E.W. Jackson Needs to Step Down for the Sake of Cuccinneli

By Liberal Anthropologist

I have been looking at the statements and positions of Jackson over the last few days. It is critical that Conservative Republicans win in the state of Virginia and the process we have just used is a failure. We have put forth someone who has already embarrassed the candidate for governor and will only continue to. I have watched him speak and read his writings. And while he says many things which are smart and conservative, he is clearly not a true and consistent conservative and wishes to use government to achieve his particular pet goals.  He says things which are outrageous and frankly unintelligent.  See this for example:


“At worst an atheist and a Muslim”.   As if those things are bad?!  Note the source and date.  Because this man was not vetted he will have his words plastered all over TV and will hurt a deserving Republican candidate.  His mouth runneth over with idiotic comments like these.  This is particularly true with regards to homosexuality where he engages in gay bashing at least as bad as our friend in Sterling.  He will turn off huge swaths of the electorate and that is even if he doesn’t say another word until after the election.

This is unacceptable in a conservative candidate. This is the agenda of right wing, statist liberals who have invaded the Republican party with their version of government interference in private lives.  They are little different or better than a leftist statist liberal.

Cuccinelli deserves a real partner and his party has failed him.  TEA party conservatives like me cannot stand by and let this kind of hijacking of our movement occur without saying clearly that people like Jackson so not represent us and are not welcome.

Jackson must RAPIDLY step down and give way to someone who represents small government conservatism and who will not become the SUBJECT and a huge distraction in the election.

Let me be clear that I will still vote for Cuccinnelli.  His opponent is far worse for the advance of small government ideals.  But this is a huge turn off and Cuccinnelli may well lose because of this kind of foolishness on the part of Republicans.

Truly disappointing.


  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Oh brother.

    “The Democrats will ridicule him! The Democrats will make him seem evil! The media will pounce on him!”

    How quickly we fold.

    Recall, LA, that the Democrats made Mitt Frickin’ Romney look like the second coming of Caligula and Mitt Romney is probably one of the most truly decent people who has ever walked the earth.

    They are going to ridicule ANYONE who threatens them. They will paint any genuine opponent as evil. That’s the playbook.

    The only Republican who will get fair treatment from Democrats is one who is dead, retired, or no impediment to their aims. (And you just watch, if a real GOP presidential threat emerges you will hear MSNBC hosts waxing nostalgic over the reasonable Mitt Romney).

    So the argument that EW Jackson has given the opposition too much ammunition to use against him is just the fearful way of framing the fact that EW Jackson does not exist behind a filter as most politicians do.

    Sure that creates risks. But the filter creates risks as well. It can cause politicians to sound like answering machines, fumbling for words, inauthentic. Ask Jim Gilmore or George Allen how it worked out for them.

    While appearing on the goofball Victoria Jackson’s show is likely not near the top of anyone’s list when choosing preferred venues for publicizing a cause, we take what we can get, as Bishop Jackson did at that time. Certainly her grating persona accentuates the message EW’s detractors are desperately trying to stoke, that he is somehow off.

    The central fact is he has opinions on touchy subjects, as do we all. The other central fact is he is really a good man, without malice, extremely intelligent, and he presents himself effectively just as he communicates everything effectively. I think when the public gets to know him, his actual personality will overwhelm the caricature. He will not get painted into a box, as Sarah Palin did. He will be the bringer of heartburn to Democrat strategists.

    (His revelation yesterday, that “certainly” he used to smoke cannabis, and leans toward decriminalization, is just the first shot across the bow of the narrative makers).

    We will have to follow the court of public opinion to determine whether EW can make a positive impression during the coming months. Many of us believe that we need more leaders willing to doff the filters, err on the side of straight talk, and punch back twice as hard.

  • Dan says:

    LA, I believe I hear the sound of thousands of machetes being unsheathed all over right wing land. I hope you are prepared to be viciously attacked as a result of this post.

