Why is Rigell responding to Loyola’s charges about “cash for clunkers”?
By JR Hoeft | Thursday, April 29th, 2010 | PoliticsAs many of you know, I like to watch a lot of hockey. And, one of the best ways to gain an advantage in that sport is to agitate your opponent with borderline behavior so that your opponent commits a retaliation penalty.
That is why I was amazed today to see a letter from Scott Rigell to his supporters and interested observers about an “attack” levied on him by Ben Loyola.
Doesn’t he know that by talking about it publicly it only amplifies the story? He just let the world know that Ben Loyola managed to get under his skin.
Ben Loyola said yesterday that Scott Rigell, who donated $1000 to President Barack Obama during Operation Chaos because he wanted Hillary Clinton to win, benefited significantly from the Cash for Clunkers program.
This caused Rigell to respond today with the letter, shedding new light on the issue.
The Rigell campaign said the claim was “desperate”, an “attack” and being done for “cheap political gain”, but offered no comment on the issue itself.
This left a hole so gaping that a Ford F-150 could drive through it…
Every word is true,” responded Loyola. “In fact, Rigell defended his benefiting from the “Cash for Clunkers” stimulus program in past media reports.”
Yesterday, Loyola pointed out the hypocrisy of Rigell’s campaign against Obama/Pelosi policies while he benefited from those same policies to the tune of $444,500 of “Cash for Clunkers” stimulus funds.
“Obviously, Scott Rigell doesn’t like when anyone questions him,” responded Loyola, in reaction to Rigell’s nonsensical ranting about false attacks.
“I am campaigning on issues, and we need to send a Republican to Washington who can send a clear signal of opposition to Obama and Pelosi. Scott Rigell can’t do that,” added Loyola.
Rigell claims the issue has nothing to do with defeating Rep. Glenn Nye. Loyola says it does.
“Glenn Nye supported the Stimulus and “Cash for Clunkers.” Scott Rigell cannot campaign against Nye by agreeing with him.”
Rigell is probably going to be the nominee, but he needs to not commit these unforced errors. It’s the second time this campaign that Rigell has allowed a burr to get under his saddle and react (the first being Dupligate where the campaign lost over a week trying to push the story to reporters and bloggers, while several positive endorsements went virtually unnoticed).
If he is the GOP nominee, Democrats will not hesitate to attempt to tear him apart – even if they outright lie. Believe me, they are taking notice of Rigell’s reactions and are getting themselves ready to instigate a retaliation.
The bottom-line is this: Rigell’s campaign needs to stiffen up and let petty things like this go, not whine to their constituents by saying “it’s not fair”….It’s politics.
Save the retaliation for the important things – like defending core conservative principles, promoting liberty, the free market, and our Constitution.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
88 Responses to "Why is Rigell responding to Loyola’s charges about “cash for clunkers”?"
A coordinated, dual pronged frontal assault of friendly advice or nefarious banter launched by DJ and JR. Don’t know if fanning the flames helps. Maybe a private letter would have been better if the intent was to help not harm. I love politics.
Thank you
Seriously?
The CONSUMER (car purchaser) was the one that received the benefit on this; Freedom Ford only received the rebate on behalf of the consumer, and the headache of drilling holes in engine blocks before sending them off to the scrapyard.
Second, there is no issue with pointing out the desperation of Loyola’s campaign. Anyone in politics knows that a desperate campaign attacks. Classifying that attack for what it is, desperate, is a strategic (and appropriate) way to dismiss floundering campaigns.
I think the response was a mistake too. If anything he should simply say that his business benefitted from the program and so did his employees. Which employees does Loyola want him to fire in order for the money to be paid back? Will Loyola pay back all the money from his personal and business tax credits and tax deductions? The Federal Government gives taxpayer money away in order to influence behavior all of the time. If Loyola wants to complain about that he should make sure he has never taken advantage of any government charity.
Well, maybe he shouldn’t say all that, but I will.
While Nye and Rigell tear each other apart, Kenny Golden will be mopping the floor with them both. Anyone who has seen Kenny debate in person knows that it will really be something when the 3 of them are on stage. Not only that, but his seniority and commanding intellect ensures that he won’t get caught up in any of this kind of BS.
Yet another reason why Rigell should not be the nominee. Maybe after this is all done the GOP leaders will finally realize how bad they screwed up by giving Kenny the middle finger and acting like they didn’t know who he was after all the hard work he did for them.
Remember folks, its only splitting the vote if you vote for the least experienced, least adult candidate; and that could be either Glenn Nye or Scott Rigell.
I got the Loyola attck and would have been surprised if Rigell didn’t set the context right. I received a letter like all those on his e-mail list of supporters. Aren’t campaigns about building a loyal following who believes in you and won’t be persuaded otherwise.
That is especially true in a primary where a much smaller group will determine the GOP nominee. Rigell is obviously a fighter not just some businessman who thinks he should be coronated the nominee. I like that he works hard and will respond to wild politically motivated charges like Loyola is dishing out.
So Loyola has been going negative for weeks with insane claims (Rigell “ducking” debates when he has done six of them), and Rigell simply responds in an email blast to his supporters warning them that Loyola is desperate, making desperate attacks because they are losing.
Loyola is losing, has been losing for months, can’t get any transaction, is resorting unbelievable nasty tactics and someone calls him out on that?
Why isn’t bearingdrift slamming Loyola for being, by far and away, the most negative campaign in a 6 candidate field?
Anyone that says bearingdrift.com is in the tank for Rigell must be crazy; TWO posts at the same time on this issue?
So, who’s lying about the facts here… Rigell or Loyola? It seems that there’s some truth here somewhere or Rigell wouldn’t have his panties in a bunch over this.
Rigell’s business, Rigell, and his employees benefitted from the program, as well as consumers. So the fact that Rigell benefitted is true. Loyola’s conclusion that Rigell should give back all that money is absurd, since he personally didn’t receive all that money and I don’t believe that he lobbied for the program.
Disclaimer: I didn’t approve of the cash for clunkers program, nor do I approve of the cash for appliances program.
Why the need to post two stories on this?
