Bearing Drift Endorsements for State Senate Republican Nominations
By Bearing Drift | Thursday, August 18th, 2011 | Politics
Bearing Drift is written by friends.
Every day, we collaborate and discuss how politics affects Virginia and her citizens.
We all have some degree of experience in the political realm, and all bring our collective energy and enthusiasm for the process to our discussion and our writing.
But Bearing Drift is also full of freedom-loving, independent thinkers who feel that their particular views of particular candidates or issues are the right views.
Bearing Drift is also unabashedly conservative. Let’s be honest, the day we endorse a Democrat over a Republican is going to be a very interesting day indeed. Therefore, it makes the most sense for us to wade in when there is an intramural contest.
In Virginia, we are in the midst of just such a contest.
Come late in the evening on August 23, there will be seven more Republican nominees to join the already 29 conservatives who are putting a full-court press on Democrats to defend their slim 22-18 seat majority in the State Senate.
While we would like almost all of the candidates running to serve, as they all bring significant, positive attributes to the table, we know that you, the voter, can only choose one to be the nominee.
Ultimately, all Bearing Drift contributors know that we aren’t going to agree 100% with the Republicans who are elected to the State Senate and retake the majority, but we would like those serving to be as close to our brand of conservatism as possible.
We also know that we won’t internally agree 100% on the candidates who are going to be listed below as our “endorsed” candidates. I am certain some contributors will offer their dissenting opinion in the comments section.
However, after fierce debate among the contributors, response to questionnaires by some of the candidates, and an ultimate decision made by Bearing Drift board members, what follows is our recommendation for Virginia Republicans in these districts to select the candidate who will take a pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-life, pro-Virginia approach to the State Senate.
It’s important to remember though, come August 24, “We are family!”
3rd — Minority Leader Tommy Norment
The voters of the 3rd District are blessed to have this senior Senator who is looking out for their interests in Richmond. However, Leader Norment has proven in the past that he can deviate from the conservative course to the detriment of the fundamental principles that we at Bearing Drift support. We ask voters of the 3rd District to keep Leader Norment honest during his continuing service. We know that we will do our part.
Mr. Frechette is noble to throw his hat into the ring and give voters a choice, but he neither offers the experience nor the ability that the voters of the district deserve in a representative.
13th –- John Stirrup
In the GOP primary for the nomination in the newly drawn 13th State Senatorial District, Bearing Drift endorses Prince William County Supervisor John Stirrup.
Clearly this race has no shortage of heavily credentialed conservatives: Stirrup, former Delegate Dick Black, and Bob FitzSimmonds all will cast reliable votes if elected to the Virginia State Senate.
However, in our view, John Stirrup has the slight advantage because he has proven to be an effective legislator at the local level, which should translate into a solid tenure in the Senate. Additionally, Stirrup is the most likely to be elected in this newly drawn and largely Republican district.
A Stirrup victory on August 23 will have ramifications across the state. He is likely to receive significant business support for his general election campaign, which will free up critical campaign funds for other close races in the Commonwealth. This savings and re-distribution for the GOP could very well tip the balance towards Republicans in their efforts to win back the Senate. The ride to the majority is much smoother with Stirrup in the saddle.
Additionally, only FitzSimmonds and Stirrup mention on their websites the tremendously important growth issue in the Loudoun and Prince William suburbs. Normally, on that issue, it would be a tie. However, Stirrup has campaigned on it when he first won his Supervisor race and has effectively governed accordingly.
Yet FitzSimmonds and Black both have a wealth of experience and knowledge.
FitzSimmonds is quick to remind Bearing Drift that he has served as a legislative aide to Del. Scott Lingamfelter and played a crucial role in developing the legislation to audit the Virginia Department of Transportation – an idea that ultimately saved Virginia taxpayers over $1 billion. He also was then-State Senator Ken Cuccinelli’s legislative director and was able to work across the aisle with liberals “in areas that are not politically polarizing, like mental health.”
FitzSimmonds clearly exhibits strong conservatism though. His views on life, tax reform, school choice, and spending we agree with.
“Virginia government spends too much,” he writes in our questionnaire. “Due to the economic downturn, Virginia cut its budget dramatically for the first time in modern history. Virtually no one noticed. Legislators and lobbyists have called for the “restoration” of these funds, but I believe that the cuts were so unnoticed that we should make another sweep at limiting the size of state government and put limits on the ability of future legislatures to grow government too rapidly, as occurred during our last period of economic expansion.”
Bearing Drift also appreciates the very specific reforms Black is proposing for VDOT, education reform, tax reform, and spending cuts. It is apparent to us that if he is elected, he will have no trouble quickly submitting specific and important legislation on those issues. We also admire his considerable service to our country and do not overlook his service to the people of Loudoun County (of which more than 70% of the district is comprised) for four terms.
