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
If Jeff Clark wanted to make any kind of difference outside of the two party system he would know that he needs to bring with him an entirely new party.. and one that people actually want to support. (Sorry libertarians and constitution party folks). Independents have never served any purpose in this country because they just split the vote.
It is clear that Clark only cares about his own ego.. his bizarre “call for transparency” showed just how stupid he actually is.
Anyone who would vote for that guy needs to seek help. I can’t imagine he will get more than 1-2% of the vote anyhow. And now not even that.
I would never have bought the idea that he was a shill.. but now.. who knows? After watching the video of his debate with Parriello.. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s exactly what he is.
Jeff Clark is a patsy of incredible proportions, firmly entrenched in the Tom Perriello camp or he is under the delusion that Robert Hurt has injured him somehow and Jeff now wants to extract revenge. In either respect, Jeff does not have the best interest of the VA5 or the country at heart. Why would he make such a stupid offer to step out of the race unless he “absolutely knew” before hand that no one would come forward. Why don’t you just say you are going to vote for your ole buddy, Tom and get it over with Jeff. Politics is not your game. Being bought? Now maybe that has an element of truth.
This country and VA5 needs Robert Hurt.
To the author:
Wow, I really expected something bigger and more powerful on this issue. This is political bullying and manipulation on a deep, dark level that reeks of RPV. As a leader of a Tea Party, this is a MAJOR conflict of interest in my opinion, and just another notch in my belt as to why I decided to leave the LTP leadership role that I occupied. For someone to have had such contempt for Hurt during the primaries, it’s abhorrent to see the complete “change of heart” and not only that, but a bleeding heart for Robert Hurt. I am so eternally grateful to be no longer officially associated with an organization (the LTP) who has made it a mission to bully a candidate out of the race, thereby limiting voter choice. What in the hell has happened to the LTP? Where are the convictions and principles that the collective “we” had in February?
There are so many lies and fabrications about Jeff Clark and the source seems to come back to the LTP each time, who openly/secretly has close ties to the local, district, and state Republican Party, most likely at the behest of Bill Stanley. Because of the actions of the LTP and their cohorts, I fear for any future “citizen legislator” that hopes to ever step up and run for office without the blessing of the sticky, tangled, dangerous web of D’s or R’s. It’s a sick cycle, and the LTP you are continuing to perpetuate it. The LTP actually thought they could infiltrate the local GOP? HA! They are belly laughing at you now, as they are calling the shots, and you never saw it coming. Or really, maybe it was welcomed. It’s too late to figure it out now.
Respectfully,
Dana Hale
Founder, Lynchburg Tea Party
Former Co-Vice Chair, Lynchburg Tea Party
Mark,
I am extremely disappointed that you accuse Jeff of being a Perriello plant (with not a shred of proof) when you yourself have so obviously become an RPV plant, willing to even dishonor yourself with lies and attempted character assassination. Have you even spoken with Jeff for more than a few minutes? Obviously not, with your assessment that he brings “0% of what we want.” Or did you mean, “because there’s no ‘R’ after his name”?
You certainly haven’t listened to any of Jeff’s numerous appearances on my shows. He has clearly stated that, if VA05 looks to be the deciding factor between Speaker Pelosi or Speaker Boehner, he will stand aside. Sounds a lot more honorable than anything I’ve seen from you in, oh, about 6 months.
Aaron,
I thought I knew you better than that. How is ANYone calling for transparency “stupid”?
Mark,
This is insulting. First off, unless this is the consensus of the Lynchburg Tea Party, I call on your to remove your signature indicating you are the chairman. Earlier, the LTP made clear it would not endorse. I have no reason to believe that this has changed. Calling for a candidate to pull out of the race while your organization is refusing to endorse seems hypocritical. Make this statement as a private citizen, not as Chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party.
Reporting on public records is one thing. The indication is that the information provided to the press by unknown individuals included private information such as Jeff Clark’s Social Security number. This isn’t the work of “The Google.” This sort of information is available only to high end research firms that professionally do this sort of dirt digging.
I agree. A third party candidacy needs to have great consideration and significant differentiation to succeed. One of the few that I have supported was Hoffman in NY23 in December 2009. Why? Because Dede Scozzafava, the Republican, was actually a leftist-leaning Democrat w/ an (R) next to her name. She was even too left wing to be called a RINO. The challenge by Hoffman made clear sense, and created a choice: a clear conservative VS two leftists. Scozzafava showed her true colors when she endorsed the Democrat. Hoffman could have won that race had he been a more charismatic candidate. In fact, Scozzafava dropping out, created a 2 party race.
Most 3 way races are vying for the conservative vote, and that is the vote that is split virtually every time.
If the GOP gets a majority in Congress and blows it like they did in 1994, then perhaps rethinking an alternate party for pincipled conservatives may be appropriate. Until then- we need to do whatever we can to break the extremist Democrat stronghold of our nation. Too much is at risk for political games and egos.
bradley: glad you brought up Mr Clark’s claim that he will step down if it appears VA5 was deciding factor between Pelosi or Boehner. It is admirable that Mr Clark sees the big picture.
but here is my concern with his statement: what about us in the Fifth? don’t we deserve to get rid of Perriello no matter how the rest of the country goes? I want my Congressman to represent ME regardless of who the Speaker is.