Rigell has been getting attacked by other candidates for months now. At some point, you have to respond. Rigell responded in a very positive way. He could have slammed Loyola for a number of things and he didn’t. The email simply said the Rigell campaign was going to stay positive and not launch these kinds of stupid attacks. What’s the problem?
Ben Loyola is a desperate joke. What are some of these people thinking still in the race???
Couple of points on the two posts criticism… don’t slam Bearing Drift for two posts. They are two separate people. They are busy people and they both had similar thoughts. There is no conspiracy by BD. If anything they seem to offer what they think is good advice to Rigell. I’ve got no problem with that minor issue. If anything it reveals that these guys work independently from each other.
As far as their criticism goes…there is some strategical validity there, but it was certainly a weighed decision by the Rigell campaign. If you read the email it is written for the passive political participant or new participant to the process. What does this tell you?
It tells me that Rigell is reaching out to his growing base. He knows that many in that base are new to the process. I’m not sure if you’ve seen the Tea Party analysis, but think about that. That’s who is now geting involved in political campaigns in staggerring numbers-and definitely in his campaign. These people are newly engaged-they aren’t beholden to accepting “politics as usual” (no big deal if we plagarizze work-it’s always done that way-nice argument guys). They also don’t blindly follow the “political party loyalty”. They are upset by how these other GOP candidates are acting in the process. These people are choosing Rigell and lookig for leadership in this race. They are recoiling at the negativity they see in the party and this process.
So the Rigell campaign responded. They explained why Loyola was doing what he was doing and they provided some facts to back the assertion. They also asked Rigell supporters to expect more negativity as the campaignns grow increasingly deesperate.
So the hard core political observer is confused. It’s a bad strategy-from their point of view; however, they aren’t taking all the calls and fielding all the questions from the newly engaged activists. The Rigell campaign responded to a need within their campaign and they struck back at Loyola who-granted- has become more distant from Rigell with every passing day.
When people write (books, movies, op eds etc) they write to an audience. You might not always be the target audience-get over it. The policy wonks and observers think this is a bad move. It’s like the Star Wars geeks who grew up on the original trilogy. They now boil over in criticism of the newer trilogy. They fell in love with a movie when it was made for them as a kid. When a new trilogy is made-targeted for the same age group-these people couldn’t understand what happenned to their beloved franchise. It wasn’t for you geeks. It was for my son who didn’t grow up in the 70′s and 80′s. Same thing here.
Not every political release is for the hard core. It just isn’t. Get over it.
Now Back to the CLone Wars with my son.
Richard,
I would take issue with Rigell saying the attacks were false. Absurd, clearly, but certainly not patently untrue. Rigell did participate and did make that money, regardless of how much stayed in his business.
As for the response, I would say it was clearly stupid. All you have to do is ask one simple question; who has the bigger list?
Rigell just put Loyola and his attacks out to a far larger list than Loyola or any other candidate could ever dream of having.
Loyola is a joke, how big could his email list possibly be? Probably most of it is Republican faithful who are political junkies and have made up their mind already.
Rigell’s is clearly full of all the new people he has brought into the fold. Those new people don’t know anything about Loyola’s email, now they do.
Really dumb move on Rigell’s part, unless I am mistaken and he somehow segments his lists and that only went out to certain people…
This story doesn’t make much sense to me. Not the actual article written – but the underlying substance of everything.
Isn’t Ben Loyola the same guy who paid $80,000 for lobbyists to steer him government contracts through the earmarking process – regardless of his companies qualifications? After all, if he was the most qualified company, why the need to pay someone $80,000 to steer him business?
To suggest that Rigell – without lobbying or asking or anything of the sorts – benefited from a program designed for ALL CAR DEALERS without mentioning how Loyola was only out for LOYOLA is not a balanced article at all.
While Bearing Drift may have mentioned the past lobbying in previous posts (which is extremely substantial by Washington DC standards), it should have been mentioned with this.
If Loyola wants to mention organizations that benefit from government intervention – he should mention how he had to pay for several earmarks to make it. How he had to pay professional lobbyists. And more importantly, how this is the principles he so easily speaks of.
It’s easy to send out a negative attack. But the stupidity, ignorance and hypocrisy of his statements goes to show that he can not be trusted.
Coupled with blatantly stealing documents, i can not see how anyone can honestly say Loyola is not another dirty character.
This was a total cheapshot and frankly unconvincing on Loyola’s part. Everyone knows car dealers didn’t make a dime off the cash for clunkers program. The car price for the customer was discounted by the same amount as the rebate from the government. Add in the papaerwork and and the loss of money because of the time period waiting for the rebate check and dealers came out a wash.
Important note: an attack not answered is an attack believed.
Important caveat: if your opponent is a gadfly don’t let him bother you.
This one is a close call. Is Loyola Rigell’s opponent or a gadfly? Who knows. I think Rigell did the right thing by responding and I probably would have done the same thing, but my counterattack would have been twice as hard.
“They send one of your guys to the hospital – you send 10 of their’s to the morgue.”
That’s my motto. Counterattack and destroy Loyola since he now wants to question Rigell’s integrity and character.
Careful, Eric. I happen to know that Loyola had the very best lobbyist in Washington working for him and Loyola got a significant discount when compared to this top lobbyists other clients. Lobbyists help clients get their message to the right people in what is an enormous government, nothing more.
Why all the Loyola slams for questioning the duality/duplicity in a candidate who self promotes as a fighter for conservative principals, but also accepts corporate welfare? This question isn’t a Loyola invention; it’s been ‘out there’ for some time and noted in press reports.
From Scott Rigell’s 10 commandments – #2: I WILL LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
-Scott campaigns as a fiscal conservative.
-He took corporate welfare – almost a half million dollars.
-He says he had to do it, for his employees (see link below for actual Rigell quote).
-The entire program was a 3 BILLION dollar bailout, to car dealers, that I paid for (and so did you).
Are we really OK with elected officials continuing to follow one set of rules (for themselves) and another for us poor slobs, who pay the bills?
Scott was in a definite ethical dilemma with regards to the clunker cash. He made a decision. Rather than offer up lame excuses, why not just man up and admit he took OUR money … so he could make money.
