The Case of the Disappearing Yard Signs [Updated]

[Updated: mystery solved! It was an honest mistake and the signs have been re-planted.]

Van Metre gave Cliff (and only Cliff) permission to put his signs on their properties in the Broadlands - near the fountain, alongside both shopping centers, and on their vacant lots.

So on Friday, Cliff went and planted his yard signs in those places. More than 15 feet in from the road so as to be out of the VDOT right-of-way. And today - poof! - they're gone.

If you, or anyone you know, took the signs, it'd be a nice gesture if you'd return them.

If you're thinking about taking the one in MY yard, please note that we've got a security system set up.

(this is a duplicate post from doorbellqueen.com. After the election, I'll be turning this site off)

Brief Note

Discussing Delgaudio's behaviors and parsing his letter in the post below is definitely on-topic. Attributing those behaviors and the wording of the letter to a mental illness is not, even if you are attributing it to a specific mental illness.

Delgaudio is mean, narrow-minded, and preys on the fears and loathings of others. Not all people who do these things are mentally ill, and not all mentally ill people do these things.

Personally, I believe that Delgaudio is acting, that he is a con-artist, that he behaves this way because it makes him money.

I am leaving up nazani14's comment on the post below, but I am asking you all, nazani14 included, to please stop speculating about Delgaudio's mental status.

Thank you.

Attention Candidates!!!

The State Board of Elections has ruled the following about websites:

Each page is accessible via its own link and address. Therefore, each webpage must include the disclaimer.

Quite frankly, I would never have interpreted the law this way, since the law says,

Radio, TV and print media communications must include disclaimers displayed conspicuously. Print media includes billboards, newspaper and magazine ads, mailings, fliers, email and websites. Printed pieces consisting of more than one page need bear the disclaimer only on one page or face. VA. CODE ANN. § 24.2-955.1 (defining “print media”).

However, I'm not in charge. The SBE is.

I will not insist that your campaign websites conform with this new ruling to be eligible for inclusion in my Campaign Websites page. From here on, I will list one link per candidate no matter what.

If you don't have a campaign website, but you do have a facebook page or a blog or whatever that, please send me ONE link to the site you would like me to include. I would prefer that it not be an official government site, but if that's all you've got, I'll accept it.

Gah!!

I accidentally put John Stevens as representing Sugarland Run in my fundraising posts. He represents Potomac. I hate it when I make the same mistakes I call other people out for.

No, she's not.

Andrea is NOT the Broad Run incumbent, that honor belongs to Lori Waters, who is not running for re-election.

The district that Andrea is running for is a mish-mash of precincts from three of the existing districts. Most come from both the current Broad Run (Lori Waters, Incumbent) and the current Dulles (Stevens Miller, Incumbent). Andrea's current district of Potomac is contributing only part of one little precinct.

For Andrea to tout herself as being the incumbent of Broad Run is, at best, misleading.

Here's how Kelly listed her name on the same program:

You notice something there that Andrea didn't include?

Here's Andrea's again:

Andrea's leaving out her party affiliation may lead to the impression that she is an Independent. Her website goes further to foster that impression, as she never mentions her party affilation, but has as a tag line that she is "Experienced. Independent. Trusted."). There IS an Independent in her race, but she is not him. That honor belongs to Cliff Keirce*, who I support fully.

Andrea is misrepresenting herself. She is NOT the Broad Run incumbent. She is NOT the Independent.

Experienced? At what?
Independent? From who?
Trusted? Not anymore.



*Due to an oversight, no Independents were invited to this forum, though candidates from both the Republicans and Democrats were. Stevens informed Cliff of the event on the morning it was taking place, and Cliff ended up being able to attend.

No.

I didn't watch the speech last night. I chose not to, because I'm tired of speeches. I already know Obama is a great speaker. I already know that his speeches can get people fired up. Heck, my Twitter stream last night proves that.

But.

Where's the follow-through? He talks a great game, he draws beautiful pictures of what could be, but then he deals it all away.

