Socialize

Congratulations, Scott Russell

Scott Russell won the chairmanship of the Fauquier County GOP today, defeating Cam Jones in a large turnout.

Scott touted his Reagan Republican approach, and coming from the vaunted conservative publication American Spectator, many were eager for a real conservative-to-conservative duel in which the principles touted by Ronald Reagan would be on full display.

American Spectator is the home to Angelo Codevilla’s immortal “America’s Ruling Class – and the Perils of Revolution.”  ‘Am Spec’ has done world-class work exposing “The Banality of RINOs.”  And, it was American Spectator that correctly published how Tea Partiers are Ronald Reagan’s heirs.

Yes, we were expecting a clash of conservative titans, a Jefferson-Madison-style duel where the winner was the one who best articulated the benefits of freedom, government limited by the rule of law, how the Fauquier County GOP would be a model for other counties, and how our rural county could be prosperous and peaceful for all people, not just those with connections, while retaining its rural character.

Scott has challenges facing him, including mending a Republican Party in the county that has come under fire for its supervisors’ very un-Reagan-like behavior.

The supervisors’ incurring debt, threatening tax increases, cobbling up private land for government ownership, trespassing on private property rights, and making life uncomfortable and even unbearable for small-business people through over-regulation is, well, the antithesis of Reagan.

In this race, Cam Jones was unfairly — falsely — criticized by sources to drive voters, including Democrats, to the polls to defeat the Tea Party-backed candidate.  Politics is rough and tumble, of course, and in Cam’s service to his country he has experienced much, much tougher things than dishonesty.

Cam’s political future is bright.  He displayed principled leadership and a love for the county.  We’re sure he’ll work with the new leadership to improve the lot of everyone.

Fauquier County government is in many ways what American Spectator criticizes.  Here at FFC we’ve done our share to expose flaws, dishonesty, corruption and lawbreaking in the county government in the hope that improvements will result.  We hope the Fauquier GOP under Mr. Russell’s chairmanship will be part of the solution.

We wish Scott well in navigating between Reagan’s principles and county politics.

Comments

comments

35 Responses to Congratulations, Scott Russell

  1. Pingback: Barbara Comstock: Meet With the Tea Party - Fairfax Free Citizen

  2. Mark Fitzgibbons Reply

    March 28, 2014 at 11:30 am

    Vox,

    Besides being an apologist for bullying government and bad, irresponsible behavior by elected officials (based on your comments on other sites), you seem to suggest that people across the political spectrum shouldn’t or don’t seek to influence candidates by withholding support until the candidates provide clarity of where they stand. That’s ludicrous. It happens all the time. Why are you singling out Cam Jones? Because he did it publicly as an expression of what he and many people were thinking instead of in back rooms? Because he did it vocally with reasons instead of through campaign contributions to grease the wheels like some people do?

    Cam clearly has bigger ones than you.

    As to your defense of Holder Trumbo’s irresponsible comments, our readers should see what you posted at Watchdog so they can better evaluate the ridiculous place from where you’re coming:

    “Really people? You all actually think Mr. Trumbo is going to shoot you because your opinions are not the same as his? Kevlar is used to make more things than bullet proof vests such as bicycle tires, gloves, helmets and even phone covers. His choice of words may not have been the wisest but y’alls reaction to his comment is hysterical. You know the phrase “the masses are asses”? Well y’all just defined it perfectly. Since you all are so terrified of a ‘rogue supervisor’ that must mean you all are so anti-gun that you’re actually liberals in disguise??”

    http://watchdog.org/134782/fauquier-county-kevlar/

    • Vox Veritas Vita Reply

      March 28, 2014 at 12:57 pm

      I stand by my words. If you all actually think he’s going to start mowing people down with an AR15 then y’all are nuts. Figure of speech people!

      • Anton Afterwit Reply

        March 30, 2014 at 10:30 am

        Mr. Vita,

        The behavior displayed by Mr. Holder is inexcusable, regardless of final intent. He is hearing from county voters and instead of issuing veiled, indirect, or even direct threats, he needs to accept the input from the voters and act appropriately. Sometimes citizens will be polite and sometimes they will not.

