Monday, May 14, 2007
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Do NOT Support Stuart!!!
This blog does not have an official Republican Candidate that it is supporting as of yet, however, each contributor and supporter is free to support who they wish. However, this site does stand against the nomination of Former Commonwealth’s Attorney Richard Stuart. (See more on Stuart at NLS.) Disgraced State Senator Chichester has endorsed Mr. Stuart. I have waited weeks since the endorsement for Stuart to make some kind of assurance that he is not another Chichester. This has not happened. This convinces me that Stuart in nothing more than a Chichester puppet. This site will focus its efforts to making sure that neither a liberal Republican nor a Liberal Democrat wins in the 28th District.
We did not work so hard to remove Mr. Chichester to have his clone.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Why I still support John Van Hoy (and why you should, too)
Stuart is the easiest to dismiss. I take it straight from the Chich's mouth (FLS) "He said he's backing Stuart because Stuart's fiscal philosophies are in line with his own." Stuart himself would "never say never" on tax hikes, which means I will always say never with him in a Republican nomination contest.
As for Myers, while his military service in Iraq is certainly admirable, his views on taxes are an anathema (Free Lance Star):
Myers said he's a social conservative but a "fiscal realist"--he doesn't like taxes but believes that taking a "no tax" pledge is akin to promising to cut state services.With all due respect, that is a nonsensical statement.
That leaves Graziano. To be fair, Graziano is showing himself to be a fairly good right-winger (he even sends up Myers - without naming him - in this Virginia Virtucon interview). However, he simply doesn't have Van Hoy's history in the district. Graziano has run two races in Stafford (Supervisor in 2003, County GOP Chairman in 2004), and lost them both. Van Hoy, by contrast, led the Stafford GOP Committee for over a decade, and has served on several local organizations in the area. Stafford knows him very well, and the nominee will need to be as well-known in Stafford as humanly possible.
The fact is, Albert Pollard will be a strong candidate. I don't think he'll be as strong on the Northern Neck as he was before (remember, he did not run for re-election as a Delegate after voting for Mark Warner's tax hike in 2004), but he's no slouch out there. We need someone whom Stafford voters know as one of them, with a long history of local involvement. Van Hoy has that; Graziano doesn't.
So, in the choice between two good candidates, I have to go with the one I feel has the best chance against the tax-hiking Pollard. That person was and is John Van Hoy.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Chichester’s Seat May Actually be Filled by a True Conservative
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Is Chichester trying to steer Republicans away from John Van Hoy?
Sen. John Chichester's decision to retire leaves the state 28th Senate District seat open for the first time in 29 years.
. . .
John Van Hoy, a Stafford businessman and former chairman of the county's Republican Party unit, had planned to challenge Chichester in a primary, and now says he is still running and has filed the necessary paperwork to become a candidate.
Also considering a run for the Republican nomination are Del. Rob Wittman of Westmoreland County; Cord Sterling, who formerly worked for Sen. John Warner, is vice-chairman of the
Stafford Republicans and a member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board . . .
For the record, Delegate Wittman voted "Yes" on "Republican" tax hike, while Sterling was non-committal (Free Lance-Star); only Van Hoy opposed the tax hike.
Meanwhile, when Chichester was asked to comment on the race to replace him, he had this to say (emphasis added):
Chichester has his own thoughts about who he'd like to see replace him--and a campaign account of at least $300,000 that could help such a candidate. He said both Wittman and Sterling would be good, qualified candidates and that he wouldn't support one over the other.
Notice anyone missing from his list? Yup, there was no mention of John Van Hoy. Now, Chich can support whomever he wants, but Republicans in the 28th District have to ask themselves if anyone Chich holds in such regard should be allowed anywhere near the Senate Chamber. I say No, and thus I support John Van Hoy.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal
Monday, March 12, 2007
Chichester is Gone!!!
After a 29 year reign of terror Senator John Chichester has decided today to “retire” as apposed to getting voted out of office. After reading Chichester’s press release (you can find it most anywhere, but NLS had it up first), I am saddened to report that Chichester did not “wake up one morning to realize what he had done to Virginia and decide to do the only responsible thing” as I had hoped. He instead driveled on as any defeated politician does. Here are some of the lowlights:
Chairing the Finance Committee brings many things – not the least of which is a respect for the complexity of real life and the need to balance many worthwhile and competing interests, while maintaining the highest fiscal integrity. That balance can’t be achieved without a firm grounding in all aspects of the enterprise that we call state government.
The job of chairman brings a steep learning curve, and the learning never ends. It is a full-time job, and one that is all-consuming. In order to be successful, the Finance Committee chairman must be willing to live and breathe the state budget on a day-to-day basis. He must be willing to trade instant gratification for the state’s long-term prosperity. He must be willing to advance positions that are sometimes unpopular. He must leave behind parochial interests and think ecumenically, because the chairman’s district becomes the entire Commonwealth and her assets.
The rewards are many, but there is a price to pay. That price is exacted both physically and through the yoke of responsibility for Virginia’s financial health, economic prosperity and fiscal structure that accompanies the position, not just for two months that one is in Richmond, but for 365 days of the year.