I've heard enough speeches, Mr. President. I want the Progressive visionary you said you were. I didn't just vote for the not-McCain. I don't regret voting for you, I know McCain would be worse, but being better than McCain isn't enough. I want more.

I want action. I want follow-through. I want real honest commitments to the goals you set out.

I want Single Payer health care, and I didn't get it.
I want a strong EPA, and you took it from me.
I want a renewable energy policy.
I want Gitmo closed down.
I want an end to secrets and lies.
I want our troops to come home.
I want corporate accountability.
I want investment in our nation's infrastructure.
I want a strong social safety net.
I want a reasonable tax plan.
I want bodily autonomy.
I want marriage equality.

I want what you promised in wonderful speeches. I want you to pull up your socks and face down the Congressional Republicans who are just out to see you fail.

It is time to stop fearing that you will lose the center. It is time to fear that you will lose your base.

I am the Doorbell Queen, I knocked over a thousand doors for you. As things stand now, I will not walk for you in '12.

You've probably got my vote, but you don't have my feet.

Prove to me that I should spend time walking for you, because I don't volunteer for jellyfish.

Well, it looks like I have to add another link to my blog roll

My husband took a new gig. WHICH I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT BEFORE-HAND.

I think, actually, I approve.

WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER IF I'D KNOWN BEFORE-HAND.

Input please

I've noticed that, in general, the School Board candidates haven't got campaign websites. They've got facebook pages, and government pages (if they are already serving), and blogs; but only a third have campaign websites.

Which means that my campaign websites page seems woefully incomplete.

However, I'm not really willing to widen my definition for that page, since it would be a holy mess to keep up-to-date if I count every fb page and blog that anyone had (if I were running, for example, I'd be able to list 5 or 6, that's ridiculous.).

I could create a new tab for School Board Candidates only and ask each for the ONE and ONLY ONE link that they would like included.

But treating School Board candidates differently from the other candidates really bothers me. One particular candidate complained to me recently that School Board races are treated as less important than all the other races; that they are after-thoughts; that people think of it as a "starter" race. Well, my friend, it doesn't make your case when you're not putting up a campaign website. Domains are cheap, and a website doesn't have to be expensive to create.

So, dear readers, what do you think? Do I create a separate and DEFINITELY unequal space for SB candidates? Or do I treat them as at least one has asked to be treated, as equal members of the candidate pool?

The adventures of an Obama 2012 bumper magnet

I've got one, as seen in this picture:

and my husband had a matching one, up until Saturday night, when we were parked in the lot at Clyde's (excellent smoked duck, but I don't recommend the Smurf cupcake). When we returned to the car, the magnet was gone.

I'm pretty sure I know who took it, and think it was pretty petty. But no matter, we have more! BTW, person who took it, if you had asked? We would have given you one.

Why am I on Howie Lind's fundraising list?

Does that strike any of you as being a failure of targeting? Frank Wolf sends me fundraising requests too. Is it because I've sent Frank Wolf email in the past?

Dear Howie Lind and Frank Wolf:

I will never give you any money. Go away, and may you lose your next election.

Sincerely,

Liz Miller

What do these websites all have in common? LAST UPDATE!!

[They are all updated now!]

Tag Greason
Kevin Kuesters
Larry Roeder
Chris Souther
Scott York

They are all missing the "paid for" or "authorized by" notice required by Virginia law.

"Radio, TV and print media communications must include disclaimers displayed conspicuously. Print media includes billboards, newspaper and magazine ads, mailings, fliers, email and websites. Printed pieces consisting of more than one page need bear the disclaimer only on one page or face. VA. CODE ANN. § 24.2-955.1 (defining “print media”).

