The Anatomy of a Takedown: Catholic Edition


There’s nothing I detest more than an orchestrated hit job appearing with the veneer of honesty.  Unfortunately, we’re seeing that play out in VA-10 today — and you a behind-the-scenes show as to how it’s done in the Catholic media.

So it would appear that the “ready!  fire!  AIM!” wing of the Catholic blogosphere has decided to play ball in Virginia… and make Barbara Comstock their primary target.

Welcome to the Commonwealth, noobs.

Shall we begin?

Here’s how today is going to work out, as much of the Pretty Hate Machine (TM) is under deadline from about 1pm to 2:30pm Eastern.  More importantly, Bearing Drift readers with an IQ north of 100 (which are the vast majority of you discerning, intelligent ladies and gentlemen) will note that one of two things will happen.  Either the attack will commence on schedule this week, or it will cease after names are named and people are identified as shills.

Let’s have a look at the anatomy of a takedown before it even happens, shall we?

(1)  Have a candidate like Rob Wasinger pass along misinformation to one Deal Hudson, editor of Catholic Online and Crisis Magazine.

(2)  Have Deal Hudson publish these attacks… then mysteriously retract them.

(3)  …then after having shot first only to have the Virginia Family Foundation call out the article, decide to have e-mails go out for comment to the Comstock campaign.

(4)  …then ask personal friends to whip up the Catholic faithful before the deadline (which is where your friendly editor here comes into play):

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Deal W. Hudson
Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM
Subject: Need back up
Guys, I need some back up, right away.  

On Saturday morning I published an article at Catholic Online about a declared GOP candidate in the VA 10th District Congressional race, Barbara Comstock. (See #1 below).

This is the Frank Wolf seat he is vacating in Northern VA, encompassing McLean, Manassas, Chantilly, Reston, Sterling, Leesburg, Front Royal, and Winchester.

Barbara Comstock, a Catholic who attends St. John’s in McLean, is presently at Delegate to the VA State Assembly from the 34th District.

 In response to my article, Chris Freund at the Virginia Family Foundation posted a blog post that effectively retracted their scoring on Comstock’s vote against the abortion funding amendment. I have written to him and the president of VFF twice and gotten no response. 
Comstock’s supporters have written to me with an explanation: since the vote came in a veto session, the votes on the amendment and the bill — HB1900 — were unified, meaning voting ‘yes’ on the amendment meant a ‘yes’ on the bill.  Comstock explains that her ‘no’ was meant as a rejection of Obamacare as a whole.  
I sent the following questions to Susan Falconer, a representative of the Comstock campaign: 
1. Why did Delegate Comstock consciously choose a vote symbolizing her opposition to Obamacare, as a whole, rather than taxpayer funding for abortion?  
2. Does Delegate Comstock recognize any difference between moral priority of voting on taxpayer funding for abortion — which would increase the number of abortions and as well as make citizens complicit — and voting on health care bill? 
3.  As a result of the vote, Delegate Comstock lowered her VFF score to 89% and gave her a 100% NARAL score?  Is that how she wants to be perceived by the voter?
4. By her vote, Delegate Comstock voted in opposition to all but one of her pro-life colleagues and with the pro-choice Delegates. Why did she make this unusual choice? 
Let me know if you can get anything going — she is also bad on marriage, by the way.

(5)  …and after having an editor of one of the organizations approached to do a story publicly declare themselves personal friends of the candidate:

(6)  …they send out friendly reporters to do a story — on the record, of course.

My name is Dustin Siggins. I am a reporter with

I understand there is some controversy over Barbara Comstock’s vote regarding the Affordable Care Act, on a pro-life amendment. I’m working on a story regarding the issue, and would like to chat at your earliest convenience for background and comments on the record.

My phone number is (703) 772-XXXX. My deadline is 2:30 Eastern.

(7)  Of course, the story is already written — why the pretense for honesty?  Unleash the hounds.  Whip faithful Catholics into a frenzy.  Hope for the best.

So where’s the scandal in all of this?  Deal Hudson is (surprise!) a donor to Mr. Wasinger… or at least,to Wasinger’s campaign when it was convenient for the man to be a Kansan.

