Comments on: McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins choose politics over principle

By: Britt Howard

Britt Howard — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:04:41 +0000

Well, I was surprised that Bolling took such a quick stance. He doesn’t have the track record of “selling out” for political expedience.

Things would ave been softened a great deal if a few “if and then”s were in that statement. Sounds like a conclusion was reached and a sentence was recomended.

By: J R "States" Manship

J R "States" Manship — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:50:45 +0000

The Court of Public Opinion can be far more fair than the Courts of Law where rule the BARbarians (JUDGES and lawyers).

Remember that the Duke Rape Case Prosecutorial Misconduct was stopped, and the prosecutor disbarred, ONLY DUE to the Court of Public Opinion.

Judges are far too often biased toward “their own” — other lawyers, other Bar members… other BARbarians, the Pro Se litigant, the common citizen, at a severe disadvantage.

The only way the Courts of Law are fair is when a JURY rules, not a judge, and the judge has not “hood winked” the JURY by biased JURY INSTRUCTIONS that in fact are contrary to the full power of the Jury as provided by this Constitution.

No Jury? No Justice!

By: Republican

Republican — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:15:29 +0000

Kind of hypocritical dont you think? Of course he should resign, the emails make him no better than Rod Blagojevich. Its embarassing Republicans have people that operate this way.

Delegate Hamilton is Virginia’s Rod Blagojevich. Loyalty is not an issue, principles and values are.

By: JR Hoeft

JR Hoeft — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:04:27 +0000

All,
I’m glad to see the true character of people coming out over this particular incident.

Those who are willing to hang Hamilton’s political career, and, perhaps, even civil career, without even having the courtesy to hear his side of the story is very telling.

Hey…I said it doesn’t look good for Hamilton. But I think it’s up to him to decide if he wants to take this forward. He has to deal with his own conscience.

It just strikes me as VERY political by McDonnell-Bolling-Mullins to try to shed this guy before he infects the statewide campaign – which is exactly what I think they are doing.

Whatever happened to loyalty?

Seriously, would it have been so bad for McDonnell to say “the House leadership is taking the correct approach by opening an ethics inquiry into this issue. My hope is that this matter is resolved thoroughly and expeditiously. Del. Hamilton is entitled to this inquiry.”

And leave it at that?

Frankly, this really isn’t even an executive issue. This is a House issue – and they’re dealing with it.

By: Not from Hampton Roads

Not from Hampton Roads — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:05:26 +0000

Everyone is entitled to due process in a legal proceeding. Campaigns are NOT legal proceedings. It was smart politics to call on Hamilton to step aside. The Ds are floundering and you dont need to get into fight over this. Dont get me wrong I like Phil Hamilton, he is a very good legislator but I think he may have made a terrible mistake. But the facts here dont seem to be in dispute unless the emails are fake which Hamilton has not claimed. You can not use a position of public trust to enrich yourself.

By: Darrell -- Chesapeake

Darrell -- Chesapeake — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:57:48 +0000

“In politics, even the appearance of impropriety can be enough to sink a candidate. In this case, it doesn’t look good for Hamilton.”

Sounds to me like the voters should decide. Unless of course the McD gang wants to push for another kangaroo court like they did for Frederick. The real reason they are ‘concerned’ is because they are afraid some of Hamilton’s rectal discharge will infect their own campaigns. Too much voter finger waving might expose the malignant tumor that has taken over the RPV, therefore Hamiliton must be buried now.

By: Should Phil Hamilton Resign? | Delmarva Dealings

Should Phil Hamilton Resign? | Delmarva Dealings — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:27:28 +0000

[...] Hoeft and the other guys at Bearing Drift are correct. McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins are choosing politics over principle; and for the life of me, I can’t understand why. Speaker William Howell (R – Stafford) [...]

By: Riley

Riley — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:39:03 +0000

Politics is different from the law.

Under the law, one is innocent until proven guilty.

In politics, even the appearance of impropriety can be enough to sink a candidate. In this case, it doesn’t look good for Hamilton.

I’m with McDonnell on this one.

By: McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins choose politics over principle … | Bearing live today.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:46:36 +0000

[...] over principle … August 25th, 2009 | Author: Justin Harrison This. Is Excerpt from: McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins opt persuasion over generalisation … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: have-seen, highest, highest-ethical, keep-the, [...]

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:44:17 +0000

The court of public opinion is about politics over principle. If we made decisions based on court of public opinion Bush would have been removed in 2006.

By: VA Blogger

VA Blogger — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:40:43 +0000

The court of public opinion has NEVER been analogous to actual courts.