        I watched in horror as the whole episode devolved ON BOTH SIDES. Trying to parse words at this point is moot, the damage has already been done. The choice of words might have been a poor choice, but it is incumbent on the elected official to take the high road and not play into the emotion of the event. At this point I think both sides need to take a deep breath and refocus on the facts instead of acting childish.

  3. Vox Veritas Vita Reply

    March 27, 2014 at 11:36 am

    This quote right here: “…and making life uncomfortable and even unbearable for small-business people through over-regulation is, well, the antithesis of Reagan.” Uhmm, you guys do realize that our very own BOS Holder Trumbo is a small-business owner, right? You guys have no idea what he goes through on a daily basis to keep his store running properly. Being a small-business owner is hard, harder than it was 50 years ago. You really think he wants to make it harder on himself and others like him? NO. He is just trying to do what is right and fair for everyone. Oh and this quote too: ” Here at FFC we’ve done our share to expose flaws, dishonesty, corruption and lawbreaking in the county government in the hope that improvements will result.” Really? Then why didn’t you guys expose Cam Jones when he said that he supported George Allen in the 2012 election for U.S. Senate? Rick Buchanan wrote that Cameron Jones was part of the effort through his writings on popular blog sites that helped bring the Allen campaign to strike a more conservative stance, which in turn, brought out the conservative base. I suggest that you read the following articles by Cam Jones:
    http://redstatevirginia.com/2012/06/susan-allen-knows-what-to-do/#more
    http://redstatevirginia.com/2012/08/george-allen-is-no-ted-cruz

    http://redstatevirginia.com/2012/08/george-allen-is-no-ted-cruz/

    The last article was written almost two months after the 2012 Primary Election. The key quote from all the articles is from August 3, 2012 when Cameron Jones stated: “I won’t put my name on the line to support a candidate that does not, will not, represent my values. I cannot in all good conscience tell others that Allen is a conservative when he will not commit to conservative ideals.” I was unable to find one blog posted where Cameron Jones, who was a Republican Committee member at the time, supported George Allen.

    So how come this was never exposed. I think people have a right to know the TRUTH.

    SPEAK THE TRUTH AS A WAY OF LIFE.

    • Cameron Jones Reply

      March 27, 2014 at 4:45 pm

      V[cubed],

      Before you continue to rant about my principled stand for Conservatism, you may want to read this article published in Bearing Drift on 20 Sep 2012.

      http://bearingdrift.com/2012/09/20/radtke-endorses-allen/

      In it, Senate candidate Jamie Radtke explains her role in getting George Allen to publicly address the concerns of conservatives across the state.

      Subsequently, she gave her endorsement on 20 Sep 2012, and conservatives across the Common Wealth threw their support behind him; I was one of them.

      I made over 400 calls into my precinct over the next two plus months, and I enlisted 7 volunteers to work my precinct.

      After the election was over Allen’s statewide average was 47%, Fauquier was 59%, and Catlett (my precinct) was 69%, 10 points over the Fauquier average and 22 points over the statewide average.

      What did you do? What have you ever done?

      • Vox Veritas Vita Reply

        March 28, 2014 at 10:55 am

        The fact that you stated that you would not support George Allen and then turned around and did all this work to get him in office when you still obviously didn’t agree with his views just shows that you can not and will not stand your ground for what you believe in. If you did not want to support him in the first place then you didn’t have to; simple as that. No one held a gun to you, did they? So this quick turn around shows that you are spineless and give into others easily. We all know that Rick Buchannon is your puppet master. Man up and grow some balls.

        • Cameron Jones Reply

          March 29, 2014 at 5:06 pm

          What I have said and done stands on its own merits with Conservatives, of which you are not one.

          You have obviously never stood for anything in your life.

          I have defended our nation both in and out of uniform; I ask again V[3], what have you done?

          I will let my deeds speak for me. People who know me know what kind of man I am.

          Your opinion does not matter to me in the least; you are a do nothing, never stood for nothing loud mouth.

          If you believe you are scoring points with Conservatives by attacking a Conservative for taking a Principled Conservative stand to extract accountability from a candidate for the U.S. Senate, then you might want to re-evaluate your position.

          WHO needs to grow a pair?

