- comment
Greg L - body
- I don't think any of the criticism of Steve has to do with how conservative he is, as most of the commentators are just as conservative as he is. Rather, I think they have some valid concerns regarding Chapman's experience, qualifications, and even his character. I haven't heard anyone complaining about his positions.
Chapman's behavior hasn't exactly proved his critics wrong over the past several weeks. I'm starting to actually feel sorry for the guy. He's learning too many hard lessons too quickly.
- comment Hirons
- body
- Character - it's all about character. The guy has none and should never be seriously considered for public office.
- comment AmberAnne
- body
- All of this character stuff is getting old. You all are placing too much importance on character.
I don't care if the character stuff is true or not. The future leaders of the party are in my generation. Young people make mistakes. So what if he has made a lot of them. That's how we learn. Steve will make a great delegate.
Plus he's a real hottie!
- comment too conservative
- body
- His "opponents" haven't bashed him at all Shaun.
It is he, who at his kickoff called his opponents liberals who pandered to the ACLU.
I understand he's your boy through VCAP, but it's over.
- comment Old Zach
- body
- Shaun,
Thanks for writing this. "Childish" is exactly how I would describe these attacks on Steve Chapman. How exactly does posting someone's Match.com profile affect whether or not he is qualified for public office.
I don't know Steve Chapman, I don't know what his qualifications are or are not. What I do know is that most of what I have seen in opposition to him so far is pure pettiness. It is one thing to debate policy positions and professional qualifications. It is yet another to lob silly personal attacks at someone due to their age or some other such thing.
While I certainly don't expect restraint from the likes of NLS, those Republican bloggers who are involved with this mess would be wise to remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I couldn't have said it better myself.
Let's not become this, shall we?
To this point, Churchill's maxim, "I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents" is ringing true.
Commonsense conservatives should take note.
- comment AmberAnne
- body
- Shaun,
You sound like my kind of guy. Why don't you drop by Omearas in old town on any Friday night, or even tonite! If I'm not your type, I might have a friend for you, provided you are single of course.
- comment NoVA Scout
- body
- Some of the Chapman stuff has been fairly middle-schoolish, but, contrary to your premise, there has been no criticism that I've seen that indicates that anyone has problems with Chapman because he's a conservative with backbone. Skimming off the silly buggers stuff, you do see the point that greg l has made and I'm surprised, Shaun, that you don't discern it in the activity elsewehere. The problem is that this is a young guy with no record, no accomplishments, no apparent skills, no real personal presence - nothing that would make Republicans proud or confident that this is an excellent choice in whose hands to place public trust. I met him last year for the first time before I knew he would be running for Harry Parrish's seat in 2005. Without knowing anything about him, I was taken aback by his social awkwardness and his lack of communications skills just in making small talk at a reception.
There is no reason to pick this fellow out of a crowd and say "he's the standard bearer for the Party of Lincoln and Reagan." We really can do better
- comment Charles
- body
- Steve is the perfect example of how, when you actually KNOW someone, the comments made on blogs are so clearly baseless that you wonder if ANY charges made on blogs have any facts.
Among the "A-types", it is considered good sport to look for ever-more sensational attacks to make on Steve. I don't even credit those people with having a human frailty like jealousy -- they're just looking for some cheap thrills, with no thought of the real people they are tearing down.
You have to remember, the "A-types" are very self-assured in their superiority, and take even statements of fact as a "hate crime" if those facts don't bode well for their favored candidates and fellow a-types.
And those of you who don't know what an "a-type" is, apparently they are the "good guys" of the republican party who seek only to purge the party of the intolerant b-types who can't be tolerated.
- comment NoVA Scout
- body
- Charles: you and I can agree that a lot of rough fun goes on in the blogs and some of it crosses the line into the tastelessness, whether it be about Chapman or others. But what about the substantive issues that many of us have with a candidate like Chapman? Concerns that he is not obviously a person with the skill set or temperament to hold a position of public trust, that there's nothing obvious in his educational, military or business record to suggest that he's an estimable person, and that the pool of potential GOP candidates is sufficiently large and diverse that we should not have to settle for candidates who do not have some obvious claim to support not just from the GOP faithful, but also from the electorate as a whole.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- NOVA Scout,
I respect your opinion, so let me run through the list of why I, at least, don't think these concerns really hold sway (or wander into what might be considered personal rather than political concerns).