Perriello’s campaign is helped by elevating Jeff Clark’s candidacy.
Kelly,
What about those of us in the fifth who are conservative and refuse to back another establishment career politician like Robert Hurt? Let the election process play out. Stop trying to silence the voices of the people!
NAS, I can’t silence anyone. and I’m a person too.
point is: if Clark will w/draw to influence Speaker vote, then why won’t he w/draw now just for us plain long old 5th District constituents?
I believe Sen Hurt will beat both Perriello & Clark. However, Clark’s candidacy helps Perriello, the very opposite of conservatism.
Kelley-
Not as sure of yourself (and Hurt) as you were a month or so ago, when the bogus “30-point lead for Hurt” poll came out. Hmm.
The fact of the matter is, there are at least 2,200 people in the 5th who signed petitions to put Jeff on the November ballot. What about those “plain long old 5th District constituents”?
A) Jeff Clark should not pull out of the race period – for any reason. We have far too few candidates willing to run for office to begin with. In 2008 the so-called big parties left two incumbents unopposed.
That proves we cannot count on BPs to provide opposition. Everyone – including ordinary American citizens like Jeff – have the right to run. I admire his courage for jumping in to this hot seat.
B) When does it become any of our business whether Jeff has had financial difficulties. May I remind you that this economic downturn happened long before the oil party relinquished control of congress thanks to their willingness to wage wars. They ran up deficits, ran up wasteful spending – especially at DOD – and ran the table on their way out of office in 2008 with a brazen theft of even more tax dollars. You blame the auto party for the current deficits? The oil party showed them how to do it.
C) All you armchair political wannabes, get off your ass and run for office. Then you will be doing your civic duty. See if you can withstand the barbs and “establishment” mentality that pervades our electoral system. The very fact that the oil party nominee refuses to debate Clark signifies how sick our system is. How is it that the BPs think they have some pre-ordained right to the votes and that no one else should participate. And who is paying all of you to stick for these established hacks? Ask yourself whether they truly have any concern for you or our society at all. We need more voices and more choices, not these established polished-ticians.
Kelley-
And, just by the way, I shouldn’t have HAD to bring up Jeff’s statement about stepping down under certain circumstances. People who actually have an open mind in the 5th could have been listening when the show aired last month. I believe I even provided you a handy link (on another site) BEFORE that show aired.
Glad to see such a large group of objective people in the 5th who will make up their OWN mind, rather than blindly follow rumors and fear-mongering from the entrenched GOP shills. (*sarcasm*)
All it takes to get 2200 signatures is to stand outside walmart with a clipboard. I doubt that says much.
When the news media and Clark himself are running all over saying Mark Lloyd, Chairman of the LTP then I think it is perfectly legitimate that he have his name on this and any other defense.
“This isn’t the work of “The Google.” This sort of information is available only to high end research firms that professionally do this sort of dirt digging.” Last time I checked Mark Lloyd wasn’t in that field.
Good Point Kelley. For once I agree with you. It is clear from Clark’s “conditions” that he doesn’t really care about the 5th district but only his pride. I wish it was mark or myself that did this. Just to have the bonus of Jeff Clark Dropping out.
Watch Dog-
To your points:
#1- If “anyone” can get 2,200 signatures “standing in front of a WalMart”, why don’t we have candidates from 10 different parties on every single ballot in every single race every single year? Your ignorance astounds me.
#2- No one (to my knowledge) has accused Mark of putting this information together. That’s absurd. Paper tiger erects straw man. What Jeff *actually* said is that he first learned about it from Mark, indicating that Mark had some level of control over its release.
#3- Clark’s “conditions” indicate that he is less concerned with pride than with exposing sleazy character-assassination politics (which you USED to stand strongly against yourself, Kurt. Do I need to bring up a certain local “clergy”man?)
Ahh, the battle of the idealists vs. the pragmatists continues. This makes great political theater, but is it a comedy or a tragedy?
This is comedic and tragic at the same time because most of us agree on almost everything.
IMHO, these are the facts of life for conservative/liberty-minded voters in the 5th in 2010:
1. We have a two party system.
2. The Republican Party is the party for conservative/liberty-minded people.
3. Republicans can win and win easily in the 5th.
4. The Democrats are ruining this country.
5. The time to be an idealist is during the primary. Once the candidate is selected, it’s time to be an pragmatist. See 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Assuming we can all come to grips with these facts of life, then there are few things to consider:
1. For the current election cycle – Although Hurt may not be your first choice he is a good conservative candidate who can beat Perriello.
2. Once Hurt is elected – We need to watch him closely and keep the pressure on him to vote as he campaigned.
3. For the 2012 election cycle – We need to be prepared to oppose Hurt with a strong candidate, if he goes back on his word.
This third point is important and will require more discussion. How would we pick an opponent to Hurt in 2012? Unlike this primary, will it be possible for conservatives to unite behind a single candidate? How can we do this, when all it seems like we can do is attack each other?
Brad. You of all people should know about scandal and reasons to drop out.