Print media: “Paid for by [name of entity].” If the advertisement supports or opposes the nomination or election of a clearly identified candidate, it must also state either, “Authorized by [name of candidate], candidate for [name of office] or “Not authorized by a candidate.” VA. CODE ANN. § 24.2-956.1. If the advertisement opposes a clearly identified candidate, the sponsor must also disclose the name of the candidate it is supporting. VA. CODE ANN. § 24.2-956.1(3). "

First-timers Larry Roeder, Chris Souther, and Kevin Kuesters at least have an excuse. But Scott York and Tag Greason? Come on guys!

Dammit (edited to make a better point)

Turns out, Rep. Weiner is aptly named. Very disappointing. I had a lot of respect for him, and he seemed to be a genuine advocate for causes I believe in.

Dammit.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime...

I've been hearing a lot lately about "Liberty and Justice for All, Born and Unborn."

It is not justice to force a pregnant person into involuntary servitude for 9 months, risking her life and health. With no trial. No judge. No jury.

It is not justice to declare that the life and health of a living person is worth less than the fetus she carries. With no trial. No judge. No jury.

It is not justice to withhold life-saving surgery from a living person due to concern for the fetus she carries. With no trial. No judge. No jury.

It is PARTICULARLY not justice to do so when you are also working to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control.

It is PARTICULARLY not justice to do so when you are also working to prevent accurate sex education.

It is PARTICULARLY not justice to do so when you are working to cut funds to social services, day care, foster care.

...If we truly valued children, we would do everything in our power not to traumatize, deprive, or neglect them...

Until I see this, I won’t believe that “pro-lifers” care about life at all. I won’t believe that “family values” proponents care about families. And I won’t believe that those who seek to “protect” children care about children.

Matt Kailey at Womanist Musings

Oh! And in case you thought Choice is only about Abortion, here's a post that will better inform you.

And if you're interested in empowering young people to make reproductive choices that work for them, why not donate to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Foundation (the second button, it's tax deductible!) and help with their mission in Petersburg, VA.
(crossposted at Loudoun Progress)

Cliff Keirce, Andrea McGimsey, the Hatch Act, and you

Cliff Keirce, who has been a friend of the family since we moved into the Broadlands, has announced a run as an Independent candidate for Supervisor for the new Broad Run district.

Cliff is a widely known, very popular, well-liked, hugely qualified candidate for this office. He's been Stevens's Planning Commissioner for the last couple of years. Before that, he was on the Facilities Standards Manual Public Review Committee, all while serving on the Broadlands HOA (including as President) and the Loudoun Library Foundation Board. His wife and his children are wonderful people, and he and his family are seriously committed to serving the community.

The Hatch Act makes it impossible for him to run for a party nomination, but an Independent label suits Cliff better than either party label anyway.

Cliff is, by all measures, a terrific candidate and deserves to have the unqualified support of all who know him.

Meanwhile, Andrea McGimsey, current Potomac Supervisor, is also in the new Broad Run district and has announced that she is going to run for reelection. I agree with Andrea on most issues, she's been a phenomenal advocate for making Loudoun an environmentally responsible locality and her work on that topic has helped Loudoun win awards for energy efficient policies. She's kept her campaign promises to be a proponent of slow-growth and sustainable policies.

Andrea has earned the trust and admiration of many in Loudoun for her strong and outspoken advocacy of many issues. She's a popular and welcomed figure in Democratic and environmental circles and she has done outstanding work in many areas. She has been a good friend to the Community Services Board* and Loudoun Abused Women's Shelter**, as well as many other organizations of which I am fond. Just like Cliff, she deserves to have the unqualified support of all who know her.

And there's the problem. They are both running for the same seat on the Board of Supervisors, and as much I want them both on the board, we can only pick one.

(Before I start discussing the choice ahead, I would like to point out that in the HOA 4 plan, Andrea and Cliff were not drawn into the same district. Actually, they weren't drawn in together under any of the plans Stevens backed. So the very fact that voters are in a position of having to make this particular choice is pissing me off.)