What’s more, these two have worked together in the past, snuggled in tight with Catholics for McCain — and no friend to pro-lifers:

Rob Wasinger, Brownback’s former campaign manager, said Senator McCain was “a natural for Catholics.”  Wasinger cited McCain’s pro-life stand and his position against homosexual marriage as reasons for his appeal to Catholics.  Wasinger also said the Arizona senator’s opposition to torture, his moderate views on immigration, and his stand on the environment could help him win Catholics’ votes.

“He’s going to have an easier sell with Catholics than with the grass-roots conservative GOP,” said Deal Hudson, a McCain supporter who was a key adviser in President George W. Bush’s Catholic outreach efforts.

John McCain a natural for Catholics???  How much was that paycheck, Mr. Marcus?

Want another goodie for who we’re protecting here?  Wasinger is the same clown who endorsed — wait for it — Huntsman in his ill-fated bid to win the GOP nomination.  Want to see the depths of Huntsman’s convictions?  Check out this goodie from the WaPo:

Item: In New Hampshire, Huntsman refrains from saying things that wouldn’t make him sound moderate. Thus, when a friendly voter at Sunday’s town hall meeting describes himself as pro-life and invites Huntsman to explain how he would promote the cause as president, Huntsman chooses not to go there.

“Well, there’s a lot that can be done at the state level in terms of education and awareness, which I did as governor,” he says. “I happen to be pro-life. Some disagree with that. This is an emotional issue, and I respect those who disagree with me.” When the questioner presses — What exactly would President Huntsman do, maybe in terms of reforming the welfare system to provide extra help for mothers? — he isn’t interested. “Well, you can look at what I did as governor,” Huntsman says, and moves on.

Now there’s a profile in courage, wouldn’t you say?


This is the song that doesn’t end….

So pretty much what we have here is the same collection of folks, same sock-puppetry, and same group of friends (and frenemies) who know that they need to put one heck of a dent into Comstock and Marshall (if Marshall throws in) in order to make themselves relevant.  So what do they do?  Set down a bunch of good, faithful Catholics and lie to them in order to whip them up, get them mad, and vote against two absolutely stellar Catholics.

…kinda like what Wasinger did to Rep. Huelskamp in Kansas.

Those who know me know that I am a practicing Catholic.  I have seven children with my wonderful wife (and she is wonderful — she puts up with me), we got to church in a little parish in the middle of nowhere, and I have stuck my neck out on the line time and time again for the pro-life movement — especially when it has been unpopular to do so.

Faithful Catholics owe it to themselves to read the timeline and consider who is playing them for donations and support.

For one, I’m disgusted by this perpetual scam to play Catholics off against one another.  Yes, I am fully aware that there are some horrible people out there pretending to be Catholic and doing some uncharitable, unCatholic things.  Sometimes, and in some things, we should be extremely wary when voices instruct us to turn the guns on other faithful Catholics.  It’s wrong, and at best it’s an instance of calumny.


“(C)alumny… is of course a sin… but it is something more. Calumny aims to destroy the work of God, and calumny comes from a very evil thing: it is born of hatred. And hate is the work of Satan. Calumny destroys the work of God in people, in their souls. Calumny uses lies to get ahead. And let us be in no doubt, eh?: Where there is calumny, there is Satan himself. “

— Pope Francis (2013)

Don’t let some people calumniate good people like Barbara Comstock.  She doesn’t deserve it, and there’s a reason why they’re doing it.

“But what is this all about?” a thoughtful reader might ask.  “Has Comstock really turned her back on pro-lifers?”  Not according to the Family Foundation, who thanked her for her leadership last week:

Some of the “100 percenters” on the Report Card are tried and true heroes of our values. They lead, they vocalize our values, they carry our legislation, and they work behind the scenes to advance our agenda.  Some “100 percenters,” however, simply vote right when the time comes, but either offer no help or actually work behind the scenes in some instances to derail our agenda. At the same time, legislators who vote against our position in some situations may lead more than some “100 percenters.” An example of that would be Delegate Todd Gilbert, who was our Legislator of the Year for 2013 with a score of 95 percent on the Report Card. But Delegate Gilbert leads on, fights for and carries our legislation.

