Jeff Clark should leave this race. He has said from the beginning that Robert Hurt was his target. Whatever the vendetta is that he carries for Hurt is shared by some I suppose, but with the fact that our economy is in critical danger, our constitution is being ignored, our liberties are being systematically removed, the very future of our Republic hangs in the balance, and any hope for our children to grow up in a nation that even resembles the America that has been so great for so long being in doubt, we do not have the luxury of entertaining the egos of such detractors as Mr. Clark. He is NOT the Tea Party candidate, although there are those on the fringe who want to make some sort of suicidal statement, nor is he representative of the majority of the Tea Party patriots in VA5.
As we approach the 60 day mark before VA5 voters head to the polls, Tom Perreillo has one wish – now, and for as long as he’s serving in Congress. His wish must be that conservatives will remain distracted and fractured, that we stay focused on a conservative purity test and continue to fuss and fight among ourselves. Because so long as this trend persists Tom keeps his office, and we can certainly count on him to support the destructive big-government big spending and BIG TAXING liberal agenda – then return to the district and convince the more gullible he is independent in his thinking and voting. When, in fact, he votes with Pelosi and Obama and ALL the destructive big-government legislation. He receives all the praises from the most extreme leftists.
This brings me to Jeff Clark, who I am unclear on whose dreams and wishes he is trying to fulfill. There has been much in the media over the last few days about Jeff Clark’s personal financial situation. I will certainly not judge the man on that alone. Those of us who have lost jobs and had major life issues will certainly be able to attest to the reality of financial challenges, and find some sympathy. But, that only goes so far.
Jeff Clark and others have launched an attack of innuendo and misdirection against me personally, the Tea Party, and against the Hurt campaign. The reasonable person might say, “well this is just politics as usual,” and that would certainly be a reasonable assumption. But, this election season the reasonable rules of politics (if they ever existed at all) have been suspended in many ways. Individual voters seem more interested and engaged and more people are waking up to the fact that this nation is headed down a path toward disaster if things are not stopped and turned around very quickly. All this drives the intensity level much higher than usual.
Let me first set the record straight as to the so-called “clandestine” meeting that Jeff Clark and I had at the Hibachi Grill on Ward’s Road in Lynchburg, and a little background leading up to it. Some months ago I received a phone call from a friend of mine who is a political junky, and a Tea Party activist outside VA5. In this conversation he told me that we should be careful because our “Tea Party candidate” had some real financial baggage and it was not going to look good for the Tea Party when that all came out. I informed him that there was NO Tea Party candidate, that we had not endorsed anyone. He then pointed out that the media was making every attempt to make “Jeff Clark, member of the Danville Tea Party” appear to be the “Tea Party” candidate. His point was very accurate. He did not give me all the detail that came out in the paper, but enough to give me concerns. Then I asked another conservative activist to verify the information I was given, and a week or so later it was confirmed through a search of PUBLIC RECORDS. I expressed my concerns to a couple of people I trusted and respected and sat on the information until I received a call from Jeff Clark on another matter. We set up a lunch appointment.
During our lunch meeting we discussed several things. Jeff Clark wanted me to support his efforts to be involved in the televised debates, he informed me how he believed that he could pick up 15-25% of the vote in the election (delusional thinking), that his candidacy was really making a statement, that he was willing to put up with two more years of Tom Perriello (and apparently a Democrat majority in the House) than to have to deal with an entrenched Robert Hurt. Up until this meeting I thought that Jeff Clark had a political future, and I told him what I had been told about the information on his financial misfortunes that has since made it into the press along with much more that I was unaware of.
I told him that since he had thrown his name in the congressional hat that all this stuff was going to come out at some point. I also gave him my word that I would keep his information confidential, and I have stood by that obligation. I did suggest that he consider running for some other office, or take on more of a leadership role in his local Tea Party. Let me say that I would certainly withdraw that recommendation now.
Many weeks later the information did come out, as any casual observer of politics or reasonable person knew it would, and much more as well. So, now they [Clark and allies] use this inevitable release to spew lies and absurd assumptions.
In defending his candidacy and attempting to deflect the public disclosure of his finances to the press in Mr. Clark has attempted to discredit me, the chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party, and the Hurt Campaign. Who does this benefit? As anyone who has kept up with VA5 politics over the last several months can attest, I have been very critical of the GOP, and Robert Hurt. Now, it appears that Mr. Clark and some of my personal detractors are attempting to paint me as an “agent” of the Hurt campaign. This is intended to make the Tea Party look like a subsidiary of the GOP, and/or the GOP being run by the Tea Party. If successful, this would in turn activate the anti-Tea Party crowd on both sides of the aisle, and refocus and invigorate some of the deflated leftists. If Clark can do this then the Democrats get a double-play of sorts.