    His selection at a convention is not completely shocking. Those present represented the fringe (can’t have those squishy primary voters nominating someone with mainstream appeal). And I’m guessing that those who remained to the final ballot were more like the fringe of the fringe. You probably had a number of people who represent about one tenth of one percent of the number who will vote in November picking this candidate.

    For this fringe of the fringe, the statements you find to be wrongheaded, unconservative and downright hateful are not a bug. They are a feature. They don’t have a problem with it. They love it.

    You’ve already seen in the comments on other threads the whining about how the Democrats are already “unfairly” trying to paint this guy as extreme. I guess if by painting unfairly you mean accurately quoting his public statements in full context then it’s unfair.

    The campaign will be interesting because when his very disturbing public utterances are fully and accurately quoted (as they certainly should be) I expect he will double down on the hateful and crazy rather than try to obfuscate like the typical winger. If so, we’ll have to give him points for consistency. If he tries to dance around his previously demonstrated nutzery he’ll just look like an opportunist along with everything else.

    Congratulations on your LG candidate. He’s a doozy.

  • Dan says:

    “At worst an atheist and a Muslim”

    “As if those things are bad?!”

    I see your problem, LA. You seem to have read the First Amendment to the Constitution. So you understand that a citizen who is an atheist or a Muslim or a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever other belief their conscience dictates is entitled to hold those beliefs unmolested in the United States and to exercise all the rights of citizenship.

    Frankly, it isn’t Jackson’s unalloyed bigotry against entire swaths of his fellow citizens that is the most shocking. It is the breathtaking stupidity of saying that someone is both an atheist and a Muslim at the same time. Last time I checked, atheists don’t believe in the existence of God and Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews.

    Actually, attributing Jackson’s ridiculous statement to ignorance or stupidity is giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he knows how stupid his remark was then one can only attribute his statement to pandering to the various bigotries of the audience he is attempting to appeal to. In that case the obvious factual and logical disconnect aren’t really a concern for him.

    Like I say, you’ve got a real doozy with this guy.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “Like I say, you’ve got a real doozy with this guy.”

    The same could easily be said of the Dems nominee for Governor.

  • BlackOut says:

    Pathetic. Cooch drives a hard strategy to bury what he is really all about and then the RPV sends in an excavator named Jackson to expose the deception.

    Sprinkle in Obenshain and you have exactly what the nuts want. That’s what you get in a closed aging backroom, white filled, convention.

  • Sorry LA, I could not disagree more. Every single Republican candidate for the past 20+ years is labeled extremist by the democrats. I have come to see this as a barometer. The more they screech the better.

    Romney was labeled extreme. That was a laugh. Romney? The Rockefeller Big Government RINO is extreme? Really? Sorry. We are talking about ZERO street cred here.

    They labeled McCain an extremist as well. The statists are labeled extreme. Give it a rest boys. EW is a bishop, and an unapologetic Christian. If that makes him extreme according to you, I am OK with that. EW speeches focus primarily on economic liberty. Given your prior rhetoric LA, that should put you in his camp.

    Small government typically is too busy doing the necessary to get into statist patterns. The first amendment is far safer in the hands of Jackson, than it is in the hands of the left wing statists who re currently running the shop over at team Blue.

  • David Dickinson says:

    We will see how it all plays out in November. After years of Establishment GOPers (otherwise known as backstabbing closet liberals) claiming we need to be in the middle (and losing consistently), we have a decidedly conservative GOP ticket to act as a belleweather for future elections.

    When the three of them win in November, when the entire Commonwealth votes for them, what will the liberals say then?

    As with any politician, I don’t agree with everything EW says. But I’m glad to see a candidate stop playing rope-a-dope and is willing to punch liberals right in the face.

    The GOP finally has a fighter in the ring.

  • Publica Impetus says:

    Bottom line up front – we need a primary in Virginia. Despite the optimistic musings about EW’s presence on the ticket, you all need to brace for impact as he is going to get trounced in the general and may very well bring down the entire ticket.

    Well done.

