No Big Surprise – LCRC Goes For Convention

By Loudoun Insider

I ventured out to the LCRC meeting tonight for what was sure to be a night of fireworks, but was somewhat disappointed.  Instead of fireworks I saw the moderate faction of the LCRC demolished with barely a whimper.  Debate was cut off pretty quickly only a couple rounds into the expected tug of war of “primaries build the party” vs. “the Democrats will take over” drama that permeates every such debate. 

For all of the talk from some about how neck and neck the balanace of power was in the LCRC, the so-cons totally destroyed the moderates tonight in the firehouse primary vs. convention battle.  It was nowhere near close.  Convention it will be.  Of course this makes no sense when there are only two contested races, but what the Black Brigade wants it gets in the LCRC.

The biggest complaint from nearly everyone is that Mark Sell seems to have no sense of how to enforce time limits on candidates.  Someone, please give Mark Sell an egg timer before the next meeting.  Candidates droned on for as long as it pleased them, while people slowly slipped away.  Verne Dickerson looked back at his notes for a long time at one point, only to have people start to clap to move him off the stage (he kept going).  Steve Stockman suggested that people take a seventh inning stretch later on, only to lose half his audience as people saw an opportunity to run out the door.  Absolutely horrendous management of candidate time – they need to get a handle on this.  Please, for every LCRC members’ sake and innocent bystanders such as myself.

The hottest fireworks of the night came as Dick Black, Bob FitzSimmonds, and John Stirrup all battled over who was the rightful heir to the Ken Cuccinelli endorsement.  The thought of even trying to explain this further brings on a rush of nausea, so I’ll let others argue about it in comments.  I can only imagine the number of phone messages and emails The Cooch is dealing with right now as he attempts to sort this out.  Please, put this issue to rest soon before people have aneurisms about it.


  • G.Stone says:

    Moderate faction ? from the start your report lands in the ditch. Any relevent observations are now tainted. You really need to get a clue.

  • The Cuccinelli endorsement is amusing.

    Black’s site still shows an endorsement

    Stirrup’s site shows an endorsement

    and Simmonds site has an explanation of last night’s explanations (also pointing out that the Black Brigade’s interruption of his speech was factually inaccurate)

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Like it or not, Stone, that’s the way your group is commonly referred to. I agree you’re not very moderate, but the people you hang with are in comparison to the rest of the LCRC. And I see the clique is still going with the “I don’t have a clue” theme. What a load. Face the facts – you guys were absolutely embarassed last night. Maybe you guys need to reassess your recent methods. They don’t seem to be working so well. Since you people have taken your eyes off the ball you have gone from a self professed 50-50 split to being outvoted 3-1 at least. Your continued obssessions with first taking down Mike Chapman and now me have done absolutely nothing for your bottom lines and alienated many former supporters. For such great strategists its amazing how far you’ve fallen in such a short time.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    FWIW – I wasn’t embarrassed at all. There were reasonable motions and discussion by some very thorough and reasonable folks but in the end we didn’t have the voice votes. I heard more complaints about the method of voting than anything.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    You’re halfway reasonable, and not obssessed like the others, so of course you had no need to be embarrassed. I was amazed at how lopsided the vote was, especially after hearing ad nauseum how close the balance of power was in the committee.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Wait a minute.

    G and LL are considered moderates in the LCRC?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Thanks for the Cooch endorsement links, Lloyd, how fascinating. I think we’ll have a sword fight to determine the winner at some point. In looking at Black’s endorsement page, I wonder how many others will jump ship now that he’s moving (again) into another district to run against two other candidates with strong ties in the party.

  • LloydTheIdiot says:

    Stone, would you prefer replacing “moderate” with “rational?”

  • TruthseekerVA says:

    I don’t get it…who does the convention benefit in the two contested races? Steve Stockman?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    edmund, you need to go some time for the entertainment value. There was some entertaining school board candidate talk last night of saving school kids from the homosexual agenda. And talk from a Sheriff’s candidate about how he “will run the Department based on faith”. Real tent revival kind of stuff.