Let’s look at this. Robert Hurt Campaign is running a very safe, make no waves, campaign. At least up until now. The Tea Party crowd wants someone to go after the leftists with passion and energy. That’s just not happening, the Hurt folks are playing this very safe. Any release of this sort of information would be tied to them in the minds of the ordinary voter, because “on the surface” it would appear that the Hurt campaign is engaging in “politics of personal destruction.” Well, they are playing things way too safe for that. So, who would benefit from a release of such damaging information on such a sympathetic character as Mr. Clark? Tom Perriello? The information coming out in the Charlottesville paper – certainly not known for supporting conservative candidates. This should make the reasonable person ask the reasonable question.
The reasonable person would ask, “why, and who does this benefit?” The beneficiary of this is, of course, Tom Perriello. The distraction caused by the media coverage of this benefits who? Hmmm . . . Tom Perriello. To single out, marginalize, and discredit any leader of your opposition is a strategy right out of the pages of Saul Alinksy, and Saul is loved and adored by who? The leftist running the government just now, and they are supported by who? Tom Perriello!
Jeff Clark’s motivation remains somewhat enigmatic. He is either a modern day Don Quixote, a misguided delusional lunatic, or he is directly allied with the Democrats attempting to pose as a faux “Tea Party” candidate as has been exposed in some other districts around the nation. Keep in mind our district has been identified as one of the most important races in the nation for the leftist democrats. Whether a Perriello plant, or a misguided delusional lunatic, the effect is still the same. His very presence in this race, and the distraction caused benefits the leftist liberal Tom Perriello.
I knew something about Jeff Clark’s financial issues and now I’m being accused of spreading rumors. Anytime you go through a bankruptcy and other such things then they are PUBLIC RECORD. If the media was actually interested they could do the same thing a couple of regular guys did and discover some bits of information. Maybe I should have broken my word and gone to the press, but I didn’t and I can’t claim credit for something I didn’t do. After his announcement that he would drop out of the race if the “informant” would step forward, I actually received several phone calls from people volunteering to do just that. I needed the laugh. I also told them they should not step up and claim credit for something they didn’t do.
To those who see Clark’s positions as principled, let’s remember what Ronald Reagan said concerning such things: “I’d rather get 80% of what I want, than go driving right off the cliff with my flags flying high, and get 0% of what I want.” Jeff Clark brings us 0% of what we want. Reasonable questions remain as to his allegiances, viability, motivation, and now, to his very character. Our goal must remain removing Tom Perriello, and removing the Democrat majority from the House. But that will not happen so long as the one person who stands a chance of beating Perriello, Robert Hurt, is forced to fight a two-front campaign.
We have primaries for a reason, and certainly in VA5 we had one heck of a primary. It’s over now. If Clark wanted to prevent Hurt from getting the nomination, he should have thrown his hat into the ring in the context of the primary. Or encouraged other candidates to unite around a single opponent against Hurt in the primary. Running as an Independent now after the primary is over, all the while acknowledging that it helps Perriello, is very short-sighted. And, should make the reasonable person wonder.
With such questionable motives and his long and often stated intentions to simply sabotage the Hurt campaign, I will make every effort to ignore him, and I urge others attempt to do the same. Although, I’m sure, like the distracting buzz of a fly around your picnic table that might be difficult to do.
If Perriello wins, and the Democrats keep the House by just one seat, everyone will know who to blame.
Mark Lloyd
Chairman, Lynchburg Tea Party
No more discussions in the 5th?
Anyway, who is watching Delaware (Tea Party candidate still in the running for GOP nomination)?
This story:
http://bearingdrift.com/2010/09/13/nominating-christine-o%e2%80%99donnell-de-could-destroy-the-tea-party/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bearingdrift+%28Bearing+Drift%29&utm_content=Twitter
reminds me of the “Reverend” turning on McPadden.
Stephen:
You stated before you are part of or have attended events hosted by the Jefferson Area Tea Party. I assume this means you live in the Charlottesville area. Did you happen to make it to the Perriello/Clark debate at Nelson County last week? Isn’t that close to Charlottesville?
Hi morprfctgovt,
Yes, I live near Charlottesville. Nelson County is about a 45 minute drive from where I am. I didn’t go to that debate – not interested in hearing what TP or Clark have to say – although the debates w/Hurt should be interesting.
Clark is supposed to be at the next Lynchburg tea party event. Has he appeared before the Jefferson tea party?