  • Dan says:

    Nate, McAuliffe certainly wouldn’t have been my choice for the Democratic nomination for Governor any more than Jackson would have been my choice for the Republican nomination for LG. I think it speaks to the diminished state of the Democratic Party in Virginia that there were no other candidates for the nomination.

    I do believe we are very much talking apples and oranges though when we compare these two. I won’t hijack the thread with a litany of the faults I find in TMAC, but I will say those faults are things that make me wish someone else was the nominee but they are not things that I think make him unfit to hold the office for which he is running.

    Jackson is another matter. And not because of how others are characterizing him. That is what is so damning. His own words show him to be unfit. I’m sure you disagree with that assessment. But we are not talking “he’s my guy because we wear the same partisan jersey” stuff here. We are talking about character here. Or rather, the lack of it.

    I have never been one to view political opponents as enemies. Rather they are my friends and neighbors with whom I disagree. I would hope others would view it the same way. That is the American tradition. And it has served us well.

    I disagreed often with Frank Wolfe over the decades that he represented me in Congress, but I can’t recall ever being embarrassed that he was my Congressman. And, despite my disagreements with him I always felt like he had the right stuff to belong in the Congress. You can’t say that about all of them.

    Take the very conservative Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. Not somebody I’d likely vote for, but a basically honest guy I respect. I bring these other politicians up to illustrate the point that my criticism of Jackson is truly not a matter of partisanship (although I clearly have a strong partisan viewpoint on many things). It is based on something larger and more important.

    Sharp disagreements on public policy are a good thing. They, hopefully, lead us to more sound public policy. And while I have certainly sharply disagreed with the Republicans I mentioned above I have never heard them make the sort of over the top, inflammatory and hateful statements that Jackson has regularly made attacking large groups of my fellow citizens.

    My hope would be that in November my highly partisan Republican friends would cast their vote for the Cooch as I expect they will and cast a vote for a Republican AG and just not cast a ballot for LG. I don’t know how many will do that. But I hope it will be enough that this character isn’t put in a position to bring shame upon the Commonwealth.

    Yeah, TMAC ain’t no prize. But I would never insult him by comparing him to someone of such low character as Jackson.

  • Dan says:

    BlackOut, I believe your analysis is spot on. Cooch is a very, very skillful politician. In my opinion, the best Virginia has seen in many years. You know his strategy was always going to be similar to Bob TransVaginal four years ago. Put on the moderate, reasonable unscary suit for the election campaign and completely downplay the hard right stuff. Sound election strategy.

    I believe the Cooch would have easily won the nomination even in a primary. Wouldn’t even have broken a sweat. The real reason he wanted to avoid a primary was that it would have involved some amount of airing the crazy which he wisely intended to keep under wraps.

    The convention was a wise tactic. But in the event it blew up his carefully planned strategy. With Jackson on the ticket the crazy is front and center and bellowing forth from here to November. Nothing that could have happened during a primary campaign could possibly have hurt Cooch as much as having Jackson on the ticket.

    If TMAC should win in November he will be able to trace his victory back to the decision to shitcan the primary in favor of the convention.

  • Linda B. says:

    Dan, Have you read TMAC’s book? Because I have. I could certainly pull out some choice quotes that show he is unfit for office. Guessing you’ll hear plenty of those quotes in the coming months….

  • Dan says:

    Linda, I get that you don’t like TMAC. As I’ve said, he’s not my favorite either. But if I still lived in Virginia I’d vote for him over Cooch. I expect you’ll be voting for Ken. That’s cool. I like democracy.

    With Jackson it isn’t a matter of a difference of opinion on issues. As I said above, there are politicians with whom I disagree on many issues but who I like and admire. Hell, I’ve voted for people I disagreed with on a lot of stuff because I liked them and thought they’d do a good job and I thought their opponent was a butthead.

    Jackson is a different matter. In my opinion, a guy like that just doesn’t belong in office. I hope there will be a lot of undervotes in the LG race.

  • Buck says:

    “E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP’s nominee for lieutenant governor, began his career as a minister and attorney in Boston. While there, he lent his support to a high-profile 1988 fight against a plan to desegregate public housing developments in the neighborhood of South Boston.”