1. The reason we don’t have 10 people on the ballot is because most people are not so stupid as to waste their money. They weigh the benefits vs the consequences(getting your dirty laundry aired) and they (most of them…the smart ones at least) decide not to run or drop out before filing deadlines.(you)
2. By insinuating Mark into this equation Clark is accusing him.
3. There is a difference between what “he that shall not be named” was doing and what is being done to Clark. Clark’s info is being hammered by Newspapers. Voldemort was on a witch hunt. From what I’ve read there are not any lies…dirty politics maybe…but not lies. The same thing happened to Feda and I didn’t have a problem with it because it was ahhhh….TRUE!
What about the Clark mess is not true?
Kurt-
The “scandal” you refer to was anything but. It was a learning experience (not just for me, but for the General Assembly, which promptly fixed the grey areas in the law that were pointed out in my press release).
The reason I left the race is the same reason you and I discussed many times during the primary: too many damn candidates in the field. I suppose I’m the only one who saw the NRCC’s handwriting on the wall.
Again, Jeff did not accuse Mark of anything. He simply stated what happened, making his case that he COULD have kept the info from coming out, if he had capitulated to RPV, Bill Stanley, McK PAC, et al’s wishes.
What about the Clark mess is not true? The constant (and absurd) claim that this info came strictly from a public records search, for starters. Also, the rather convenient lack of exculpatory information, such as the circumstances facing the Clark family at the time. Jeff did not disclose a bankruptcy from 2 decades ago for the same reason Robert Hurt will not disclose some of his less-becoming choices from his college days: it bears little relevance to who he is today.
Bradley, and those who are looking for a grand conspiracy,
As I said in the post. The only information I had was about the bankruptcy in 1993, which was confirmed with PUBLIC RECORD. The other info that wound up in the paper was news to me.
Much has been made about LTP “ties” to the GOP. Yes, there are MANY ties. Many of our members are also members of the several GOP unit committees. I am a member of the Campbell County Unit Committee. I have been a member, off and on, for many years. From the time I became the “chairman” of LTP my mantra has been to get involved where you think you can have the most impact and make the greatest difference. Most of our membership has been GOP, some have become involved in other places. Dana Hale took over as Libertarian Chair for VA5. She was involved with that group before the LTP came into existence I do believe. I have held her up as an example of getting involved many times, and still would. But, her “party” participation is acceptable, but mine and other disgruntled republicans who are attempting to make changes from the inside are considered deeply evil, and to have conflicts of interest.
Most of our GOP members supported Bill Stanley in the VA5 GOP District Chairman’s race. We did so because we saw him as better than the other guy. FYI-RPV basically looks at Bill Stanley as damaged goods because it was Tea Party and some outcast conservatives that put him in that position. Remember, the establishment types actually endorsed his opponent.
Does anyone remember I personally endorsed the one guy that did NOT just come running to Robert Hurt after the primary.
These are the mysterious ties to the GOP. I have been seen with Bill Stanley on several occasions. Usually at meeting involving the Campbell County Unit Committee, and sometimes with my involvement with the PAC. Sorry, but there is no conspiratorial relationship, nor is there any conduit to the RPV. I suspect I am one of their least favorite Tea Party guys, at least until I said what I did about the Jeff Clark situation. But, that was NOT done for them. I would have never said a word about what I knew about his situation if he had not thrown my name out there as the culprit to the nearest media outlet. Damaging to me, and the Tea Party in the eyes of some.
Or, as you say,” Jeff did not accuse Mark of anything. He simply stated what happened, making his case that he COULD have kept the info from coming out.” Funny thing Brad in that I get credited for having some sort of control over what the media, or RPV may or may not do. The ONLY thing I controlled was my own tongue on this. I had that info for more than a month, and was prepared to never say a word. I’m sure you and others don’t believe that, but that doesn’t matter at this point.
Here is a strange little factoid: This stuff on Jeff came out over the weekend. I didn’t look at a paper, or even get on the internet last weekend, because I had hit my political saturation point the week before. I got a couple phone calls from people saying my name was being thrown around as the guy who “leaked” it. Then on Monday the actually reporter who wrote the story calls me to tell me that Clark said I was the one that “shopped” this to the press, and he asked me to confirm that. What was that about? He wrote the damn article.
Then for the next several days I am bombarded with media calls about this, and they were using works like “blackmail, strong-arming, intimidating, bullying,” etc. Let me repeat, I NEVER SAID A WORD TO THE MEDIA ABOUT CLARK’S TROUBLES! At least until they started asking me, what I knew and when I knew it. But, several of you will not even consider this FACT. On Wednesday I had had enough, and I posted this post.
In our meeting, the one Jeff called me to set up, I told Jeff that I was afraid that since the MEDIA was making efforts to make him the Tea Party candidate – “Jeffery Clark, member of the Danville Tea Party.” This crap would come out at some point and then they would somehow use him and his problems to damage the Tea Party. I did ask him to reconsider his run, and to take up a leading role in the Tea Party, and HOLD HURT’S FEET TO THE FIRE should he win. Or, to seriously run for something else. No threats, no bullying, maybe some of my begging. But, my PLEAS to RECONSIDER were falling on deaf ears. I knew that then. But, I kept silent about it, as I obligated to Jeff that I would.
This is a very unfortunate situation. It really is sort of juvenile, but to accuse me repeatedly in public of, at a minimum, of having some “control” over the release of this negative info, or to accusing me of leading a conspiracy to “blackmail, bully, or strong-arm” him into getting him out of the race was and is WAY over the line. Jeff is a congressional candidate. I’m sure that if there is ANYTHING in his past that someone could “release” to the press he should be prepared. No, that is not some subliminal threat. It is just a fact.