Yes, they had him at one of their meetings.
Stephen:
Are you not part of the Jefferson Area Tea Party?
Well, it depends what you mean by “part of”. They don’t really have a notion of membership (although the head mentioned at the Hurt meeting that at some point there may be a “dues” to help fund some of the activities). I am on their mailing list and have been to a few of their events, if that counts…
Stephen:
If you know, what is the general thinking in the JATP on the election and Clark’s candidacy?
I don’t really know.
new Robert Hurt TV ad on his website.
Kelley:
You need to let Mr. Hurt know that, although most people seem to agree Perriello needs to go, and that he may be the person who benefits most from this sentiment, should he win, we will watch his actions, statements, votes, and caucuses like a hawk.
He also needs to know he only won 48% of the vote in the primary (more of the active and faithful were against him than for him), that he was lucky a primary was held rather than a convention, and that the tea party movement in the 5th will be much more organized in 2012 than in 2010, and that he may well find his rear in a tailspin come 2012 if he does not stick to his campaign promises.
If he takes his lead from the Cantor types rather than the Mike Pence/Jim DeMint types, he will pay the price.
We acknowledge and swear by the statement of T. Paine: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” We expect, and we support.
We accept the admonishment of Milton Friedman: “…[N]obody ever said we were going to win this thing at any point in time. Eternal vigilance is required and there have to be people who step up to the plate, who believe in liberty, and who are willing to fight for it.”
The tea party-endorsed candidates across the country achieving primary success should show the the establishment it is in real danger of irrelevancy and “Whigancy”.
Kelley:
Tell Mr. Hurt to read:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/246881
thread winner over at Bearing Drift in re: Dem’s new logo. Brian Kirwin asks “is that a logo or a grade?”
morprfctgovt:
I see you quoted Milton Friedman above. I had actually never heard of him until recently (my son tipped me off), but from what I have seen, this guy was a genius.
There are tons of his interviews that can be found on the web. Here is a particularly good one on limited government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prmggcDVe6w
It’s uncanny what he says at 2:03, because it is so applicable today.
how about a thread about Christine O’Donnell. That is sure to spark a conversation!
Stephen:
I heard of Friedman only recently, also. I was scanning books at Goodwill about six months ago and saw a book entitled “Free to Choose”. Reading the “Dedication”, or perhaps the Forward or Introduction, piqued my interest. I purchased the book, then Googled Friedman (the author), and found he was of the school of Hayek and von Mises. I found another copy of this book, in better shape, at a book sale this weekend.
In the video, I believe Friedman is speaking of changes to the Constitution that would further clarify the limits placed on government as intended by the Founders. Friedman was speaking, in the video, in the modern times, so he aware of the expansion of government that occurred during the New Deal and thereafter, both through congressional overreach and bastardized Supreme Court rulings. It seems his idea was to clarify what the Founders meant or to build on their foundation based on our experience of power-mongers who would cross the constitutional limits at every opportunity, to correct defects we have, through experience, found in their document. They obviously anticipated we would find such defects – hence the amendment process.
This past March, a few weeks before passage of the health care bill, I was in DC visiting congressional offices to vocalize my disapproval of the bill. I was on Capitol Hill two days. I was astounded by the sheer number of lobbyists “on the Hill”.
It was then I realized that the reason so many lobbyists are on the Hill is because the Hill is where the money is. You really cannot blame these folks for being on the Hill. They are in business to make money. If one lobbyist, out of principle, decided against going to the Hill, a hundred more would take his place. The Founders did not intend to keep lobbyists out of the nation’s Capitol. They intended to keep money out of the nation’s Capitol. Lobbyists follow the money. Hence, the Founders placed great restrictions on the federal government’s power and ability to tax, i.e., limited government.
Being on Capitol Hill made me realize why our system is broken. The federal government both accumulates too much money in Washington and also frequently votes to increase the debt limit, thereby borrowing more money to dole out in order to garner support for the next election, or to get the vacation (I’m sorry: conference)to Europe or whereever.
This is the danger of too high taxes and too much power in one place. The original plan was for that power to be dispersed among the states. If the federal government did not tax us so high and did not have so many programs for this and that, and therefore not so many government contracts to dole out and pet projects to finance, no lobbyist would waste his time and money on the Hill.
Friedman seems to state that placing new limits on the federal beast is the way of correcting this defect, of righting this wrong, and thereby protecting our liberties from eventual authoritarian government. I think his idea is correct, but unrealistic. The answer must be to have repesentatives in DC who, come hell or high water, will toe the constitutional line, and who will err on the side of caution on constitutional questions rather than seek its ever-expansion. And the burden will then be on us to monitor our representative, and, if they uphold their oath, to go all out in their support at election time. And, this must be duplicated in 468 districts and states every two years, until we die.
