- A NOVA perspective on Virginia politics -
So Jim Dillard endorsed Dave Marsden...
What does this have to do with him sitting on the William and Mary board?
Tsk , Tsk House Republicans.
posted by too conservative @ 2/09/2006 06:30:00 PM
It has to do with political payback. Kaine paid back Dillard for the Marsden support by naming him to the BOV. Republicans were not in the mood to see this kind of patronage used as a reward for Party disloyalty. Pretty simple, and not petty at all.
"It has to do with political payback. Kaine paid back Dillard for the Marsden support by naming him to the BOV. Republicans were not in the mood to see this kind of patronage used as a reward for Party disloyalty. Pretty simple, and not petty at all."What kind of negative political payback isn't petty? The very term "payback" implies pettyness.Rtwng Extrmst, call this for what it is. You can take joy in this event, but at least have the guts to call it what it is: a spiteful and vengeful move.Otherwise, you're the most hopeless partisan hack I've ever seen...
Rtwng-This should not be political.He should have been approved.
THIS WAS NOT TIM KAINE.
TC: You are young and have many political lessons to learn. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this was payback time for Jim Dillard.
TC's endorsing the elevation of yet another RINO... there's a shock!
anon-I understand it was political payback..I understand how the system works.It doesnt make it right.This was a bad move by house republicans.
he also actively, as a member of the House R caucus, helped the campaign of Frank Hargrove's challenger.
Yes. But why does that mean he's not qualified to sit on a college board?
it doesnt vcthey have nothing to back it up.
Rtwng, my friend. Wrong as usual. Tim Kaine DIDN'T "pay back Dillard for the Marsden support." Dillard was nominated by GOVERNOR WARNER. So yes, pretty simple. Petty indeed.
VC, you're right; "The very term 'payback' implies pettyness."This was retributive justice.Association with the Republican Party of Virginia explicitly requires "support for all of the nominees in the ensuing election." Dillard broke that pledge when he endorsed the Democrat. And now, he appropriately reaps the whirlwind.
There must be discipline for those that wander off the reservation. Will future R's double think what it will cost them to fly in the face of the party?
Hmmm:Be like Black, Mars, Craddock, Staton, Brickner, Rita Thompson and espouse a far right wing agenda and lose in the general elections...Or be like Dillard, espouse mainstream views, serve honorably and effectively for three decades, get your former aide who shares your views elected as your successor, and be denied a relatively insignificant appointment by a bunch of petty ex-colleagues.I don't think this will have any "chilling effect" on future moderates. If anything, I think it will just make those moderates less likely to run as Republicans.
I stand corrected on who nominated Dillard, but the rest of my point still stands. Dillard was petty in his endorsement of a Dem. He should not expect support from Republicans.If you want to see petty vendettas, look at what the Senate "leadership" is doing to conservatives on committee assignments. I now have seen the first party line vote costing a Republican bill btw NJH.
Uh, Anon 2:08, there's nothing "moderate" about ever-growing government, though I agree that Dillard and his ilk have effectively done so. But I respect your continuing effort to hijack the language in the cause of the far Left.
NJH, sorry, my last comment was actually meant for J. Sarge.
A sitting GOP delegate chooses to support democratic candidates against GOP candidates, and is appointed to the WM BOV by a democratic governor...and folks are surprised that the GOP caucus voted against this quisling?Had Dillard resigned from office and done this, or changed parties and then backed Democratic candidates, he may well have gotten the additional votes he needed. Instead, he cut a deal instead of taking a completely principled route. You cannot do these things in the political arena and not expect some type of comeback attempt...and Dillard-who was a true RINO-did not have the political oomph to beat back the attempt.Someone in this or another blog mentioned John Warner in the context of this backing Coleman in 1994. Warner did not escape the comeback attempt-he was challenged for renomination in 1996-but he was strong enough to win against Jim Miller.The BOV appointments are typically political in nature, so it should be no surprise when such appointments fail from time to time due to purely partisan reasons.
As a young Virginian Republican, I find this to be an absolutely atrocious move. I don’t agree with all of Dillard’s votes, especially on the tax hike, but this is a man who was undoubtedly qualified for the position both in his education background and his love of William & Mary (as continually evidenced by his green W&M jacket). Furthermore, after having numerous discussions with him, I found Mr. Dillard to be an upstanding gentleman who would have done great things for the College. In his very short time on the BoV, he proved himself to be an exceptionally engaged and capable member. Supporting a former aide that happens to be a Democrat should be no sin, especially warranting such retribution. The only message this sends is that the House members of the Virginia GOP don’t want intelligent, free-thinking young Republicans in this state, and I for one find it sad.
Post a Comment
View my complete profile