I am a private citizen who has stepped into the public arena, I know that, I have been, and most likely will be accused of stuff I have no idea about. It has been happening for months. I think what I find most fascinating is that crap is made up about me, and people, people I respect and consider friends, choose to believe it, and things that are public record about a guy who is running for office for some questionable, or at least seemingly unusual reasons, is completely disregarded. I’m not whining, as I will surely be accused of doing, I’m just scratching my head.
The apparent double standard is amazing. Then there are the “burn the place down” conservatives in our midst that are more focused on some sort of “conservative purity test” that only THEY seem to be able to pass. They are looking to purify the conservative movement, and are willing to let the real enemy remain in office until they can make every conservative think and feel just as they do. That is really frightening.
I quoted Reagan in my post, let me now quote Jefferson, “Every difference of opinion is not difference of principle.”
Duh. at townhall today, Perriello said he would vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House.
send this guy home. he does not get it.
Just for the record and to clarify…one of the reasons I did not want to take on the mantle of Chair of the LTP is to avoid the conflict of interest that it may have posed for me, currently serving for a political party, and later as a District Chair. And a party WITHOUT a candidate in the 5th at that. Mark, you and I talked about this at the beginning when you accepted the responsibility to take things over.
Any person who has kept up with the postings on this WatchDog site know that there have been many instances in which I have voiced strong disapproval of things Mark Lloyd has said and done. From this, I hope that anything I say in support of Mark or to Mark’s credit is considered to have been done out of a sense of the need to stand for the right and for the truth wherever and whenever I see it.
The News & Advance article caused me great consternation, which I expressed to some, and my position was that if the portrayal of the events in the article were incorrect, Mark Lloyd needed to make a clarifying statement.
He has done so.
Mark’s clear recounting of events gives a very different impression from that given by the News & Advance. Mark has stated his version of events and this will satisfy any reasonable person concerned with what actually occurred.
I only want to reiterate that the meeting was initiated by Clark and that the purpose of the meeting initiated by Clark was to discuss Clark’s campaign. It is entirely natural and expected that in the course of the conversation, initiated by Clark, about Clark’s campaign, that Mark Lloyd, a political activist who desires above all else in this race to see Perriello unseated, would, during the conversation about Clark’s campaign, initiated by Clark, seek to convince Clark to stop his campaign. I know if I had a conversation with Clark I would do the same.
During the conversation about Clark’s campaign, initiated by Clark, Mark Lloyd informed Clark that he had heard of information regarding Clark’s past finances. Mark Lloyd states he cautioned Clark about this not as a threat, but simply to let Clark know that the information was available and it would naturally and quite expectedly be picked up by the GOP. This should not surprise ANYONE. This is the nature of politics today. Most of all it should not surprise Clark. Mark simply informed Clark that if the information got to Mark Lloyd without Mark Lloyd seeking it, it would most certainly get to Clark’s political opponents. And Mark Lloyd offered to Clark that the embarrassing information need not come out because if Clark was no longer in the race the persons desiring to damage Clark’s reputation would no longer have the need to do so.
Mark Lloyd promised Clark at the meeting he would not reveal the information to anyone. But Mark has been accused of leaking the information indirectly to avoid the stigma of being the leaker. To all you conspiracy theorists/Clark co-delusionists out there, I will tell you that, based on information I have about the meeting between Lloyd and Clark, Mark Lloyd is still, true to his word and to his great credit, withholding even more information, not involving Clark’s personal finances, that would be even more damaging to Clark’s campaign if it were to get out. In part because Mark is withholding even more damaging information on Clark’s campaign despite Clark’s apparent accusations against Mark, I believe Mark Lloyd when he says he DID NOT disclose any of the information he promised Clark would be held confidential by him.
Mark, out of a sense of honor, has thus chosen to not go on the offensive against these slanderous attacks upon his character. He has only put up a solid defense. He has my respect for that.
I also believe Mark Lloyd when he states that Jeff Clark commented he would rather see Perriello win this race over Hurt. But what kind of damned conservative is this? I am no great fan of Hurt, but c’mon, Jeff. This is like saying you would rather see Karl Marx win over George Bush. You MUST be kidding! Clark (and others who support Clark, apparently) wishes to send a blatantly un-American representative to Washington than a seeming wishy-washy conservative type?
Jeff, you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States when you joined the military, and, like Mike McPadden said, that oath has no expiration date. Where the hell is your head when you state you would rather see a person dedicated to the destruction and subversion of our Constitution and our way of life elected to the U.S. Congress than a lackluster but mostly conservative candidate who has made the promise (and knows we will be watching) to stand against that agenda.
Jeff, I have talked with you on several occasions before the primary. I do not think you are a lunatic. I do conclude, however, that you are delusional in the sense you think your campaign is something good for our country. THAT is delusional. So much has changed so quickly in the 18 months Obama has been in office that it is quite possible two more years of Democrat rule could result in an irreversible slide to socialist statism. As Mark has stated, it is a different day, in more ways than one. Yes, the electorate is more attuned and more involved, but we also have a White House occupant bent on transforming (fundamentally changing) the country and a compliant Congress willing to do his bidding. THIS must be stopped. Your campaign does nothing to further this patriotic goal. It should be the goal of you, me, and any other person who has sworn the oath to do our utmost to remove any and all Marxists from power, and your duty under that oath is to suspend your campaign NOW and remove this albatross from the neck of the conservative/libertarian movement in this district.