Now, for the race itself:
First is the fact that this is going to be a 3-way race. Members of either party committee who think that Cliff would be a terrific candidate are in a bind, since it looks like both parties are going to have an official nominee. Members of the LCDC have pledged to help get Democratic candidates elected and pledged not to work against a Democratic candidate in a race where there is one. If there isn't one, LCDC members are  free to back whichever other candidate they choose. I'm assuming the situation is the same for those in the LCRC.

This means that I, like others on the LCDC who live in the new Broad Run, have three choices in this election:

1. Back Andrea
2. Leave the LCDC to back Cliff or
3. Sit down and shut up.

Now, if it weren't for the Hatch Act, Dems could say to Cliff, make a stand: Join the Dems. But that position is closed off to him by law and it's unfair to ask him.

Second, is the political reality of the new district. I can't speak to the politics of the other areas in the new Broad Run, but I CAN speak to the politics of the Broadlands. The people in Broadlands like to vote for the moderate. They don't like mean-spirited politicians: they didn't like Dick Black or Steve Snow and were ready to vote for reasonable Democrats to get rid of them. But, given a seemingly reasonable moderate Republican or, for preference, an Independent, they'll vote for that person over a Democratic candidate (see the Poisson/Greason election). Cliff Keirce has been elected, and re-elected, and re-re-elected to the HOA board in the Broadlands. The residents know him, like him, and expect him to be reasonable and a good advocate. People who have opposed him on various issues respect him and consider him fair-minded, even when they disagree with him vehemently. All of which is to say that I think that Cliff can win the Broadlands, no matter whether he runs in a 3-way race or a 2-way race.

If Cliff were not in the race, I think the Broadlands would vote for Shawn Williams, unless Andrea can make a big enough stink about him being a Dick Black fan. The residents of the Broadlands don't want to be preached to by either side of the political spectrum. They're proud to live in a community with lots of environmentally-friendly features, but that doesn't mean they want to see any clothes-lines or compost piles. They may or may not care a great deal about social issues, regardless, they don't want the people representing them to be rabid about such issues either.

(Please note I am speaking in generalities here, each resident of the Broadlands is an individual and this generalization will not apply to all those individuals).

It is my opinion that if a candidate wins the Broadlands, they will win the new Broad Run.

Third, what can the opposition use? For the last several months Andrea has said many times from the dais, that her full-time job as the Executive Director for Oatlands makes it difficult for her to attend daytime BOS meetings, or to be prepared for the ones she attends. It makes her sound like she can't maintain the effort needed to stay on top of her committments. I think an opponent could use those statements to ask why she's running for a second term if she's finding it hard to keep up.

Against Cliff is the fact that he was a vocal proponent of the hospital in the Broadlands (which actually will be viewed positively in many quarters), and is a high-order nerd (collecting comic books and signed first editions - much like me, actually). He has large presence online and in the local papers, and that's always dangerous for a candidate who doesn't want his words used against him. His clothing sense is questionable (while I might see it as plus, I'm not sure if voters are going to welcome a guy knocking on their door in a Thor's Mighty Hammer t-shirt).

I wish I didn't have to choose between two terrific candidates. I wish that it were a 2-way race between one of these two great candidates and the LCRC's candidate. And it's my guess that there are many people who consider themselves Democrats who are feeling the same way today.

It's not my way to sit down and shut up, so I only have two choices. Stay with the LCDC and back Andrea, or leave the LCDC and back Cliff. I've never worked against a Democratic candidate before, nor have I ever worked against the person I thought was the better candidate. I've always felt that the Democratic candidate, if there was one in the race, was the better candidate, which is why I'm a member of the LCDC in the first place. But what if a committed Dem thinks that Cliff is the better candidate? For that matter, what if a Republican does?

What are your thoughts?

*I'm a member of the Board of the CSB.
**I did an internship with LAWS.

Expanding on my comments

Paradox13 put up a post about the redistricting over at Loudoun Progress. And I made a couple of comments there, which I'm going to expand on here.