“… thoughtful voters are likely to question whether they should vote for office-seekers who have a track record of pursuing corporate welfare and expanding the deficit.” – World Mag: Today’s News/ Christian views; April 5, 2010.
http://online.worldmag.com/2010/04/05/clunker-candidates-for-congress/
Ron,
News flash: You have no concept of how Washington DC works!
You really think there is “nothing more” that high priced lobbyists do? Are you honestly that naive to think that lobbyists don’t dabble in the “influence business”.
After all, isn’t the very definition of lobbying “the practice of influencing decisions made by the government “. What you are thinking of is “advocating” which is an entirely different animal. Since “advocates” and “consultants” and “strategic advisors” don’t show up on the federal disclosure radar, its impossible to know how much more money he spent.
You pay a communications team to get your message across. You pay a lobbyist to use backdoor deals to get company specific favors.
But facts are fact. Ben Loyola spent $80,000 to get earmarks. There is no way around that fact. But I do commend the Rigell campaign for not resorting to telling the world about this. Instead, they thought bearing drift would at least mention it….but I guess i’m the only one that would….
Jay D,
You’re even worse than Ron. You need to learn to balance your thought process.
Scott Rigell participated in a government program that his customers demanded he participate in. It wasn’t a Rigell specific program. It wasn’t a VA beach exclusive deal. It wasn’t advocated by Rigell. It wasn’t lobbied by Rigell.
On the other hand, Ben Loyola choose to pay a lobbyists to benefit his company and only his company. He decided “to hell with DoD procedures dictating how contracts should be awarded”. He decided Loyola Enterprises needed to get around the system. He decided that Loyola should benifit more than any other small government contractor. He decided spending $80,000 to screw over taxpayers was well worth it for his pocket book.
When you’re talking about “choices”, keep in mind what you are actually saying.
That’s the substantive difference.
Anyone watch Channel 13 News? Kenny, Maulback, Taylor all jumped on Loyola’s train when the reporters asked them about their opinion – candidate Scott Taylor said “This erodes away Rigell’s credibility” and Independent Kenny Golden said “Rigell should have known better than to participate in Cash for Clunkers”. Maulback had another comment which agreed with Loyola.
Interesting body language in the 13 TV interview by Jason Miyares biting his lower lip and looking down when asked by the reporter “Why did Rigell participate in the program in the first place if he would have voted against it?” And then Jason tries to throw it into the washing machine and turn on the spin cycle which sounded more like a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
What does Obama always say… “I’m doing for the people” which sounds strangly like Jason speak “Scott did it for his customers and the people of Virginia Beach”.
The Democrats are pulling out the gourmet Orville Redenbacher popcorn and taking notes as they watch this one. Rigell had better go to the gym and get tuned up because if he can’t take a body blow like this, then he’s going to knocked out in the first round with Nye.
Eric, If you know of some crime or other infraction against FAR regulations that has been committed by Loyola, then you are an accessory because you know all about it and haven’t reported it.
Your quotes are bogus and unless you have some specific names, dates, times and hard evidence you can provide, stand down because you obviously don’t have a clue and furthermore, no credibility.
JR and DJ,
I just email you the documents that detail Loyola’s hiring of Rob Catron and Nancy Prowitt (and the firm Alcade and Fay) for lobbying purposes to obtain earmarks? Can you please post them – in their entirety – for all the voters and campaigns to see?
Evidentally, it turns out that people like “Tim J” are not smart enough to know that they are public records.
The documents clearly state that they were hried to influence, amongst others, the U.S. House of Representatives, Department of Homeland Security, Jiont Forces Command, Deparmment of Defense, United States Senate,. And that is only his federal lobbying! Apparently he spent even more on Virginia specific lobbying!
And I appologize, but it seems I made a mistake. It seems he actually spent 100,000 on federal lobbying, not $80,000 as I had first assumed.
Tim J,
I forgot to mention this. But you’re an idiot. Hiring lobbyists is not a crime. Nor is a violation of FAR regulations. Glad to see you play lawyer though.
Lobbying is a perfectly legal business practice that under-qualified individuals and companies use to obtain contracts that they otherwise would not qualify for through the normal contracting procedures.
So stand down I will not. Mostly because you’re illogical on your best days and a complete moron on your worst. JR and DJ both have the email documenting all the federal hiring by Loyola. It includes the people they lobbied, dates, times, and money spent lobbying and for what purposes. It’s now up to this blog to blow the case open for you to realize how stupid you are.
Thanks Eric, you took the bait. We now know who is now behind Rigell’s campaign smear machine and I hope it doesn’t end up tearing down Republicans who are current office holders. I rest my case.
Tim J,
You’re hypocrisy is laughable if I wasn’t so impressed with your persistence.
You immediately start attacking Rigell’s campaign manager for perceived (or even worse – made up) body language.
You accuse someone of responding to a lie as – get this – lying. (re: first post on this thread). You literally said anyone who responds to anything negative must be wrong and must be lying.
And now i’m the smear machine? I literally pointed out facts and backed them up with public documents that are not debatable after you challenged the assertions. Again, you’re an idiot who doesn’t even know how to play lawyer properly.
Since when is silence proof of innocence? And when is fighting back deemed wrong? If anything – as Sen. Kerry learned – you should always defend yourself right away.
When Nye starts spitting out lies and rhetoric, I’m sure Rigell will stand up, call him out the same way he called out Taylor before and Loyola now.
I realize Brian Kirwin is likely telling Loyola to go negative as his only way of winning at this point. (Let’s face it, Loyola will not get his name ID up or favorables up in time, his only hope is to bring Rigell’s numbers down to his level – which would be a different strategy than people will resources like Bert or Rigell). So the smart thing to do is confront every lie head on and I’m glad the Rigell campaign is doing just that!
This is awesome!
I’ll be sure to forward the information along to the Nye camp, I’m sure he’ll be able to use it during the General.
…Or maybe I won’t.
For whatever reason, and only God knows why, I seem to have a soft spot for Rigell.
DEMOCRATS FOREVER
Kristin,
Guaranteed Nye or his people already know all about it this
Kristin, your so sweet to do that for us! It looks like Eric Dunn has done Rigell one better rather than having bunched up panties, he is soiling his laundry trying to be Rigell’s soldier and champion. A rare insight into the panic, disarray and “and if we can’t admit the truth, attack at all costs” strategy. The Rigell’s camp isn’t sleeping well tonight and had better change their bed sheets regularly in the next several weeks.