          I am here under my own name; and you?

          • Glorious Winged Eagle Reply

            March 29, 2014 at 8:01 pm

            What does one using his/her own name have to do with it? I heard your editor uses a fake name. Is that true?

  4. Tea Party Obama Voter Reply

    March 25, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    Ronald Reagan:
    • Gave Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants
    • Negotiated with Terrorists (Traded Arms for Hostages with Iran)
    • Raised Taxes on a Large Scale Four Times (After Initially Lowering Them)
    • Negotiated with the “Evil Empire” without Pre-conditions
    • Made a Decision to “Cut and Run” From Lebanon After Our Troops Were Attacked
    In fact, as you look at the Reagan list, it seems he is the exact opposite of what conservatives now claim they want. It looks like the caricature of what they think liberals do. There is no way that even Dennis Kucinich would be able to do all of those things; he certainly wouldn’t negotiate with terrorists the way Reagan did.
    Of course, Reagan also took the country further right in many ways but our political spectrum has moved so far to the right that he looks left behind by comparison. So, let’s go to Obama and see what that “socialist” is up to.
    Barack Obama:
    • Escalated the Afghanistan War (Added 30,000 More Troops)
    • Escalated the Afghanistan War (Added 30,000 More Troops)
    • Has Ordered Drone Strikes (Assassinations) on US Citizens Outside the Country
    • Gave Drug Companies Near Monopoly Power by Barring Imports, Extending Patents and Not Allowing the Government to Negotiate Better Prices
    • Funneled Billions into the Biggest Banks in the Country After They Crashed the Economy
    • Stacked Deficit Commission with Fiscal Conservatives
    • Lowered Taxes Significantly (Stimulus Bill)
    • Ordered Increased Offshore Drilling Before BP Spill
    The Obama team would argue that they did a lot of this because the Republicans made them do it. First, that’s entirely untrue because the Republicans didn’t make them pass any bills. The GOP also didn’t give most of this legislation a single yes vote, so they could have been entirely ignored if Obama had the courage to do that. And many of the items on the list are executive actions, which the Republicans have no control over.

    Second, conservative is as conservative does. If you implement this many conservative positions, are you really sure you’re not one?
    Now, people will cry and scream that we had the most historic health care reform and will soon have the most historic financial reform ever. Isn’t that progressive enough?! No, that’s nonsense. They are called historic only because the White House called them that. Financial reform is a joke that still leaves the big banks in charge and has failed to end “too big to fail.” And yes, health care reform actually covers more people if they ever get it (maybe in 2014) and if they can afford it (depends on what private insurance decides to charge them), but it still leaves the health care system exactly as it was before. This is the progressive change people voted for?
    The bottom line is that, no matter what the reason, Obama seems to be in some important ways significantly to the right of Reagan on the political spectrum. If Reagan ordered the execution of US citizens abroad, he might have been impeached. If Obama tried to give undocumented immigrants blanket amnesty the way Reagan did, he might be impeached.

    I don’t think Obama is a hard right-winger. It’s just that the political establishment in this country has moved so far to the right (though not the public, according to polls on specific issues) that as a natural politician when he goes to appease them, he is solidly center-right on the spectrum.
    And the political line has moved so far that if Reagan tried to run as a Republican now he would be the laughing stock of the party. Rush Limbaugh would tear him to shreds and Bill Kristol would say he is Neville Chamberlain. He would be run out of town as a tax-raising, amnesty giving, terrorist negotiating, cut and run no-good lib who hates the troops.
    And anyone who claims otherwise is being absurd. As Reagan once said, “Facts are stubborn things.”

    • The Virginian Reply

      March 25, 2014 at 8:43 pm

      Boy the snow brings them all out. This has to be the most comprehensive list of tired, worn out talking points I have ever heard. Did you find it in a cracker jack box?

      I miss Reagan, I wish we had more candidates just like him… but here listen to Reagan in his own words describe the democrat party and their platforms…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK3Eo9cScEQ

      Thats why libs hate this guy, because he put them in their spot… over and over and over again.