Stevens disagrees with me on a lot of what I'm about to say, but this is my blog, my opinion, and here it goes.

I don't care one iota if there is one Western district or two. I think having an HOA or a town kept entirely in one district is a fine desire, but not something that ends up mattering a whole lot on election day. I do think that it matters if a district is contiguous. I do think it matters if you have to leave the district to reach another part of it, but ultimately, I think that there are many ways to split up Loudoun relatively equitably and Miller 5 (unamended) and HOA 4 were two of them.

I've said before that I am partisan only inasmuch as the Democratic party is the party that has, as part of its platform, a pledge (among other things) to protect the rights of women, minorities, LGBT, and people with disabilities.

In this county, we have an elected official whose day job it is to fight against the right of people who are gay.

There was one and only one partisan piece of redistricting that was included in both Miller 5 (unamended) and HOA 4. That piece was including MY precinct, Oak Grove, with Delgaudio's district.

And Sally Kurtz amended it into Andrea McGimsey's district.

Which is so phenomenally stupid that I am flabbergasted that Mike Turner is crowing about it.


Oak Grove has a net 100 reliable Democrats. Delgaudio won last time by 200 votes. Oak Grove was the keystone in the plan to get Delgaudio booted out this November. And the beauty of it was, it wasn't gerrymandering, because Oak Grove BELONGS in Sterling. It is otherwise isolated from the rest of the county. There was no way for Delgaudio to complain about it. It was natural to join it in. OF COURSE it should be joined in.


Now, instead of making the demise of Delgaudio's Board tenure a sure thing, Oak Grove is merely there to increase McGimsey's win margin, in an obvious bit of gerrymandering to pull us into her district.

I really like Andrea. I think she's been a good Supervisor. But if this bit of redistricting sends Delgaudio back to the Board next year (especially if he wins by less than 100 votes), I will never forget that it was she, and Mike Turner, and Sally Kurtz, and Kelly Burk, and Susan Buckley, and Jim Burton who made this happen.

And I will make sure that everyone, everywhere, who has ever heard of Delgaudio knows EXACTLY whose fault it is if he wins.

My vote for most misleading headline ever

A Shot in the Dark: Researchers Advise Flu Vaccine for Unborn Babies


Actually, researchers suggest flu shots for pregnant MOTHERS. Because, not only do the shots protect the mother, but they also continue to protect the NEWBORN for up to 6 months.

Seriously. The way the headline, and the article itself, is written, you'd think that the researchers were advocating injecting flu vaccine through the uterine wall to the fetus.

I'm all for keeping newborns healthy, let's just remember that the best way to do that is to FIRST keep the mother healthy. Not the "unborn baby". The mother.

It's a shandah for the goyim

Really, Israeli rabbis? Really?

Three dozen top Israeli rabbis threw their support Tuesday behind a religious ruling barring Jews from selling or renting homes to non-Jews - an indication of growing radicalism within the rabbinical community at a time of mounting friction between Israeli Arabs and Jews.

I am ashamed.

I just LOVE the Daily Show.

But I do wish they would stop using the word, "retarded". Seriously.

ht DaveRunner

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Deductible Me
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Dear School Board (edited for a clarification)

So you say you want to keep high school enrollments under 2000.

Board member J. Warren Geurin (Sterling) said the School Board believes high schools operate best with a maximum of 1,800 students. Schools with more than 2,000 students are not desired for educational reasons, he said.

I hate to bring this up again, but have you never heard of
Stuyvesant High School? Enrollment: 3300. How's about Bronx High School of Science? Enrollment: 2800. Brooklyn Tech? Enrollment: over 4900.

These are schools parents glory to have their children go to.