By the way, other records also show that for the lobbying money spent, Loyola never received an earmark, a thin dime, a red cent, 0, nada, kaput. Rigell had a choice or not to participate in C4C, and since he did, he got the big bucks. So Eric, in that split pea brain of yours, Loyola spends money lobbying to help the Warfighter with technology that will save lives and support SOF missions and deployed warriors in the two wars we are now fighting, and gets nothing back.
Rigell donates money to Obama, and gets almost half of a million back as part of a corrupt Stimulus Plan which he says he wouldn’t vote for but took advantage of anyway. I will concede that Rigell is by far the better “business” man by figuring out how to game the Government for the C4C handout, but he has split loyalties, no moral compass and has given us all indications that his vote can be bought and sold on the open market.
Kristin, make sure Glenn gets this one, please!
For those interested in seriously evaluating the reflection on Scott Rigell’s judgment for participating in the “Clunker” deal, I found the online article mentioned above interesting: http://online.worldmag.com/2010/04/05/clunker-candidates-for-congress/
Eric writes – Lobbying is a perfectly legal business practice that under-qualified individuals and companies use to obtain contracts that they otherwise would not qualify for through the normal contracting procedures.
That just isn’t true in every case. Lobbyists are hired for purposes other than getting appropriations earmarks or contracts so your assertion that Loyola got nothing for his investment in government relations cannot be proven because you do not have all the facts. Perhaps Loyola was trying to influence policies of the government. Furthermore, lobbying is an activity listed in the First Amendment – the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Is anyone attacking Loyola for exercising his rights? Just about every company in America is represented by lobbyists they hire directly or through trade associations. Loyola’s decision to hire someone to help navigate the Congress and Executive Branch isn’t newsworthy. It generates a shrug of the shoulders and thoughts of “so what.”
Tim J is an angry, angry man.
Not sure why, but man, lighten up.
@Eric Dunn: Ratcheting up the rhetoric doesn’t make you accurate or balanced. Read the article I linked. It simply points out there is a bona fide ethical question and implied hypocrisy that any candidate, who took the cash for clunkers corporate welfare, will likely have to answer for in the upcoming elections. Period. Read on:
At least four car dealers are running for the U.S. House of Representatives and at least three of them took “Cash for Clunkers” stimulus funds from the federal government. You might buy a car from these men, but would you vote for them?
According to this report, one car dealer did not take clunker funds. Ergo, participation was not mandatory and at least one candidate either had ethical problems with taking the cash, or discerned (correctly) that accepting Clunker Cash could be problematic in his upcoming election.
Scott took the money, which tells me he either had zero ethical issues with the program and/or didn’t expect to be held accountable for his participation. And if Ron’s assertion that Rigell received no benefit from the cash (“didn’t make a dime” … “a wash”), it suggests Rigell was simply stupid to take the risk.
I can not believe that any man, who will likely spend upwards of a million dollars of personal funds in an attempt to win a congressional seat, took Clunker Cash to keep the dealership open.
It’s most interesting to watch campaign supporters pummel Loyola in Clintonesque fashion. If Loyola were a stronger showing candidate, I would be more interested in lobby facts. He’s not, so the attack-with-another-attack approach is simply noise, an effort to divert, and unconvincing to non hardcore Rigell acolytes.
Jay D,
The problem with the logic is that Ben Loyola took stimulus funds! He won contracts that were based off of stimulus money. In fact, the ONLY WAY he makes money is when the government spends my taxpayer money. Doe sthis now qualify Loyola has the most unethical person running for Congress in the country? Under your logic, it certainly does.
On the other hand, Rigell obviously has personal wealth built from non-government sales (minus one exception that happened far after he was already a succesful businessman).
That’s the problem I have with your review. You jab someone for participating in a government program he didn’t advocate for but then you say its perfectly great for Loyola to take stimulus funds and literally advocate for them.
And you’re right, it is a waste of time attacking Loyola. But the problem is, all the other candidats have the same “issue”. You think Kenny Golden doesn’t benefit from government spending (hello, SAIC employment that strives on government spending). Or how about Bert, the non-local second place guy. While he’s got an impressive background, remember he takes government money directly thru government contracts.
Those are literally choices. you can choose to participate in the free market all your career or not. While Rigell participated in one ill-adviced government program, these guys litearlly ONLY make money from the teets of the taxpayer.
Bryan, these blogs are fun and great entertainment in between the serious stuff that is real life. I have to make sure that crumbs don’t fall into the keyboard during lunch when I get laughing at posts by Eric and the other R-Bots from the Rigell camp.
So Eric, why doesn’t the Rigell campaign call on Loyola to return the $862 because Rigell is going to do the moral and honorable thing by returning his $464,500? I’m sure that Loyola would be happy to comply and they could have a “returning” ceremony showing the public that they are uniting the party by stepping away from the Stimulus.
If you look at the Loyola contract, the $862 was from the Department of Interior and wasn’t coded as Stimulus. Oh, and by the way, the contract was for building a special sidewalk for physically challenged people under the Americans with Disabilities Act. So, you as the spokesman for the Rigell campaign are now attacking anybody who is helping people who are physically challenged and with special needs under the ADA?
Keep it up and the voters will keep peeling off your cause as you show just how greedy, petty and disrespectful the Rigell campaign is of the voting public and how disconnected you and the rest of the R-bots are from real people who have real problems.
Jay D,
Disagree with your assessment of C4C. Every dealership in Hampton Roads participated; for Freedom Automotive to opt out would be virtually the same as shutting its doors for three months. As a business owner, to handicap the well-being of your employees like that, preventing them from earning a living, you, I, everyone in the area would have participated.
I wouldnt be surprised to find the one person who didnt participate is in a more rural, less competitive area.
And despite the Rigell is an opportunist claims, in March/April of 2009 Scott Rigell wasn’t in the position or giving much consideration to running. While its easy for us to sit on towers throwing stones about some of his past decisions in relation to his candidacy, he made business decisions, not, what will this mean or do if/when I run for office.