And sometimes, there are issues that are just very complicated, though our position is very clear, that makes a vote more difficult to understand. For example, at last year’s veto session, an amendment to a “Healthcare Exchange” bill relating to ObamaCare that prohibited the insurance companies in the exchange from offering abortion coverage was a high priority for The Family Foundation. The amendment passed and is now part of the law. But a couple of House of Delegates members, Barbara Comstock and Rick Morris, voted against the amendment. Was it a vote against life?  Well, no. They made it clear to us that they will not vote in favor of anything having to do with ObamaCare. It wasn’t about the amendment; it was about the overall policy. Of course, we also made it clear that if we’re going to have an exchange, we had the responsibility to make sure it included pro-life language. Also, last year, Delegate Bob Marshall voted incorrectly on a floor amendment granting special protections based on sexual behavior, but he did so out of an objection to how the House was operating on amendments, and not the underlying policy. Again, something that is impossible to explain in the Report Card.

The best answer to the problem is to make sure you know your legislators.

…and Virginians know their own.

Go back to Kansas, Rob.  It’s not your time, and you’re dragging good people into the wrong fight.

  • Pingback: News Clips 2-10-14 « The Family Foundation()

  • John Hill

    Wow, a whole heap of information to take in. Good investigative work by the writer, I know that takes a lot. Sure is some twisted stuff goin on….

  • mezurak

    So Comstock is God’s candidate? I thought Marshall was. It’s all so confusing. Maybe CD10 should take calumny out of politics altogether by leaving the Bible at home, or voting for a Dem. Which would the fathers choose?

    Remember folks, Vote GOP, we’re only 12 steps down from God, one more reason to say the hell with it.
    Keep religion out of politics.

    • Doug Brown

      “Keep religion out of politics.”
      The Bolsheviks tried that, hell is pretty much what they ended up with.

      • MD Russ

        And the Framers of our Constitution did the same thing and created an enduring republic that is the envy of the world. The Bolsheviks were anti-God; our Founders were God-neutral. You theocratics need to learn the difference.

        • Steve Waters

          Our Founders were not God neutral.

          • JReynolds79

            As it relates to the role of the state, they were…don’t confuse personal feelings for political persuasion in your attempt to rewrite history.

          • Steve Waters

            No rewriting of history on my end.

          • Steve Waters

            They were only neutral on not having one denomination of christianity being forced upon other christians. Not having a state religion. Not to have the church of england being forced upon all others or any other faith. They also new a republic as well as liberty and freedom would only work with a God fearing moral people. Maybe thats why things are in such a mess these days.

          • JReynolds79

            Have you ever read a primary source text? Because nothing you say is congruent with actual history…

          • MD Russ

            Actually, a number of the Founding Fathers, including Ben Franklin, were Deists, a common religious philosophy during the Age of Enlightenment . Deism holds that observation of the natural world is sufficient proof of the existence of a Creator, but rejects organized religion as inherently flawed. A Deist would never favor any organized religion having a role in government or politics.

          • Doug Brown

            “were Deists, a common religious philosophy during the Age of Enlightenment .”

            “A Deist would never favor any organized religion having a role in government or politics.”
            Unless you’re talking founding fathers .
            ” Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England ” might be useful around now.

          • “God neutral” and religious neutral are two different things.

          • JReynolds79

            If we’re going to dive into semantical points, we should note that all of the founding documents equivocate between terms as it relates to the “Creator.” We should also note the disproportionate influence of freemasonry-a group that prides itself on monotheism, but not exclusively Christianity. I’ll concede that the founding fathers had an affinity for monotheistic religions, but to assert that they had any intention of establishing a state religion is completely untrue.

          • I wasn’t asserting that they wanted to establish a state religion.

        • Doug Brown

          The Bolsheviks didn’t distinguish the two because they were realistic and brutally honest enough to know there is no difference. If you take out God, you take out the messengers too, and replace them with what ….? You got an answer to that MD?