Stuyvesant:

According to a September 2002 high school ranking by Worth magazine, 3.67% of Stuyvesant students went on to attend Harvard, Princeton, and Yale Universities, ranking it as the 9th top public high school in the United States and 120th among all schools, public or private. In December 2007, The Wall Street Journal studied the freshman classes at eight selective colleges (Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Williams College, Pomona College, Swarthmore College, U. Chicago, and Johns Hopkins), and reported that Stuyvesant sent 67, or 9.9% of its 674 seniors, to them...
...Stuyvesant has contributed to the education of several Nobel laureates, winners of the Fields Medal and the Wolf Prize, and a host of other accomplished alumni. In recent years, it has had the second highest number of National Merit Scholarship semi-finalists, behind Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, in Alexandria, Virginia...
...Stuyvesant, along with other similar schools, has regularly been excluded from Newsweek's annual list of the Top 100 Public High Schools. The May 8th, 2008 issue states the reason as being, "because so many of their students score well above average on the SAT and ACT." US News & World Report, however, included Stuyvesant on its list of "Best High Schools" published in December 2009, ranking 31st.

{Note: Wikipedia doesn't have the current college acceptance rate overall for graduates, but in my year (1987), only two of the 791 graduates did NOT go straight on to college. Of the surviving members of my class, to my knowledge only one has not graduated from a university at this date.}

Bronx HS of Science:

Bronx Science has developed a worldwide reputation as one of the best high schools in the United States, public or private, ranking fourth in U.S. News and World Report's 2008 list of America's "Gold-Medal" high schools. It attracts an intellectually gifted blend of culturally, ethnically,[7][8] and economically diverse students from New York City.
Every year almost all Bronx Science graduates go on to four-year colleges; many attend Ivy League and other prestigious schools. Bronx Science has counted 132 finalists in the Intel (formerly Westinghouse) Science Talent Search, the largest number of any high school. Seven graduates have won Nobel Prizes — more than any other secondary education institution in the world — and six have won Pulitzer Prizes.

Brooklyn Tech:

Brooklyn Tech is a founding member of the National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science and Technology. Brooklyn Tech is noted for its famous alumni (including two Nobel Laureates), its academics, and the large number of graduates attending prestigious universities. Routinely, more than 98% of its graduates are accepted to four-year colleges with the 2007 graduating class being offered more than $1,250,000 in scholarships and grants. It appears as #63 in the 2009 ranking of the annual U.S. News & World Report "Best High Schools" list.

I'm not saying that large schools always work, or that they are appropriate in every situation, but large schools can be educationally rigorous and can, in fact, beat the pants off Loudoun County's schools academically.

So, my dear School Board, you're going to have to come up with something other than "educational reasons" for why you won't even study the FEASIBILITY of expanding the size of the existing schools. Because I just gave you a total of over ten thousand reasons why that won't fly.

All my best wishes,

Liz Miller
The Doorbell Queen

Constantly Surprised...

...by the otherwise seemingly intelligent, rational, sensible people who think that Fox News is a news channel.

And also constantly surprised that if I change the channel in the break-room to CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, Headline News, or ANY OTHER CHANNEL AT ALL, that within 20 minutes, the TV will be back on Fox.

Let me say first, that the primary reason I hate Fox actually applies to many other news commentary shows. I hate listening to people shouting at and over each other.

Listen to other people once in a while. You might learn something. You might hear something which makes YOUR argument stronger. If your argument can't hold up to the clear light of someone else picking it apart, then it's not a defensible position, is it?

(This is one reason I often read the transcripts of shows instead of watching them in real time.)

Another reason I don't like Fox can be summed up in two words: Glenn Beck.

I don't understand how someone who daily advocates for armed uprisings has a TV and a radio show.

Can you explain that to me?

And the third reason I don't like Fox News? Is their happy little habit of putting a (D) after the name of any Republican elected who has been caught in a scandal. Along with the many other little "mistakes" they make in editing video.

I accept bias in reporting, I really do. But don't lie to make your point. Don't edit in video from an entirely different event to make a rally look well attended. Don't misrepresent what party a person is from.

And stop yelling*. Seriously.



*I don't watch shows on other channels where the main form of communication is shouting, either. Chris Matthews, I'm talking about you.