Its a fair point to argue about the participation, but i am glad to see no one is agreeing that he should return the money. That part of Loyola’s press release was patently absurd, completely off-base, and shows a real lack of business common sense and concern for white-collar workers.
No sooner do I speak does Tim J put his foot in his mouth with the laughable ‘moral and honorable’ line. Haha wow. Idiot.
Jay D,
Disagree with your assessment of C4C.
Every dealership in Hampton Roads participated; for Freedom Automotive
to opt out would be virtually the same as shutting its doors for three months.
As a business owner, to handicap the well-being of your employees like that,
preventing them from earning a living, you, I, everyone in the area would have participated.
I wouldnt be surprised to find the one person who didnt participate is in a more rural,
less competitive area.
And despite the Rigell is an opportunist claims, in March/April of 2009 Scott Rigell
wasn’t in the position or giving much consideration to running. While its easy for us
to sit on towers throwing stones about some of his past decisions in relation to his
candidacy, he made business decisions, not, what will this mean or do if/when I run for office.
Its a fair point to argue about the participation, but i am glad to see no one is agreeing that
he should return the money. That part of Loyola’s press release was absurd and completely
off-base, and shows a real lack of business common sense and more importantly concern for
blue collar workers
Stupid iPhone grrrrrrrr sorry guys tried deleting but didn’t work
DJ,
I have to disagree with your assessment of Rigell’s C4C participation. To suggest he would have been out of business for 3 months just isn’t true. And, if it were, then it could be argued that the C4C stimulus plan had a terribly negative impact on the smaller, used car dealers that could not participate and thus, lost business at the expense of tax payer handouts to the larger auto dealers. Is that good for America? Furthermore, Mr. Rigell has on numerous occassions lauded himself for not participating in an initiative with other local car dealers that would have been good for the car dealers but, bad for the consumers and stated “I am an American before I’m a car dealer”.
One other interesting observation I made was Rigells response defending his participation in C4C in the World Mag report stating he “had no ethical problem” participating what-so-ever however, in the WVEC report his camp claimed that he was never a supporter of the program and would have voted against it. That seems to contradict both his “I’m and American before a care dealer” and “I didn’t have an ethical problem with particpating” comments.
Wow. You guys/dolls have left me thoroughly confused. I don’t know whom to believe…
DJ (idiot reference), so you are plugged in to the R-bot “lets call them names and they will go away” book like poor Eric. You had better go to iPhone school, as to look at your insane emotional ranting twice still doesn’t make any sense. The piece that was somewhat understandable is that I agree that Rigell is a great businessman but isn’t a politician and won’t survive the election.
Why did Jason have to talk for Rigell in the 13 News interview? Answer – they can’t put Rigell out there because he has proven to be a disaster in front of the media or any public forum where he has to think on his feet. You should let him borrow a teleprompter from Obama and he might have been able to pull it off… until the questions.
How about this… New England Patriots coach Bill Bellichick wins a game in Overtime during the season. The other team didn’t get the ball in this particular game. He abided by the rules of the game.
At the end of the season the coach, Bellichick, comes out and repeats his position that he has always maintained and says, “I think the OT rules should be changed to include both teams getting the ball.” So would you expect the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins’ coaches to demand the Patriots take back their win? No because it’s absoultely absurd. They’d be regarded as fools.
I hate to say it but Loyola, Maulbeck, Golden etc are asking the people of the 2nd District to follow an absurd logic. This is a joke at this point-they have proven themselves foolish with this ideology. It’s desperation.
My apologizes to Bellichick. I have no idea what his stance is on OT rules. I further apologize to him for lumping him in with these other 2nd district candidates. Sorry coach. Trying to make a point.
Richard – I see your logic but, I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. C4C was never a mandate.
Richard, I highly recommend that you become the new media spokesperson for the Rigell campaign. If they need any references, we can help you with that. Good Luck!
Allen,
Just take it one step further. What if the refs had simply blown a call during a superbowl? Should the winning team forfeit their win because a play wasn’t reviewable?
Hmm… I really love the sports analogies but, I’m still not finding a strong connection here. Maybe it’s because I’m a Cowboy fan! We have our own set of issues! ;^)
I am baffled by many of the statements here. What is the basic ethical problem here?
1) Taking money from others (you or your grandchildren)and giving to others? or
2) Taking advantage of a program that you said you wouldn’t vote for?
3) Both
4) Something else?
If it is #1, then many of us are guilty of it since we take advantage of personal and business tax credits and deductions.
If it is #2, then many of us are guilty too. I don’t believe that other people should pay for my children and didn’t ask for and won’t ask for a tax credit, but I take advantage of the tax credit.
Would Rigell have shown that he was on higher moral ground than the rest of us if he hadn’t taken C4C? Maybe. But I am not going to hold it against him that he took advantage of a government program to ensure his business remained competitive.
What am I missing?
The VB GOP had Tom Barton III (Beach Ford President) speak at the VB City Club back in September 2009. Mr Barton talked at length about the unintended consequences of the C4C program and why his dealership decided to participate.
Mr Loyola was there as was Mr Rigell and Mr Kenny Golden. We had many GOP leaders in the room including Sen Wagner and Congresswoman Drake. It was an intimate affair and everyone had the opportunity to discuss the program in great detail with men who knew first hand.
Ben asked no questions of Mr Barton nor did Kenny Golden. There was no criticism at that point from either of them. Ben and Kenny seemed to be in agreement with Tom’s (and Scott’s) position that his company was compelled to participate even though he ideologically did not agree with the program. In fact the most interesting portion of the program was hearing the behind the scenes details about all the problems caused to Beach Ford during the C4C program. Toma nd Scott were not fans of C4C.
Th e recent attacks are complete nonsense from Loyola and Golden, especially form these two. They heard directly from the President of Beach and Freedom Ford about the why and the problems of the C4C program.
Now both of them are wilfully ignoring the facts and the reasosns they previously agreed with in order to score political points.
It’s that simple. Why we don’t see through these men more readily-I will never understand.
For those of you who believe this was some sort of privileged affair at the City Club-it was not. It was a $35 luncheon open to any and all people. In other words… please get involved and find out for yourself. Too many good people seem to be falling for this BS.