However, we see no reason for the state to remain in the liquor business.
“I do support the state-run ABC liquor stores and do not think it wise to sell off this asset for both social and financial reasons,” he tells Bearing Drift.
For those truly interested in paring down government involvement in our private lives, there’s no justification for government to sell booze.
In the end, all three candidates will serve the 13th very well, but John Stirrup is not only a solid conservative. but will help the GOP elect more conservatives at the same time.
21st — David Nutter
The 21st Senate District, which encompasses the City of Roanoke, and all or part of Giles, Montgomery and Roanoke Counties in southwestern Virginia, has long been “unwinnable” for the GOP. While two good candidates are pursuing the Republican nomination in this district—both of whom would be, by far, better than the longtime incumbent Democrat John Edwards—we believe that Dave Nutter is the best choice for 21st District Republicans.
After the Senate approved its redistricting plan earlier this year, Republicans had a glimmer of hope for a district that had been untouchable. When other Republicans with higher name recognition (reportedly) declined to run, Roanoke insurance agent Tripp Godsey, at the urging of the Roanoke Tea Party, agreed to challenge Sen. Edwards. Godsey is to be commended for stepping up when so many others stood down. His energetic campaign has touched on a host of critical issues, ranging from the economy and taxation to zoning and land-use planning. Godsey truly embodies the spirit of the citizen-legislator, and we at Bearing Drift hope to see more of Tripp Godsey in the future – his conservatism and tenacity would be assets to the Roanoke Valley (particularly in the city’s upcoming municipal elections).
With a share of the vote equal to that of the city of Roanoke coming from the New River Valley (NRV)—an area which Dave Nutter represented in the House of Delegates for nearly a decade—Del. Nutter is the candidate best positioned to make this race competitive. NRV voters know Nutter, his work ethic, dedication to his constituents and his largely conservative voting record in the House and have reelected him by large margins term after term. Nutter already has a strong base of support in the NRV and, through his position in the economic development office at Virginia Tech, is known to business leaders throughout the Roanoke area. When facing an entrenched incumbent, having these established organizational and fundraising networks is a significant advantage.
Furthermore, Del. Nutter’s experience in economic development would be an asset both to the 21st District and the State Senate as a whole. While Virginia’s unemployment rate remains lower than the national average, parts of our Commonwealth suffer from chronically high unemployment; Nutter’s experience could greatly assist Gov. McDonnell and the state government in nurturing an environment conducive to job creation in these most economically depressed regions.
Admittedly, Del. Nutter’s record in the House of Delegates is imperfect: he voted for the Warner tax increase seven years ago, a move which, he laments, seemed the best option at the time given the available revenue data. But he has still cast more that 20,000 votes and has earned a 95% rating from the Family Foundation. Since his ill-advised vote, Del. Nutter has been an advocate for keeping Virginia’s tax burden low, even voting to sunset the state’s tax laws. While we regret his vote in 2004, we believe he has learned from his mistake and seriously doubt that he will become a tax-and-spend liberal if elected to the state Senate.
Again, both Dave Nutter and Tripp Godsey would be better representatives of the district than John Edwards, but Del. Nutter possesses the name recognition, organizational advantages, campaign experience, legislative experience and economic development skills necessary not only to take the fight to the Democrats on their own turf, but also to appeal to a wide segment of the electorate. Given the current electoral environment, John Edwards is more vulnerable in 2011 than ever before and perhaps ever will be again (besides, after the drama of the past year in North Carolina, who wants to drive around with a John Edwards bumper sticker, even if it isn’t that John Edwards).
It won’t be an easy race, but Del. Nutter presents the GOP with its best opportunity to unseat the incumbent, move the 21st District’s representation significantly to the right and give the Senate some much-needed insights on job creation and economic development. To that end, Bearing Drift endorses Dave Nutter in the 21st Senate District primary.
22nd — Mark Peake and Bryan Rhode
In a rare double endorsement, two candidates have proven themselves to be the positive campaigners as well as competent fundraisers needed to beat exterminator Bert Dodson in the general election. Mark Peake of Lynchburg and Bryan Rhode from Goochland have both earned the respect and admiration of the Bearing Drift editors.
Peake’s pro-life convictions are more than just heartfelt — they’ve been tested and lived. As the father of quadruplets, the Peake family was instructed to “reduce” the number of children during their pregnancy. Rather than select which child should die, the family left for Arizona where, in one of the few hospitals that would guarantee not to do an elective abortion, four healthy and wonderful children were brought into the world. This, plus a remarkable professionalism and an ability to communicate conservative principles without offending made Peake an early favorite.
