The New and Improved Dick Black. Now With 33% Less Craziness!

By Lloyd the Idiot

UPDATED with artwork to more appropriately reflect the  sentiment of the post.
It is amazing how some voters are so easily duped by politicians.  Obama was able to fool more than half the country with nothing more than a big bag of hope.  Clinton was able to convince millions that he “did not have sex with that woman” just by saying it.

Apparently, we have that same kind of thing going on right here with Dick Black.  Several commenters on this blog and elsewhere, formerly skeptical of Mr. Black’s odd antics and carpetbaggery, have now become born-again members of the Black Brigade.  Seems he’s managed to convince them that he’s a changed man, no longer espousing the plastic fetus-mailing views he held as a . . . . cough. . . young man all those ten years ago.  Nope.  Now, he’s all about the economy, transportation, jobs.  None of that anti-gay, anti-everything stuff he used to say.  To everyone.

Got news for you, boys.  You’re been had. Black is playing the oldest game in the politician handbook: tell people what they want to hear.  And you are willingly suspending disbelief just because he’s the Republican nominee giving you some attention.  Wake up, people!


  • This raises a question I had to consider not long ago myself: how do you decide whom to support when you believe in your party, but its nominee is not the better candidate?

    I believe in my party and would be willing to see its less-than-perfect nominees win elections for the sake of preserving the overall welfare of the party that I am sure presents the best agenda for my community, state, and nation. At times, preserving that welfare–because of the long-term good it can do–can be enough to justify supporting a less-than-perfect nominee (and, yes, none of us is actually perfect; you know what I mean) even when the other party’s nominee might, in a comparison isolated from the long-term issues, be a better choice. I know I’m not alone in this, because of all the people who have told me they are Republicans, but voted for me in 2007.

    Putting it more simply, I’m willing to vote for a few inferior candidates who are members of my party, if that’s what it takes to help my party as a whole accomplish the good things it is seeking to do, but not always.

    When a candidate just isn’t going to be helping the party’s welfare, and is not the best choice, then, imho, the right thing for an American citizen to do is put loyalty to party aside in favor of loyalty to country (or county, as the case may be).

    Depending on who you are and how you do it, prices can vary. But if you know your guy just ain’t fit to serve, the price is always worth paying.

    I hope local loyalists on both sides of the aisle will see it my way in Col. Black’s race, and a couple of others, come November.

  • Oh, just for the record, I don’t think Pres. Clinton convinced millions he didn’t have sex with that woman. I’d say it was, maybe, a couple of dozen, at most.

  • Lloyd says:

    Mr. Stevens, I often have held my nose and voted for the nominee of my party, but I cetainly didn’t become a convert and deny his shortcomings just because he got the nomination, which is exactly what it seems like these guys have done.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    News flash – he’s still overly fixated on gay sex:

  • Lloyd says:

    But, LI, that was almost a whole year ago, way back when he was just 103 – and before he got the nomination. He’s not at all the same now. He’s matured.

  • BlackOut says:

    Well how about that. The disgusting stuff was still coming out of Black’s mouth back in May of last year. Thanks for reminding us LI.

    This really isn’t a new tactic for Black. Back in the day, he crafted and refined the art of deception. He’s good at it. Look at his deception associated with his record. He’s still saying he was responsible for Rt 28. It was a bunch of hog wash then and it’s a bunch of hog wash now. He’s a pathological liar. I’ve seen it first hand.

  • George Pickering says:

    I’m an American first, a Republican second. So I will do what is best for the country over what is best for my party. The right candidate shouldn’t be penalized because he is the member of the wrong party. The wrong candidate shouldn’t be rewarded because they belong the right party.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Mr. Miller, you are all wrong on this one.

    In the general, you ALWAYS pick the best candidate. You ignore party. If the candidate is the better, then they are supporting the agenda you want in the main anyway.

    What is in the best interests of your party is not having more cannon fodder for votes, but the best people come to the fore. If that candidate is not the best then making him or her an incumbent only damages your party.