If you care enough to read and post here you should care enough to take the next step.
Please, I implore you, for the sake of the party-take the next step and find out for yourself.
Scott Rigell Kook Aid drinkers make my head spin. So much for the Republican Party united front. You’ve all done a wonderful job splitting up the party, fighting amongst yourselves. Nye is going to mop the floor with your golden boy Rigell. You’re all wasting the perfect opportunity to take back the seat in November. Simple as that. You’re spending all this time bickering back and forth about Rigell. The guy’s track record speaks for itself, he’s the perfect example of a politician…I thought that’s what we were fighting against? He’ll be so deep in Obama’s pockets, we might as well leave Nye there. Waste of time.
Richard – I was unaware of that City Club meeting and appreciate the info. I can see the dilema the auto dealers were faced with. I also recall the outrage — particularly among the conservative minded — over the trillion dollar stimulus package and the out of control spending policies of the new administration. If Golden and Loyola were at the meeting and given an opportunity to express their concerns and didn’t, I agree that it seems politically convenient for them to do so now. However, in the bigger scheme of things, I also understand where voters may have questions regarding Rigell’s support of/participation in the program — especially while on the campaign trail he makes claims that he has stood by his principles of “America first” while shunning the opportunity to participate in other initiatives that would be good for his business but, bad for America. So, I guess my question would be – with all due respect — where does he draw the line?
Well said, Allen. You have intelligently summarized the key question for Scott Rigell to answer for the 2nd District voters regarding his participation in the Clunker program. I can’t find a clear answer in this thread or any of the press releases from the Rigell camp.
lacee-
Nye offers me no indication that he is some some of political wunderkind. What has he done to demonstreate his political accumen to make you believe he is such a force? Your misplaced faith in an inexperienced first term democrat who has upset his poitical base with every vote reveals your inability to analyze without extreme bias.
Allen-
You’ve got to understand the role of teh CEO or President of a company. In this case you also must understnad the ties local dealerships have with their parent company-specifically here the Ford Motor Company.
I can’t honestly answer your question or offer Scott’s mind. Call him. He’ll respond. Set up breakfast with him. I’ve offerred to do it for others-the offer stands- I offer you the same opportunity. I’ll set up breakfast with him and you can ask him face to face. You can look in his eyes when he answers and I know you’ll get an honest answer. That’s all I ask for those who are on the fence. Seek the answer for yourself.
Civility exists-but only when we hold ourselves to the same standards as we hold our leaders. There is a better way to do this stuff. I have faith that responsible leadership will restore integrity to the process.
Scott Taylor will be the nominee.
Lacee, I agree with you. The Republicans need a united front if they hope to beat Nye. But the intra party bickering is a result of the party choosing the wrong candidate to back. Maulbeck would be much better. He’s got the experience and drive without the baggage. Mizusawa should be running for the Senate, (and I think that’s his true goal) not Virginia 2nd, where he’s an outsider.
H-C, you’re a riot, thanks
Allen, thanks for your objectiveness, rare to find here
I think it’s key to point out to everyone that while we get up in arms about things on BD, we really represent a small percentage of the voting populace. The only reason this is in the ‘headlines’ (and I use that very loosely) is because Loyola put out a worthless and ill-thought out press release and WVEC had a slow news day. This issue isn’t causing a thorn in anyone’s side, it won’t come up on the campaign trail, it hasn’t come up in a major way in the nearly six months past the nomination process has been on-going. Most importantly, it’ll be a non-factor in voters minds in five weeks.
Do you really see someone at the polls going ‘Really? Scott Rigell participated in Cash for Clunkers? WHAT!?!? I’m not voting for him!’
Let’s be real.
All this lack of support for the cash for clunkers and the Red Read (Republican Party of Virginia Beach email newsletter) had a statement announcing the cash for appliances program and on a side note it still had an announcement asking for volunteers for Kenny Golden’s campaign.
I’m an Independent,
Be careful saying that around Lacee. She works for Taylor.
Richard,
Are you seriously on here suggesting that anyone but you has an “inability to analyze without extreme bias?”
You present yourself as some kind of enlightened political analyst when you’re really just a hack for Rigell. I’m fine with that, but you need to own it.
Michael-
I own it completely. I’m all in for Rigell. I was part of a group that asked him to run in February of 2009. I make no excuses. I do not hide behind made up names. I include my full name and cell phone number often when I post in an attempt to take these internet discussions to the next level. To date only one person has called me-James “turbo” Cohen. I gained insight form talking to him, but neither of us changed our minds. I try to be as transparent as possible. Give me a call if you like 757.620.2611.
Lacee’s analysis of Glenn Nye’s strength as a candidate is overstated and backed with no facts. They are hyperbolic platitudes rife with bias. I call them how I see them. Or Michael would yu like to offer me some rationale as to why Glenn Nye is so strong a candidate? I’d like to hear it.
Thanks, Michael. The Rigell campaign “hacks” are like a fire ant colony. When you kick the nest, the entire colony attacks.
Tim J-
Have you ever thought that since Rigell has more supporters there ae far more comments that are Pro-Rigell?
I just had a thought… Loyola has taken a very principled stand on the C4C program.
I saw Tom Barton III’s name on Loyola’s donor list. Has Loyola returned the money yet?
Following Loyola’s logic: a portion of that $250 donation must be tainted by stimulus money-since Beach Ford participated in C4C.
I would expect such a principled stand on C4C to reveal to us all that Loyola returned the money prior to his attack on Rigell and his Channel 13 appearance.
Anyone know how Tom Barton III took the news when Loyola returned the check?
Richard, you have found some common ground here… Loyola can return Barton’s $250 and Rigell can return his C4C $464,500 back to Obama and ask Obama to return back his $1,000 donation so he can recapture the moral and ethical high ground. Sounds like a great deal to me.
How does everyone keep saying that Rigell profited the $464,500 from the Cash for Clunkers program? Isn’t Freedom Automotive Group an incorporated entity? So Loyola’s figures would be what the corporation received, not Rigell. So the money received went to pay for keeping employees, etc. when everyone else was firing employees and closing down dealerships? I think this whole thing just makes the guy look better.