Rhode was not expected to be a frontrunner in this race. Yet unlike many of the candidates who pledged to raise six-figures out of the gate, Rhode was the only one who did so, and convincingly. Rhode’s humility is rare among elected officials, and though Rhode has been compared as being rather green when it comes to the politics, Rhode has proven himself to be a genuine and consistent leader on conservative values. Though his Sorenson credentials concern a few conservatives, Rhode’s impressive campaigning and personal touch have won converts.
The other candidates in the race bear some mention. Claudia Tucker, the one-time Vance Wilkins aide who became caught up in the eavesdropping scandal in the early part of last decade, fizzled on both her fundraising promises and her campaign efforts. Brian Bates, the long-time Buckingham supervisor may surprise folks on how well he may do, but his long-standing record of multiple tax increases and questionable position on life have scared off most conservatives in this race.
Tom Garrett burst onto the scene in the 22nd without much background. Does he live in the district? This still remains unclear. His record stands on one professional accomplishment alone — turning Louisa County into the pedophile capital of Virginia. In some instances, his zeal for prosecuting these cases has resulted in the victim not even being consulted before the case went before the judge. Tom Garrett’s one-man crusade — while laudable in its own right — has often made it very difficult for Garrett to discuss his record on pedophilia among pro-family groups (or crowds involving children). Garrett’s speeches on the “four branches of government” strike the Tea Party-attuned ear as odd.
Lastly, Garrett’s history of not paying bills — including a $2,000 bill for child care services where Garrett was found liable — renders Garrett easy prey for DPVA researchers. Garrett can be lauded for this though — repairing his marriage. If the money Garrett spent on the State Senate race was the catalyst for reuniting his family on the campaign trail, Bearing Drift sincerely wishes him all the best. That story — under reported and personal –is probably one of the best stories of the Virginia primary season.
Conservatives in the 22nd District would be well served to consider alternatives without the baggage and all the enthusiasm for conservative values. This was not an easy decision in the 22nd, but both Mark Peake and Bryan Rhode have chosen to shine. We wish them both the best of luck.
36th — Tito Munoz
Tito Munoz is the embodiment of the American dream.
His catch phrase is “Born in Colombia, but Made in America.”
The small business owner has experience first-hand in what it means to build a business from scratch and be successful, in spite of the challenges he’s had to face not only adapting to and learning a new culture, but also having to deal with the burdensome and overbearing regulations of government.
Munoz has taken those experiences and will apply them directly to his issues’ advocacy as a senator.
“Anything and everything the private sector can do should be left there and not assumed as a government role,” he tells Bearing Drift. “Things such as debt collection, business assistance (there are actually government agencies that instruct businesses how to obtain government entitlements – we need to axe that) and liquor sales – even the DMV has certain services it could privatize. Every function beyond licensing could be performed privately.”
Munoz added that he supports school choice and feels that “parents and students should be empowered to control where and how their children are educated.” He said that charter schools will improve public education by providing schools an incentive to compete.
His policies are true to allowing the individual keep more of what he or she earns, and to getting government out of the way. And, it is precisely those policies, and his American spirit, that have brought him support from State Senator Mark Obenshain and former Governor and U.S.Senator George Allen.
As for Jeff Frederick, we are happy to see that he has recovered from his ouster as chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia and that he has returned to the political scene.
Frederick has proven that he can win elections and has garnered the support of many conservative people and organizations we respect, including the NRA, Scott Lingamfelter, Keith Fimian, and Tom Davis.
If the past is any indicator of future performance, he should make a fine conservative senator – just don’t let him near any mobile devices to tweet or any leadership positions where he can spend money.
When Frederick was a legislator, quite often on matters near-and-dear to conservative hearts, like tax and education reform, he wasn’t just a solid supporter in the House of Delegates, but an active and sometimes canny one as well. As a legislator, Frederick sometimes hit the wrong notes. But, just as often, he was the one legislator conservatives knew would be on their side, even if the rest of the House GOP caucus was indifferent.
Believing that either candidate will serve the residents of the 36th well, Bearing Drift contributors are split on this race.
But Bearing Drift leadership is not.
As a leader, you are expected, if not required, to uphold the highest standards of your organization.
Your goal as a leader is to think first of your organization over yourself. Therefore, the leadership of Bearing Drift endorses Tito Munoz for state Senate. Whether it has been leading his business or in his community, his first thought has been to service. We find that admirable and refreshing.
37th — Steve Hunt
The voters in the 37th Senate District have a rare benefit – two solid, conservative choices for the Republican nomination for State Senate. In any other year, Jason Flanary would make an excellent choice for State Senate. Jason Flanary has run an energetic campaign, knocking on thousands of doors in his district. But in a year as compact and tight as this one, in our view, Steve Hunt’s many years of experience as a Northern Virginia activist and elected official give him the edge in this race. He has name recognition, and thousands of voters in the 37th have already cast a ballot for him once. In a race against Dave Marsden, not having to start from zero will matter come November 8th.