      • The Virginian Reply

        March 25, 2014 at 9:11 pm

        Just another clip… lets compare Obama to Reagan…

      • Dominic Ruibal Reply

        March 25, 2014 at 11:20 pm

        Blah blah blah… too bad you can’t argue your point on merits. Face it. You Tea Party types have a weak grasp on facts to begin with, and trying to attack your fellow Republicans for not being sufficiently conservative makes you look even more ridiculous. Trying to claim the mantle of Reagan simply makes you look confused. Either way your movement is a joke and the people who take this site’s editorials seriously are the only people who don’t realize it.

        • The Virginian Reply

          March 26, 2014 at 12:34 am

          Scott,

          Or is it Jessica? So hard to tell these days. Honestly between that and the fact that last year was first year that a Budget got passed… its tough to keep everything straight… But ohh here is a link http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/politics/senate-passes-3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html?_r=0

          Does that say 3.7 trillion? No it couldnt be. First time in 4 years… huh, I thought that was against the law… But here is Harry Reid blocking a budget…

          “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on Friday, echoing previous statements from his office. Feb. 3, 2012

          But i didnt see a budget get passed… Maybe since you brought up the Supreme Court they will look into actually upholding the law and keep out of political campaigns. But I forgot, you just want unions to be able to give as much money as they can steal from their members to politicians. Everybody else’s Free Speech is capped at $2600!

          But I do want to congratulate on your ability to sputter out a whopping 92.246 billion in savings. Whoohoo! Let it be said here first that you sir are the spitting image of a deficit hawk! So we are spending roughly 3.5 trillion according to the US Debt Clock… so you have shaved a whooping .02% off the budget…. Congratulations… job well done.

          Not that I wouldnt like to see that .02% go myself… but its just not enough to keep this country out of bankruptcy. So you need to keep putting that nose to the grindstone to see if you can find a few more ways to get that pesky budget under control…

          Ohh wait I forgot… Obamacare… thats right! That is going to deficit neutral! Whatever that means.

          So listen up Pal, I am not hear to defend Bush’s record on spending… because those were his budgets that he signed over the abjection of people like me, but I am going to hang the ABSOLUTE LAWLESSNESS of this administration around the neck of every democrat I see!

          • Dominic Ruibal Reply

            March 26, 2014 at 8:37 am

            That link is a year old. That is the budget that passed the Senate, not what was signed into law. You do realize how bills work right? Of course you do you’re a real scholar. Paul Ryan and Patty Murphy hashed out a budget deal in the months after your article was published and was signed by the president later that year. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/26/us-usa-obama-idUSBRE9BP0HK20131226 The deficit stands at under 700 billion, not over a trillion. It will be even lower next year. As for campaign finance you put it in the most simplistic terms. With the age of super pacs organizations can raise unlimited funds from undisclosed donors via tax exempt nonprofits, amongst other means.http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml These people raise far more money than unions do, my friend.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/15/kochs-brothers-labor_n_4966883.html Stop calling me Scott you sound like a fool. What, do you think I’m some operative of this Russell guy? Are you serious? Do you really believe that your struggle is so significant?Get over yourself, buddy I’m just masochistic. For some reason debating angry Tea Party folks with bad info is entertaining to me. And maybe, just maybe one of you will read it and start to doubt the validity of all this libertarian nonsense and return to Earth.

            • The Virginian Reply

              March 27, 2014 at 11:29 am

              Congratulations genius you can read…. you still need to work on reading comprehension though. Because I said that last year they passed that budget. But it was the first one in 4 years. Then I gave you Reid blocking previous votes.. and lying to do it.

              But let me just ask you this simple question… your governmental design… can you point to a country were it has worked? Cause if you dont like the model that we had in this country… can you show me a place where something has worked better?

              Honestly thats a rhetorical question because you cant.

              So if your not Scott though… then it confirms the picture I have of you in my mind… living in a basement somewhere… EBT cards strung all over the place… about 5’3 on platforms shoes, you havent been able to look straight down and see your toes in years….