Anything less will result in the end of free government, which is already knocking on our doors.
So many have expressed fear and frustration this year over the choices we have for Congress in the 5th. Like you, I thought McPadden was the candidate who best understood our Constitution, our woes, and our remedy. Now, we have what seems to be an establishment politician in Robert Hurt, and we fear he does not understand the dire need to radically alter our current form of government (not the Constitutional document, but the institutional practices) in the short and long run. I am utterly convinced Jeff Clark has a deficit of knowledge and would be swallowed up by the system in DC. And, of course, Perriello is Enemy No. 1.
How the new House leadership (assuming a GOP takeover) handles the initial budget will tell us where this thing is headed. If they go along to get along, we may get a revolt. The days of ‘trusting’ the GOP that “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” are over.
Morprfctgovt -
I can honestly say I agree with 99.8% of your last comment here. I was saying most of this throughout the 11 months of my campaign.
The one part I disagree with is your assessment of Jeff Clark’s “deficit of knowledge.” I urge you to listen to some of the 20 (or so) hours he has spent on my radio shows, giving his thoughts on any and every relevant recent issue, and compare those principles and answers to any audio/video you can find of Robert Hurt. I guarantee your perception will change.
I’d also be interested to hear your take on the recent position taken by the Rutherford Institute on the VA05 debates. (http://www.rutherford.org/pdf/2010/09-22_Hurt_CandidatesDebate.pdf)
The arrogance and utter disregard for Fifth District voters displayed by Senator Hurt, even way back in the primary process, and continuing to this day, should be more than enough to convince anyone (with an open mind) that Hurt in no way understands “the dire need to radically alter our current form of government (not the Constitutional document, but the institutional practices) in the short and long run.”
Because, when boiled down to its essence, the “institutional practices” you refer to, which we must seek to “radically alter” are the EXACT practices both Perriello and Hurt are hard-wired with.
Bradley:
I appreciate the invitation to listen to Clark’s interviews on your radio show. Unfortunately, I do not know the show or radio station carrying your show. Please let me know. If I can pick it up I will be glad to listen to another conservative commentator.
I base my ‘deficit of knowledge’ comment about Clark on the personal conversations I have had with Clark, as well as on the public statements Clark has made this election season, as well as on the “Issues” link on his website, as well on his performance at the Clark-Perriello debates I have attended. I think these experiences give me enough information about Clark to comment.
However, the larger issue for me concerning Clark and this election, Bradley, is three-fold:
1) I think Clark would be a roll-over for the liberals in Washington who will exploit his supposed “independent” stance. I base this on the manner he has rolled over in his debates with Perriello.
I specifically heard Clark speak highly of Perriello in a debate when he stated that, “Mr. Perriello knows how difficult it can be for one person to stand against his own Party in Washington.” This is a direct quote, in which Clark applauded Perrielo for standing up against his Democrat Party. I was flabbergasted when I heard Clark say this. Perriello has essentially been a rubber stamp fror Pelosi except for the rare instances she has given Tom permission to “oppose” his party when the Democrats had the votes they needed, of like in the Obamacare Healthcare bill 1099 vote when she used parliamentary maneuvers to increase to passage threshhold to 2/3.
Clark calls himself a conservative, so how can he claim Perriello has attempted to stand up to the Democrat Party in Washington? Clark showed himself gullible in that instance, and I fear he would easily exploitable in DC.
2) Hell would freeze over and liberals would vote to cut spending before Clark would become a viable candidate. And the resaon he is not electable is not only because the establishment GOP is not behind him. It is because Clark has very little appeal to conservative voters. I watched him, Brad. I heard his campaign speeches. I spoke with him personally. He just doesn’t have it.
As I stated before, I supported McPadden in the primary, in part because I felt Robert Hurt was not an effective communicator. But Hurt is several times better than Hurt, from my perspective, not necessarily only on the issues but also on the persona he projects.
Clark comes across to me as, frankly, an amateur, as out of his league. He is not appealing either substantively or personally.
Perhaps my relatively few encounters with Clark are insufficient to form a proper measure of the man, but this is all I have. And whether he is likeable or not has nothing to do with whether I would be able to trust him. The trust factor for Hurt is much higher for me than for Clark.