We have also been surprised at the tone of the attacks coming from the Flanary camp on Hunt’s record of winning campaigns. It seems a bit odd for a candidate who has never been tested at the polls to accuse another of losing too often, especially when some of the “losses” include races Hunt never actually ended up running.
We received a response to our questionnaire from Steve Hunt but did not receive one from Jason Flanary. Given their speeches on the stump and the mailings we’ve seen, neither candidate appears different in any meaningful way when it comes to policy. The case both make to primary voters hinges on experience and the ability to win the general election. Steve Hunt has proven he can win elections, even if he was unsuccessful in his last race against Dave Marsden – one that was lost by the slimmest of margins and mainly because of the lack of a robust absentee ballot program. It’s unlikely that either candidate would make that mistake in this election.
Overall, the voters in the 37th will be well served by either candidate, but given the dynamics of the district and the short time frame, Steve Hunt has the best chance of winning this seat in November and he has our endorsement.
39th — Miller Baker
Bearing Drift’s endorsement for the 39th District Republican Senate Primary goes to Miller Baker, a constitutional attorney and veteran GOP activist, with the kind of resume that candidate recruiters dream about. His self-effacing manner belies his significant accomplishments.
Miller has wrapped up local endorsements from Delegate Tim Hugo, Keith Fimian, Mychele Brickner, activist Alma Jackson and even former Attorney General Ed Meese.
Miller has what it takes to defeat George Barker in November, and, with the elections behind him, to translate his courtroom experience into legislative victories.
Miller is rocking the grassroots politics in the district, speaking with constituents and sharing his plans to allocate transportation dollars for congestion relief and reduce income taxes in order to attract new businesses to the area. His solid conservative credentials translate into activist support and his reasonable demeanor is appealing to voters who are fed up with negative politics.
Miller’s opponent, Scott Martin is a professor at George Mason University and a conservative grassroots activist with deep roots in his Springfield community.
As an educator, we were particularly interested in what Martin had to say in our questionnaire regarding higher education reform:
“Higher education needs a major financial overhaul. All boutique academic programs (like Queer Studies) that don’t meet enrollment projections to fund them should be eliminated, and not subsidized by taxpayers. Enrollment acceptance rates for Virginia residents needs to be increased to 85% of available freshman classes. Administration costs should not exceed 10-12% of overall budget. Higher Ed. is extremely top heavy, even more so than K-12.
“Lastly, I will propose transparency for the admissions process for Virginians, so everyone knows what criteria is required to gain admission at each of our public universities. The admissions process has been a vexing and unfair process for too long for Virginia citizens.”
While Bearing Drift prefers Miller Baker in this race, Scott Martin is a fine Republican leader and a candidate we would be proud to support in the future.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Bearing Drift has been providing an online conservative voice in Virginia politics since 2004. The name describes relative motion at sea - without bearing drift, you need to move to the right to avoid a collision! If it looks like the ship-of-state is going to wreck, move right; you can't go wrong!!!
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
27 Responses to "Bearing Drift Endorsements for State Senate Republican Nominations"
I must respectfully but pointedly disagree with the choice in re the 36th District.
Tito Munoz has many admirable qualities, but Frederick has proven to be a far, far better campaigner in this race. Assuming Munoz’s current campaign performance in the primary would be repeated in the general election, Toddy Puller will crush him. Munoz has spent too much time distracted by federal issues and far too little time making himself aware of what goes on in Richmond.
Frederick, by contrast, has managed to win in a region where other Republicans have been unable to win (he won re-election in 2005 while McDonnell and Bolling lost his district up-ballot), and while national or statewide figures look to Munoz, the Republicans and conservatives who know Frederick best (Davis – much more former than latter, Lingamfelter, Fimian, etc.) prefer him.
@D.J. –
That you would take more exception with the endorsement of Tito rather than the endorsement of Tommy Norment?
Wow.
Garrett “burst onto the scene in the 22nd without much background?” I suppose if you’ve had your head in the sand (or elsewhere) that may be the case. I don’t live in the district, or Virginia, anymore, but I’m still supporting for Tom. I still have family and friends there and I work for a 22nd district based company.
Tom is the best choice. He is endorsed by Cuccinelli, the NRA, VCDL, and other people whose opinion I value. That includes someone who is supporting Tom, but conveniently shows up on the endorsements page of one of your endorsed candidates.
Interesting that you decided to spend more ink on him than on either of your endorsed candidates.