  5. Rachel Hill Reply

    March 25, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Mr. Ruibal’s reaction to the mention of Reagan Republicans shows us that, a generation later, the liberal mind still comes unhinged at a reference to the 40th president. Progressivism was on a roll with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Jimmy Carter’s Human Rights agenda until Ronald Reagan stood it in its tracks. His three goals when he took office were to cut taxes, halt inflation, and rebuild the military—he met all three in eight years. The cost of this success was a growing deficit, but President Reagan had foreseen the end result: With time, a booming economy with low taxes would bring down the deficit. And that’s what happened. According to Stephen Moore in a PBS interview, tax revenues when President Reagan came into office were $500 billion. By 1990 the revenue had doubled to a trillion dollars and in 1997, thanks to Congressional Republicans, we had a balanced budget. This economic recovery continued for 20 years.

    • Dominic Ruibal Reply

      March 25, 2014 at 4:34 pm

      You forget that Reagan also closed a lot of tax loopholes and cracked down on evaders. Inflation was kept in check by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates (although Volcker was a Reagan appointee so he gets credit). However between 1988 and 1997 Presidents Bush and Clinton both signed into law tax increases and cuts to the military, so I find it hard to give Reagan credit for the balanced budgets of the late nineties and early 2000s.

      • Rachel Hill Reply

        March 26, 2014 at 9:56 am

        Neither of the Presidents Bush were Reagan Republicans. In fact, the 41st president did his best to distance himself from President Reagan with his self-described “kinder, gentler conservatism” as did his son with “compassionate conservatism.” Their presidencies not only gave us tax hikes, they jump started the growth of big government. It was left to the Tea Party to pick up the mantle of conservatism. Ronald Reagan can rightly be credited with the economic success that continued until 2007 because his presidency not only brought about the end of the Cold War, resulting in reduced military spending, it built the foundation for wealth creation with policies of low taxes, privatization and deregulation.

  6. Mark Fitzgibbons Reply

    March 24, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Thanks, Mr. Ruibal. You’re right, of course. No comparison.

    Reagan had his Cold War; Fauquier County its war on Martha Boneta, small businesses, and property rights.

    Reagan had a Democrat Congress and Tip O’Neill; Fauquier’s four Republican supervisors have “Independent” Peter Schwartz.

    Reagan took over after Jimmy Carter and double-digit inflation; the Fauquier BoS have — themselves.

    From American Enterprise Institute:

    “Everyone talks about the Reagan tax cuts, yet there is more to President Reagan’s legacy than tax cuts. There is also his courageous and largely unappreciated willingness to fight for reductions in domestic spending.

    Ronald Reagan sought–and won–more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term (see table 1). Sadly, during his second term, President Reagan did not manage to cut nondefense discretionary spending, and it grew by 0.2 percent. But his record is still quite remarkable if compared to other administrations.”

    http://www.aei.org/papers/economics/fiscal-policy/president-reagan-champion-budget-cutter/

    • Dominic Ruibal Reply

      March 24, 2014 at 6:25 pm

      Key word is “nondefense”. His increases in military spending completely overwhelm any domestic cuts, and since military spending then as now is between 50 and 60 percent of discretionary spending it’s kind of hard to consider him a budget hawk. Especially since he almost doubled the National Debt. The point is you guys are trying to claim the mantle of Reagan, but if any politician followed his example you would decry him as a poor steward of the tax dollar.

      • The Virginian Reply

        March 24, 2014 at 7:13 pm

        So the reason that the dept doubled was because federal spending increases every year through a couple different methods, one is base line budgeting and the other is because certain federal programs are now outside of the congressional oversight. We call this nonbudgetary expenditures or off budget spending. You can look over this link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/taxes-budget/off-budget.cfm

        Secondly, the president does not control spending, that is the houses job. Unless its this house and it passes the buck to bureaucrats in this Administration. That is a separate issue though. But Constitutionally it is Congress that spends money.

        With that said, Presidents can try to sway spending on various programs but they can only accept or veto the budget. Which if you look at Reagan’s record, he did that several times. So he did EVERYTHING LEGALLY that he could to slow down spending.

        Two additional points that need to be said on this topic. First Democrats lie… They lied about boarder security/amnesty and they lied about the budget. Its a pattern that Democrats have… but I digress. Secondly Reagan didnt start the programs that are blowing up the budget… that was Democrats again.

