I sympathize with you over your experience last night. You are fortunate to have had someone running the meeting who could minimize the pain by keeping it moving.
.
It’s always a challenge to be sure folks with a minority opinion feel they are getting a fair hearing. But that opens the door for the crackpots who want to question every procedure or propose endless resolutions about issues that are largely a distraction from your primary business of winning elections.
.
Sounds to me like you nailed the motivation of your tormentors last night. They likely wanted maximum pain to depress future turnout. That is the only hope a small faction has of hijacking a local committee.
LI,
Mark did not concede. More accurate titles may have been.
Mark Sell blunders LCRC chair bid
Mark Sell snatches defeat from the hands of defeat
Mark Sell rallies conservatives to employ “Roberts rules of torture”
You also may want to update the post to mention that Dimitri is not an LCRC member but served as Sell’s parliamentarian via proxy credentials from Lydia Barner. It would be nice to see a longer list of names of the people supporting Dimitri’s actions.
Barbara, the title of the post isn’t literal; Sell didn’t actually concede. Given the mood in the chamber he might as well have, but he didn’t actually do it.
Jonathan, those are great titles!
Lots of contemptuous and disparaging rhetoric, but precious little substance. About what we’ve come to expect from “Loudmouthed Inciter.”
That having been said, the strategy of voting on one article at a time is simply a bad idea. When we adopted our Party Plan in PWC (of which I was the primary author) nearly twenty years ago, we presented it article by article, considering individual amendments or answering individual questions in turn, but only voted on the Plan as a whole.
Nevertheless, one of the purpose of Robert’s Rules is to protect the rights of minorities against oppressive majorities and/or dishonest officials. For instance, at the 1992 State GOP Convention, convention leadership tried to ram through a pro-socialized medicine resolution, probably out of some ill-advised effort to placate so-called “moderates.” It was only through calls for division and vigorous efforts on the part of (mainly) Young Republicans that the action was reconsidered and, ultimately, rejected. I note you say nothing about the whether the votes were close, or the chair’s determination questionable.
One has to wonder whether this is merely self-serving spin designed to influence the outcome of the election.
Last Nights Losers:
- Mark Sell, head and shoulders above all else. If you had objections start at the subcommittee you are on. If you had real concerns you were given ample opportunity to express them – you didn’t. When given the choice between dragging this out and having legitimate discussion, you chose to drag it out vs. having a real discussion about the areas “you” had concerns (and yes, “you” is in parentheses)
- Dmitri Kisari for his repeated calls for division
- Suzanne Volpe, although she attempted to verbalize some of her concerns it all seemed a bit petty
- Every regular, non-Robert’s Rules of order loving member of the Loudoun County Republican Committee
Last Night’s Winners:
- John Millhiser for his repeated explanations, good parliamentary decisions and his patience
- Bruce Tulloch for the best speech I’ve heard in a very long time asking Sell to state his concerns, debate them and let people get home to their families. Sell refused, but Tulloch was impressive
- Glen Caroline for his leadership
- The Sergeants at Arms for counting way too many times. Thank you Greg and Dean for all you do
- Candace Strother for showing us that leadership isn’t about silly little procedural fights for the sake of a fight, but rather about focus and unity. Her speech last night was excellent.
That’s my thoughts from a long, strange night.
I know he didn’t concede in fact, but he did concede in effect. Those last two alternate titles are killer, however!
.
The Sell “brain” trust was pretty much out in full force last night – ringleader Suzanne Volpe, John Grigsby, Dimitri Kesari, Bob Maistros, and Jo-Ann Chase. I guess Eve Barner is part of this group as well, but she wasn’t there. Two of the main trouble makers, weasels Grigsby and Kesari, are no longer LCRC members and were holding proxies. I guess I should also add David Ray to the list, even though he is from Fairfax.
.
Sell proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no clue about leadership and that he is unfit to be Chairman. The best campaign move of the race so far (for Candace Strother) was last night’s parliamentary debacle.
.
This absolutely was purposeful BS. The only way this bunch of misfits can retain the political power they love so dearly is to make their political universe as small and unappealling as possible. Just as with conventions and mass meetings, the tactic is delay delay delay until people with real life committments and families leave. It is surely no way to build a party, and Bedell and Caroline have indeed moved past it to the extent they can.
.
Bruce Tulloch was excellent last night in making his plea to Sell, and Glen Caroline gave Sell several lifelines (by the way, who was Grigsby talking to all night on the damn phone? his personal lifeline?) to extricate himself from the morass he set in motion.
.
The following is a fictionalized (somewhat) account of that moment in time:
.
“Mark – why don’t you just spell out the specific changes you want and let us vote them up and down rather than making us go through this section by section?”
.