Yes, Freedom Automotive is incorporated as a Virginia Chapter sub S corporation and under both listings showing with the SCC. Profits flow down to the stock holders and are taxed as personal income.
Thanks to Jay D., http://online.worldmag.com/2010/04/05/clunker-candidates-for-congress/ and a quote from this article:
“Cash for Clunkers is not justified among the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, thoughtful voters are likely to question whether they should vote for office-seekers who have a track record of pursuing corporate welfare and expanding the deficit.”
Tim J, bear with me, I’m just trying to see where you’re coming from with this. So, by your standards, no one should accept anything that would contribute to the deficit. So anyone who qualified for a tax refund this year should not have taken it?
My “standards”? A “tax refund” isn’t a constitutionally unjustified voluntary “corporate welfare” program that was legislated as part of the Stimulus Bill that added to the deficit.
Wouldn’t that depend on which part of legislation your tax refund is coming from? Since the standard tax forms are not set up so you can pick and choose which individual tax breaks you want to take or not take based upon what legislation has passed in the past year it’s impossible to know what part of your money is coming from a bill that you did or did not approve of. But I guess you would consider that “social welfare.” So it’s just corporate welfare you are against, not social welfare?
The reason I bring that up is because when I researched the bill it was written to provide the individual utilizing the program with an incentive to buy a fuel efficient vehicle. I am sure this boosted sales for the auto dealers, yes, but it was also intended to provide a social break to the consumers and also to cut down on auto emissions. So to say that the auto industry alone profited on this isn’t accurate. The community did as well by having less “gas guzzling” vehicles on the road. And the consumer who purchased the vehicle was able to save gas money and be able to afford a new car.
I am just trying to figure out where your line in the sand is drawn. It seems to be that you don’t like the bailout of the automakers, I agree. But, to say that Rigell would have done better to say no to the cash for clunkers program, when all of the other auto dealers participated, would be saying you would rather he had let his business go under for the past year because that would have made him a better candidate. I don’t agree. The fact that he is such a good businessman is what makes him a good candidate. The fact that he has been able to raise his business up and make tough decisions like this is what makes him a good businessman. For you to say he would have been a better candidate if he had turned away people who came in to trade in their vehicles, and turn his back on his employees, well that is just odd to me.
The Stimulus bill was supposed to be a “jobs” bill, not a corporate welfare bill. It was the Government trying to “Stimulate” the economy using a premise that was not justified under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and the outcome so far has been unsustainable. Although well intentioned by some who held their noses and voted for it, C4C has decimated the secondary car market for used cars, parts and service.
Rigell made the choice as an auto dealer to benefit from the Stimulus, and is now trying to justify that decision as candidate. He is trying to use the old John Kerry line to have it both ways and which I paraphrase: “I was for it but I would have voted against it”.
So the “line in the sand” is somewhere between – is he a candidate who happens to be an auto dealer or an auto dealer who happens to be a candidate? Everything he has said and done up to this point has shown him to be the latter which demonstrates that his core principles and belief system are relative to circumstances that are in his own self interest.
Hey look, a dead horse!
Yeah, and you Rigell guys are trying to bury it as deep and as fast as possible.
I don’t know who Tracey is over at VNS but here’s a quote from the interview with John Collins, and the link:
Tracey:
“Right. So, let me see if I understand. Rigell donated a little over $1000 to the Obama campaign, then he received over a half million dollars from Cash for Clunkers, because he owns a car dealership.”
John:
“That sounds right.”
Tracey:
“And as Scott Rigell proudly states, he has invested about half million in his campaign. Wow, one could almost say Obama and/or the American taxpayers are financing Scott Rigell’s campaign. That’s quite the return on investment, almost half a million for a thousand bucks!”
http://www.virginianewssource.com/editor-letters/574-another-gop-candidate-raises-cash-for-cluncker-charge-against-scott-rigell
They’re not quite done beating it, though it is mangled, unrecognizable from what it once was and is quite dead – much like the Loyola campaign.
You start kicking the Rigell nest and all you find are dead and mangled horses. The Rigell temper tantrum on 26 April is now a link at the top on Maulback’s website: http://www.edmaulbeck.com/news.html
In listening to this recording, Rigell’s in training to be our own Congressman Grayson. It will be high drama to watch Rigell and Grayson attack each other like two fire ants from different nests that have been put in an empty peanut butter jar… or maybe not and Rigell’s bipartisanship instincts will kick in after being shouted down a couple of times.
Tim,
Sincere thank you for pointing out the Maulbeck thing, I’ve been wondering exactly what the hell happened.
On the other hand, referencing VNS for anything undermines credibility..well, that and responding to EVERYTHING. But that little snippet you posted there just shows that Wally & Co don’t have a clue.
Your Welcome.
O.M.G.
Just curious, and please excuse my ignorance but, who is Wally and Co.? I must have missed something.
Maulbeck refers to Rigell as The Clunker Candidate and suggests he is really a Democrat at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_fBxG5eEU
Richard,
Your primary reason for supporting Rigell for Congress is that he is a “successful businessman” who people know.” I totally agree with you on that point- In this environment where most Congressmen and woman are far removed from the responsibilities of having to sign a paycheck, we need Congressman who know how to manage a budget and responsibly manage people and money. To Rigell’s credit, he is qualified on that front and would have my support if not for this other problem:
What bothers me is the deeply rooted bigotry and homophobia Rigell has displayed in his personal and spiritual life. As a elder of his church, rather than allow women and homosexuals to serve senior roles, he and his friends left the church to create their own.
Not only is that a classic example of “I’m not winning, so I’m taking my ball and going home.” It also displays an unapologetic sexism and homophobia. Rigell: this is 2010- get with it. Women and other minority groups such as homosexuals are not subcategories to white men. Further, Mr. Rigell, if you don’t like something in Congress, you can’t quit and go start a new one. I think the voters deserve an explanation on this.
Believe it or not, I’d like to vote for Rigell, but he has only ignored this issue since he announced for Congress and he’s going to have to address it before I can vote for him.
