Taylor’s hit piece on Rigell
By Georgie Gale | Thursday, May 13th, 2010 | PoliticsIt seems that 2nd District Republican Congressional candidate Scott Taylor took out an ad – I mean contributed to a story on Human Events, an online conservative media source. The article trumpets with horror the – yawn, old story – news that Rigell gave a contribution to Obama during the Democratic primary.
Ok, fine. Maybe Taylor feels the rest of the world needs to know this information. Rigell did it, it’s newsworthy, they covered it. I get that. But somebody please explain to me why this “article” has a request for contributions to Taylor’s campaign at the end? This is why I say Taylor “took out an ad.” Maybe I’m missing something, but aren’t there four other Republicans also running in the primary? A fact that is not once mentioned in the story. Did Taylor just fail to mention that, or is this Human Events magazine’s way of endorsing him?
And if this truly was journalism as opposed to a piece of hyped up propaganda, why was there no mention of reaching out to the Rigell campaign for comment? Instead they refer to something he said on a blog once. Now that’s fine investigative reporting for you. Maybe Taylor should think twice about what media sources he goes to for his hit pieces from now on.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Georgie Gale of Virginia Beach. That's it.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
43 Responses to "Taylor’s hit piece on Rigell"
Thank you. This piece was absolute journalistic garbage at its best.
Gee, and Gary Byler announced at the 2nd District Convention that every candidate should run a positive campaign these last 30 days, sticking to the issues and not attacks. The line got the loudest applause from the several hundred convention delegates than any line of the entire day. All the candidates, (including Taylor) were nodding in approval.
Seems Taylor couldn’t even wait 72 Hours before breaking that standard.
His campaign has gone straight to the gutter.
Scott Taylor did not write this article or pay for its publication and should not be accused of doing so without providing some evidence. Blogs(bearing drift included)are by their very nature editorial commentary and I do not understand your conclusion that because this piece was written by someone who supports a former Navy SEAL and local business owner Scott Taylor for Congress that it is some sort of a paid for advertisement piece. The funny thing is that the above piece by Georgie only mentions two of the six Republican candidates by name so I assume Georgie also feels that at this point the race has come down to Taylor vs. Rigell as well.
Now more than at any time in history, Americans desperately need bold leaders who are willing to acknowledge the gravity of the threats the nation confronts and who are willing to propose measures equal to the challenge to preserving our system of government, while protecting liberty and reaffirming the Rule of Law.
We’re running out of time.
How stupid are you to post THIS garbage? Human Events is a nationally syndicated conservative news source.
Who is Georgie Gale?
You say maybe he should think twice about his sources. Are you saying this article is false? It’t not negative, it’s facts. Taylor isn’t going negative, he didn’t attack Rigell personally he just commented on facts. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s funny how people are getting all in an uproar over things that are facts. Someone please tell me how it is negative. And to say because it mentioned his link, so what, there are a bunch of articles on here that are not about all the campaigns. I think this is a crap article, not the article by Human Events THAT DID NOT SLAM ANYONE ONLY USED FACTS! People want facts.
It’s funny how there is another candidate that actually attacks Rigell, I don’t hear anyone saying he is going negative, they just keep saying that of Taylor, and he is just sticking to the facts. Interesting, wonder why there is no mention of that. That’s good news for the Taylor campaign, they must be worried about him as a viable candidate.
Georgie, did you contact Scott Taylor before posting this article?
If you read what I posted, I never said Taylor was going negative – that was in the comments below. What I said was that the article was a poor example of journalism since it didn’t mention any of the other candidates, didn’t try to get a response from Rigell, and was esentially a fundraising piece for Taylor. This is not journalism, it’s marketing. I was going after the article not after Taylor.
And by the way, just because Human Events is a “nationally syndicated news source” doesn’t mean they don’t put out garbage from time to time.
You didn’t say Taylor was going negative? No, your title did not imply that at all ms. Gale. This is BS.
Ann,
You did exactly what you criticize Human Events for and did not contact anyone from the Taylor camp.
Your title is “Taylor’s hit piece on Rigell”, you are going after Taylor for having an outside news source run factual information?
Seriously, astro-turfing comments are starting to piss me off. (not Joe Knowlin/Todd Rojcewicz, welcome back)
Every comment on this thread ‘defending’ Taylor are from one person at IP address: 70.184.179.23
Knock it off. You’re only embarrassing yourself.
GG, don’t waste your energy defending your piece, the HE story was laughably bad. Even the other campaigns found it horrendously written.
All 4 comments have really just sent you over the edge DJ.
confused
bdc124@yahoo.com
70.184.179.23
Submitted on 2010/05/14 at 5:33pm
All 4 comments have really just sent you over the edge DJ
I was just having a discussion with someone about how the intellectual content on Bearing Drift goes downhill every time Taylor commentators post. Between this, and the comments after the article on Human Events, they have yet to prove me wrong.