“First of all I need to check with my masters, wait … uh ….. NO. I would rather let everyone sit here until the proverbial cows come home”
.
If everyone wants to return to meetings filled with such parliamentary bullshit, then by all means, please vote for Mark Sell. What a complete disaster.
JY, the votes were pretty much 2-1 for the position of the Chair, and Chair was more than reasonable. And please don’t start pontificating on the worthiness of the two candidates unless you know them and their records. In any universe other than the LCRC, Candace Strother would be a strongly conservative leader (which of course she is, just not to the wacky minority).
Ah, yes, glad I missed that meeting. As stated above, that kind of crap, driven by the people who have no lives outside petty intra-partisan bickering, really kills off membership.
I got held up in Tyson’s Corner at another commitment, and sorry to have missed it!
Too bad you missed it Sally – you got an award that you need to pick up!
.
I want to also add that Mark Sell works at the NRA with Glen Caroline, and I believe their offices are quite close (although I am sure Sell’s is much smaller than Glen’s). He also has Glen’s contact info. He could have discussed his concerns with Glen at any time, yet chose to wait to pull this procedural BS at the last minute. And as someone points out so pointedly above, who knows exactly what “his” concerns are since he simply parrots what others want.
James the Younger, the votes were heavy, and shifted back and forth thru the 8 changes to bring our by-laws into compliance with RPV and the Party Plan.
While the vote on Article Nine changes went down, we are all pretty sure that folks were so tired after the previous articles….they really lost track. Didn’t matter, because on that Article, RPV supercedes us.
RPV, thru their review, actually signed off on the changes and actually complimented the unit for it’s work on these local bylaws.
My favorite point was when Glen asked if there was a desire to replace him as Chair for the remainder of the articles being voted on. Not a peep. Then, after being stirred, a voice spoke up to make that motion, and was seconded by Kesari.
That vote was the most weighted of the evening. 23 idiots out of 114 people in attendance voted to do so. After that was clear, the frost came off the pumpkin.
One correction, one observation, LI. Grigsby was not carrying a proxy,and at a couple of times, violated protocol by displaying a orange paper ballot reserved for actual members, and would stand outside the door and hold just his hand inside with the orange ballot showing. I never counted him once, because I was made aware of who was actually carrying legitimate proxies before the voting.
No comment on the specifics, as I am not currently a member and was not present (although I did receive an email asking if I was willing to attend and could carry a proxy–and no, not from someone who has endorsed Mark Sell–lol), but I would like to caution against embracing “non-Roberts’ Rules of Order loving” to any extreme in the name of expediency.
I understand the probable intent of that phrase is NOT to advocate throwing proverbial babies out with bathwater, but the rules are all there is sometimes in making sure that legitimate results to group action ensue.
When I was on commission, I frequently asked for division on questions, because sometimes that is the only way you can vote to support those portions of actions that you agree with. I sometimes think that the BoS should employ it more often; it would make their actual positions on issues much clearer, and leave less room for misdirected grandstanding.
Again, not a comment on any specific division requests last night, just a comment on the concept of division of questions for vote.
Good Morning to you too, Loudoun Lady! I have to be an early riser–I am the designated coffee and pancake person, so if I don’t get up early, NOBODY gets up–lolol!
I find it hilarious that fake conservatives like LI and BulletProof have such difficulty with Roberts Rules of Order.
Dan, We did have a good, reasoned leader running the meeting that minimized the pain, and the best person to continue on this path is Candace.
*
LI, Call me sympathetic, but I don’t doubt Mark Sells’ concerns and passion are real. His tactics and leadership skills can be called into question, or be called misguided – but from my vantage point he has been a hard worker and valued LCRC member. I don’t want to diminish any of the work he has done, I just don’t believe would be a good Chair.
*
Sally, I can’t believe I didn’t know you were an LCRC member. Next time I will introduce myself.
LL, I agree that Mark Sell is a hard worker for the party, and he is passionate about politics. But like you, I agree that he does not have the requisite skills to be Chairman of this often fractuous party. Suzanne Volpe should just run herself rather than drafting another frontman.
I’d like to follow up on Monk’s comments, John Milhiser (sp?) did tell us that the LCRC by laws were in the top 5% of the State of Virginia. I have confidence in the Committee’s ability to be compliant with state by laws, so that’s why all this appeared so unnecessary. I did see the hand hanging out of the door too – how stupid!
*
On the flip side, to Barb’s comments, I also understand that questions need to be asked and articles (and their intent) be clarified. No one was stifling debate, it was leadership that lead us through the by-laws article by article.