    So you have a crazy desegregationist probably against an intelligent indian american who lives and works in the 21st century,

    You are right Joe. Another slam dunk prediction by Joe “Romeny is gonna crush Obama” B.

    And your whole “Romney is one of the nicesest guys to walk the earth” BS, you might want to ask all the people laid off by his hostile takeovers.

    JOE B for VA GOP Chairman!!!!!

  • Buck says:

    EW is not making a good first impression and ask Sarah Palin how first impressions work out for candidates.

    This enflames the worst qualities of Cooch, which is great for the left. Cooch is trying the old “tack to the center” routine when is an extreme idealouge, but it seems like thats what you all want anyway. At least thats what Joe B. seems to want. Culture wars over economic improvement.

    I would say Terry Mac is weak, but there are going to be strong Lt Gov and Attorney General nominees on the left.

    And I havent even seen anyone bring up this:
    Sen. Mark Obenshain (R) won the Republican nomination to replace Ken Cuccinelli as the state’s attorney general this weekend. It was reported Monday, Obenshain once introduced a bill that would charge women with a Class 1 misdemeanor if they failed to report a miscarriage to police.

    Your Virginia GOP ladies and gentleman. So far North on the map that they have to nominate psychos to compete with the rest of the crazies in the South.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    My, the angry liberals are frothing with Buck-spittle. I’d say EW has already earned his place on the ticket.

  • Linda B. says:

    Dan, I was responding to the following:

    “I won’t hijack the thread with a litany of the faults I find in TMAC, but I will say those faults are things that make me wish someone else was the nominee but they are not things that I think make him unfit to hold the office for which he is running. ”

    And also:

    “His own words show him to be unfit.”

    My point is that TMAC HAS said (or rather, written and published) things that make him unfit to hold the office for which he is running.

    Here’s my favorite (straight from his book): “Now let me tell you, it’s a lot easier to raise money for a governor. They have all kinds of business to hand out, road contracts, construction jobs, you name it.”

    Do we really want a governor who believes he has “all kinds of business to hand out” to his donors?

    He’s a doozy, as you might say.

  • Buck says:

    Joe Budzinski – example A of why the GOP is not a national party.

    He knows their crazy, he doesnt care, and he think there gonna win no matter what. Never surrender, Never show weakness.

    You are why Loudoun Insider hates politics.

    Good luck winning Northern Virginia JoeB.

    I love this website. He makes me so hopeful for upcoming democratic victories.

  • Dan says:

    Linda, we might wish it were not so, but what is being described in that quote is pretty much the way things are done in most states under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Huge tax incentives are handed out to large companies and those same companies make large campaign contributions to the governors and legislators who dole out the tax payer funds to them. And close to home, the headlines Governor McDonnell has made recently is a pretty clear example of that flawed system.

    I haven’t read his book so I don’t know the context. I’m guessing he wasn’t endorsing the current state of affairs so much as accurately describing it. If so, he is guilty only of being candid about something others prefer not to discuss at all.

    Standard (although not very pretty and should be changed) political practice and discussing it candidly is hardly disqualifying. In my opinion anyway. At any rate, it hardly rises to the same level as making inflammatory statements attacking citizens because of their religion (or lack thereof) or their sexual orientation for instance.

    Now, there are some voters who hate Muslims or homosexuals or pretty much anybody who isn’t like themselves in one way or another. And plenty of politicians have made hay exploiting bigotry for political gain. Jackson is hardly unique in that regard.

    I’m thinking that, in 2013 Virginia, the number of voters who will respond to that sort of stuff is a great deal smaller than the number of voters who will be repulsed by it.

    So, leaving aside moral judgement on the sort of things this guy has a habit of saying and just judging the political implications of his nomination I would have to say I think the Republicans stepped on it with both feet. Nominating this guy was a huge mistake.

  • Dan says:

    Buck, don’t be too cocky. One should never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to screw up a good thing. And The nomination of Jackson is not the sort of gift you are often handed by your opposition.