Again, I have no idea who the other candidates running in the race are. They could all be fine conservatives in their own right, so I have no intentions of blasting them. But I do want to make it clear that Steve Chapman is a good man who deserves even consideration and less slander from both supposed friends and known enemies:
Concerns that he is not obviously a person with the skill set or temperament to hold a position of public trust,
Without that being qualified, it just looks like slander, yes? In the past 18 months that I have known Steve, not once have I questioned his skill set or demeanor -- in fact, he's very much reserved, and that's a plus as a Delegate.
(T)hat there's nothing obvious in his educational, military or business record to suggest that he's an estimable person,
That's where I strongly disagree. I could be very much mistaken, but I understand that his business assets at last check were somewhere either close to or beyond $1 million.
You don't get that kind of success by being (a) sloppy, (b) unprofessional, (c) discourteous, or (d) inestimable.
(T)hat the pool of potential GOP candidates is sufficiently large and diverse that we should not have to settle for candidates
That right there seems to be the gripe of many. Chapman is somehow "settling" for a 29-year old businessman rather than a 49-year old statesman.
I firmly disagree. Perhaps it's my Jeffersonian nature, but I'm almost certain that this isn't the egalitarian nature of Virginia politics.
I can think of a number of young candidates for public office who all face this same criticism. People hate success, and even more so when it comes to the young. Call it jealousy if you'd like, but I view this charge to be more of a slander (not intentional on your or anyone's part, believe me that's not what I'm intending to say) than anything else.
(W)ho do not have some obvious claim to support not just from the GOP faithful, but also from the electorate as a whole.
The man did run as the conservative standard bearer in the 50th when no one else would (i.e. when it wouldn't be easy to do so). That tells me plenty about his character and his beliefs.
As for "GOP faithful vs. the electorate as a whole", I have a different vision on this. Elected officials have a duty to represent the electorate that elected them to public office.
In that regard, as Steve Chapman has most certainly earned his street cred amongst conservatives last year and beyond, I think his constituency is well represented by a good man.
- comment James Young
- body
- I think the criticims mainly has to do with the fact that Steve embarrassed those who run as Conservatives and vote as Liberals, and their blind (or worse yet, dishonest) followers.
Great post, Shaun. Were I voting in the District, I would probably vote for Jackson Miller. But it's not a coincidence that the owner of the BVBL site maintains his anonymity (Greg doesn't, but I continue to be surprised by his continuing association with BVBL on that basis), and that Jackson Miller cancelled a scheduled blogchat on that site. Chapman's attackers are despicable and, in the main, cowards.
And I am sooooo impressed by NoVA Scout's comments, challenging Chapman's social skills, his character, and his accomplishments (some of which may, indeed, be valid criticisms) while safely hiding in anonymity so that we can't, say, evaluate his in comparison. His opinion on those issues is due NO respect or regard until he stops cowering behind a pseudonym.
- comment NoVA Scout
- body
- James: why in the world would my military record, my business accomplishments, my social skills, or my service to the community be compared to Chapman's if I am not running against him? You make no sense at all. For purposes of simplification, clarification and this thread only, I'll stipulate that I am atrocious on all counts, far inferior to Chapman in every regard, and still think Chapman does not have adequate qualifications to sit in our legislature. Does that help you focus on the concerns I expressed?
- comment James Young
- body
- Good, "NoVA Scout." We'll stipulate to that, and the fact that your comments are those of a petty inferior simply intent on attacking your betters. Thank you.
- comment NoVA Scout
- body
- Sticks and stones, JIm sticks and stones ..... etc.
15 Comments:
Chapman's behavior hasn't exactly proved his critics wrong over the past several weeks. I'm starting to actually feel sorry for the guy. He's learning too many hard lessons too quickly.
I don't care if the character stuff is true or not. The future leaders of the party are in my generation. Young people make mistakes. So what if he has made a lot of them. That's how we learn. Steve will make a great delegate.
Plus he's a real hottie!
It is he, who at his kickoff called his opponents liberals who pandered to the ACLU.
I understand he's your boy through VCAP, but it's over.
Thanks for writing this. "Childish" is exactly how I would describe these attacks on Steve Chapman. How exactly does posting someone's Match.com profile affect whether or not he is qualified for public office.