I find it hilarious that dumbasses like you have such difficulty with Roberts Rules of Order. They were followed to the letter last night, and the Chair even offered himself up for replacement if anyone could muster a majority. That didn’t happen (read the LONGSHOT SUPERMAJORITY above), so some people should actually rise above the mud-throwing to see what sticks. We came out very clear, with RRO having been employed all the way.
Uh, “Loudmouthed Inciter,” I said not word one about “the worthiness of the two candidates.” Don’t know ‘em. I understand your mistake, however: unlike you, I don’t “pontificat[e]” about people or things about which I haven’t bothered to inform myself.
And BPM, “Younger” than you, perhaps! Thank you for providing a few facts where there were virtually none.
And DJAC, I don’t think it’s fair to characterize BPM as “hav[ing] such difficulty with Roberts Rules of Order.” Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of his comments, I don’t discern anything in them that is critical of Roberts Rules of Order.
Cathy, I too, went over to Mark last night to tell him that I can’t support him for Chair, but that I have always admired the fact that he’s been there in this process, inside committee, for the past two cycles. While many walked away, Mark has been there. On that point, I’m glad he’s among us.
And James Young finally astounds me…..in a good way.
CSR… Dean Coursen has informed me to alert you that Stine and I are DEPUTY SGT-at-Arms.
Stone, not Stine. I’m sorry….I’ll have to replace this keyboard.
My bad BPM, Dean is still the most stern and excellent SGT-at-Arms, but you guys were good deputies. You make a great point about Mark – he is an excellent and valuable component of this successful unit, but he isn’t leadership material and last night fully displayed it.
I noted last night that the Mark Sell Brain Trust (forgive the oxymoron) of Grigsby/Volpe/Kesari was joined and augmented by David Ray of the Fairfax GOP Committee. Since Mr. Ray, the “Demetri Kesari of Fairfax County”, is serving as Campaign Manager of the Howie Lind 10th District Chairman campaign, I have to draw the conclusion that these vile leaders of the Mark Sell Campaign working in close coordination with the Howie Lind Campaign. David Ray has for a long time been doing to award-winning FCRC Chairman Anthony Bedell what Mark Sell did to his NRA colleague Glen Caroline last night.
If Mr. Lind gives us evidence to the contrary, I will listen to it, but for now I am fully committed to David Schmidt’s candidacy for 10th District Chairman and do not even know him yet.
Correction: Jonathan is no longer a member of the LCDC. He was on loan from Equality Loudoun. Sounds like a good time was had by all…
Let me be very blunt.What was on display last evening had little or nothing to do with issues over the revised or harmonized by laws. Had that been the case those issues would have been resolved in a very professional and adult like manner well before this meeting. This was about political nitwittery.This was about a handful of people solving a problem that did not exist in order to appear as if they know what the hell they are doing while thinking nothing of wasting other peoples time in the process. The explanation this was about principle, minority rights or conservatism is bull shit.This was a contrived political maneuver crafted by those lacking the common sense of half a load of gravel. This conservative does not believe for one second this was anything but amateur hour on parade. Mark Sell was not well served last night. He allowed a small group of confused and frankly not too bright wannabe pols orchastrate a battle over nothing and in the process damage him politically.
The real story coming out of last night is what aterrific candidate we have in Candace Strothers. Her speeech was the positive highpoint amongst the foolishness. Last night was a perfect example of why we need a strong, principled conservative leader. Her address should set aside any doubts she is the best choice for LCRC chair.
I too would like to thank our Chairman Glen Caroline for keeping order and maintaining a fair exchange in the face of rampant stupidity.
Glen’s desire to retire becomes clearer to me with each passing meeting.
I didn’t realize that having a deep knowledge and understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order was part and parcel of being a conservative. Guess that makes me more conservative than some here would believe. I even served as parliamentarian at a union national convention (I can hear James’ blood pressure rising).
.
Robert’s Rules are not sacrosanct. If you have to resort to playing procedural rules and wasting people’s time to get your point of view across, that’s probably the reason you’re in the minority. This is what turns off potential activists. They don’t want to spend four hours on a Tuesday night listening to sea lawyers arguing over which motion takes precedence and whether a point of order or a point of parliamentary inquiry supercedes the business on the floor blah blah blah blah. This is why no one wants to go county committee meetings. I go there to meet fellow activists, say hi to my friends, visit with elected officials and hear how we are going to win elections for Republicans. Most people would prefer to be at home, having supper and spending time with their kids after work than sitting through that crap. We should be doing our best to keep meetings short and to the point without this kind of procedural nonsense that turns people away.
I believe it was Stone who yelled after Suzanne Volpe asked how many committee members there were – “about five after we’re done with this!” Brilliant!