  • Dan says:

    Joe B, don’t be sensitive about predictions gone wrong. When W picked Rumsfeld for SecDef I said out loud that I thought it might turn out to be a very good choice.

    You can’t be much more wrong than I was about that.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Nobody wades into the prediction business without a clear willingness to be proven wrong. Over a lifetime I might be holding a solid 50% record, so that’s something, but I do it less I did years ago.

  • JTHmishmash says:

    Joe, very well put comment (the top one).

    Ultimately no matter who our candidates are, the democrats will tear them apart for anything, label them as extremists, and find dirty quotes from their past.

    Anyone who listens to EW will realize he isn’t some crazy extremist and actually wants to make Virginia a better place.

    And as for his political position on homosexuals, it’s pretty much the same as every other republican in VA and some democrats: uphold the VA constitution that says in the government’s eyes, marriage is between one man and one woman.

    The democrats are very scared of Bishop Jackson, he breaks the mold. He grew up in poverty. He’s black (is it politically correct for me to mention that?). He rocks. Not to mention, most important, he’s extremely well spoken and will be able to spread the message of common sense conservatism across the commonwealth.

    They’re going to attack him and attempt to divide our support. I would like to call on all Republicans, to get behind and unite behind E.W. Jackson. You DONT have to agree or support statements he made about homosexuals or whatever (statements that aren’t even a part of his platform), just look at what you do support, look at the good side, which is just about everything else about him.

    The only reason any of us need a reason to support him is to look at his extremist opponents, goodness, a VA ban on assault rifles? And it doesn’t stop their. I think it’s time we start exposing the extreme platform of the left, instead of dividing our own party.

    He’s our candidate, he’s ready to serve VA, and I find the majority of stuff about him to = awesomeness!

    Don’t let the democrats scare us out of a great candidate for Lt. Governor.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “The real reason he wanted to avoid a primary was that it would have involved some amount of airing the crazy which he wisely intended to keep under wraps.”

    No, the real reason he wanted to avoid a primary is that he’s got a fundraising problem and defeating Bolling would have cost a bundle.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    What a lot of people seem to be missing is our political environment is not framed like a bridge game where the situation only fluctuates within a tight set of rules at a card table.

    The case could be made we are now being governed by the most corrupt federal government in American history. If that’s the story, how might the action on the stage – the political marketing – be cast in a different light? Maybe that’s the case EW should make, and one of the GOP messages throughout the campaign.

  • Linda B. says:


    The context was that he was being asked to raise funds for the presidential campaign, and boy, that was going to be a lot harder for him to do than raising money for governors’ campaigns.

    Where presumably he felt he could promise projects.

    As you say, business as usual.

    I do encourage you to read the book. He comes off as one of the most annoying and egotistical people you’d ever want to read.

  • “And as for his political position on homosexuals, it’s pretty much the same as every other republican in VA and some democrats: uphold the VA constitution that says in the government’s eyes, marriage is between one man and one woman. ”

    I doubt it is even the position of the majority of Republicans in Virginia. And for one simple reason:

    Such a position is NOT CONSERVATIVE. It is statist. Marriage is simply not a role for government. Whether between one man and woman or many women and a man (a common biblical practice) or a man and man or a woman and multiple men or WHATEVER between consenting adults.

    Marriage is a role for religion. It is a role for families. IT IS NOT a role of government.

    I will be blunt. Any of you who call yourselves conservatives and believe that marriage should be controlled by government are NOT small government conservatives. You are statists.

    It is intellectually inconsistent and you really need to think about whether you should be supporting expansion of government outside the roles or public safety, contract enforcement and prevention of monopolies.

    This is why we never get anywhere and the Democrats are winning. Too many republicans are just another kind of statist. That is why they are moving us in the same failed direction as the democrats.

    Jackson has said that he further wants to regulate marriage and the allowed activities of gays using GOVERNMENT FORCE. That is statism.

    Time for us to call these people out. Jackson needs to stand up and repudiate his past statist and non-conservative positions or true conservatives will feel little motivation to vote for the man.