I don't know Steve Chapman, I don't know what his qualifications are or are not. What I do know is that most of what I have seen in opposition to him so far is pure pettiness. It is one thing to debate policy positions and professional qualifications. It is yet another to lob silly personal attacks at someone due to their age or some other such thing.
While I certainly don't expect restraint from the likes of NLS, those Republican bloggers who are involved with this mess would be wise to remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.
Let's not become this, shall we?
To this point, Churchill's maxim, "I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents" is ringing true.
Commonsense conservatives should take note.
You sound like my kind of guy. Why don't you drop by Omearas in old town on any Friday night, or even tonite! If I'm not your type, I might have a friend for you, provided you are single of course.
There is no reason to pick this fellow out of a crowd and say "he's the standard bearer for the Party of Lincoln and Reagan." We really can do better
Among the "A-types", it is considered good sport to look for ever-more sensational attacks to make on Steve. I don't even credit those people with having a human frailty like jealousy -- they're just looking for some cheap thrills, with no thought of the real people they are tearing down.
You have to remember, the "A-types" are very self-assured in their superiority, and take even statements of fact as a "hate crime" if those facts don't bode well for their favored candidates and fellow a-types.
And those of you who don't know what an "a-type" is, apparently they are the "good guys" of the republican party who seek only to purge the party of the intolerant b-types who can't be tolerated.
I respect your opinion, so let me run through the list of why I, at least, don't think these concerns really hold sway (or wander into what might be considered personal rather than political concerns).
Again, I have no idea who the other candidates running in the race are. They could all be fine conservatives in their own right, so I have no intentions of blasting them. But I do want to make it clear that Steve Chapman is a good man who deserves even consideration and less slander from both supposed friends and known enemies:
Concerns that he is not obviously a person with the skill set or temperament to hold a position of public trust,
Without that being qualified, it just looks like slander, yes? In the past 18 months that I have known Steve, not once have I questioned his skill set or demeanor -- in fact, he's very much reserved, and that's a plus as a Delegate.
(T)hat there's nothing obvious in his educational, military or business record to suggest that he's an estimable person,
That's where I strongly disagree. I could be very much mistaken, but I understand that his business assets at last check were somewhere either close to or beyond $1 million.
You don't get that kind of success by being (a) sloppy, (b) unprofessional, (c) discourteous, or (d) inestimable.
(T)hat the pool of potential GOP candidates is sufficiently large and diverse that we should not have to settle for candidates
That right there seems to be the gripe of many. Chapman is somehow "settling" for a 29-year old businessman rather than a 49-year old statesman.
I firmly disagree. Perhaps it's my Jeffersonian nature, but I'm almost certain that this isn't the egalitarian nature of Virginia politics.
I can think of a number of young candidates for public office who all face this same criticism. People hate success, and even more so when it comes to the young. Call it jealousy if you'd like, but I view this charge to be more of a slander (not intentional on your or anyone's part, believe me that's not what I'm intending to say) than anything else.
(W)ho do not have some obvious claim to support not just from the GOP faithful, but also from the electorate as a whole.
The man did run as the conservative standard bearer in the 50th when no one else would (i.e. when it wouldn't be easy to do so). That tells me plenty about his character and his beliefs.
As for "GOP faithful vs. the electorate as a whole", I have a different vision on this. Elected officials have a duty to represent the electorate that elected them to public office.
In that regard, as Steve Chapman has most certainly earned his street cred amongst conservatives last year and beyond, I think his constituency is well represented by a good man.
Great post, Shaun. Were I voting in the District, I would probably vote for Jackson Miller. But it's not a coincidence that the owner of the BVBL site maintains his anonymity (Greg doesn't, but I continue to be surprised by his continuing association with BVBL on that basis), and that Jackson Miller cancelled a scheduled blogchat on that site. Chapman's attackers are despicable and, in the main, cowards.
And I am sooooo impressed by NoVA Scout's comments, challenging Chapman's social skills, his character, and his accomplishments (some of which may, indeed, be valid criticisms) while safely hiding in anonymity so that we can't, say, evaluate his in comparison. His opinion on those issues is due NO respect or regard until he stops cowering behind a pseudonym.
Post a Comment
Home