Ric James has initial thoughts up, with more to follow later:
http://www.hoodathunkblog.com/2010/01/lcrc-meeting-seemed-like-old-times/comment-page-1/#comment-3094
Stone’s right. My first FCRC meeting featured a full blown Robert’s Rules fight between David Ray and a member whose name I can’t remember. It was one of the most depressing things I’ve ever witnessed as a Republican. I remember thinking at the time “if we can’t get it together to even hold a meeting, how can we ever hope to win in November?” And then we got our butts kicked in November. And that answered my question. We couldn’t.
.
Fortunately, I didn’t let that meeting sour me to the party committee and I still try and make as many meetings as I can while going to school at night. But many folks – especially those in my peer group – wouldn’t sit through that.
BVBL Greg was filming much of last night and has a video up of Lori Waters. Hopefully more to come – some of the stuff last night really needs to be seen to be believed by those who didn’t have the “pleasure” of attending.
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2010/01/27/at-least-were-not-loudoun/#comment-91601
There was a new member sitting across the aisle from me and I hope she comes back. I told her she picked a hell of a first meeting!
BPM, you’ll be astounded more often if you actually read what I write … rather than believing “Loudmouted Inciter’s” and Brian S.’s smears.
The tactics used last night made me very angy. And, I approached Mark after the meeting and told him so. As the one running for LCRC chair and the one who started the whole mess, he shares the blame. However, later, I realized that my anger is really directed more at the people who are using him for their own petty purposes to divide the committee and destroy its ability to effectively elect republican candidates. I do believe that Mark is a good guy, dedicated to the principles, and a tireless grassroots activist. They should be ashamed of tarnishing Mark’s reputation.
But, if it wasn’t clear before, it is now. Candace is the best choice to lead this committee successfully in the future. Mark had a chance to show a modicum of leadership when he was asked to stand down so-to-speak. Instead, he let the madness continue. That was the moment he lost the race.
James, as I’ve said before, you need to get a thicker skin. I have no need to smear you and I haven’t. Smearing you is a waste of my time and Vincent’s bandwidth.
Brian, as usual, you respond to criticism by making an utterly asinine comment, “I didn’t realize that having a deep knowledge and understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order was part and parcel of being a conservative,” coupled with an innuendo of irrationality.
Why ever would my blood pressure rise because you “served as parliamentarian at a union national convention”? Presumably, you were paid handsomely to do so, or it was part of your official duties, and I have no problem with someone getting paid to do his job, so long as they are paid with money earned from voluntary transactions, rather than extracted from objecting or unwitting people. Having served as Parliamentarian for the Eleventh Congressional District Committee and at a number of Conventions for the District and PWC (on a volunteer basis, of course), I know it’s hard work.
I suspect that what DJAC meant by his or her comment was that conservatives — who by and large respect the law — should have no problem with the vigorous practice of the organic law of the Republican Party of Virginia and, whether explicitly or not, that of the Loudoun County Republican Party. RPV’s Party Plan explicitly states that the RPV is governed by Robert’s Rules of Order (absent some explicit provision of the Party Plan, that is).
“Deep knowledge and understand of Robert’s Rules of Order” is therefore not necessary to “being a conservative”; compliance with Robert’s Rules of Order is simply part and parcel of participating in the activities of the Republican Party of Virginia and its official committees. And you, Brian, are the one who said “Robert’s Rules lost their luster for me after college.”
It sounds as though the Dems in Loudoun are having problems if Weintraub is no longer a member and now attending LCRC meetings. It would seem like they (LCDC) would get solidly behind his special interests!!!!!
Alas, perhaps our parliamentary procedure is more interesting than theirs? Perhaps the fact that we are choosing a qualified woman to lead us – something the Dems failed to do – - gives him hope for us after all!
James, when someone makes a comment that is ridiculous, I’m going to ridicule it. DJAC’s comment was ridiculous. The last time I checked, being a fan or having a firm grasp of Robert’s Rules has never been a cornerstone of any form of conservative ideology. The fact that the party plan, like any other bylaws of any organization, uses Robert’s Rules to fill the interstices in those bylaws isn’t surprising. But a slavish devotion to those rules to the detriment of the party is no virtue. Your attempt to speculate as to what DJAC meant by linking Robert’s Rules to a respect for the law is a nice piece of lawyering, but an equally ridiculous stretch.
.
I was kidding about the blood pressure rising. I know “union” is a four letter word for you and your colleagues.
.
And yes, Robert’s Rules lost their luster after college, when my time became to precious to waste in procedural bickering. If you think spending 4 hours casting dozens of division votes to satisfy someone’s obsessive compulsive disorder is a grand old time, that’s fine. Most people don’t. I know I certainly don’t. But what good does it actually do the party? None.
.
When Robert’s Rules wins us an election, maybe I’ll change my mind.
.