Which brings me to #3: Not only is Hurt electable, but he will be part of a Party heavily influenced by the Tea Party movement. I know you may be aghast at my last statement concerning trusting Hurt more than Clark. I admit my trust factor relies on the ability of the Tea Party movement to sway the inclinations of the GOP. Certainly the Tea Party movement has emboldened the true conservatives in the GOP and is helping to elect a freshman class of House and Senate conservatives. I would rather have a person tied to the GOP which is influenced by the Tea Party movement than a self-professed independent like Clark – who will be properly seen by the liberals as fruit ripened for the picking.
Bradley:
Re the Rutherford Institute letter:
John Whitehead has misstated the effect of Hurt refusing to debate Jeff Clark.
It is not possible for Robert Hurt to refuse the facilitation of “informed decision-making” by Virginia voters or to “impede the democratic process”, especially in this day of the computer and Internet.
Keep in mind, Brad, Hurt has NOT refused to debate. He has refused to debate Clark. Perriello IS willing to include Clark, not in the interest of the democratic process, but because he knows Clark can only pull votes from Hurt. Perriello also knows that his debates with Clark amount to nothing more than amateur hour, and results in more light-headed media coverage for himself. I find it hard to believe Whitehead is so gullible regarding Perriello’s motives here.
Whitehead insists the voters need the opportunity to decide for themselves. But in this election the issue are so apparent a man on the moon would know what they are. Opposition to an adminstration’s policies have never been more acute than for this administration. Perriello’s votes for Obamacare, cap and tax, union bailouts, etc., i.e., his lock-step support for this administration, are also well known, due in no small measure to the wide-spread media coverage.
Perriello is playing hide and seek regarding his votes, and is engaging in the biggest disinformation campaign in the history of the 5th District. Why would Hurt, or Clark and Whitehead for that matter, want to give Perriello yet another opportunity to spread lies to the electorate?
Throughout his letter Whitehead assumes Robert Hurt’s refusal to debate Clark (not Perriello) prevents voters from being able to cast an informed vote. But if a person intending on voting hasn’t at this point educated himself about the issues and the candidates’ stand on the issues, they will never be an informed voter. And no “talking points debate” will solve that problem.
Whitehead also quotes the U.S. Supreme Court, implying it is the arbiter of the final word on debates. I think this marks the first time Whitehead has held the position that we should gave this deferential authority to the Supreme Court. Just like the typical politician, Whitehead uses a Supreme Court ruling to justify his own position. This logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” does not work, especially not with the Tea Party crowd who are informed and who are involved.
Whitehead also engages in ad hominem attacks on Hurt. Last I heard an American citizen still has the right to decide with whom he will speak or not speak, associate or not associate. The liberals/socialists haven’t yet subverted ALL of our rights. So Hurt doesn’t care to speak with or associate with Clark? That is his right. Whether this decision is politically wise is another question. But for Whitehead to personally attack Hurt as a snob because Hurt exercises a constitutional right is bizzare coming from him. And it is not Robert Hurt subjugating the freedoms of the voters, but it is Whitehead attempting to subjugate the liberties of Robert Hurt to further Whitehead’s personal interests of more media attention and notoriety for his organization.
In the end, Bradley, I find Whitehead’s letter misleading, untruthful, offensive, and self-serving.
The voters know the issues, and the voters know that Hurt has refused to debate Clark. It is then up to the voters to decide the consequences of this decision.
since when has the US Supreme Court ruled on debates?
Many times there are 3 or 4 candidates other than Republican or Democrat. Sometimes there is the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Nat’l Socialist Party, the Dixiecrat Party et al represented in any given race. Robert Hurt (or even Perriello for that matter) would be under no obligation to debate these candidates.
The Supreme Court pontificates on everything, and expects we the sheeple to wonder and thank the gods we have finally heard from the oracle.
This is why it is surprising Whitehead would use Supreme Court precedent to bolster his argument against Hurt.
No one is saying the Court doesn’t ever get it right, but what I am saying is that normative, “ought to” statements from the Court, or other-worldly sermonizing like O’Conner did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, have only the worth we give it – in my case, none.
I would bet that any of the cases Whitehead referrenced in his letter dealt with the issue of freedom of political speech – which is exactly what Hurt is engaging in when he decides to not debate Clark. Hurt is engaging in non-verbal political speech. And he is saying to the voters that Clark is not a serious candidate and that Hurt does not want to waste the voters’ time by including him in the debates.
But because Hurt’s non-verbal political speech does not suit Whitehead’s purposes of self-promotion, he perversely accuses Hurt of violating Clark’s freedom of speech. Frankly, I think Clark has spoken “enough already”, and has said about all the voters of the 5th want to hear from him.
the SC may not get it right or suit our sensibilities often, but its what the Constitution prescribes.
“The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
– Thomas Jefferson