Brian Bates might just fool alot of people by pulling off a win.Brian understands that when the State sends down unfunded mandates to the County level the buck stops with the board of supervisors.This is something the lawyers in this race fail to understand.Brian’s knowledge of these things will help him in the State Senate.In the last debate the lawyers ALL said they wanted the state to turn the roads over to the localities.Id love to see how they would plan on paying for these roads when the state just tells you to fix them but doesn’t give you a dime to do it.We have that problem right now with the court houses.
Excellent choices in the 36 and 39th!
Great picks all around! Thoughtful, educated picks.
It takes a lot for me to agree with D.J. Yet, here I am.
Munoz should consider running for Congress. On state issues, he seems almost uninterested in the specifics of being a legislator. A recent email detailing his policy positions can be boiled down to:
1) Spending: Take a look at spending and see where we can cut
2) Taxes: Not raise taxes (in general)
3) Transportation: Build roads smartly and efficiently
Part of being a “leader” is knowing the details and finding a cause to rally behind, rather than a bland statement or a blanket ideology. Jeff Frederick has proven this ability, and is demonstrating it on the campaign trail. Tito has not, at least when it comes to state issues.
He’s also proven that he can raise the money and appeal to voters in a lean-Dem district. A victory in the 36th would almost assure that we take control of the Senate, and Frederick gives us the best chance of victory.
I find it interesting that in the above article the contributors are very respectful of the candidates that BD did not endorse, except for the contributor(s) who wrote about the Primary candidates in the 22nd District. If what you say about the candidates is true, then so be it. But I do not believe that it is appropriate for BD to spread rumors about candidate Tom Garrett not living in the district, without verifying whether it is true or not.
If BD has proof of it’s truth, then share it. If it is only a rumor, then don’t bring it up. I also noticed that BD failed to mention any rumors surrounding any other candidate mentioned in the article above. Lastly, I noticed that the contributor(s) wrote more negative information on Tom Garrett than any other candidate in this entire article. It makes me wonder if one of the contributors has something personal against Mr. Garrett. Just something to think about.
All I ask is that BD remain equally fair and respectful of all the candidates that are running in next Tuesday’s Primary, for they are all fellow Republicans!
Daniel Bradshaw wants BD to be fair omg what a hypocrite.Daniel Bradshaw is the Prince Edward County Republican chairman and the 22nd district chairman who has worked for and endorsed Tom Garrett.If that isn’t a major conflict of interest tell me what is.How in the hell can a chairman be fair to the other four candidates while doing everything he can to get only one elected.Daniel Bradshaw is a snotty nose little kid who is in over his head.How can any of the other candidates ever trust him.
I spy a lot of establishment endorsements here. Also, there are multiple instances in which the editors brag about how they are pleased with all Republican candidates in a particular district. Why then bother to endorse?
Why Jeff Wallace, how did you know I had a cold?
Anyway I guess you better contact all the Unit Chairmen in the State and explain to them how it is a conflict of interest to endorse a candidate in a Republican Primary since most of them are currently doing so or have done so in the past.
BTW, I am flattered that someone that I have never heard of has heard so much about me and my accomplishments. Word definitely travels fast! As to being in over my head, well, time will tell.
If you had been in the Prince Edward Republican party for more than a couple years you would know me.Time will tell alot lets see you get elected chairman next spring.So you are saying its fine for someone to be a Senate district chairman along with a unit chairman and work for only one candidate.Your age is really showing son.
Easy on Daniel, folks. He’s a good conservative and a friend.
I would really like to see the proof that Tom does not live in the district. Then we could just take him off the ballot and be done with him. The debate at LU put on by the lynchburg tea party was such a farce it was shameful. And as to Jeff Wallace why did you allow such a kid to be elected. Danny really needs to lower his belt about an inch and get some bass in his voice. Jeff when you are ready to vote him out let me know.
It only matters to RPV where candidates and office holders live in the district when it suits them. 3rd district Chairman Woodfin hasn’t lived in the 3rd since 2009 but it is ok since he has not complied with state regulations and gotten his drivers license and voters registration card changed. Oh, and he is going to move back “some day”.
I respectfully disagree with the choices in the 3rd, 36th, and 39th. I’d sooner support a ham sandwich than Tommy Norment. It’s long past time for him to go. He’s a part of the problem, not the solution. In the 36th, Jeff Frederick has, as D.J. pointed out earlier, run a far, far better campaign, and has stayed focused on important issues, rather than playing “Who’s the real Hispanic?” as his opponent has. In the 39th, Scott Martin exemplifies the ‘citizen activist’ type of mindset we need more of in the Senate. I fear Miller Baker may be more in the mold of Potts/Stosch/Hanger/Norment and the like, than a grassroots conservative.
Friday, August 19th at 10:00am Tito and Mr. Frederick will have their first debate on NewsChannel 8’s “News Talk” with host Bruce DePuyt. You can watch it live here: http://www.tbd.com/tv/
Tune in and judge for yourself, the truth shall prevail!