        Social Security
        The New Deal
        The Great Society
        Medicare
        Medicaid

        and now the BIG ONE: Obamacare

        So here is the deal, Democrats have absolutely no room to even mention anything about budgets… they have about as much authority on the issue as 3rd grader… well… 3rd graders can add… so maybe I am being a bit tough on them!

  7. The Virginian Reply

    March 24, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    Mr. Ruibal,

    Please use creditable news organizations for factual arguments.

    Thank you in advance,

    The Virginian

    • Dom Ruibal Reply

      March 24, 2014 at 2:45 pm

      And what exactly is not factual about my information? Are you saying that the National Debt did not increase under Reagan or that he did not sign into law tax increases to fund Social Security? if you still have doubts I’ll make it easier on you since you don’t seem capable of looking it up yourself. http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
      http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/02/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-budget-taxes-opinions-contributors-rob-shapiro.html although perhaps to you guys Forbes counts as unreliable liberal media

      • The Virginian Reply

        March 25, 2014 at 9:45 am

        Mr. Ruibal,

        While the numbers that you put out might be factual, the caricature behind them isn’t. Also thinkprogress is a nasty organization bent on many false hoods… or lies… just like the liberals that started it.

        Liberalism is based on a lie; those that worship liberalism believe lies and those that spout liberal arguments are lairs. I say that because I don’t believe at this point in history that a person can hide behind ignorance any longer. We have a hundred years of living historical proof that modern liberalism destroys lives, demonizes Natural Law and displaces the relationships that are created in the Civil Society.

        But to your point about Reagan, I think that I addressed those points in my previews post… and I think that I did a fairly good job of pointing down your statements even before you stated them… If you liberals are one thing else, your logic is predictable… and circulant!

        Also, Mark I would like to apologize for getting off topic under your article… because there are many important elements that are being overlooked that are going to have an effect on the local party. There will be an effect on the party going forward and I have fell victim to the proverbial game of whack a lib.

        Thanks,

        The Virginian

        • Dominic Ruibal Reply

          March 25, 2014 at 10:25 am

          Come on man the thinkprogress was just one link drop that line. Breathtaking that you can go from “Reagan cut the most nondefense discretionary spending” to “Presidents don’t really control spending” while justifying that the debt incurred in that era was a result of problems with the social programs like Medicare and Social Security, even though those programs contribute 0 to the national debt unless they become insolvent which they have not in part because of actions of Congress and President Reagan in the 80′s, namely raising payroll taxes to maintain Social Security. The National Debt ballooned as a result of military spending, which is discretionary spending and major tax cuts, both controlled by congress and signed or vetoed by the President, holding both parties accountable. My point is that it is silly to refer to the current Board of Supervisors as “the antithesis of Reagan” let alone compare the actions of the two. A: It puts a far too emotional layer on the issues at hand, local zoning and land use laws. B: It is a gross miscomparison and makes issues like the Boneta case seem like far bigger of a battle than they really are. C: It leads to ridiculous infighting of pretty likeminded people, as the rhetoric in this local party fight demonstrates (“I’m more like Reagan! Hey, no I’m more like Reagan! We are patriots! They are rinos!). Stop trying to be such ideological purists and focus on “what is the better outcome and how does this accommodate even the people who disagree with me?”. Come on this is not the American Revolution. This guy Cam Jones is no more a Patrick Henry than Trumbo is a King George. You guys are arguing over conservation, tax, and zoning laws on a county level. Let’s keep things in perspective. I know we got off on a tangent over the details on the Reagan thing, which is exactly why it was silly to bring him up in this context in the first place. I did laugh at the whack a lib thing though, and I apologize to anyone who had to read thru the numbers breakdown just to get to my point. Apples and oranges people!

          • The Virginian Reply

            March 25, 2014 at 10:43 am

            Listen knucklehead… I have been trying to be gentle… but I think that what really needs to happen is that you need to go back for remedial English comprehension and math. Your not ready for history till you can master the basics. Your in the deep end of the pool and your drowning.

            Is this Scott posting all this stuff? Do you work with Scott?

