David Ramadan – Unfit for Public Office

By Lloyd the Idiot

Let me begin by saying I supported David Ramadan.  Early on, when he was appointed to the George Mason University Board of Visitors, I was among the first to congratulate him.  When he was the subject of protests by wing nut anti-Muslims, I was among the first to defend him.

But something happened somewhere along the campaign trail, and that something is deeply troubling.  Now Nixonesque in his no-holds-barred approach to campaigning and countering dissent, Ramadan has proven my support woefully misplaced.

From the beginning, his campaign has been odd.  At times, he defended his inflammatory support of the mosque at Ground Zero, and at times he attempted to explain it away.  At times, he defended his Muslim beliefs, and at times he stressed a Christian background.  When criticized for his overcompensation in these areas and others, he angrily confronted his detractors.  What really seems to have revealed more fatal character flaws, however, was his contentious primary battle with Jo-Ann Chase.  

Ramadan never publicly denied his involvement in an epic smear campaign against Chase, which dug up very personal items from Jo-Ann’s past including her medical history and family problems.  Quite the opposite, he used that information himself in one of his many large glossy mailers in which he publicly lambasted Jo-Ann on a private child custody issue.  It was disgusting, and certainly unbecoming anyone seeking public office.  His aggressive tactics, poor demeanor and vitriol didn’t end there.  When later challenged on his residency, he whined that Jo-Ann was “using the tactics of third world despots to try to intimidate me.”


Funny he should say that.


Ramadan recently tried some intimidation tactics of his own.  In an attempt to silence an inconsequential blogger, he revealed the bloggers identity to a third party whom he believed had some financial control over the blogger, and requested the third party take action against the blogger.  When confronted by the blogger about it, he neither told the truth nor apologized.  In fact, the next day, he had the nerve to go back to the third party and ask assistance again.

The only success Ramadan has had with this tactic, as well as the others described above, is to prove clearly that he is not a man to be trusted or tolerated.  Having taken such extreme measures in a campaign for a $17,000 a year job, imagine what he would do once in office and vested with more power.  It’s simply not a risk we can afford to take.

As I’ve said before, this 87th HOD race has been a disaster for the Republicans, having put forth two completely unfit candidates to choose from.  The only way it could get any worse is if one of them were elected.


  • Tom says:

    Sorry, I don’t know Greg or Dean well but, I can say that for the short time that I have been around the LCRC, they stand up for what they believe in and work tirelessly in support of candidates. I think they have the big picture in mind. Which some folks around here could take some time to do.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Normally I would take someone to task for such a statement, but in this case he’s pretty much right on when talking about the LCRC’s resident tough guy.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Tom, those two are puffed up obnoxious guys with inflated senses of their own importance.

  • John of Loudoun says:

    Oh, and not that I have boots tall enough to wade into all your claims above, let me say again that Clizbe was, according to him, an LCRC member who after his first meeting decided he lacked the patience to stay on. Also, he lives in Ashburn, which I thought was in the new 87th district. I set Clizbe up to meet with Ramadan because something smelled rotten and , having myself checked out 3 claims Ramadan had made to everyone at the LCRC meeting, and concluded that he was trafficking in or creating lies, I decided to take David up on his offer to meet with me, and to ask that Clizbe, whose professional experience makes him good at detecting lies come along too.

    What’s strange is this whole notion that what was wrong with that meeting was Clizbe’s presence, and not Ramadan’s refusal to answer questions about his past.

    The last bit of silliness I’d like to dispel is that I deliberately hid my involvement. Unlike some people who live to blog, I have other pursuits. I consider blogging and posting to be a great way of wasting time. I’d rather move the ball forward than talk about the ball. Eventually things slowed down to the point where I decided i had time to read and respond. I have 4 kids, a long commute, a real job, and other interests. Time on blogs ranks way below all that.

  • Tom says:

    I could understand Mr. Ramadan feeling somwhat ambushed based on the circumstances of this innocent little meeting.

  • John of Loudoun says:

    Yours is a faur statement, Tom. If I was from Sicily and had a business that brought Sicilians here, at great personal profit, and had active continuing and familial ties to Sicily, I would feel nervous if someone set me up to meet with a former G man.

  • John of Loudoun says:

    Oh, and Tom I forget to add that if my ex-wife’s dad was connected…

    Yeah, nervous as a cat I would be. You make a great point.

  • BlackOut says:

    If Clizbe is anywhere involved, integrity just went out the window.