  • G.Stone says:

    “Your continued obssessions with first taking down Mike Chapman ”

    This is possibly the dumbest thing you have ever uttered. Simply clueless.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Not only am I a moderate but apparently I am only halfway reasonable! Yikes, I am either losing my moxie or going the way of 1/2 Troll – which is some serious shit.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    The Stockman folks like Kesari were the ones arguing most strenuously for a convention, bringing up the Dem boogey man again and again, so of course it helps Stockman, who would get crushed in a primary. Their only hope is a small drawn-out convention where they can try to eliminate as many York delegates as possible through challenges. It’s going to be the Jim Rich – Heidi Stirrup 10th District Convention all over again.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Puttng Stone and rational in the same sentence is obviously not applicable anymore. You and several others were absolutely on the anti-Chapman warpath for quite some time, although you seem to have calmed down lately. I guarantee you that episode did more than anything else to weaken the reach of your group of pals. I’m glad you’re over it now apparently, but the damage was done and the cows came home to roost last night.

    As far as the Sheriff race goes, Chapman is still the clear frontrunner, no matter what the method of nomination. Verne finally announced the expected hiring of Mark Davis to a high ranking position, but their two headed Sheriff ploy is going nowhere. Speakman remains without much of any base other than that he is trying to buy through donations.

  • G.Stone says:

    “Stone, would you prefer replacing “moderate” with “rational?”

    You sir have a clue. Words have meaning. When poor political assements are made while at the same time choosing poor language, those you report to support or have common interests are damaged. It happens here a lot.

  • G.Stone says:

    “You and several others were absolutely on the anti-Chapman warpath for quite some time, ”

    As I reach into my vest pocket and pull out the bullshit card. Bullshit !

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    What’s wrong with my political assessment, Stone? You guys were demolished last night, and your recent actions had something to do with it. How else did you guys go from 50-50 to 25-75?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Stone, just drop it before I pull out the evidence. It’s good for you that you’re no longer on the warpath because it was getting you nowhere.

    Instead of focusing on building their coalition, this gang decided to first have a fit about Mike Chapman and his campaign advisor, then went even more ballistic on me. In the process alienating quite a few people that should have been in their camp. All while the other side pretty much ignored these squabbles and continued doing the real work to win the nomination battles. How much of your time was spent on these two endeavors rather than lining up new LCRC members and such? Obviously way too much. Too late now.

  • G.Stone says:

    The KC endorsements were made prior to change in the lines. He endorsed both seperate prior to formation of the new district.

  • LloydTheIdiot says:

    Stone, you’ll recall that the Black folks blurted out during FitzSimmond’s presentation that the site had been fixed long ago. It’s one thing to be rude, but another thing to be rude and wrong.

  • G.Stone says:

    My comment has nothing to do with what Dick Black did or did not say. It was simply a statement of fact specific to the timing of said endorsements. KC endorsed John Stirrup some time ago, they have a long history of mutual support.

  • Jacob says:

    As usual LI misses the point by couching everything in factionalism. Brandy gave a good report, clearly outlining why a firehouse primary would be MORE expensive. Considering that the LCRC wants to spend LESS prior to the election, why spend a lot of money for TWO races? The firehouse primary will require more than ONE location, which is the single biggest cost driver. The machines cost a lot of money, and for a firehouse primary we will need machines. This about saving money.

  • RWN says:

    Jacob – Not only does LI miss the point, I’m befuddled he would align Glen Caroline and G. Stone as moderates. I guess LI was hoping for a mass protest or member resignation that seems to be the trend at the LCDC, but there’s no mistaking that the LCRC is a unified bunch, and the big tent has plenty of room for all who want to participate. I think Glen did a stand-up thing with his motion to pass the convention unanimously. The focus remains on defeating the Donkeys.

