Swine flu. 1976 swine flu scare….

Go with a subjective statement rather than an objective claim that isn’t true and therefore impossible to prove. “Dividing the party” is subjective and if I disagree with you, you can retort “That’s your opinion and you’re wrong.” If you call Jeff a thief then that is objective. If you’re blowing smoke, you can be proven to be a liar and libeler/slanderer.

It makes you look like a liar and damages your credibility with any other allegation you make. So, why include theft at all? Because some power whore said Frederick was a theif and snowed you into believing it?

Is is not the SCC making scathing robo-calls throughout the state calling SCC members and our gubernatorial nominee a RINO.

Frederick is dividing the party and THAT is grounds for dismissal.

I will grant you that the length in the chair and that different portions of the party chose sides in both cases but, these are not identical instances.

Again, you are right. Criminal charges are not needed to fire. However, if there was a crime as SOME on your side insist, isn’t there a moral and legal obligation to report this alleged “theft” and have Frederick prosecuted? Or does your side merely wish to take advantage of the mud slinging and the associated damage to his name in a campaign that SOME of the SCC went public with? Evicting Jeff isn’t a lock, THAT is why this was taken public and the ring leaders are trying to quickly damage Frederick and rally support against him. Indeed, the snow job continues.

Who cares about firing? If he stole, have him arrested that would be swift and sure to accomplish your goal and NOT alienate Frederick backers. However, that hasn’t happend has it? And why not? I think it hasn’t because Frederick must be innocent.

1. Taken 6 months to build a new website.
2. Tweet a little too actively
3. Let fundraising wither
4. Lost the support of nearly every major GOP elected official and ’09 candidate.
5. Lost (or never earn) the support of almost all of his Board of Directors (elected also by those pesky grassroots) known as the State Central Committee.
6. Been an embarrassment in the media.
7. Refused to cooperate with the McCain campaign forcing them to build an independent structure in Virginia, wasting time and money.
8. Built a bloated staff and increased overhead–and what is it that all of those people DO all day, since I don’t see much coming from Grace Street of value.
9. Put the Party on Facebook.
10. Done nothing quantifiable to widen GOP support among Virginians.
11. Sent out egotistical self-congratulatory e-mails.
12. Engaged in the laughably transparent “drafting” of his wife for his House of Delegates seat so he can technically say he left the House as promised.

And most of that does not even begin to address the charges laid against him.

With another three years of Frederick, we will likely lose control of the House of Delegates, be forced to sell the Party HQ in Richmond to raise cash, continue to have candidates that cannot depend on the party to work with them to their campaign’s benefit, and worry that each day we read or watch the news, we will see another cringe-inducing gaffe. But by then, he will probably have added a profile on Digg or StumbleUpon or something so it will be OK.

The grassroots may have voted for Jeff last May, but I doubt they would have if they had known what a colossal bust he was going to be. I suspect we could find another solid conservative to do the job–one that is competent and one that attracts new people to our party rather than repelling a large swath of the people who are already here.

And I did not say the SCC made this public. I said the SCC had to give him advance notice which gave any number of parties an opportunity to make it public. Many Frederick supporters want to say SCC made it public when that makes no sense as it gives Frederick a golden opportunity to take advantage of what can not be made public.

Frederick has chosen to make this a public battle because he can not win it in private. It’s about ego and pride, not about doing the best job possible. Because if it was about doing the best job possible he’d be pointing out all his successes and not turning this into an ideological fight.

Criminal charges are not required to fire. Inability to do the job is very reasonable grounds for dismissal.

Again, what has Frederick done right since last May?

Britt, were this “all or nothing” you’d have seen a lot of folks leave when Frederick won last May. But that did not happen. You seem to be the one playing the “all or nothing” card and putting everything on Frederick.

When Fredrick captured the chair, I wasn’t paying attention to how long Hagar was in the chairmanship. I did consider him a continuation of the past. For me, back then it was more about ideology. I saw what appeared to be a group that would bring the RPV back to fiscal conservative values. I saw potential natural alliances and maybe even a place for me in the party. I do understand your point about hypocrisy. If Frederick’s thrust against Hagar was blaming him personally, I agree with you. If he saw Hagar as continuation of what caused that decline, I don’t agree with the hypocrisy arguement.

You are not the first argueing for Frederick’s head that used terms like “shoe on the other foot”. The Bullet Proof Monk did as well. To me…..that sounds like payback and not about substantial reasons for this action. Although, if you get the votes, I guess you don’t need a reason.

In my opinion, you argue against yourself when you rightly point out that it was to Frederick’s advantage for the SCC to go public. It begs the question, WHY GO PUBLIC? Why embarrass the whole party and jeopardize elections because that IS what just happend! The only way out of that is for Frederick to go to jail. Then Frederick backers will accept the rebels and thank them. Otherwise, this whole thing just split the party and statewide elections will suffer incredible damage due to non-participation.