    What a mess this entire 87th GOP thing is. Top to bottom.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, it isn’t beginning–it’s just moved over here now from several other venues where it really began before the convention. The door has now been opened here, so John can lather, rinse and repeat.

    John, you used several of your stock responses. Thanks, I’ll recycle too.

    I see that I’m okay on all the issues with which you agree. How nice!

    I am a “consumerist” who is now done because I have what I want? I know that you live in the woods and home school, so you have a basic lack of understanding that government is in the business of some services, but it doesn’t jibe with your no-tax-ever outlook nor, more importantly, if it is not something you agree with it shouldn’t exist.

    I know you used to be a liberal who found God and saw the light, but I hate to break it to you: you may fight for some conservative causes now but your tactics and many of your motivations are still unreconstructed rabid progressive.

    You personally are not in charge of the concepts, words or terms “Republican”, “Christian”, “conservative”, “tea” or “party”. Sorry.

    I see you have conveniently failed to recall the purpose of our set-up meeting for the other friend you were manipulating in one of your no fingerprints machinations back then, much as you fail to recall what versions of stories you have posted on which sites.

    My failing memory will help you: you found a recent move-in to western Loudoun who had a hell of a resume, and you wanted to use him to attack the school budget. Knowing zero about it, you needed someone who did, so I got one of those “gee, can you help me out with something oh! and is it okay if I bring a friend? You’ll like him!”

    What succeeded was enough sucking of my brain to allow this poor guy to be your front man that year, and I say poor guy because he was apparently in the beginning stages of an unfortunate decline (did you know? did it matter?) and he made a very well publicized fool of himself, and you got no soot on you because well, you as usual never put your name on it.

    I’ve had lots of those calls over the years.

    Your account of the bullshit Clizbe meeting does not jibe with the others I’ve heard from eyewitnesses, but hey, Clizbe says they’re scary henchmen so what do I know?

    Nothing, apparently.

    John, I’m not IN the party, and this is why.

    If I were, I’d swallow my rage and not castigate you publicly, for the good of the group. Head pats have nothing to do with it.

    That’s the part of belonging to a group that you don’t get and never will: it doesn’t exist simply for you to use it to have a pool of people to take advantage of for your own ends as you see fit.

    And spare me the usual “I’m just trying to make them be Republican” whine.

    The term is not proprietary to YOU, remember?

    When a group makes a decision and moves forward, you move with them, or you leave. You don’t stay and continue to make use of the resources to try to kill your supposed fellows.

    As for acumen, how DID your contributions to the Stockman campaign go? Mrs. Chase’s campaign won too, didn’t it? I can think of lots of them over the years that you’ve touched with your golden finger.

    I am fully prepared to go around with you yet again on this, after you’ve bowed out every other place you’ve put on the show, on the grounds that you’re a really important busy person who doesn’t have the time to argue with idiots who are wrong.

    I’d heard you’d finally been refocused on to some productive work in your own district. I hope that’s what you’re going back to.

  • TCJohnson says:

    Has Loudoun politics always been this full of the crazy?

  • Lloyd says:

    TC, I can only vouch for the last seven years, but, for that time, the answer would be YES.

  • G.Stone says:

    “Has Loudoun politics always been this full of the crazy?”

  • Lloyd says:

    *Editorial Note* Per a commenter’s request, I deleted a portion of comment from “John” that referenced the commenter’s employment.

  • Tom says:

    John- you prove my point exactly. I can see I wouldn’t want to be involved with anything you are putting together.

  • David says:

    Wait. John Grigsby is a libertarian? Now *that* is priceless.

    While it may be true that none of these terms are proprietary to anyone – please, invest in a basic dictionary.

  • John of Loudoun says:

    Ok, Barb, I confess to whatever you say!  Yes, the Bilderbergers are one of my front groups-just please stop sharing these incredible theories – you will exhaust the capacity of the Internet!

  • John of Loudoun says:

    Weintraub you animal you!


  • Barbara Munsey says:

    John, I seriously doubt you’re a Bilderberger.

    I also seriously doubt that invoking their name magically makes what I’ve said a “theory”.

  • What’s wrong with the Bilderbergers? They seem like a hard-working, financially sound group.

  • Newbie says:

    Well, THAT was interesting! NOT.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    As I said, newb: lather, rinse, repeat.