I’m looking at 8 posts from you, not 4. 8 out of 12 (before I responded)
Yeah, I’d say one person hijacking a thread with 75% of the posts under multiple names in a futile attempt to defend their preferred candidate would piss me off
So – this one isn’t from the “astroturfers” DJ – still calling the headline BS. I read the article, TAYLOR didn’t put it out, and that is what the headline implies. Was he suppose to make sure Human Events went and talked to every other candidate? REALLy? How about all you Rigell kool-aid drinkers try holding your own guy to the same ridiculous standards you seem to think the other campaigns should follow. While the internal point that it might be “shoddy journalism” may be true, the headline is meant to make it appear that the Taylor campaign put out a “hit piece” – and that is misleading at best, and a deliberate maniputlative LIE at worst.
Govgirl,
Given the amount of overwhelming VA02 insider information in the editorial (at this point I think we can agree it’s not an article) it’s not a leap in logic to tell that the author simply posted what it received, rather then research any specifics. Specifically the ‘blog post’ from July of 2009 as an alleged response coicidentally happens to be something that Taylor has repeatedly referenced, including during the RPN fiasco. Add in a reference to Bob Bennett in Utah and a laughable quote from Tom “Establishment” Davis that defies logic and posts the article, complete with requisite link to Taylor’s website. This was a spoon-fed editorial from the Taylor campaign, deserved kudos to them for getting someone to post the piece unquestioned.
Regardless, I’ve heard from two sources in the last two days that Human Events likely will issue either a retraction or a follow-up article to clear up their shoddy ‘journalism’
If you needed further evidence, here’s a tweet from her 2 days ago regarding Bob McDonnell, something that was covered initially only by local media
http://twitter.com/MichelleOddis/status/13863612701
“Gov. McDonnell is about to endorse Rigell in VA GOP Primary Rigell is a RINO but they r “close friends” Biz as usual http://bit.ly/deajdx”
Still think the story wasn’t fed by Taylor?
The virginia beach republicans have let another upper middle-aged white person run against a young democrat candidate in a district where the average voter is closer to the age of Nye than to Rigell. Rigell = another rino playing the voter (and governor) like a bad fiddle, will only loose in the legacy of presidential candidate rino McCain.
I didn’t yawn when I saw Rigell had donated to Obama. It may be an old story but this is the first I’ve read of it. I’m trying to figure out who I’m going to support in the primary. I’ve got to say that it won’t be anyone who donated to Obama that’s for sure.
When Gary Byler called out for a 100% positive campaign I didn’t hear “… the loudest applause from the several hundred convention delegates than any line of the entire day.” I heard some applause, mostly from the Rigell camp and his supporters.
Was Kenny Golden right? When 100% of the Republican leadership past and present (Bob Tata?) endorses Scott Rigell what message are we sending to the voters of the District?
Scott has been a wonderful behind the scenes supporter and has earned every one of those endorsements but I know for a fact that Jessica is running because she didn’t relate with any of the “fine men” candidates. She felt they didn’t represent her or her views. I would argue that Jessica – a financially strapped, college educated mother is the person who best “represents” the district and the “real” everyday issues.
Is Taylor going negative? Going negative is when a candidate makes stuff up, takes things out of context and runs ads. When an article (biased or not) lists factual things that a candidate did, said or believes that’s not going negative.
Rigell’s $10,000 donation to raise our local sales tax by 25% was enough for me to look for another candidate. I’m I being negative? Sorry Gary and all you Rigell zombies I honestly hope we as a district send the message to Washington that politics as usual has got us in the financial mess we are in now and is NOT going to be accepted anymore!
David, then you were in a different room. Everyone applauded with Gary made that statement. Everyone looked over at Taylor’s camp as well.
Is Taylor going negative? When is Taylor not negative? The entire article was word for word from the mouth of Taylor and what he and his staff has spoken to every single individual he has ever talked to. Half truths are not reality, they are deceptive. Deception is negative.
I heard Golden was speaking very fondly of Jessica yesterday on Macrini’s Morning show. She is a darling!
Really,
What has Taylor said that was false? Is it a half truth that-
Rigell donated 1k to Obama?
Rigell did not vote in the 2008 Republican primary?
Rigell gave 10k to a tax raising entity?
Rigell went to the Chesapeake city council and lobbied for a Govt. Monopoly (flo control), this is on tape?
None of this is negative. These are facts. Sorry that you koolaid chugging fools can’t handle the truth. The voters can,and that’s your problem. We were all at the convention and your perception of where everybody looked is false. Only your whiny campaign was clapping with any purpose.
Jared, I don’t believe the statements were false just half true and certainly negative. Gary said no negativity. I know everyone was looking at Taylor’s camp because I was wondering why they were staring at me, and then I turned around and saw the Taylor crew behind me.