    Sometimes it is OK to skip an election and get a better candidate up next time.

    You and Liz have to vote Republican every time it makes sense. Just as I have (and will) vote democrat when they put up the better person. Once you get to the general, it should no longer be about your party.

    If it is, then that is EXACTLY what is wrong with politics.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    By the way, you will notice on this site a large number of people willing to cross party. In some cases – especially on the Republican side – we are being attacked for not being 100% party loyalists.

    In my case, I am questioning whether to support Buona after he took money from MCDean. I will likely start coming out against Black unless he renounces the nonsense he did before. Not change direction, but actually renounce.

    On the other hand, Minchew rocks and there are plenty of great Republicans out there. But there are a few of those Republicans that probably need not to win this time so we get even better people going after those seats next time.

  • Member, McGimsey Aides Support Group says:

    At the Chamber forum yesterday, Buona, York, Reed & Delgaudio were singing the “you must vote for us all” and “don’t tread on me” songs. It disgusted me to no end! Buona and Delgaudio can’t be bothered with conflicts of interest when it comes to campaign finance, especially regarding mega financier and Chamber sponsor, MC Dean – they both have tough questions to answer. The only difference between Tea Party loyalists Delgaudio and Buona is that Delgaudio is happy to boast of his shortcomings, and Buona is a “no show” at everything not Chamber related, so he refuses to answer for any of his actions. York was chanting the “GOP brotherhood” cheer, yet he has only joined the party…what…five minutes ago? This election has turned some peole I previously respected (except Delgaudio) into nut jobs, and they are no longer honorable, or to be trusted. I think we all owe our county, state and country better than to select a candidate based upon party affiliation…perhaps that’s what’s wrong with our country right now. Many have fought and died for freedom, and nowhere in any of their marching orders is it disclosed that they are sacrificing their lives for political ideologies…yet that’s what truly happens, and it’s time to call BS!

  • Do you suggest Chase supporters boycott David Ramadan because they did not get their way in the 87th? Do you want Whitbeck supporters to stand out this election because Minchew sought the endorsement of Russ Potts? No. Conservatives, and faithful Republicans, are grown up enough to realize there is a much bigger prize at stake here.

    We only need two seats to control the Senate, and for the first time since Reconstruction Republicans could have control of both Houses and the Governorship. Imagine what could be done in Virginia with Republicans finally in charge.

    … but all in the name of hatred of Col Dick Black some on this blog are advocating “Let’s wait for a better candidate.” and miss this ‘Once in a Century’ opportunity.


  • I know someone will say “Chase supporters are sueing Ramadan” I think they are idiots too.

  • JRyan says:

    This has got to be one of the dumbest posts on this site ever. Lloyd, maybe people actually have an open mind, talked to Dick and found out he wasn;t so bad after all, could that be possible? I think LI is fixated on gay sex, he keeps searching for it…

  • Lloyd says:

    The fact is that any R is going to vote with the majority of Rs 90% of the time, so, in essence, you really are voting the party and not the candidate. The problem comes when the party’s candidate is so distasteful to even those who support the party’s agenda that “hold your nose and vote” just won’t work. That’s how a lot of Rs feel about Mr. Black.

    The problem I have is not those who vote for Black because he’s the R nominee – there are, quite fairly, varying degrees of willingness to support for the party’s agenda despite a bad candidate. The problem I have is with those who say that Black has now changed his stripes. Either they are painfully naive or completely disingenuous. Take your pick.

  • BlackOut says:

    When you have a narcissist like Black carpet bagging the state; add in a horrendous record of being able to get anything worthwhile done; and layer that with his hate; there is no justification for supporting him.

  • Fred says:

    BO – As opposed to the love you and your posse contstanly show Col. Black? Not a week goes by without a hateful remark directed to Black. Not a week goes by without LI having to mention gay sex. I think it says more about you guys than it does Mr. Black.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I just released JRyan’s comment from moderation – is that you, Jack? I was going to delete it for the ridiculous assertion at the end but thought it better to leave it as is and approve it so you can see the true nature of his character. Sorry, I’ve never searched for gay sex at any point in my life.