    Joe, yes they ARE! lol

  • John of Loudoun says:

    Has anyone else in the blogosphere experienced hallucinations where they are running through a dark tunnel or are strapped in a giant centrifuge, and you can’t escape a flat female voice that, no matter your response, continues to posit endless variations on lengthy complex theories involving yourself as some sort of politico-criminal mastermind? AM I THE ONLY ONE??? Aaaaaaaaa!!!! PLEASE PLEASE SHOOT ME NOW!!!!!

  • John of Loudoun says:

    And, Barb, re: my “golden finger”, I have supported Jeff Frederick, Bob Marshall, Dick Black, Steve Snow (shamed to say I recruited him – big dissapointment on fiscal, which of course you don’t care about), Protic, Domenech, Whitener, Volpe, Sell, Albright (did very well against Burton) and I also supported and recruited long-shot candidates meant to punish big spending Republicans. Sound more relevant than your scant political record. Congrats, however, that Ramadan and York will give you a nice pat on the head now. Must be an outstanding feeling!

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Ramadan likes to hand out checks more than he likes to pat people on the head.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    John, you’re reimaging again.

    Where did I call you a mastermind?

    You are a bomb thrower.

    You are a mirror image of the kids at the park in NYC protesting everything incoherently.

    You personally are not responsible for the success of any candidates you have occasionally supported, but I believe you personally had quite a bit to do with Stockman’s campaign failure, as well as Mrs. Chase’s.

    Your current diversion is head pats, okay.

    Most real people don’t trade in those as prime currency, but I can understand your projection of them as a bad thing, since it is MUCH more satisfying and effective to collect summonses, and have the piercing bittersweet joy of being able to constantly rage against the machine from the perennially pure and angry edges.

    You’re batting 1.000 so far this year–keep up the good work. In fact, maybe you could earn some extra by hiring out: any number of campaigns might find it worth their while to pay you to support their opponent.

    You are on the same side of some races as people you despise, revile, and have worked against, why NOT?

    I know, I know, you’re too principled.

    You’re a pretty good example of the endgame of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and it has to do with your completely malleable and self-reflexive “principles”: everyone is an enemy sooner or later, and after a while you run out of passes from friends, and the frenemies don’t have any more regard for you than you do for them.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Not saying anything about the issues, but these words are poetry!

    “it is MUCH more satisfying and effective to collect summonses, and have the piercing bittersweet joy of being able to constantly rage against the machine from the perennially pure and angry edges.”

  • John of Loudoun says:

    Yeah, she’s a poet, alright, but there she goes again, making things up out of thin air ( eg I caused Stockman to lose, and I had something to do with collecting summonses) when clearly, from her perch she has way of knowing this to be true.

    Barb, do actually believe your claims to be true, or is this a deliberate effort to make things up to take attention off your man Ramadan, the subject of this thread?

  • John of Loudoun says:

    And no, Barb, I did not shoot JFK … or Lincoln. Hope that statement will save the Internet another 10 MB of storage!

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    John, now you’re just being an ass.

    When did I place you on the grassy knoll, or at Ford’s?

    Nice textbook progressive projection though, to bring it up while accusing me of diversion.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Enough diversion from both of you. I’m going to start enforcing this more strictly.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “…the piercing bittersweet joy of being able to constantly rage against the machine from the perennially pure and angry edges.”

    Sounds like a fun scene to me! Barb, I think I’ve seen you at that rave before, too!!

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Projecting is progressive?

    I guess if the alliteration works…

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Yep eb, classic.

    Your prerogative to police, LI, your blog.

  • Joe Umbadli says:

    Wow you are just another bigoted racist and you do not like David because he is a Muslim. Your name loydd the idiot is correct because racists like you are idiots.

  • liberal anthropologist says:


    I can assure you as a matter of fact that Lloyd is not anti Muslim. His positron against Ramadan was based on Ramadan himself and not religion. It is clear you are not familiar with this Site. Look further back in Lloyd’s posts and you will see he specifically attacks those who attacked Ramadan for religious reasons.

    And then look at the front Page of this Site today. You will see a post by me about Islam. Lloyd supported me writing on here and he knew I was a Muslim.

    I don’t know you, but your instinctual rush to call racism – an odd term for religious bias – says more about you. Criticizing people who are Muslims or black or whatever is completely in bounds. Your race or religion does not give you immunity from criticism. To do so would be racist.

    You have made a fool of yourself and owe Lloyd an apology.

Leave Comment