          Founders were God-neutral? What a bunch of crock. Check out that Declaration of Independence again. The founders didn’t want a state religion. If you don’t think religion and God were a regular topic of conversation and an integral part of politics of the early Republic then you’ve been reading too much Howard Zinn.

          • MD Russ

            You would be well-served to read St. Augustine’s “City of God.” The City of Man that concerns itself with both material pursuits while claiming loyalty to a particular religious belief, be it Christian or pagan, is subordinate to the City of God that transcends mortal human existence and that will triumph in the end. And that is why Rome fell to the pagan invaders despite having embraced Christianity as the official religion. Rome was the City of Man but the City of God awaits us.

            Or, at least that is what I got out of the Cliff Notes for the book instead of actually reading it.

          • Doug Brown

            I think you’re mixing up your Cliff Notes of Gibbons with your Cliff Notes of Augustine.

            I would think some regulars here, including yourself, might object to you bringing in one of the Church Fathers to argue against introducing religion into political matters.

          • MD Russ

            You obviously haven’t read City of God or even know why St. Augustine wrote it. After the Vandals sacked Rome in the early 5th Century, pagan Romans began to blame Christianity for the calamity and even talked of returning to the persecutions that had ended 100 years earlier when Emperor Constantine converted. Augustine wrote City of God to distinguish between the secularism of the City of Man and the faithfulness of the City of God. His purpose was to explain why military and political events were not the realm of God and that only mortal men were responsible. This was intended to defuse the logic that Rome was being punished by the pagan gods for turning their backs on them. Does that sound familiar?

            It should because shortly after 9-11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made the same claim–that the terrorist attacks were God’s punishment for Americans turning their backs on Him and tolerating homosexuals, feminists, and other sinners. Apparently, Jerry and Pat never read City of God, either.

          • Doug Brown

            I’ve read it, probably more times than you, and spoke and worked with scholars of the period who go a little bit beyond your self-proclaimed Cliff notes expertise.The problem was the way you attempted to use it and the way you attempt to use all your religious references which is really as intolerant and judgmental as anything to come out of the Falwell’s and Robertson’s of the world.

            It’s really the height of hypocrisy and frankly a little amusing for you to continually ascend the political pulpit here to proclaim your devout and live long Catholicism only to damn those as theocrats whose political views might reflect and be in sync with what the Church’s position might actually be on certain major issues of our times.

            You do know what Catholicism means don’t you? I’ll give you one of your patronizing little digs – it’s not a religion limited by the confines of a closet which you apparently believe is where most practicing and faithful Catholics should be stuffed into.

          • MD Russ


            This conversation (and it is not a discussion as far as you seem to be concerned) has become annoying and tiresome for me. You do not respond to my points but instead avoid the discussion by claiming great scholarship that is unsubstantiated and using belittling insults to try to shut me down.

            Instead of twisting my Cliff Notes quip to talk down to me while not responding to my interpretation of Augustine, how about if you show just a little intellectual honesty by responding that “your interpretation of Augustine is incorrect because..” But you can’t do that because you either don’t understand Augustine or because you filtered his philosophy through your lens of religious bigotry that prevents you from acknowledging any other point of view.

            Keep your holier-than-thou ignorant views of Catholicism that is rooted in the ancient tradition of burning heretics at the stake or excommunicating them. Life is much more simple if you just don’t ask too many questions and ignore the primary sources that explain the evolution of the Church.


          • Doug Brown

            I couldn’t respond to your scholarly take on Augustine in your first post because you didn’t give one, instead you gave a mangled, vague cliff note citation. I’m glad you went to Wikipedia or wherever you clicked to find your standing as a great scholar of Augustinian studies, why don’t print it out and put a PhD on it for your wall.

            I do have a very simple view of the world, Catholic, i.e., not devout, not conservative, not liberal, not cafeteria, not holier than thou, just ‘Catholic’ and for some reason, some visceral reason the Catholic view of the world bugs the hell out of you.