I hope and pray that his words do not ring true. Virginia has suffered too much under his ideological tyranny.
But alas, Chichester must be commended for doing the right thing, even if not for the right reasons. Chichester was absolutely right when he said, “In 1978, when I first ran for this office, I said that the seat in the Senate belonged to the people and not to me.” Chichester has turned the seat back over to the people!
This is a great victory for Virginia and the Chichester Must Go movement. Chichester Must Go started as a small grassroots movement in the minds conservatives in Virginia. Chichester Must Go and its supporters merely provided the catalyst for what was already there.
I would like to personally thank D.J. McGuire for his contribution to this effort. Thank you also to the many blogs that supported this movement:
- Bearing Drift
- Black Velvet Bruce Li
- Renaissance Ruminations
- Southwest by Southeast
- The Right-Wing Liberal
- The Virginian Federalist
- The Ward View
- V*CAP
- Virginia Virtucon
Finally, thank you to the many fine citizens of Commonwealth for their support. It is the pressure you put on Chichester that was the real cause for his “retirement.”
As for what will happen to Chichester Must Go, we will enjoy this victory and then look toward the future. All suggestions are welcome.
On the retirement speech
“I have decided that we will not seek re-election for another term.” – John Chichester
My take on this in moments.
The Chichastrophe May be Over
I must remind everyone that this is merely a rumor, and we have seen more than are fair share here at Chichester Must Go. His announcement could come as early as today. If true, this would be the ultimate success for the cause.
To give you a little recap of what happened, here is how it has gone down so far:
VCAP had the first scoop on Friday followed quickly by Bacon’s Rebellion and Virginia Virtucon. Saturday the Virginia Blogosphere was alive with rhetoric regarding the Chichester rumor: Chichester Must Go, Black Velvet Bruce Li, The Right-Wing Liberal, and Mason Conservative. The Ward View and Elephant Ears took up the storm on Sunday. Today Renaissance Ruminations and your’s truly have pitched in their takes.
We will keep you up to date as this story unfolds. . . .
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Ding Dong, the Chich is . . .
The point is, he's going, going . . . he's gone!
I have it on very good authority that Chich will call it a career on Monday. This will remove a cloud no larger than a man's hand from the Commonwealth. All who stood up to oppose him (not the least of which the anonymous founder of this blog) deserve the thanks of all Virginians (well, except yours truly, I enjoy the rough and tumble of politics way too much for this to be considered anything but a labor of love).
There is, of course, the matter of replacing Chich; as that's not entirely germane here, let me simply provide a link to my thoughts on the matter here.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
A Challenger May be Emerging
I whole heartedly agree. The question is will Van Hoy run? Residents of the 28th must make their voice heard loud and clear. Chichester Must Go, and someone must step up to the plate now.
Monday, March 05, 2007
The "fire out there" grows
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Tommy Denton tries his hand at comedy
Thanks, Tommy; I haven't had a laugh that good in a long time.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Transportation Passes in Spite of Chichester
The two Repu… (I can’t even say it) Senators who voted against the bill were Potts and you know who, Chichester. This should be the last straw. If anyone was on the fence on the Chichester issue, this shows that Chichester is against any kind of progress in this state. Chichester votes like a Democrat. He is a Democrat. He could probably win as a Democrat. In fact we are starting the Draft Chichester to Run for the Democratic Nomination for his Senate Seat Movement (DCTRFTDNFHSSM).
It looks like Monday should be interesting in Stafford.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The beginning of the end for Chichester's career could come on Monday
In Virginia, the law allows an incumbent to choose his method of nomination. Republicans like Chichester almost always choose a primary, which by law must be open to independents and Democrats. Thus, Chich can thwart the will of the party by controlling the method of his nomination.
However, as part of the legal brouhaha over the validity of open primaries, the State Board of Education has acknowledged that local parties can "disassociate" incumbents, and thus deprive them of pulling stunts like the open primary (see Cory Chandler's comment in Bacon's Rebellion). The committee can even go so far as to call a convention (i.e., a caucus, which usually attracts genuine party members as it requires folks to sit through a meeting of 1-3 hours - depending on the size of the gathering - before casting a vote).
The point is this: if the local party disassociates Chichester, it means Chich can no longer determine the process of his nomination, the committee does. Not only does it mean Chichester may lose in a convention or closed primary, but more importantly, it returns control of the nomination process to the party.
That is, if the committee moves to disassociate. Right now, that's up in the air. In fact, one person holds the fate of disassociation in the balance - Stafford Republican Committee Chairman Bob Hunt. If Hunt votes for disassociation, it passes; if he doesn't, it fails.
So, if you wish to see Chichester finally put to pasture, make yourself and your views known to Mr. Hunt. Please be civil and respectful, and ask Hunt to vote in favor of the disassociation measure.
If Hunt can be convinced, we may finally see the beginning of the end of John Chichester's political career.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal
Chichesters’ Wingman Retires
This is a decisive victory for the movement against Chichester. Thank you Mr. Potts, good-bye, and good riddance.
Now its your turn Chichester!