So far the only winner that seems to have come out of last night’s meeting was Candace Strother. Hopefully she’ll keep doing what she’s been doing. I think she’ll make a fine partner with Anthony Bedell here in NoVA.
I bet James can clear a room incredibly fast. What a fun guy. With that winning charm you should run for office.
“..and hopefully sent a message that we support very qualified women…something the Dems couldn’t quite do!”
.
Wait – are you guys using a quota system instead of a merit-based one? No wonder you don’t understand what a nondiscrimination policy does.
The word “quite” is well chosen, though. It was very close.
David, c’mon. Who said anything about a quota system? As far as I can tell, Candace Strother is the most qualified candidate for the job, regardless of gender.
.
Honestly, when it comes to diversity, I think the Republicans in Northern Virginia are doing as well or better than the Democrats – at least in terms of candidates, elected officials and party officials.
David, how dare you insinuate that the Republicans would use a quota system. That is uncalled for.
.
Next you are going to be claiming that Michael Steele is a token! That is absurd.
.
Ask any Democrat and they will tell you that Michael Steele is the most wonderful National Chairman the Republicans could possibly have chosen. We love the guy. He’s the best!
I think she’ll make a fine partner with Anthony Bedell here in NoVA.
Yes, she will. Knowing Candace well and having met Anthony Bedell , these two would make a dynamic regional team for the Republican Party. Two very qualified individuals.
I look forward to working with both of them.
Well, I was responding to pissed off Bob.
.
Your implication is that, with two well-qualified individuals to choose from, a man and a woman, the LCDC should have chosen the woman…just because? If that’s not a quota approach, I don’t know what is.
.
On the other hand, the LCRC situation is completely different. According to most of you, there is no comparison on the basis of merit between the two candidates. So I can’t understand what the fuss over choosing “a well-qualified woman” is all about. Aren’t you just choosing the best candidate, irrespective of personal characteristics?
I think it is a taunt David.
I think the implication was that one of the individuals was better qualified than the other. And, yes, the folks in Loudoun would be choosing the best candidate if they vote for Candace Strother.
.
However, we, like anybody else, like to tweak out opponents when we live up to the standards they claim to represent better than they do. It’s just one of life’s little amusing moments (and like LL said, a taunt).
Uh, Brian, you should either stop drinking the union-boss Kool-Aid, or stop pretending you’re a Conservative… or a moderate, for that matter.
You “know ‘union’ is a four letter word for you and your colleagues”?!?!? In fact, it’s not. Never has been. “Forced-unionism” is, but “union” is not… unless you’re equating the two. Now, you are either just parroting the nonsense that you hear from your bosses — you may have to do that professionally, as an attorney, but not personally — or you’re too stu… er, “ignorant” to know the difference.
However, since — with this response — ignorance is no longer an excuse, I’ll just assume willful prevarication the next time you attempt a smear like that.
As for Robert’s Rules, I never said the strategy was wise; to the contrary, I said otherwise, but whether it was wise or not, it was permissible, and you certainly don’t throw out a time-tested hammer simply because you’ve driven a few nails imperfectly with it.
And Dan, clearing rooms from the likes of you is a useful skill, and one in which the GOP is in dire need.
James,
Go waste someone else’s space. I’ve never heard a coherent argument from you. You obviously like taunting otherwise perfectly enjoyable people – like Mary Gail Swenson — who — again, like Mary Gail Swenson — could easily kick your ass if you said any of that in person.
James, don’t sell yourself short. I’m pretty sure you make people duck and scoot out of the room without regard to political affiliation.
.
It is breathtaking that you would accuse Brian of parroting ideas he doesn’t believe because of who his employer is. Brian strikes me as a guiy with some integrity.
.
I have read your ludicrous and cartoonish characterizations of unions. It would be hard to not view them as a joke. It’s hard to believe any sentient being would take your stuff seriously or the notion that you are doing it to benefit working people. I’m sure they appreciate your efforts to help them work longer hours for less money with fewer or no benefits. Maybe you can take us back to the 7 day work week and the 12 hour day. You great friend of the working man. Thank heaven they have you to save them.
.
You are paid to spew that nonsense. And you do it. Yet you have the chutzpah to accuse someone else of parroting opinions because of their employment. What a hypocrite.
.
Add to that the pompous, egotistical and generally nasty tone with which you address others in your comments and I’d say it is a fair guess that people flee the room when you approach. Probably muttering something like, “not that asshole again”.
Loudoun Lady,
I have been a member for a few years now, but family commitments and health issues have limited my involvement.
I won an award? will have to email Ben Belrose… how exciting!