  • For someone who attacks Mark Sell etc for not working together, being dissapointed that the party was unified is hypocritical. Let’s be thankful there wasn’t a long drawn out debate. Caroline did a commendable thing in working to keep the party unified. We had debate, and when the motion to end debate was made there wasn’t much effort against that motion as I recall. There was one close voice vote, but noone chose to call division on that motion so everything was done very smoothly and fairly.

  • LCRC Newbie says:

    As a relative newcomer I was disappointed with the way the meeting was run. The candidates really do need to have limits on their time so people can get home to their families.

    All of this talk about unity is malarkey. You only have to talk to a few new people each time to see that half of the committee cannot stand the other half. No wonder so many people told me not to join.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Dear Lord, if you guys want to keep crowing about how unified you think you are, go right ahead. My main point here is most people thought it would be a close vote and it was nowhere near close. I said 3-1 but after talking to a couple other folks today, the consensus was it was more like 4-1. I also didn’t say that those on the other side are necessarily all that moderate by conventional standards, but they are by LCRC standards, and that is the way those folks are generally perceived within the LCRC.

  • SPQR says:

    The above is why I didn’t bother to renew my LCRC membership.

  • LloydTheIdiot says:

    Mark Sell should take what LI said to heart. More clearly defined and rigorously enforced time limits would greatly improve the meeting and ensure that the candidates are treated fairly.

    That said, I was pleasantly surprised by the calm and brevity of the discussion on the convention/primary issue. Perhaps it’s because Glen had the foresight to request a subcommittee examine the issue beforehand that the on-the-floor discussion was as civil as it was. I still voted against the convention, but the process did not seem manifestly unfair. One small thing to add, though, is that Mark should allow alternate comments from opposing sides rather than just taking the comment of whoever raises his hand first.

  • G.Stone says:

    Conflating unity of purpose and unity of process is a mistake.

  • Justin Time says:

    Wow, Mr. Stone. I am quite impressed with your vocabulary. Conflating- I thought that was what happened after I ate taco’s. Goes to show you what I know.

  • jacob says:

    Stoner, What do you mean? Where is there a lack of unity of purpose? I thought the LCRC was about winning elections. What has changed?

  • G.Stone says:

    Where is there a lack of unity of purpose


    The differences are in process.

  • G.Stone says:

    Justin Time:

    I conflate in your general direction.

  • Ric James says:

    I’m curious about how one would use the vote tally on a given issue as a barometer of how closely matched “factions” are within a given political party. That would only be true if 1 faction was simply reduced to voting in opposition to the another faction regardless of the issue being discussed or the specific motion being decided. Oh, and if the members of the given factions were merely drones, voting as their faction leadership said to vote regardless of their personal stances on the issues. Of course that’s only how those other people act, never us, right?

    Primaries vs. conventions has long been a point of contention but to speak of it as if it’s just a matter of trying to deny people support and participation with no other considerations is simply short-sighted. Considering the fiscal conservative bona fides of some of the people around here I would think that the argument about the cost of running primaries would be compelling, particularly since absolutely no argument has been offered that cost shouldn’t be a factor or that the cost isn’t as significant as it’s been stated.

    And people can poo-poo the concept of non-Republicans participating in the primaries all they like but for all the fact that I can’t prove that such participation has affected the party, neither is there proof that it hasn’t. Is it too much to ask that the decision of who a given party advances as their candidate for an election be made by actual members of the party? Until such time as Virginia decides to register voters’ party affiliations and use that to determine whether you get to participate in a primary, there remains a valid concern that non-members will exert undeserved influence on the process. Simply because one doesn’t believe it will happen or that it’s insignificant doesn’t make it make it so and casually dismissing those that have the concern merely invites being dismissed oneself.

  • G.Stone says:

    Ric James, welcome back.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Ric, the commenter above was one of those predicting gloom and doom if a convention was picked. For all the consternation about which way it was going to go, the vote was nowhere near close. That is significant and shows who has the upper hand in the constant and continuing intra-party power struggles.

Leave Comment