WHat is half true about those? They are 100 percent true. Gary supports Rigell. If Gary wanted the Truth to not be talked about to the masses, then maybe they should have went with a convention not a primary (first in 30 years), Which Taylor alone fought for. A half truth would be your boss saying he is a constitutionalist, but gave money to measures that were deemed unconstitutional. Half truth would be the description of a anti-Hilary donation, when the man did not even vote in the 08 Republican primary. Keep chugging that koolaid.
Jared, for your information, I don’t like koolaid. But I do consider myself to be voting for ABT (anyone but Taylor) because the first conversation I ever had with him he spent bashing the other candidates. I have spoken with each candidate individually and not one of the other 6 (including Golden) has said anything negative about another. If Gary supports Rigell maybe you should have fought harder to get Bruce elected. A half truth is when you only have one side of the story and neglect to tell the other side.
I do have a question for you though. How would you know if someone did or did not vote in the 2008 election?
I meant I put 6 because I was including Golden, not that it was a shock Golden wasn’t talking bad about someone. Sorry Kenny, you were actually the most personable and I know you would never say anything bad about another candidate.
Actually I think Taylor has great relationships with other candidates. Maybe not yours. Is that a half truth of yours really. All the things mentioned are real truths. 100 percent. The story is yours, but the story doesn’t change the facts. Just check voter vault, aristotle, or any other voter data base, and you can see for yourself.
Nope, that’s one thing he was consistent with Jared, he didn’t discriminate. He had something rotten to say about each one of the candidates. Mind you he did have a special affection for Rigell but he left no one out. If you care to give me your email address I’ll send you a rundown of what was said. No use spreading that nonsense further than it needs to go.
Maybe I am doing this wrong. I searched for all of those sites and nowhere can you look it up.
Everything you are saying is nonsense
Good comeback. I was hoping for an IP link, email address or something of substance.
I have been looking into this since you made that comment. There is absolutely no way to tell who voted for which candidate in an election. But then again, I’m full of nonsense.
Really??? Jared’s point was that he didn’t vote in the primary, not who he voted for. It’s rather simple to determine who voted in a particular election. Anyone whose done direct mail in a campaign has done it.
No one claimed to know whom someone voted for.
Really???,
In Virginia, you vote either in the Republican or Democratic primaries during the years. Since Virginia doesn’t register individuals to political parties, the DPVA and RPV track the primaries to get an indication of someone’s political leanings. That information is contained within voter vault and some other programs. It does not show who you voted for, just which primary you participated in.
Jared, I’m surprised to hear you know as much about this programs. At first I just assumed you were merely a zealot. Now we know you’re a Taylor hack, and those are pretty limited.
A sincere thank you to DJ
and a half thank you to Brian.
Who cares whether or not someone voted in the 2008 primary? It was already determined that McCain was the nominee!
LC, I completely agree with you that it makes no difference if Rigell voted in the primary. Ours was one of the last primaries and it didn’t matter. I just wanted to know how to look it up, I also thought Jared said the actual election, not the primary, I was mistaken.
I have posted several comments on here using my name. David, thank you for bringing to light then when an article lists facts, then it is not negative. I was at the convention when Byler said that, everyone was not looking at Taylor. People are so immature on here. It’s facts and people should know them, then make up their own mind whether it bothers you are not. And to say it is marketing, all these articles about Rigell over and over, you don’t call that marketing???
I have never heard Taylor bash any other candidates, again telling facts is not negative. He gets along great and respects the other candidates. Kenny Golden just attended his Rally last week. You are mistaken. I like some of the other candidates.
DJ, why are you so against Taylor, it’s obvious. I would love to hear your thoughts on why you are so against him? I’m not a Taylor hack, I am a TAYLOR supporter but I like to hear about all sides. I can see from your numerous posts that you don’t support him and it seems like you have a problem with him. What is the reason?
And why aren’t you calling out the Rigell hacks???
I was also in the room and heard some applaud loudly (Rigell camp) and others applaud politely. Many of us (Anyone-But-Rigell camp) didn’t applaud; we grinned and kept our appreciation to Taylor and Maulbeck quiet as a nod to good manners and the setting. FWIW: Maulbeck is terrific; he’s done a truly admirable job of being the ‘conscience of the party’.
I expect all contenders would have preferred to run according to Byler’s ‘positive campaign’ rule. Keyed to that however, is an understood opportunity for frequent and active engagement between the candidates, which Rigell’s camp shut down before the BD debate and certainly after his last public meltdown. We’re still waiting for the debate he promised Taylor (and “welcomed and was eager for!”). I guess if Rigell’s elected we’ll eventually learn which promises he’ll keep and which ones he’s simply making off the cuff … and will reverse later?
Anyone else notice the Party was complicit? Instead of 6 candidate speeches, how much more enlightening and informative it could have been with a Q & A from the gathering of engaged and informed attendees. Oh wait … that would have left Rigell unscripted & exposed and ‘the people’ able to actively participate – can’t have that!
Leave your response