    Better yet. As I have said, it is best he step down NOW and give Cuccinnelli a chance to put in place a conservative candidate.

  • JTHmishmash says:

    Well now this will just vector off into the Gay Marriage conversation/debate.
    But my overall point in this conversation: We might not like EW Jackson’s statements on one single issue. BUT What about the candidate as a whole? What about his opponent? What’s at stake here? ….the commonwealth. And we can’t afford to lose it to some extremest liberals being Obama’s extra hand into VA.

    Sure if you don’t like the other 99% of him as a candidate, then you probably wont be voting for him anyways.

    If you disagree with just part of him as a candidate, yes, speak out about it, tell him, but at the end of the day, he’s the RPV candidate and in my opinion the best choice for VA (of the choice we have). We can all divide on one issue, letting the dems take VA. OR unite on the common ground we can find and win VA. After we win, let’s hold em accountable, and if we don’t like what they do, get a better person in next time.

  • As I said. I am not going to vote for the dem. The democrat is actually worse. But I do fear that Jackson may cause Cuccinnelli to lose.

  • JTHmishmash says:

    Oh, and if the RPV pressured him to step down, that would cause even a larger divide in the party (just what the dems would love in an election year) because all the people who support him and got him nominated would probably be pretty pissed. (The people who’ll be working hard this summer to get these guys elected) That’s not what we need right now, we need unity. Finding common ground, that’s where the support for EW can begin. He’s not a crazy guy, give him a chance.

  • Bill Fox says:

    LA – I agree with your position that opposition to gay marriage is fundamentally a statist position. However, I continue to be concerned about the diminished protections of the First Amendment free exercise clause post-Employment Division v. Smith. Without these Constitutional protections, an argument can be made that the only way for churches to preserve their rights is through the political process. This puts some otherwise liberty-minded folks in the uncomfortable position of combating liberal statism with “conservative statism” (yes, I know, it was a bit uncomfortable even typing that phrase).

    I am not necessarily saying that this is the basis for Jackson’s position, or any other specific politician’s position. But it is a real concern among some religious folks who are familiar with the current state of free-exercise jurisprudence.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Bill, this is a very interesting point. It is not acceptable that Churches and Synagogues and Mosques and Temples are restricted in expressing their positions or in their activities associated with their religious beliefs.

    Christians especially in the US have been “bullied” by some for what they believe. I don’t agree with everything anyone in any religion says, but the elevation of religious bigots like Maher from the left could certainly explain a desire for the religious to engage in politics beyond their normally expected scope. They might feel it is the only way to protect themselves.

    What we need is religion out of the activities of the state. BUT we must also protect religions from interference by the state. Or even threatened interference. The recent IRS targeting of religious groups is concerning in this regard.

    Thanks for the idea. I will think on it more.

  • The Bulletproof Monk says:

    Let me wade in and give my friend Joe B. an honest attaboy for his excellent response to you liberals (and a maggot or two among you).
    You cannot replace EW, because he was the choice of the people. And contrary to this POS’s conclusions…”That’s what you get in a closed aging backroom, white filled, convention”…

    This douchebag was not there, nor was he close enough to see the convention floor. There were hispanics, LEGIONS of Black Americans, and many , many muslims in attendance among the 9000 folks.
    Once again, he finds himself with his big goofy dumbass foot in his mouth.


  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Thanks, Monk. Across the board the types of comments we’re hearing about the convention from EW’s detractors betray complete ignorance – and disregard – of what really happened there. From those on the Republican side, I am surprised. The day was actually a royal PITA from 6 am until after 11 at night. Major tedium. Managed like if you put the TSA and the DMV in charge of your event. A smoke filled room would have been like Shangri La in comparison. In reality it was thousands of Virginians making a big sacrifice to try and do some good.

  • BlackOut says:

    Joe, just to say, I was very impressed with EW during his run for Senate and his speech at the LCRC convention. I shared with you my impressions at the time. He was impressive. And I enjoyed talking afterwards with him and his wife etc.