The only reasons to go public are:
1) Jeff Frederick broke stole/broke the law and the ends do justify the means.
2) This is a policital campaign waging war within the party. In this case it is just a power grab. A power grab that just cost a lot of key elections and split the party.

All these “super secret stuff that we can’t know about” agruements are crap. They’re pedestrian tactics at best. If he’s criminal it should be all exposed. Otherwise, the rebellion should have been done quietly and perhaps based on ideology saying that winning elections is more possible if we run to the “Left”. I disagree with that last one but, I can respect it as legitimate though incorrect arguement.

So far, I see nothing respectable in this rebellion. Maybe as things play out I’ll see reason to change my assessment on that. Thus far what I see is a power play that severely damages the party. Frederick’s answering of the charges and his steadfast resolve to fight, backs up that view for me.

To those in the rebellion I ask:

What happens if Jeff Frederick is exonerated and you lose?

What happens if Jeff Frederick is fired and then exonerated of criminal charges and then Frederick claims damages due to slander/libel? Then also, what happens when the other side of the party seeing this as the power play it is and their later refusal to back your guys in election?

You guys have made this an “all or nothing” battle. What happens if it ends up as nothing? How many years have you set the RPV back? How many will just leave the party?

This certainly needs to be fair, but people also need to understand that we don’t necessarily have all the details from either side nor may we ever (though you might as an SCC member). And what looks to me to have been an effort to allow Frederick a way to save face has given Frederick an opportunity to spin this in his defense.

Ideology, power, it’s a fight alright, but some would say it’s about what’s best for the party.

What has Frederick done since last May?

Why was I not allowed to see the charges unless I agreed to sign them first? What smells about that?

The Party Plan doesn’t require a criminal act for removal, but anything less than that will be a bad precedent indeed.

Fair play is in question here.

You are right about it not being an ideologically L or C fight. But, it is a fight about power. About electing or selecting the Chairman, RPV. About the RPV supporting nominated candidates or all incumbents. About who gets the contracts. And whose boy or girl is in the RPV chair.

Honestly, one of my largest issues with the defense of Frederick has been that it has painted the argument in hypocritical terms.

No one is attacking his ideology. This isn’t a right wing vs. RINO debate. And it’s not an old guard vs. new guard or elite vs. grassroots as Frederick wants to paint it. There are things happening on the inside we don’t know about and Frederick can play that to his advantage.

Also, everything Frederick and his supporters threw at Hagar last year is now coming his way and it’s interesting to see how the shoe is now on the other foot.

All of that said, Frederick does not win if this remains private. As much as everyone wants to point at SCC for this going public, they were required to give him 30 days notice before a vote can be made to remove him. If the SCC has the votes then they have no need to go public, they make it happen and that’s that. Instead, it’s out in the open and that actually benefits Frederick more – he can now make his case to the public and try and create a movement to lean on the SCC individuals who may be lukewarm in their support one way or another.

However, many have PUBLICLY stated he stole from the RPV. That goes beyond name calling and disagreeing with his management.

IF Jeff Frederick is thrown out/fired and people have slandered his name by calling him a thief, he can likely be said to be “damaged”. I would think this would be actionable as well as cause for dismissal from party position if charges of theft and “larceny” were proved false.

That said, if he did commit a crime and is convicted, obviously Frederick backers should admit they were fooled and thank those starting the rebellion. It would also lend SOME sense of logic to the insane manuever McDonnell pulled that will certainly undermine his campaign by alienating Frederick backers.

You question his management on the basis of elections recently lost? What about the ones before he was in office? Who do you blame for Mark Warner and Tim Kaine? Who do you blame for Marty losing his seat in a primary? Was that Frederick too? Do you blame Fredrick for Dr. Welch losing his seat before Frederick was chair? Do you blame Fredrick for the Virginian Pilot continually attacking Leo Wardrup?

So because he was technically in office for less than a year, you blame Frederick for Goode, Drake, Gilmore, and McCain etc.?

Crime is certainly an arguement for being fired. Mere disagreement in “direction” might be enough under the Party Plan. Fine. So, be it but, there will be consequnces for that.

I don’t know, he might be rightly blamed for mismanagement is other areas as RPV chair but, in the current enviornment, election losses and fund raising declines are not one of them. Let us remember fund raising success follows percieved winners. The trends causing RPV losses preceded Frederick and were not caused by him.

The fact that unsubstantiated claims of theft and obvious distortions of effects on elections are made, those that want to argue they have reason for dismissal, lose on the credibility front.

Either prove he’s a criminal or toss him out quietly and out of the press radar. You basically need a vote to fire him. That’s all right? Why all this public mess?