So Richard, next time you’re at one of his fundraisers, ask him why he seems to so vehemently advocate the subjection of women and homosexual people. Or at least why they offend him so much that he’d be inspired to create a new church to avoid them. —- and report back.
The horse is apparently still breathing. People are rightly concerned about the whole C4C thing, so it won’t go away, no matter how much Rigell fans want it to. Bottom line, he went along with the scheme and profited from it, even though he knew it was bad legislation. It was not cost effective, was deficit spending, and actually not even good for the environment. Like the rest of the horrid stimulus bill, and the health care reform, it was pushed through without careful thought to costs, and whether or not it would actually accomplish its goals. Rigell is not a thoughtful, careful politician. He is self promoting opportunist.
Oh my. I just listened to the Republican Professionals Network audio-to repeate the link: http://www.edmaulbeck.com/news.html
It begins with Maulbeck giving a thoughtful, factual summary of issues and his positions. He states he is the only Rep. candidate who dedicated his life to his country by his military service. Then Rigell jumps all over him, taking offense, because he also served his country. As he certainly did by serving in the reserves. But there is a difference to serving the country, by drilling once a month while maintaining a private career, and dedicating your life to it by 20 years of active duty. Ed is in his mid 40′s. Yeah, I’d say he dedicated his adult life to our country. 10 points Maulbeck, 0 points Rigell. Then I believe it is Scott Taylor who needles him about C4C. Seemed like a reasonable question, a bit hard to hear. Rigell gets apoplectic. Wish I’d been there!
Independent — just a minor correction to your post: Taylor was pressing Rigell on his financial support of Obama as well as questioning him on whether he (Rigell) even voted in the presidential primary during which the Obama donation was made. Taylor was clearly trying to antagonize Rigell but, Rigell took the bait and unravelled a bit by shouting down Taylor on whether he’s (Taylor) ever “donated a dime” to the republican party and actually ridiculing Taylor’s own fundraising efforts. The audio is only half the story because his body language was quite telling as well. I’ll go on record as being a part of the “anti-Rigell” vote so, in fairness my observations are made in bias. With that caveat, I think he seemed easily rattled and quick to show his temper that night.
Michael, how is that crystal meth working out for ya? Good? What answer could Rigell possibly give you to satisfy you that would cause you to say, “OK, I think I can pull the lever for this meat puppet now”? I could care less if he himself is “gay”. He IS NOT A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE – period. NYE HAS A MORE CONSERVATIVE VOTING RECORD THAN RIGELL. I thought I was new to politics, but then I soon realized I knew BS and hence politics. Wake up regarding what actually matters, please!
Good idea Tim J. Let’s get all the car buyers who received benefit on their purches to return the $4500 so Mr. Rigell can return the money to the government. Sounds like a stupid idea doesn’t it? At that point Mr. Rigell can lay off some of his workers who will not be able to use money to avail them of your services and you can also get in the unemployment line. I too think cash for clunkers was a stupid idea, but not to take advantage of it to help customers, his business, and Ford Motor Company navigate through these troubled times would be even stupider. I applaud Ford Motor Company for their foresight in their financial responsibilites and to their duty to make the business of this country stable.
Louie, you can’t have it both ways. He could have taken a principled stand against this just as he has other initiatives (again, he has proudly claimed numerous times throughout his campaign that he has shunned other initiatives that would have been good for his business but, bad for America because he’s “an American first”).
Louie, this isn’t about Rigell’s car buyers, it’s about Rigell trying to have it both ways. Rigell the car dealer made a business decision to participate in the C4C which was part of the corrupt Stimulus program. Rigell the Candidate is trying justify Rigell the car dealer’s business decision. Get it? Rigell the Candidate is making excuses for Rigell the car dealer?
We don’t need a candidate with a dissociative identity with one identity trying to cover and make excuses for the other. There are other Ford dealers in Norfolk, Hampton, Virginia Beach and Eastern Shore who aren’t running for Congress and would have welcomed Freedom’s customers, and would have treated them to the same deal.
I guess your spin has made you dizzy, so let me put it in terms that you or anyone can understand. As I stated before, I am and was against C4C and understand this to be one of the biggest boondoogles I have ever seen. I was in the automotive parts and service business for 30 years. I perceived the problems to be unsurmountable. Most people do not understand that this goes much further than a new car dealership. No one looks down the line at the effects on the automotive aftermarket service and parts both new and used. Also included are the used car dealerships in need of those used cars to put on their lots to earn their living.
I could rant about this all day; but, let’s get to the reasons that not just Mr. Rigell but any competent businessman would make so that his employees can buy a new car, buy a new or better house,have insurance with help from thier employer, and have retirement plans to suplement Social Security. In business all the people you represent-customers, employees, and business associates-don’t have the political beliefs of the owner, CEO, CFO or any other operating officer. Decisons made by the business operator have to be made with all options on the table. To tell Mr. Rigell, any partners, stockholders, creditors, suppliers, and employees that he is not going to make a competent business decision would be disastarous for his business. To lose this many sales to Ford dealers in other cities and states that would normally be his would be a disservice to the city, state, community, and most of all his employees.
As a individual he has a right to any action or inaction affecting his personal life. As a business owner, he has an obligation to consider any lawful bill or program and is required as a good citizen and business owner to take advantage of such programs. In making a yes or no decision as a business owner, his decisions affects the well being of far more than just him.
By putting his personal beliefs aside and making a decision for the betterment of all that his business affects-employees, creditors, suppliers, stockholder, customers, city, state,and community-shows me that he looks at an issue based on merit and not political affilation.
This is the type of person that needs to be in Washington to look out for what is best for our Country no matter what wind is blowing.
Louie
Louie, your are another fire ant in the Rigell nest who is making excuses for the car dealer who happens to be a candidate. Rigell made a business decision and now can’t hide from the political hypocrisy of his comments that were critical about Pelosi. Unfortunately, his “How do you stop Pelosi?” banners that appear everywhere make him a national joke. The more you dig at this sore, the worse it is going to get.
You had better circle the nest because Rigell’s Clunker deal just went national and viral in news print and on the web in a story that will be printed in tomorrow’s USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-05-11-clunkers_N.htm
i thank the fire ants are comming out an are under your collar by the way who reads usa today enough i am out louie
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.