    I see the LI Haters are continuing with the LI is gay theme they’ve been pushing. Nice. Go listen to Black’s radio interview and his past statements to see who is really fixated on gay sex acts.

  • Loudoun Moron says:

    Is that the same John Ryan running for school board?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Probably not him, probably the son. I’ve asked him to confirm that’s him so I can write a post about his ridiculous comment. I’ve about had it with the LI is gay theme.

  • BlackOut says:

    Lloyd, unlike JRyan’s bizarre post, I find this thread to be one of the best of the season. Sometimes the truth hurts to those called out.

  • Lloyd says:

    Thanks, JR, you help prove my point. These others who have switched have only done so because Black supposedly said he has changed his evil ways. What is it about Black that has REALLY changed? Nothing!

    As as for the gay remark, JR, what are you in 5th grade? It does, however, fit well with the level of intelligence, sophistication and relevance of other LI haters’ remarks.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Are there going to be debates this year?

  • BlackOut says:

    ed, I sure hope so. Black is terrible (entertaining) in a debate. He can’t handle being confronted with his confrontation views. Nor can he handle challenges to his obscure memory of how effective he is.

    My guess is he will avoid a debate like the plague, at least that is how his handlers will deal with it.

  • Ravi Oli says:

    Mr. Fred, Ravi is getting very uncomfortable with the slipperiness of the slope that you are sliding down.

    First you say to Mr. Blackout, “Not a week goes by without a hateful remark directed to Black.”

    Then you say to Mr. Loudoun Insider, “Not a week goes by without LI having to mention gay sex.”

    Ravi is most hopeful that your next “Not a week goes by” statement will not intimate (verb) anything further about El Pene’ Del Negro and gay sex in the same paragraph. It is unseemly, unbecoming, unnatural, and unctuous. It is certainly no way to speak about a man who is attempting to set a Virginia state record for the number of different jurisdictions in which he has run as a candidate for elected office.

    Ravi does not mean to admonish you, Mr. Fred, but as is sometimes said in the place where Ravi comes from, “Keep it clean, Gene!”

  • Scout says:

    If Black openly states that he has reconsidered his past positions and finds them inadequate to today’s issues, one has to take him seriously. Otherwise, I think one has to assume that he still adheres to the goofiness of his previous career and that he’s toning it down now because he realizes the electorate is not as easily scammed as in the past.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Scout, he doesn’t say this publicly, he only says it to the people he feels he needs to convince that he’s changed. He’s not changing his ways at his age.

  • Independent Voter says:

    Is there going to be a debate and where are these events publicized? I only learn about them after the fact.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    Clarke is playing the same game of tell ’em what they want to hear. Her newest thing is she claims she will recuse herself if any of her contributors come before the board. At least she is reported to having said this in a private meeting. No public statement. Of course, that is going to be hard to do when one of her biggest contributors is In Support of Community Service PAC. Maybe she knows who they are – do we?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Eric, did you cut and paste this on to the proper thread?

    I know it’s hard to be a one-man bash Clarke everywhere, all the time, but this looks like a total non-sequitor here–I mean even more than usual.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    It is a bit off-topic, Eric!

    Don’t worry, I have another post coming up soon on the latest Bill Dean money bomb donations.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    Indeed a LITTLE off topic but I think it looks like a trend here. The R candidates seem to be taking the tactic of supposedly having a private conversation off line somewhere to address legitimate criticisms against them and then having one of their toadies report on the new commitment/promise. Conveniently while never going on the record.

  • Lloyd says:

    Eric, I.think your comment is directly on point with the point post- that being,.the naivete or.deceit of the mouthpiece of a candidate’s reform.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Are you really saying that we shouldn’t buy everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth??? Could that possibly be true? You don’t think politicians would tell people what they want to hear, all while doing the direct opposite, do you?

    (sarcasm alert on full bore, of course)

Leave Comment