    He’s a great orator. And I believe he’s a righteous man. With that said I am disturbed by some of the things that are being highlighted from his speeches. I question his ability to represent the masses. I wonder if he’s a guy that will force his agenda based upon his strong religious beliefs. His strong beliefs lead me to believe his is unwavering and intolerant. That my friend will be what the electorate will be thinking about in the voter booth.

    Monk, you continue to illustrate what an ass you are. My My My how nice of you to embrace one of the descendants of the good slaves. To see you brag about tossing your weighted votes to elected the triumvirate leads me to immediately question the choices. When are you going to bug out, freak out, and spook yourself into your spider hole? Hahaha, that I do look forward to with anticipation.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    BlackOut, i think anyone who has shared their opinions publicly is going to have to accept they’ve constructed part of their public image each time. This has always been the case, but with the many varieties of recordings now being archived because of the Web and social media, it is much, much quicker for those interested to scan that history. No need for a Lexis Nexis subscription anymore.

    So as you suggest, EW definitely has the challenge now to inform voters whether he is a good guy or a bad guy, whether these statements represent policies he wants to implement or not, and if so which.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:


    “So as you suggest, EW definitely has the challenge now to inform voters whether he is a good guy or a bad guy, whether these statements represent policies he wants to implement or not, and if so which.”

    This is what I want. I want him to be asked to express specific policy positions and not vague ideas. Going on the record with sensible and specific policies would go a long way to assuaging concerns about his statements to date.

  • Rich says:

    So will we get to hold a primary in 2017?

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    I hope so. As much passion as people brought to the convention they came out with a sub-optimal result. Primaries serve a valuable purpose and we need them back.

  • Scout says:

    Rich: probably not. A convention enables the fewest possible number of people to control the process. As long as there is one candidate who has an in with a majority of the inner circle at RPV, and who figures that he is favored in a convention setting, we will have conventions. It’s that simple.

  • Scout says:

    PS: Keep in mind that it may not be an issue of gaining 50% + 1 of a few thousand convention delegates as opposed to winning a statewide primary. If a candidate accurately figures that the convention is the best venue for him because he has a firm grip on likely convention-goers, the real contest is for him to get a majority of the State Central Committee members behind him some months before. So the real target vote is a very, very small number. Cuccinelli won the nomination when he got RPV to approve a convention format. Bolling knew that. The convention was really just window dressing after that (although it was contested for the other two positions).

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    This is a good point and why it is such a bad way to do things. Cuccinnelli went way down in my mind when he did that. Good thing for him that he is up against someone far worse.

    When I see you describe it, it reminds me of communism. Central committee is the only place that matters. It seems anti American.

  • The Bulletproof Monk says:

    Sqautting Eagle (thank you ACT) we ALL had weighted votes. It’s managed in the process. There’s a mathmatical formula…and everything.
    As for my forefathers?? What of it. I wasn’t there. I could no more control their actions than I can yours when you head for these cliffs.

    EW is going to go far….and I sincerely thank every liberal piece of scum for circulating his name far and wide so he gets even MORE name recognition when people enter that booth.

  • Dan says:

    Monk, there is, of course, that old saw about any publicity being good publicity. But while that may hold when one is trying to achieve celebrity, I am not so sure it holds when trying to earn the support of the voters.

    A number of years back a fellow named David Duke gots tons of publicity. He had tons of the name recognition you hope Jackson will have as voters enter the booth. As an added plus Duke’s opponent was the very deeply flawed Edwin Edwards.

    In the event, the voters of Louisiana had the common sense and good judgement to reject Duke. What was a very winnable race for governor was pissed away by Republicans because they nominated a silly hate talker instead of a competent candidate.

    We will see how this one turns out in November. I suspect the result will confirm that Republicans stepped on their dicks with both feet by nominating this oddball. At least the extremely tiny number of Republicans who made this horrendous decision for the rest of the party did.

  • The Bulletproof Monk says:

    So, you’re casting these black Americans who showed up to the Convention in droves under the liberal bus now?
    What a damned racist!!

Leave Comment