Bradley, NAS, what are you going to say now that RH has increased his lead to near 30%? Say you did not respect the first poll; what are you going to say about the 2nd poll showing an INCREASE????
You two just need to shut up and admit it that the best conservative leader in the 5th has won this contest! Now, join the fight to DEFEAT the SOCIALIST! Assuming, of course, that you’re not also a SOCIALIST!
why did Perriello not go to the TEA party meeting last night? I read that it was because the meeting would be closed to the press & he refused.
Hi Kelley, Yes. Read about it here:
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2010/sep/02/perriello-quits-tea-party-event-after-it-closed-pu-ar-484065/
Please keep in mind, Kelley and Stephen, the Daily Progress article cited above gives the MEDIA view point on what occurred. So we do not need to read anything into it.
The Lynchburg Tea Party posted a statement on its website as to the reasons for closing the meeting to the press.
The N&A reports the time has expired for someone to come forward to admit to releasing the financial information on Clark, so Mr. Clark has stated he will not drop out.
This type of so-called “principled stand” by Clark and his supporters is precisely why the independent, so-called Libertarian crowd never will gain traction.
Even Boortz, an acclaimed Libertarian, has stated that all conservatives of every stripe (he used the pronoun “WE” when making this statement) have as the number one priority the unseating of the Democrat Congress. Why don’t one of you communicate with his radio show and perhaps you can be convinced of the idiocy of Clark’s campaign.
I am not asking you to support Hurt. But why would you act in such a way as to support Perriello, especially when Clark stated to me he would run because Hurt “is not conservative enough.” What is Perriello, Mr. Clark? How would his election suit your stated purpose in running?
Just as the owners of the Ground Zero mosque site have the right to build on that site, Clark has every right to run. But just because he has the RIGHT to run does not mean it is RIGHT to run. It is not right. It is completely wrong.
Mr. Clark, you and your followers need to consider whether in fact you are being patriotic or quixotic.
Clark attempts to convince us he is the true conservative in this race, but how will this help the cause come November 3 when he will be sitting on his couch watching rather than giving a victory speech?
Damn, man, see the writing on the wall, the alignment of the stars, the statement of the oracle, the counsel of friends, the settling of the chicken bones, the message in the cards, the lines on your palms, the wrinkles on your ear, the crows flying overhead, the ebb of the river. They are all telling you the same thing – ” God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it.” (Dan. 5:26) Except in this case, your kingdom was actually a house of cards and which owned the cattle upon a thousand “ifs”.
And now, we are all wondering “if” you and your followers are playing with a full deck, “if” you will find your lost senses.
In case you wondered, your latest stunt to “drop the campaign” reminded me of the ridiculous stunt of McCain to suspend his campaign in October of 2008 to “deal” with the banking crisis. I am sure you chastised him for that bewildering act, and now you, with the same myopic political sense, have acted in the same manner.
Elvis used to sing a song in which he tried over and over to convince a former girlfriend that “Its Over!”, and Don meredith used to sing, “Turn out the Lights, the Party’s Over.” I hate to crash your party, Jeff, but ….
Clarification for the younger of the crowd:
Don Meredith used to co-host Monday Night Football with Howard Cosell. When it was clear one team was going to win, Meredith would begin the tune: “Turn out the lights, the party’s over. They say that all good things must end….” Sometimes the tune would be sung in the 2nd or 3rd quarter because the game was so lop-sided.
Whatever point we are in this campaign – ‘Ole Don is singing for Clark. In fact, he has been singing this song for the Clark crowd before they ever came running out of the clubhouse. 2,200 signatures? A couple of days at WalMart and the DMV will get you that.
This is not , y’all. It is foolishness. Does anyone really think Clark is doing this as a matter of conscience rather than as a matter of ride? Why give your political life to follow orders no one has given. If he has any thoughts to a future in politics, he better fold the tent now.
I feel bad for Clark. What probbaly started out as bravado, resulted in expectations by others, and evolved into a real candidacy, and now he is sort of “stuck”, even though he probably now realizes that his candidacy does nothing to help the conservative movement or this country. It would take a lot of courage to drop out now.
That said, I don’t think Clark will be much of a factor in this race, since I think Hurt will win handily, but what do I know? I thought McPadden had a chance in the primary, and I was way off…
Morprfctgovt,
It is obvious that you have spoken to Mark and he has given his side of the events and has assured you and others that is how it happened. You mention in your defense of Mark that I requested the meeting because I wanted to discuss my campaign with Mark and that in the meeting he just happened to mention what he knew of the bankruptcy. The truth is, that is not what happened. Mark and I spoke on the phone the previous day and he said he was in possession of some damaging information and we agreed to meet the next day and he was going to allow me to view the documents so I could review the information. You do not have to take my word for it ask Dana Hale. I talked with her the day before the meeting and told her Mark had come into possession of some dirt to include the bankruptcy and I was meeting with him to see it. So the question morprfctgovt is will you hold Mark accountable for that lie and will you consider that maybe he is lying about other things and since one of your own Dana Hale (as well as several others) can confirm this will you be as quick to question Marks character as you were to question mine.
when you are at the bottom of the hole, you might want to quit digging.