James, it’s disingenuous for you to argue that the NRW is not anti-union. Are you telling me that if it were possible for you to repeal the Wagner Act you wouldn’t do it? The fact that I don’t accept your protestations that you’re not anti-union at face value is neither stupidity nor ignorance. I simply don’t find your statements credible. Just like you don’t appear to find my statements that I’m a moderate credible. I also find it kind of interesting that you believe the phrase “anti-union” is a smear. Then again, your definition of smear seems to be “anything anyone says to me that I disagree with” so that’s a pretty low threshold to meet.
.
As for Robert’s Rules, again we’ll just have to disagree (I guess there’s another smear). I have no problems throwing out a hammer if I think it’s causing me more harm than good when I use it.
It was a shame that Mark Sell was used in the way that he was last night. Being unable to extricate himself from that mess last night shows that he is not ready to lead the LCRC.
I agree that if Suzanne Volpe wants to be chair she should run, rather than use Mark as her front man. She set him up for embarrassment, with much anger directed toward him, making it painfully clear to everyone that he is not ready to lead. Some of her little friends might want to take heed when she next asks something of them. They could suffer the same fate as poor Mark Sell.
I also think it’s hysterical that John Grisby was waving his hand through the door, clutching the orange voting paper. I had wondered why the chair asked that the man behind the door to come fully into the room. Too funny! These clowns may well have a future in the circus!
But, LL, don’t you know that he is the savior of real conservatism in Loudoun County? Are you saying that John Grigsby could have been acting less than honorably? Heaven forbid!
Just so I can get a bit more excited about that Strother-Sell race, can someone remind me where I can view that smashing photograph of LCRC Chairman wannabee Mark Sell wearing his prison strip “Thought Police” garb outside of the US Capitol?
This photo of Mark Sell in action, together with his illuminating bit of oratory last night, can tell us all what kind of leadership the Volpe/Grigsby/Kesari wing of the GOP wants to give us.
I believe I have one of him standing proudly next to Mr. Delgaudio. That is just as illuminating, is it not?
“are you guys using a quota system instead of a merit-based one?”
No David. The woman is over-qualified, and we’re lucky to have her run to lead us.
Tim, don’t be so hard on Mark. As I’ve noted…when there was incoming directed at the trench, Mark was right there manning his post….like the rest of us. Mark may now realize that Suzanne used him and threw him away, and that may well bring Mr. Sell to the reasonable people’s side of this embarassment. Mark authored the committee’s resolution against the food tax, and after it was shot down in committee for not having passed thru the Issues Committee, it was presented to the Committee using the proper channel, and Mark, as the author, was allowed to read it into the record. I haven’t given up on Mark yet. He may want to unite with the winners marching into 2010, though.
Good grief.
.
When LL said “David, I think it’s a taunt,” I thought, “well, of course it is.”
.
Then I realized she was talking about Bob.
.
Thanks for being so earnest, though.
Folks, we need to remember, Grigsby was a member of the AFL-CIO in Ohio and protested Reagan at every chance. He then changed colors and then named one of his children after Reagan as if he really believed in Reagan and what made him so special. His goal, sadly, has been to make the LCRC an embarrassment and has done so with great zeal.
No, Brian, “agree[ing] to disagree” is not a smear. Making patently false accusations is. And why would advocating repeal of the Wagner Act necessarily be “anti-union”? Might come as news to the late Lane Kirkland (former AFL-CIO President), who observed that it might be a more effective form of labor law “reform” than anything likely to pass Congress.
Apparently, you define “anti-union” as advocacy of anything that would diminish the special privileges granted to labor unions, i.e., level the playing field. Which is why your claim to be a “moderate” is demonstrably false.
More specifically, an attempt at false labeling of your radical ideas.
Thanks, Mr. Monk.
I understand and appreciate your point.
Last night, Mark Sell was clearly put up to do something stupid, time-wasting, and demeaning of whatever leadership gifts he might possess. Suzanne Volpe must have some kind of mind-control thing working over him.
Second only to Mark Sell’s barely coherent speech, Suzanne Volpe’s dilatory and disruptive comments were the worst oratories given last night.
What is perhaps most purplexing about Mark Sell’s conduct is that he was given four, count ‘em FOUR opportunities to cure his conduct and back off his ridiculous claims: twice by Chairman Caroline, one by Bruce Tulloch’s superb inquiry, and one more through Charlie King’s friendly admonition. Mark Sell spurned each of these four chances to redeem himself before the body and avoid further degradation.
It now makes no sense for Mark Sell to continue on in his quest to be LCRC
Chairman and he should do the following immediately:
1) Walk down the hall at NRA HQ and apologize to Glen Caroline for disrupting the meeting;
2) Step down from his candidacy for LCRC Chairman; and finally
3) Get professional help to wean himself from his Ubermistress Suzanne Volpe.