            • Dominic Ruibal Reply

              March 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm

              Wow knucklehead that’s clever. I’m not sure how insulting me or painting very broad strokes about what your idea of what liberalism means proves your point but go ahead. In fact I have not even made a liberal argument, unless you consider me criticizing Reagan’s record on the budget or this publications hypocrisy for using him as an example of how our Supervisors should govern to be a liberal argument. One could almost call it a more conservative argument than yours. Wait do you even have an argument beyond “liberals are liars” and “that link is biased”? Look you can try to spin it any way you want but I’m not lying, anybody can look the budget numbers of every President and Congress as they are public records. Shoot here’s another link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt for anyone who wants to not listen to The Virginian and see for themselves. But never mind all that. You still have not even grasped the overall point of what I’m trying to say. Stop making everything this “us versus them” nonsense. These other Republicans you are so fond of denigrating on this website are actually not so dissimilar from you (well maybe from you Virginian, you’re special). If you would take time to see what you have in common with these people instead of how you are different you may be pleasantly surprised. Believe me I’m not used to defending conservatives but this publication makes it hard not to. I’m sick of this divisive politics based in anger and mistrust. All you guys due is sow hate and fear. And no I don’t know who Scott is.

              • Dominic Ruibal Reply

                March 25, 2014 at 4:19 pm

                Wait I get it you thought I worked for this guy Scott Russell! Haha no you were right about one thing I am a liberal so no I’m not affiliated with the local Republican party. However as much as I would like the Tea Party to keep handing electoral victories to Democrats it is in the interest of our democracy to keep the discussions (and candidates) rational.

              • The Virginian Reply

                March 25, 2014 at 4:42 pm

                Well I thought that it was clever… So lets try to agree on something… were do you want to start cutting government? Which regulations can we get rid of? What departments of government do you want to get rid of?

                Come on man lets try to agree on something… Last year we spent around 3.7 trillion, which was about 1.5 trillion beyond what we took in taxes and we have a national debt over 17 trillion.

                So yea I do look at this issue in pretty simplistic terms. Those that dont want to cut and spend this nation into bankruptcy and those that want to follow Reagan’s model and slow this disaster down.

                Cause the way that I look at it is that those that are on other side as those who want to destroy this Great Country! Long passed is the time that you get to play on the edges.

                So its not that I fault you for criticizing Reagan… I just criticize your logic or lack thereof.

                • Dominic Ruibal Reply

                  March 25, 2014 at 10:42 pm

                  Again your facts are wrong. Sorry but the deficit for 2013 is almost half of what you said. Don’t believe me? See the ultra liberal Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/30/federal-deficit-below-1-trillion-first-time-obama/?page=all . Not that it matters, because your use of Reagan as an example of fiscal prudence still falls short, especially in terms of the national debt that you seem so concerned about. As far as government programs I would cut and what departments I would end lets start with the Dept. of Homeland Security, seeing as we already have a Dept. of Defense. Also the National Security Agency, which seems duplicative of the FBI, and has been embroiled in the controversy of collecting every American phone call and holding them for five years via the Patriot Act, a product of a GOP Presidency and majority in Congress. In fact I could also name at least one Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance that could use overturning as well. I would abolish mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug offences to reduce strain on the justice system. Increasing transparency on political appointments would not hurt either. Not being the world’s policeman and reducing our troop presence around the world save billions of dollars as well as helping our standing in the world. Believe me sir I am not some ignorant fool and painting me as such will only make you look unreasonable.

  8. Dominic Ruibal Reply

    March 24, 2014 at 9:40 am

    “The supervisors’ incurring debt, threatening tax increases, cobbling up private land for government ownership, trespassing on private property rights, and making life uncomfortable and even unbearable for small-business people through over-regulation is, well, the antithesis of Reagan.” Mr. Fitzgibbons never mind the fact that we’re talking about county politics and not Presidential politics but since you brought it up I have to take issue with your take on Reagan. He most certainly incurred debt and most certainly raised taxes. President Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter’s last budget, FY 1981. •FY 1989 – $255 billion.
    •FY 1988 – $252 billion.
    •FY 1987 – $225 billion.
    •FY 1986 – $297 billion.
    •FY 1985 – $256 billion.
    •FY 1984 – $195 billion.
    •FY 1983 – $235 billion.
    •FY 1982 – $144 billion.
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

Please Tell Us What YOU think.