I think we need look no further than this one simple fact: Clandestine meetings with possible ulterior motives. To my knowledge, Jeff Clark has been accused of being involved in exactly ONE such meeting, which was held at a Hibachi restaurant. The person at that same meeting with him has, to my knowledge, been present at 4 or more other meeting which can fit the same description. Do the math. I choose to believe the one with the least involvement in such *possibly* shady encounters
Then again, it may just prove how “delusional” I am to expect forthright-ness in politics.
I also love how people keep dropping this “my toddler could get 2200 signatures at preschool” canard. NOW who’s delusional?
Mr. Jeff Clark:
Contrary to your conspiratorial musings that I learned of the circumstances of your meetings and contacts with Mark Lloyd through yet more “clandestine meetings”, it was in this article’s original posting that Mark Lloyd gave his version of the circumstances resulting in your meeting with him and of the meeting itself. No personal conversation with Mark Lloyd is required to understand Mark Lloyd asserts the contact was initiated by you. And no personal conversation with Mark Lloyd is required to understand he asserts the purpose of the meeting was to discuss your campaign. You now assert Mark Lloyd informed you the day before the meeting of his possession of documents related to your personal finances.
What you do not dispute is that the telephone conversation with Mark Lloyd the previous day was initiated by you. Nor do you dispute that the telephone conversation concerned your still-born political campaign. Mark Lloyd informed us of both these facts in his original article and subsequent posting.
The apparent dispute revolves around whether Mark Lloyd first told you about the financial information during the telephone conversation or during the personal meeting at the restaurant. Perhaps this is critical to you, but I think the rest of us consider this a distinction without a difference. Without dispute, the telephone conversation and the personal meeting concerned your campaign. In reviewing the articles, posts, and comments, I find no statement from Mark Lloyd that the information first came out at the personal meeting.
So I take at face value your statement that Mark Lloyd first mentioned the information on your personal finances during the telephone conversation. (Ms. Hale is the last person I would consult, as she has displayed a bias and personal animus as much as anyone.) Please tell me, Mr. Clark, why this makes a difference? Your version of events is consistent with Mark Lloyd’s version. My statement that it is “natural and quite expected” that Mark Lloyd would mention this information to you during a conversation with you about your campaign still stands. And it is not significant that this occurred during your telephone conversation rather than during the personal meeting.
What I do find significant about all this is the lack of judgement displayed by you when you, without foundation, accuse Mark Lloyd of lying. Blinded by embarrassment, mission fatigue, martyr syndrome, visions of grandeur, and cult of personality, you have made the leap from a misreading on your part to a sabotage conspiracy on Mark’s part. And it is the lack of judgement above all, Mr. Clark, that we question, not only in this instance but in the decision you originally made to launch an independent bid. Your still-born campaign shows you misread the tea leaves, sir. I am sure many people besides myself told you this very thing as you attempted to garner support for your efforts during the primary season.
I ask you, not for me or the GOP or the RPV or the LTP, to drop this bid and save some of the respect and admiration that I and others have for you to this point. In a previous post “Stephen” stated he feels sorry for you. Perhaps he states the sentiments of many, but when the electorate begins to feel sorry for a candidate, what does that tell you? Stephen also states it would take a lot of courage for you to drop out of the race now. I do not think it will a lot of courage so much as I think it will take a lot of honesty and humility, for you to drop out.
The honesty I will give you. The humility must come from within and from above. I think you have surrounded yourself with people like Dana Hale who will tell you what you want you to hear because, in their minds, you will be their prop to “teach the RPV a lesson.” Please take this advice as from a person who has no ties to the GOP or RPV; who has no allegiance to Robert Hurt or Mark Lloyd or anyone else; who has one overriding concern in this race and in the races to come – that of the well-being of my children and yours, of making a real difference rather than be hung on a stake of my own making, of being harmless as a dove but wise as a serpent: Your campaign furthers no important goal, neither of you or me.
I am thankful the Founders placed the power of the federal purse in the House of Representatives. I am also thankful the Founders required those federal officers having this greatest power to be most closely accountable to the people through biennial elections. The Founders, Mr. Clark, have laid out the road we should take IN THIS ELECTION – get the Marxists out and watch with unceasing diligence. And any person elected to the House this year will experience the scrutiny of his constituents like never before. This is our task, Mr. Clark. And I hope you will accept that this time is not your time, and that you will join hands with those of us with whom you AGREE 99% of the time. Our efforts are geared toward unseating the Marxist. We are not GOP or RPV sycophants. And our efforts come November 3 will be to keep an eagle’s eye on Robert Hurt, and to begin the process of developing a challenge to Mr. Hurt should he not closely abide by his campaign statements.