Tim, in the following weeks, if he isn’t weaned, I’ll abandon hope for him.
James, I’m not accusing you of anything. Please feel free to state unequivocally that you’re pro-union if you wish. If you do that, I won’t state that you’re anti-union anymore. I’m well aware of who Lane Kirkland is, and I’m well aware that he advocated “deregulation” of labor relations. What I view as anti-union is simply that – a belief that labor unions are inherently bad, union “bosses” are inherently corrupt, and a nation without unions would be better off than one with them. If you disagree with those statements, feel free to say so unequivocally. I will gladly apologize and retract my belief. But you can’t fault me (or anyone else here) for having it – because nothing you have ever said would lead any rational person to believe that you think unions are in any way beneficial.
.
I have been called many things in my years in politics, but radical is a new one. I’ll take it as a compliment. If believing in democracy (even in the workplace) is radical, I’ll gladly accept that moniker.
Suzanne really blew it last night. She had the floor on the Canvass matter 2 or 3 times for 10 minutes and rather than make her motion, she decided to pontificate on and on with nonsense about the precinct over-fiing, just to look like she knew what she was talking about I presume. She never got to the point when Dean Coursen finally shut her down. Whatever she was trying to do went down in flames with no true understanding from the members.
I think she she blew it so bad on the Canvass, she comanded her peeps to waste everyones time on the by-laws, and for what? For nothing gained except making Mark look like a fool and having him fall on his own sword opposing mostly irrelevant RPV mandated by-law changes. What a disaster!
Mark, after last night, I wouldnt trust Suzanne with the campaign “strategery” for another minute.
Tim, we are in total agreement. Mark needs to apologize to Glen and to the rest of us. Suzanne needs to do the same.
I suspect that Mark has considered withdrawing his bid for chair after Tuesday night’s debacle. I also suspect that Suzanne and Jo-Ann are desperately trying to make him stay in this race, a race that he knows he cannot win. Poor guy, if he doesn’t withdraw the embarrassments will continue to pile up. But Suzanne and Jo-Ann don’t care. Why would they? They’ve set Mark up and are happy to let him take the fall, again.
Did anyone else think Jo-Ann looked tremendous in those tight black pants at the LCRC meeting?
Love Lady, Tim, LI, Monk and all – I have read and heard some feedback from several people that are unaware of the whys and hows this happened at the meeting. Several members had guests with them and are embarrassed their committee was portrayed in this manner. I know there is spin happening on the other side of this debacle and I fear many people are unaware and don’t realize the ramifications. While I don’t think Mark Sell has a shot at winning this thing, the discontent this is breeding among a few could be like a virus. I don’t want it to spread.
*
I think we all have to continue to be vigilant in our portrayal of the committee’s achievements and unity during the past 2 years. Glen gave credit where it is due on Tues and we need to continue with that message. We can’t work as a unit with big divisions. Our candidate is the one that can provide continuity and unity – we are all on the same side! We need to advance – not continually look behind – the stakes are too high. Spread the message as we have been.
Loudoun Lady, couldn’t agree more. Long before you were a member, those who pulled this stunt were the inventors of the whisper campaign. Fortunately, there is more video than what BVBL captured. Several of us recorded the whole fiasco of their attempt, especially the stars of the production.
If anyone has good video, send it to me and I’ll post it.
.
Ashburn Watcher makes a great point. You would think they would have wanted to make their stand on the canvass issue rather than the mundane party plan stuff, most of which was required to bring the plan into compliance with recent RPV plan changes. Instead of having a mass meeting where they could whip out more “Roberts Rules of Torture” maneuvers to drive normal people home and wait until they had a majority of diehards left, we know have a much easier format to deal with getting people to vote. Suzanne Volpe is lost and in her own self-important world. Hey if anyone out there has the photos and good photo shop skills, I’d love to have a shot of Sell’s head on Volpe’s arm like the puppet he seems to be!
Wow, just like Democrats. God forbid there should be an open discussion. My wife was there. All she saw was Mark make two motions:
1. can we discuss/explain the raft of changes
Ans No.
2. since the answer was no, can we vote on each one separately?
I guess this is torture. I love the overwrought responses. I love all the anger. Yup. A measured response. For all the deep thinkers here, if not at the LCRC committee where should we ask for a public explanation of the changes to the bylaws?
This is personal. A Democrat style politics of personal destruction. Pure and simple. If asking to debate in a PUBLIC forum illicits this kind of response, we as a party need a little self reflection. Does the word hysterical conjure up any images?
When is this party going to grow up and realize that someone disagreeing with you, or inconveniencing you, is not cause for personal attack.
Jacob my friend you are missing the point.