I can’t wrap my head around the hatred for Tom Garrett on this blog. It’s probably because he didn’t “kiss the right rings” or “hire the right consultant.”
To Garrett is a lot of things, but most notably he’s a decorated veteran, an accomplished prosecutor, and a key component of Bob McDonnell’s 2005 AG campaign. I don’t know why the blogosphere is so intent on tearing him down. If every elected official were more like Tom Garrett, we’d have a much better commonwealth.
I’d really be embarrassed to be the writers of Bearing Drift at this point, based upon the depths to which they need to go to lob apparently baseless attacks against Tom Garrett in the 22nd District race…
“Does he live in the district? This still remains unclear.” — Seriously?!? Does BD (or any of his 4 primary opponents, for that matter) have any evidence to the contrary? If so, you should show it and have him prosecuted.
“In some instances, his zeal for prosecuting these cases has resulted in the victim not even being consulted before the case went before the judge.” — Apparently nobody at BD has ever practiced criminal law or dealt with a Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office with any assistant prosecutors. If anybody at BD had, they would understand that much like there as disgrunted criminal defendants, who are quick to throw their attorneys under the bus when they don’t get the results they want, there are also disgruntled witnesses (you may call them victims, if you like) who are quick to blame the Commonwealth’s Attorney when they don’t get the results they want. Shockingly, Commonwealth’s witnesses can often be as or even more difficult to manage than criminal defendants and their expectations can be wholly unrealistic. So Tom Garrett upset a total of one Commonwealth witness in almost 4 years as Commonwealt’s Attorney, huh? Big deal.
“Lastly, Garrett’s history of not paying bills — including a $2,000 bill for child care services where Garrett was found liable — renders Garrett easy prey for DPVA researchers.” — Honestly, this is the lowest blow of them all. What “history of not paying bills”? My online research tonight of court records revealed a grand total of one judgment against Garrett (and his wife) over 7 years ago (apparently the one to which you refer), which has been satisfied for well over 6 years. While your claim that “Garrett was found liable” might be technically correct, it should be noted that this was a default judgment, meaning that Garrett was not present and did not, therefore, contest the suit. Was Garrett personally served with this suit or even aware of its existence prior to the Court date? Folks with a scintilla of legal training are aware that all that is needed for a default judgment to be obtained are posted service and a letter sent to the defendant via first-class mail, neither of which ensure that the defendant is even aware of the proceeding. A follow-up with the Clerk’s Office of the relevant Court may shed some light on these issues, if it is your intent to be fair. So what are these other unpaid bills, BD? I’m certain you guys aren’t making demonstrably false statements that would subject you to being held liable for libel if you’ve got good sense.
NCC, you really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. If you actually did go to law school, you should demand a refund.
Name a single case where a legislator or candidate has been prosecuted for failing to reside where they are running. Even with evidence, you won’t get anyone prosecuted for it. Look at the Dave Marsden issue up in Northern Virginia. Folks up there had photographs of Marsden’s car in his home driveway – not in the district – for nights in a row and nothing happened. People even knocked on his door at night. If Garrett doesn’t live in the district, the only value that argument has is as a political attack, not a legal one.
One judgment against Garrett for not paying his bills is one judgment more than the vast majority of the population has against them, and probably more than the number of judgments against his opponents. What do you mean “might be technically correct?” A default judgment is still a judgment. It’s still enforceable and it still has to be satisfied.
As for maybe he didn’t get process served properly, give me a break. Before you even get to posted service, the deputy sheriffs or process servers have to try both personal service on the defendant and then they need to try and serve him at home – they could have served his wife at home as well. Only after all that has been tried can they resort to a nail and mail posted service. I find it hard to belive that he would be so impossible to find that he wouldn’t have had notice of the suit. That just strains credulity.
And, even if in some strange world no one could find him, he could have petitioned to have the default lifted for good cause…like not being served properly. He didn’t do that.
As for what they wrote subjecting them to being held liable for libel – what a joke. Garrett is a sitting elected official, he’s a public figure, and they have demonstrable proof in the form of a judgment that Garrett didn’t pay at least one of his bills. Under Virginia defamation law, there’s no real case here, and I would argue that any lawyer with the stones to file one is going to open himself up for 271.1 sanctions.
You can disagree all you want with what the BD guys came up with, but leave the lawyering bullshit out of it.
I respectfully disagree with Bearingdrift’s pick in the 13th. Black has won 4 generals and 4 primaries in Loudoun since 1996. Black’s popularity and name recognition still resonates through Loudoun voters.