Ummmm, Jeff and Bradley, the fact of the matter is that you Jeff had a bankruptcy where you had a load of bad debt, sought bankruptcy protection, and then couldn’t even pay your monthly obligation as the court had ordered….why didn’t you tell us this ahead of time? It’s public record for crying out loud! It seems to me that Mark Lloyd was bringing to Jeff’s attention (that would eventually become public knowledge) what he JEFF was deliberately trying to hide from the rest of us. At least Rees was upfront with his weapons charge when he was running for the same office. And wow, we are supposed to believe Jeff just because “he told someone (Dana Hale) the day before the meeting..” C’mon man I have seen better evidence on “Murder, She Wrote.” If you knew Jeff that this was coming out eventually, why didn’t you tell us after you had your “clandestine (really Bradley, put down the spy novel” meeting with Mr. Lloyd; why didn’t you tell us then? Isn’t being forthright with the voter most important in your view, rather than trying to keep it quiet? Isn’t full disclosure the right thing to do? You did not do that Mr. Clark, and that was not the right thing to do.
Sounds like Jeff, you would fit in perfectly with the other congressmen in Washington, you already have excellent experience with spending more than you have.
In politics, nothing anymore completly disqualifies anyone for public office…. but its the things you don’t tell that disqualifies you when you should have told it to us from the beginning. As we learned in Watergate, its not the scandal that gets you in trouble, its the cover-up that gets you.
Wow, I’m glad I got out of this mess when I did. The LTP has shown itself to be a lost cause, an arm of the GOP, a joke, and quite a laughable one at that. This is not meant as a slam against any one person, but as an observation as a whole.
As the founder of this group, please think about any “bias” I may have. I preferred for the group to stay out of of partisan politics from the get go, but got immediate push back. As as soon as the reigns were “handed over”, we took a straight nose dive into GOP politics. Take it and dig your own grave, 5th district. It’s obvious that there is an obvious lack of principle in your decision making skills, it’s all about the WIN. Which I see as a complete FAIL. At least I’ve stood by my principles, and I can go to sleep at night knowing that I’ve done nothing underhanded, secretive, or to the detriment of another person.
Jeff hasn’t surrounded himself with the likes of me, I have stretched forth my hand to every candidate in the race, some just chose not to reciprocate, seeing as how as a person of no import, I can’t do much to help them personally. Jeff gets nothing but the truth from me on how I see things going for the 5th, but I wouldn’t expect you to believe that seeing as how I’ve had no history of lies or deceit. That’s the way it works, right?
I hope all of you get exactly what you are asking for during the next two years, or beyond, with your beloved master, the GOP.
After reading some of the comments and hearing from the vast majority of LTP members, and others who have called me in support of my position, I must enter a personal note:
Dana Hale is, without question, one of the finest people I have ever had to the honor and privilege to know. I have known her for a long time. Long before we stepped into politics. She is a patriot, she is an example to everyone of conviction to personal principles, whether you agree with her or not. She and I are in agreement on at least that 80% that Reagan refers to, but I guess we see the other 20% differently.
She can handle herself in defending her positions and ideology, so feel free to take her on, if you can handle it. But, in my opinion, she does not deserve the first word of personal criticism.
This is my 30th year of marriage, and if I have learned anything it is that you can disagree with someone vehemently, but still love them for the good that is in them. I hope we can all keep this in mind.
Mark, I agree with you completely, and appreciate your support. My biggest compliment to the LTP leadership team that I have served with is that beyond differences in political opinions we may have, I remain friends with and give you all my respect on a personal level. Because I have worked with some incredibly fine people. The argument is not between TP members, it should be with the state.
I have not meant and do not intend to get into a shouting match with any person. When I state I would not ask Dana Hale whether or not Jeff Clark is telling the truth on this subject because of bias and personal animus, I am stating Dana Hale has a personal stake in this race in that she has pinned her hopes on Jeff Clark (bias) and that she has personal animus against one of the parties to this dispute. For example, Ms. Hale, in your previous post you state the following:
“The LTP has shown itself to be … an arm of the GOP….”
“It’s obvious that there is an obvious lack of principle in your decision making skills …. At least I’ve stood by my principles … and I [know] that I’ve done nothing underhanded, secretive, or to the detriment of another person.”
“Jeff gets nothing but the truth from me … but I wouldn’t expect you to believe that seeing as how I’ve had no history of lies or deceit.”
“I hope all of you get exactly what you are asking for … with your beloved master, the GOP.”
Let’s see: a slave or arm) of the GOP; a lack of principles; doing things underhanded, secretive, or to the detriment of another person; implication of a history of lies and deceit. These statements show personal animus on your part toward the decision-maker within the LTP and with the person you deem responsible, at least in part, for the disclosure of Clark’s personal financial information.
This article and the comments have been about the actions of Mark Lloyd related to the disclosure of Clark’s financial history. As there has been until very recently no other person within the LTP making decisions and supposedly engaging in lies and deceit, who else but Mark Lloyd could you be referring to here? These statements of yours either show a personal animus toward Mark Lloyd or else they show a “damned strange sort of love” (The Man from Snowy River) of a type with which I am unfamiliar.