There were no legitimate concerns over the changes / document / harmonization process. The guy making the objection was the guy who helped author the changes. This was an example of some creating a solution to a problem that did not exist in order to make themselves look like they were actually doing something. It was BS ! It was Political theater. Further, Mark was asked two WEEKS ago at our excom meeting if there were any issues. I was there, I was in the room. There were no issues. All of a sudden in front of the assembled committee , now there are issues. It is BS, pure and simple. They can spin this until they screw themselves into the group it will not change. This was a case of a political Cluster Fox Trot.
There is no there there.
group=ground
Jacob, I don’t mind discussion – and the discussion would have lasted 5 minutes if Mark had been upfront with the problems he had with proposed changes. The reason Mark only said 2 things was because he would not speak when asked what the problem was when discussion was open. Not one peep!
*
Mark is on the committee that wrote the by-laws changes. If there had been a problem – was that not the first place to bring them up? 4-5 opportunities presented themselves and all were ignored. Why didn’t he talk? Will you ask him? Please tell us why this was blown out to such huge proportions? I have done no name calling – it doesn’t have to resort to this.
*
No one was denied the right to speak. It was totally bizarre. I can’t believe people walked out of that room and thought Mark was somehow gagged.
Jacob, you have been taken to the woolshed by LL and G. Stone. They are absolutely correct. Does Sell have a speech impediment or something that doesn’t let him speak up when he’s troubled? He had plenty of opportunities to speak up during the committee meetings, and chose not to do so. He then had plenty of opportunities to speak up with specific concerns at the meeting, yet he said basically nothing while Suzanne Volpe did all the talking for him. It was a pathetic display of “leadership” if that’s what he was trying to convey.
LL, they know he wasn’t. Welcome to the old committee way. They NEED the twisted logic to “imply” that he was. And that’s the spin they will put on it when they go out to recruit people. Those people will never know the truth, because they’ve heard a bunch of manipulative BS used as a recruiting tool.
I’m late to this party, and, since I don’t live in the 10th, I couldn’t have brought a very satisfying hot dish in any event. But I thought the more interesting story in all of this was how quickly Cuccinelli jumped in to back Howie Lind. Don’t you think one of the last things you’d do if you just were elected to a statewide office of high public trust is to come charging into an intra-party contest? I found that very bizarre and reflective of the worst sort of political judgment. The other story, perhaps commented on in another thread, was that Rich’s decision not to run may reflect Congressman Wolf’s intentions about running again.
Jokes on me. Sorry folks. I parked this under the wrong post. Oh well. The shipwreck of old age is not a pleasant thing, as General de Gaulle once observed. If I gave you the gift of laughter, it’s all worth it.
Frank is announcing his run for office on February 5th. While it’s very sad that Jim cannot run again due to his Dad’s illness, that has nothing to do with Frank’s intention to run.
http://www.wolfforcongress.com/
http://thebulletproofmonk.blogspot.com/2010/01/congressman-frank-wolfs-birthdaykickoff.html
A couple points I would like to make:
1) There were 9 items in the LCRC By-Laws. One of them had no change at all. That leaves 8 items being changed. Of these, 2 – 25% – were rejected. If the RPV charter applied in all matters, why bother to vote on ANY of them?
If they should all have been voted on as a unit, what would that have done to the vote? Doesn’t the fact the 25% of the changes were defeated indicate that it WAS a useful thing to consider each of these changes individually?
2) The last time these proposed changes were sent around was quite some while ago. I understand that we didn’t have the attendance on the previous try, to allow us to vote on the changes. But why wasn’t the draft sent back out ahead of this meeting? Business effectiveness experts would remind us that for each meeting, we should have a PLAN – People, Location, Agenda (including the items to be voted on), and then Notes to summarize.
3) I was standing near John Grigsby. He wasn’t on the line to any swami, but was listening to a national Tea Party conference call. Not sure whether he is not still an LCRC member, but in any case it was an example of conflicting obligations, and the call ran over its planned time.
Speaking of John…can anyone else tell me what THEY did when the Board of Stupidvisors decided to ignore the results of the Bond Referendum, and instead used County Development Bonds to finance the new Government Center?
Anyone?
4) I have worked with Mark for years. While Candace has a great resume, why haven’t I seen her at an LCRC meeting before this last one?
BLAAHAHHHAHAHAH LMAOF! Mark Sell won because he is a conservative and not a RINO like so many of you here on this blog. Get used to it we conservatives are back and we will have a litmus test for candidates. Those of you who seem to spew so much venom about our Chairman Mr. Sell bare even know him or how hard he has worked over the years for the LCRC. Strothers was another RINO Country Clubber plant who was soundly defeated by the growing number of common sense conservatives in the GOP who really want change we can believe in!