While Bearingdrift recognizes that over 70% of the 13th is Loudoun County, Black’s deep-rooted territory, this major factor seems to have blown right past you. Stirrup and Fitzsimmonds are Prince William boys and only recently did voters in Loudoun hear anything about them. So Fitzsimmonds and Stirrup will battle and perhaps split votes coming out of PWC, yet will definitely have a much lighter impact on and from Loudoun, Black’s home territory.
Stirrup, knowing this, crafted a barrage of hit type mail pieces against Black over the past two weeks by and through hired gun Corry Bliss to make Black seem as if he was “big-spending” liberal and “another politician cheating taxpayers.” One mailer even had Obama and Pelosi’s picture on it. Anyone who even slightly knows Black, especially those at Bearingdrift, know how ridiculous that would and has come across.
Bearingdrift knows and seems to acknowledge, Black has been a true long time champion of conservative values… the same values Bearingdrift places paramount in their beliefs and support of any candidate… so to then endorse a candidate who twists this champion into one who sides with Obama/Pelosi progressive liberalism… well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt of being unaware of Stirrup’s desperate attacks (I am glad to email you copies of Stirrup’s mailers). However, now that you are aware of these attacks from Stirrup, attempting to place the burden of liberalism on Black’s shoulders, when you know through years of history with Black that this is erroneous, Bearingdrift should reconsider its endorsement of Stirrup and if nothing else, remain neutral. This is not to say that a conservative could campaign hard against another opponent, yet to so blatantly attempt to smear a true conservative’s name with the likes of Obama and Pelosi and big-spending democrats is beyond acceptable. It also demonstrates that when the chips are down and someone like Stirrup must fight, as Black has done for years, that Stirrup will resort to liberal-type tactics which are not conducive to what Bearingdrift believes in—in my humble opinion.
For a proven record of conservative values, Bearingdrift also knows full well the comparison; Military Service: Black is a Marine and Vietnam combat wounded veteran and Army JAG Officer, Stirrup has no military experience or service to our country. Black is an avid 2nd Amendment supporter, passing a great deal of legislation, including the Fire Arms Preemption Act and Overturned a 21-year ban on concealed carry in state parks. Stirrup has no legislative history. Black originated the Tuition Tax Credit Bill on School Choice Legislation; Stirrup has no position or experience. Black received a 100% rating from the Fairfax Taxpayer’s Alliance for outstanding work cutting taxes and debt while Stirrup increased real estate tax rates in PWC by 63%. Black received a national award for stopping the pro-union bill “Meet and Confer” under Right to Work Legislation, Stirrup has no position or experience with unions. Black co-sponsored a ban on In-State Tuition for illegal immigrants and Prohibited drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants, Stirrup’s claim to fame in PWC was a controversial resolution which seems to have been hard on illegals and passed unanimously, but it would be political suicide not to vote affirmatively for anything thwarting illegal immigration in PWC and that resolution, which they only use part of, has now placed PWC in a position of a costly lawsuit against the federal government as 4K+ illegal immigrants are either sitting in custody awaiting deportation as Stirrup will have you believe, without mentioning this would be or is at huge tax-payer expense; or the truth, that illegals are released right back into PWC after being processed for an administrative hearing (just like in FFX who gives illegals a cash immigration bond and has 4K+ fugitive warrants as they don’t show up). Black is unwavering on pro-life; passing the Parental Consent Law and Banned Partial Birth Abortion, Stirrup simply says he is pro-life.
Noteworthy and frankly the mark of a true champion… Black and Bob Marshall alone sued 2 Democrat Governors reversing 14 tax increases for Virginians. That is guts and true conservatism.
Finally, Bearingdrift should consider who is best suited to take on Democrat and Loudoun businessman (yes Loudoun, not PWC) Shawn Mitchell in the General election. Stirrup cannot take on Mitchell’s military experience with the Virginia Army National Guard and deployment in Bosnia as Stirrup has no service to our country. Loudoun is 70%+ of the district where Mitchell is very active and known on the Chamber, Director of the Rotary and is heavily involved with the Loudoun community with his HVAC business. PWC will not carry the day in this election and Black is the only one who can take on Mitchell head to head.
Predictions are one thing gentlemen, Endorsements are much different and when you consider an endorsement, you should weigh all of the factors and come in with an endorsement which hits most of these points, which you do not.
Equally, I believe the off the cuff comment about the ABC stores remaining in the hands of the State or going private, when you only have a comment from Black and no comment from the other candidates is completely bias. The ABC stores are a huge profit center for Va and while Va would receive tax revenue and fees from private operators, from the transition costs, unemployment factor and low amount proposed to sell them, that profit center would be lost and shift a tax burden to the tax payers to make up for millions in unrealized revenue. The argument is far deeper than just a shallow separation position and someone with Black’s experience has to weigh all of those factors when assessing its value or detriment to the Commonwealth. Frankly, neither of the other two candidates have that type of experience in the General Assembly (they have no experience) to assess something like the ABC situation. But again, something which should not be a factor in your decision here and certainly unfair if you are not stating the positions of the other candidates. Injecting that as a side remark was very disappointing.