As for my statement regarding your advice to Jeff Clark, I do not doubt that “Jeff gets nothing but the truth from [you]” regarding what you honestly think he should do. But I also think you, like Jeff Clark, are intent on making a statement to the GOP and RPV and that you think Clark’s candidacy will do just that – hence he and it are the prop you wish to use to accomplish your purpose. I do not think you are lying to Clark. I think you are as misguided in your attempt as he is. You have the same mindset he does. What Clark needs is to surround himself with folks who can see not only the political reality but also the long-term harm he may cause to himself and to the cause which he states he so ardently supports – social and fiscal conservatism which may be grievously harmed should Democrats retain control of the House. The election in Va. 5th is one piece of the national puzzle to stop the Obama agenda. As even Bubba knows, “Clark ain’t gone win.” The Clark campaign furthers no important goal, and may hinder many others.
Ms. Hale, I do respect the efforts you have made to the LTP and I was sorry to hear you had resigned. Any organization needs independent voices in leadership, folks who are not afraid to speak their mind. Organizations also need folks in leadership who, at the end of the day, will support the decision made after deliberation. (Of course, when an organization veers off the course for which it was founded, leaving that organization may be the only principled thing to do. But you must remember, Ms. Hale, in your disparagement of the LTP, you are disparaging many folks who hold the same principles as you. I know of no person I have dealt with in the LTP who is enthusiastic in the least about the GOP and RPV. But there exists an overflowing enthusiasm to see Perriello unseated, who see this as the number one short-term priority, and who are willing to suffer the verbal abuse heaped upon them to see this goal attained.)
You cannot dispute the necessity of stopping the Obama agenda. Somehow you see the defeat of Hurt and a victory for Perriello as furthering this goal. Forgive those of us who see this as discombobulated tunnel vision.
Despite all that has occurred this campaign season, I wish that you would reconsider whether or not you should be involved with the LTP. Its goals and your goals are the same. The opinion as to the manner of achieving them are different. But, ” in the abundance of counselors there is safety.” The best we can do is debate the proper course of action, without compromising principles, and work together to achieve them.
More evidence Clark is a “leader” with no followers:
Clark’s debate petition to open the debates to Clark has all of TWO signers.
Hardly anyone wants to hear you , Mr. Clark (except Tom Perriello and his crowd).
Hardly anyone is following you, Mr. Clark.
We are throwing you a lifeline so that you can disembark from the raft before it cascades over the falls. Grab ahold and come ashore and work with us to kick Tommy’s butt back to Neverland Ranch where he belongs.
And be part of the Tea Party crowd and others who will continuously and diligently look to and fro over the poltical lndscape in DC to keep a close, discerning eye on Hurt and the GOP.
Mark and I have our own private conversations away from the dartboard of the internet, and we have them frequently on a variety of issues, and no you are not familiar with our relationship. Come to think of it, I’m not sure if you even know either of us. It’s very hard to have an open and honest conversation with someone online if one party can’t be open and honest about who they are. Mark and I have the audacity and respect for readers to at least post with our names, which does free us up from any suspicious nature in our posting. It would be preferable if you, morprfctgovt, would afford the readers, and those who you are targeting, with the same respect. Otherwise, I must say adieu to this particular thread of conversation. I won’t be preached to by an anonymous keyboard patriot (thanks again, Kurt, for that helpful adjective).
Ms. Hale:
Having an open and honest conversation via the Internet is not hard. It is perfectly easy. (Witness the multitude of conversations that occur across bloggerland daily.) My identity has nothing to do with it and is only a hindrance to those with fears of a conspiracy around every corner. And this is the first I have heard that the use of a pseudonym shows disrespect to anyone who may read the comments. Damn them Founding Fathers and many others throughout history who wrote under a pseudonymous title.
If you think I have misstated anything, please let me know and I will either clarify what I have stated or I will investigate to see whether I have the story straight, and, if I have erred, I will apologize, as I have done here before.
Any “suspicious nature” is purely a figment of your imagination. If I am preaching, I have joined a long line of preachers and I have learned from the best.
Just as you state, you do not know my involvement, either in the Tea Party (if any) or in any other capacity, so you call me a “keyboard patriot” with no basis in fact (as far as you know). Your attack of me personally displays your inability to refute what I have stated and your refusal to admit I am correct. So now that I will not play on your terms, you quit and go home.
Good day.
Mr. Anonymous “Morprfctgovt”-
Get your big-boy apologizing pants on. Conspiracy around every corner? The other shoe: it is about to drop…
Uh, let me guess…there are audio/video recordings of calls/meetings?
You, sir, are hardly a founding father and are choosing to keep yourself hidden for some reason unbeknownst to me. And who is the one in fear? Find someone else to bully. Paper tiger behind a computer screen.
Ms. Hale:
Thank you for not adhering to the point I made that folks throughout history have written pseudonymously and that there is nothing inherently wrong with it. That is my only point on that account. Who can say whether “Stephen” or “Joseph” or “Kelley” are not pseudonyms.
The fact of and reason for my remaining anonymous has nothing to do with the issues raised by Mark Lloyd’s original article. I think enough real and important issues have been raised or responded to without you throwing a red herring into the mix.
If you feel I have bullied you, I apologize to you as this is/was not my intent.
And please stop with personal attacks aimed at a person you are not sure you even know and have no idea what his or her involvement is.
If I have stated something wrong or untrue, or if my reasoning is faulty, I would appreciate you calling me out on that. I am a big girl/boy and I can handle it – in fact, I covet correction, from enemies or friends (whichever you are depends on you), as it will hopefully help me refine my thinking and better prepare me for the battles ahead.
Thanks for your input.