Chichester worms his way into the transportation conference
Chichester, however, told senators yesterday that he'd rather have the transportation talks concluded before the budget is finalized.On one level, this is just responsible budgeting - Chich et al would be fools to write budget amendments without knowing what (if any) effect the transportation folks will have on the money available.
That's because the transportation plan may include spending $250 million a year from the general fund--something the House wants and Chichester doesn't--and if that's the case, budget writers may be more "cautious," Chichester said.
"We have to move forward with caution, because if this bill that comes back after we complete our work we don't know whether we're going to be faced with a $250 million a year outlay, and if we don't know that, we have to conduct ourselves with some degree of caution in dealing with our budget," Chichester said.
On another level, however, this gives him more influence than an ordinary legislator outside the conference committee could ever have on the final product. I'm guessing Chichester is prepared to make abundantly clear where he wants the general fund money that the conference shifts over to transportation, and use this to inflict maximum political damage on the chances of the conference report passing the Senate. This is all but certain to make the conference more willing than it would otherwise be to seek his "advice" on their plans.
Now, I'm no fan of the transportation "compromise" (there's no need for tax increases of any kind in a budget that has risen 60% in six years), but Chichester has always pushed for higher taxes than the House and Senate leadership on this issue. If I'm right on this, and Chichester has managed to make himself a de facto conference committee member, it all but ensures whatever comes out of the conference will be even worse than we thought.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Is the conference committee taking out ALL of the tax hikes?
However, there is one paragraph at the end of the RTD piece that has my head spinning:
Other signs that the transportation package will largely reflect the House's priorities: Conferees have stripped out a 1.5 cent-per-gallon increase in diesel fuel that would have equalized it with the 17.5 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline. Also, an optional sales tax to pay for Northern Virginia projects has been replaced with an array of fees.An array of fees? The House plan as passed did not use "an array of fees" for regional road projects, it used regional tax hikes that were objectionable on several levels. Perhaps the RTD authors (Michael Hardy and Jeff Shapiro) simply weren't paying attention, or perhaps, just perhaps, the regional tax hikes are gone. Hardy and Shapiro were pretty clear about the end of the diesel tax hike, which was also in the original House plan.
In other words, the conferees may have taken every single tax hike out of the plan. If so, and this is just about the largest "if" I have ever encountered, the conferees (almost all of whom are Republicans) may have managed to square the political circle and actually present a transportation plan that doesn't infuriate limited-government voters.
Of course, that depends on what kind of "fees" we're discussing (and whether or not Hardy and Shapiro are correct), but this could be the best news to come out of the transportation soap opera in a good long while.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal
Monday, February 19, 2007
In the News
Chichester’s liberalism is not limited to taxes. There are many other issues that Chichester has left the Republican Party Platform on. Taxes, however, are focused upon because tax issues are the most common with Chichester.
Tax increase or no tax increase, transportation or no transportation, Chichester must go.
We made the Free Lance-Star
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Chichester WON’T be Ruining Transportation
As reported today by Raising Kaine via the Washington Post, Senator John Chichester will be conspicuously missing from the conference committee on transportation. The Senators who will be on the committee are Thomas K. Norment Jr. (
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Meanwhile, Chich wants even HIGHER taxes
Cross-Posted to the right-wing liberal
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Even Chichester Reaps what he Sows
Thank you to McDonnell, Bolling, and most of the Republican State Senators!
For more on this see Bearing Drift, V*CAP, and Riley, Not O’Reilly.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Chichester’s Deeds Brought to Light
Renaissance Ruminations has a post that everyone should read. “Virginia You’ve Been Chich-Slapped” explains the evolution of
“It is the immature mindset of a man who has always wanted to do things his own way
despite all counsel and advice…except now there is no counsel he will listen to…except his own ego.”
Monday, February 05, 2007
Can Chichester really lose a GOP primary? Yes he can.
First of all, throughout the 2003 campaign, Chichester promised 28th District Republicans that he would "support our shared Republican principles of smaller government [and] lower taxes." He made it even clearer to the Richmond Times Dispatch, "I’m certainly not going to favor raising taxes" (Peter Ferrara). Four years later, he has broken his word not once (2004), not twice (2006), but three times (2007). He can no longer claim to be low-tax Republican now.
Yes, yes, they say, but Chichester is focused on transportation. Surely his suburban DC district will reward him for it - even Republicans.
To this I respond with a question: has anyone actually looked at Chichester's district? While suburban Stafford County is a large piece of the 28th, the fact is that Stafford, Prince William, and Fredericksburg actually accounted for less than half of the 2003 primary vote. The majority of voters and precincts were in the Northern Neck and Fauquier county. I'm guessing voters in the Neck will be far more focused on the higher gas taxes Chichester wants them to pay than the asphalt heading for NoVa and Hampton Roads commuter routes that few of them use. As for Fauquier, Chichester actually lost its precincts in 2003.
I'm not saying a Chichester defeat is inevitable, but I don't think anyone can say it's impossible.
Last Week in Chichester
Join the grassroots effort by emailing ChichesterMustGo@gmail.com.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Three Blind Mice
Senator Chichester is at it again joined by the other two of the Three Blind Mice:
Why Chichester Why Now?
Senator Chichester has been a thorn in the side of