I am amazed by the lack of knowledge concerning state government possessed by all the lawyers in the 22nd campaign. I asked each of them about VITA and they had no knowledge of it with Tom Garret going so far when explained to him that he thought free enterprise was a good thing and the state was better for VITA. He could either read the newspapers or google it. It is a vast waste of taxpayers money. And then on Monday night the lawyers wanted to have the counties pay for road upkeep and not the state. They obviously have no idea about the cost of asphalt nor the lack of localities to pay for upkeep of roads much less new bypasses and paving of gravel roads. Brian Bates has such knowledge and should of recieved your endorsement but than again I wouldn’t expect that from lawyers.
Re: “Go back to law school NCC”
I probably shouldn’t even waste the time to respond to your post, but I did want to clear up a few things…
I agree that the issue of where a candidate lives is often more of a political problem than a criminal law one, as these cases are rarely prosecuted, as you correctly point out. However, it is still a crime to lie on a voter registration form regarding one’s domicile, and if Garrett has done so, all I was saying was that the folks who are making the claim should show their evidence. It appears that they, as well as you, have none.
Regarding the judgment issue, what I meant by “might be technically correct” was BD’s statement that “Garrett was found liable.” That statement I think presumes a contested matter and some passing of judgment by a Court on the merits of the suit, not a default judgment (which, by the way, is a judgment that has to be satisfied… I don’t have any idea what I said that could cause you to think I believed otherwise).
Regarding the service of process issue, you must live in a large jurisdiction that has the luxury of having both a Sheriff’s Office and a Police Department. We here in rural Virginia rely on the Sheriff’s Office alone to catch criminals, as well as serve civil process. Out here in the sticks the deputies serve civil process during business hours on weekdays only, at times when folks who work aren’t usually home to be served personally. It’s doubtful that a more diligent process server was used for a General District Court case. For the sake of this argument, you have assumed that the correct address was even on the Warrant in Debt. Even so, if Garrett and his wife were paying — or if you prefer, not paying for babysitting services it would stand to reason they were both working at the time and would likely have not been home on the one occasion the deputy showed up to serve the process. The idea of deputy sheriffs searching hither and yon for the objects of civil process is farcical. They’re lucky to find half of the criminal defendants, for whom personal service is necessary, and it’s not unusual for folks out here to go unserved for months on criminal matters where the defendants have remained in the community and working their same jobs.
While a judgment against him is something any candidate would not want (even one like this that has been satisfied for over 6 years), I’m not convinced that this is the political death sentence you believe it is. By the way, could there have been some legitimate dispute over the amount in question prior to the Warrant in Debt being filed? We don’t know the answers to these questions.
And why petition the court to have the default lifted and make more of an issue of this than it already was? He simply paid it. Enough said.
Lastly, regarding libel, my comment was directed at BD’s statement about Garrett’s “history of not paying bills,” which, by necessary implication, means on more than one occasion. They found one judgment. That was my point. You’ve offered no proof to the contrary.
If you had spent half the time reading my post carefully that you had making ad hominem attacks and using profanity you may have noted some of those things…
And, by the way, I don’t live in the 22nd Senate District, as should be obvious by my pseudonym.
The late entry of Miller Baker at the behest of the sadly disgraced Jay O’Brien is one of the most vile political shenanigans in memory.
It is unclear what backdoor deals are being made but this race is repugnant.
Baker’s campaign is planting signs on private properties throughout the district without consent of the homeowners, got a small business tossed out of his prime thoroughfare location by offering more cash to the landlord and is the walking definition of the uncomfortable conversationalist. Only in an off x 2 election cycle with political cronyism and some incredibly shortsighted deal making could he win a nomination for anything ever. This payback temper tantrum by Jay and his old pals is something the new breed of conservatives need to walk away from.
Think it isn’t as laid out here? Has anyone noticed that has turned into Catholic against non-Catholic?
Fire up the grill because we either char this candidate or we are the ones who are going to get burned.
I read BD often and usually find it to be a fair assessment of Virginia politics. This time, however, I have to respectfully disagree with your endorsement in the 39th District. If money wins elections, then you’re spot on. If voters disregard that, and vote for the better candidate, then Martin wins.
I am a pro second amendment Republican and would support Scott Martin. However Martin’s neck beard is a major obstacle for my support of him. I actually contributed $100 in early May on the condition that he would buy a Gillette Mach 3 and some shaving cream to get rid of that hideous thing. So far, nothing
Boy your endorsed candidates in the 22nd finished 3rd and 4th.Missed this one a little id say.
Leave your response