  • Doug Brown

    Catholics still take Deal Hudson’s e-mails?

    • Marshall is entering the race, did you see the NYT article that quoted Black?

    • Even if Marshall gets in, there will still only be one serious candidate in this race.

  • Human Rights

    If only anyone in Virginia – besides us – got 0.01% as worked up about taxpayer funded abortions inside taxpayer funded UVA and VCU, which happen every week as a matter of routine.

    The pennies that may find their way to an abortion through Obamacare are not irrelevant, but they are just that compared to the public dollars that built, maintain, meet payroll, and keep the lights on at UVA and VCU. Same goes for all the state and federal taxpayer dollars that help fund the student health plans at both schools.

    What makes any of you so confident that UVA and VCU are paying for their abortions AT ALL? Neither school will be transparent regarding their accounting.

  • I am noticing a distinct lack of sock puppets in here right now.

    The Wiggles must be on.

  • Pingback: The Anatomy of a Takedown of a Takedown | Virginia Virtucon()

  • Alex70

    OK, Mr. Kenney, I really need help. (I’m sure you agree with that!) I am most decidedly a (non-Catholic) Catholic noob. (Although I had no sense of what the noob word meant until I looked it up on the Urban Dictionary.) We’re on the opposite side of the fence on much, but I don’t underestimate your intelligence. Please frame it for me. I want to understand. Please explain the gradations of conservative Catholic political thought/advocacy within Va. and how this incident (and BD) fit within it. I am sorely in need of education. Simple is always best. Gratefully yours, A.

    • To boil this down – Wasinger and his crew of a half a dozen friends have made a cottage industry of ginning up false pro-life based attacks through Catholic organizations and websites to smear anybody they feel like. But it’s not hard to connect the dots when you see what he’s trying to do.

      Some people will apparently do anything to run for office.

      • Human Rights

        ..and they seem to have no problem getting lots of help from those websites…

      • Alex70

        Thank you. Much to learn.

      • Doug Brown

        I see good help on the Hill is getting harder and harder to find.

  • Based on his current behavior I don’t think it will ever be his time.

  • “I have found that in my years of public service, it is the people that actually have a record on an issue that are the most reliable. Anyone can roll out talking points; but only a true leader can actually put together a record of service.” – Bob Wasinger.
    By his own admission Comstock is more qualified and reliable then him.

  • This is what happens when you muscle out all but one credible candidate, the crazies come out thinking they have a shot.
    Kind of like the 2013 Lt. Gov race, caused in part by Cuccinelli’s desire to avoid “divisive” primary with Bolling that he (Cooch) probably would’ve won.
    Instead Cuccinelli waltzed to the nomination, Bolling stayed home, Bell and Obenshain had a good debate that Obenshain won, and the CLOWN SHOW of a Lt. Gov. race happened.
    Should’ve been Black vs Comstock and we’d have a healthy debate.

    • jonathonmoseley

      That is NOT what happened. There has been a move for many years in Virginia to ALWAYS have conventions. It had nothing to do with Ken Cuccinelli. There is one member of the Republican State Central Committee who is a ONE-ISSUE VOTER: He will not support anyone who wants a primary.

      One reason for this is that primaries are paid for by the taxpayer and many conservatives believe it is morally, economically, politically, and ideologically WRONG for a political party to ask the taxpayer to pay for the party selection process.

      A second reason is that Virginia does not have voter registration by party. That turns EVERY primary into a JOKE and a circus, because Democrats and others vote in Republican primaries. I myself have been making phone calls to voters who voted in the last GOP orimary. Some of them yell over the phone: “I am a Democrat! Why are you calling me?” and hang up. I am calling them because they voted in the last Republican primary.

  • While we are cringing at this intra-GOP fight, here’s a CO Democrat being a terrible human being to another woman #waronwomen

  • Marta D. Saltus

    Can we please ship Toto back to Kansas? Now he’s embarrassing Catholicism! For a guy that touts himself as a conservative, he’s quite versed on progressive, Saul Alinsky tactics… All he’s doing is making a mockery of his candidacy. The voters in the 10th district don’t have time for this kind of deception amd games, “Mr. Harverd”

  • Catherine Stone McNickle

    “you’re dragging good people into the wrong fight.”…….there are people taking this guy seriously? I hope not.

    • Apparently some national pro-lifers. Who usually make a bunch of mistakes in regards to candidates anyway.

  • Marta D. Saltus

    Just released by the Comstock campaign:

    Comstock for Congress Catholic Coalition Launches Grassroots Organizing Efforts

    McLean, VA – (February 11, 2014) Prominent Catholics in our community have stepped forward to launch the Comstock for Congress Catholic Coalition. This coalition joins a growing list of grassroots supporters and organizations that are coming out to support Barbara Comstock’s bid for the Republican nomination in the 10th Congressional District of Virginia and the election in the Fall.
    The coalition will be chaired by The Honorable Jim Nicholson, former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, and Kate O’Beirne, former Washington editor of the National Review and former Board Member of Ave Maria Law School.

    Regarding the launch, Kate O’Beirne said, “While seeking common ground for the common good, Barbara has remained deeply committed to her strong values. She is a staunch supporter of working to create a culture of life and has led the fight on behalf of victims of human trafficking. I am proud to stand with Barbara as she stands up for the most vulnerable among us.”

    I guess Mr. “Harverd” did see this coming!

  • Pingback: News Clips 2-11-14 « The Family Foundation()

  • Daniel T

    I very rarely feel compelled to comment on a blog but this is important. Barbara Comstock is a rock solid conservative and I feel very comfortable that she is a reliable pro-lifer- and not an angry one either.

    She really understands the actual spirit of “Catholic social justice” (which can be a scary sounding phrase because of how some have distorted it) but when applied through the proper lens it is obvious that all lives are worth it and we are all prompted to allow individuals to build themselves up and not create a cycle of dependency.

    I was very lucky to participate with the Human Rights council at the UN a few years back and it didn’t take long to see how quickly others around us distort human dignity, freedom, and paint conservatives as extremists. Not only is she an active pro-lifer but she also understands “pro-life” in the much greater context of allowing the human mind to flourish through greater independence.

    We do not need and do not want fellow conservatives distorting Republican records and blurring definitions.

    • Daniel —

      Spot on… we need more Catholics who represent their faith in its totality. Could not have said it better myself, especially when it comes to Catholic social justice (which has been utterly co-opted by its Marxist variant… and could not be more diametrically opposed to Marxism).

      More individualism, less dependency, stronger families, flourishing parishes. Was this not the focus of Evangelii Gaudium?! Great insight, Daniel…


      • Adam Cassandra

        “we need more Catholics who represent their faith in its totality”–I agree with that part. Really hope this committee of Catholics backing Comstock get her to come around on contraception.

      • jonathonmoseley

        Although the average (randomly selected) Protestant church is no better, we need more Catholics who understand their faith in its totality. Most protestants and Catholics have only a superficial and vague grasp of Christianity… mainly from lack of any real interest in the topic.

      • jonathonmoseley

        But what is the wisdom of making Barbara Comstock’s campaign about Catholicism? Barbara Comstock’s greatest strength is her broad-based appeal, more than any other GOP candidate. Focusing on her Catholicism doesn’t help her.

        Barbara Comstock will probably walk away with the nomination at the convention — unless she has non-conservative votes she doesn’t explain or answer.

        So I think it only harms her greatest strength to get into factional fights. Comstock has been very successful for years at making everyone in her district feel that she is on good terms with all of them. The last thing she should do now is narrow her appeal.

        However “Was this not the focus of Evangelii Gaudium?!” No, it wasn’t. That’s what defenders of the Pope wish it was about. But that’s not what Pope Francis actually actually said.

  • Paddycakes

    Why does the RPV not do at least a minimum backround check on these clowns,( EW Jackson and his shameful Mass. History). Come to Va, we’ll give you a clean slate! No one here fact checks, it’s illegal! We’ve cut the telegraph lines between here and you’re Kansas past! He not the first to see Roman Catholics as a rich field for manipulation and pandering.We’re told to only consider abortion in voting and to hold our noses on all the other repugnant claptrap the GOP throws at us.

    • jonathonmoseley

      Do you really want to have a system where US citizens need PERMISSION to run for office? HERE’S THE THING: We are struggling in a society where the news media does not do its job in dozens of ways. We are trying to over-compensate for a corrupt, incompetent, lazy, and superficial journalist class. To the extent that even Bearing Drift, not traditional media, is publishing information, that is what SHOULD happen – not to set up a gate keeper prohibiting people from running for office.

      • Paddycakes

        The converation between Wasinger and Ed Gillespie would go like this,”Geez buddy you’re still sporting Kansas tags, living in D.C. and not divorced living with……”

        • jonathonmoseley

          I am sure you’re right. I would as a campaign strategist. It’s not only obvious but a fair point. But like many things the question is not what is the right result but WHO is the right party to make that decision? I would rather have Bearing Drift and other news media and blogs make that argument to the voters than suggest that the RPV can decide who is “allowed” to run for office. Maybe that’s not what you mean. But it sounds too much like that. I would want to be careful about such concepts.

  • Paddycakes

    Not the first case of pandering to and exploiting Catholcs for political gain

  • Pingback: HARVERD's Funder Fumble - The Bull Elephant()

  • Pingback: HARVERD’s Funder Fumble | Virginia Virtucon()

  • Pingback: Despite Being Called Out, Wasinger’s Allies Continue To Attack Comstock | Virginia Virtucon()

  • jonathonmoseley

    The problem is that Bearing Drift is perfectly happy with — and has often promoted, spread, or originated — smears against conservative candidates. Shaun Kenney started out with “There’s nothing I detest more than an orchestrated hit job appearing with the veneer of honesty.” Your article might have some credibility if you were not so much IN LOVE WITH orchestrated hit jobs against candidates you oppose, particularly conservative candidates.

    LIVE by the orchestrated hit job, DIE by the orchestrated hit job

    • jonathonmoseley

      And don’t get me wrong. Barbara Comstock is a great candidate. I have never heard of this Rob guy. But all the other candidates, I would be happy with almost any of them. I wrote to Delegate Black, Barbara Comstock, Bob Marshall, and some others (all in the same email) that it is like asking a mother which of her children she loves more. I think Barbara Comstock is a little less conservative — meaning a little more vulnerable to pressure or manipulation by the news media, prevailing winds, and establishment. But that is HER JOB to convince the voters of her positions. Barbara Comstock should clarify what she stands for and what she will fight for if elected.

  • Paddycakes

    Maybe a minimum standards test( like a learners permit) before you can run RPV. Nothing serious,mind you. Question No 1: How many felonies on your record?………

  • Salvelinus

    Comstock (CINO – Catholic in Name Only) wants to make Contraceptives available over the counter.

    Stop pretending she is a “faithful Catholic”! She is Nancy Pelosi with a “R” next to her Name!

  • Salvelinus

    Comstock is a Good Catholic???”
    That support raises the question of why Comstock is asking the Obama
    administration to further promote the availability of birth control,
    which poses health dangers to women and potentially act as

    On her delegate campaign website, Comstock states she “spearheaded a request and letter
    from House of Delegates members to” Sebelius in order “to make birth
    control pills available over the counter without a prescription for
    adult women.”

    Comstock wrote that “allowing over the counter sales of oral
    contraceptives for adult women would enhance women’s access, put
    decisions in their hands, modernize the health care system, and lower
    birth control costs.” Such a change, she wrote, would be “a bipartisan
    solution that could bring people together and help in ending birth
    control politics.”

  • Jonathan Weinberg

    Comstock voted for a homosexual judge actively working to overturn Virginia’s traditional marriage law. Comstock also urged Kathleen Sebeliues, HHS Secretary, to make abortive contraception more widely available. Comstock has taken herself down.

  • Jonathan Weinberg

    Bob “MIA” Marshall (70) has missed 1,036 committee and floor votes since he first ran for higher office. We need fresh horses.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.