Too Conservative's Truancy

I've been checking out precincts this morning with local school board member Kathy Smith. 

The talk of each of the polling places has been the young Republican who is skipping school today to work in the special election.

When we ran into the truant TooConservative, a discussion was ongoing with poll workers over what they were more offended by- his truancy, or his unwashed clothes.  It was a split decision with school board member Smith angry over the truancy and another poll working mom upset about the clothes.

Also ran into Jim Parmelee who was at Franklin polling place.  Jim, the worst dressed at the Tom Davis Christmas party was wearing a blue hat, red earmuffs, a plaid shirt, olive jacket, khakis, and brown shoes.  Six items- and none matched. 

Very low turnout- seems to lean a little Democratic so far, but too early to tell for sure.

UPDATE:  Low turnout means only hardcore voters are coming out.  It's funny to watch a Jeep with a Bush bumper sticker pull out and be replaced by a VW with a Kaine sticker.  Over and over.

I was only in Fairfax, but that could be close.  Slight Lean to Herring there, but I couldn't tell for sure.

Too Conservative was dressed better the second time we saw him.  Also saw Chris Craddock for a while, and that was fun. 

Comments

[Rtwng Extrmst]

I wonder, does Kathy Smith have any obligation as a "non-partisan" member of the school board to report this truancy? Certainly a politically charged question since she was likely out supporting the Democrat and TC was out supporting the Republican....

I think she should as TC ought to be in school...

[Braddock Guy]

When one points a finger, he has three pointing back at him. You phone number didn't work for me.

[Braddock Guy]

When one points a finger, he has three pointing back at him. You phone number didn't work for me.

[Shaun Kenney]

You said it seemed slightly Democratic in the 97th too... so I'll take it! :)

[Freddie]

For once, there is someone who dresses worse then I dress.

[tooconservative]

great stuff ben..

me and kathy smith look good together.

[ZB]

TC---this is why you need to be in school, instead of campaigning for extremists. "Kathy Smith and _I_ look good together."

[Rtwng Extrmst]

ZB,

"TC---this is why you need to be in school, instead of campaigning for extremists"

You appear confused. He was just talking with Kathy, not campaigning for her. ;-)

[Not Jack Herrity]

Ben, it never ceases to amaze me that you think YOU have room to criticize the appearance of others.

NJH

[tooconservative]

NJH-I knew from being with him, that he was going to post it.

This one, I will take as a joke.

Ms.Smith liked my clothes when I changed..didnt she ben?

[willis]

How was the sex??

[NLSgroupie]

Willis --
Even *I* think that was gross...

[Not Larry Sabato]

Shaun, you agreed with me about how that poll was looking in Caroline. We were only there together for an hour out of 13 though. :)

[Not Larry Sabato]

Too Cons- Indeed, she was very impressed the second time we ran into you.

[Not Jack Herrity]

Any Loudoun numbers?

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

Reports out of Lowes Island precinct sound pretty good. My friend covering it in the AM said he got more than half thumbs up and approval in the AM hours, and to top it off--Dick Black himself was out greeting the voters who rejected him in November. What else do we need to win one of the most reliably Republican (in federal elections) precincts left in Sterling?

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

And yes, turnout seemed to be extremely low in Lowes Island according to my source. If nothing else, that mean Mickie wasn't able to stir that base like they were hoping, because those folks vote early!

[asmith]

Both Kaine and Byrne carried Lowes Island. Deeds barely lost it.

[JOYB]

TC is learning more today working the polls than he would have in a week in a FCPS and Kathy probably knows that.

I guess Ben Tribbett was too busy with the Superbowl to give us a prediction.

[WyattColeman]

You know, this blog would be a great satire of personality politics if you were a little more consistent. Otherwise its just plain lunacy.

[Not Larry Sabato]

What do you mean "consistent". Where have I not been?

I see Ben can comment but can't even make a prediction. I will not use the wrod "gutless."

Ooops "word."

[WyattColeman]

By consistent I mean if you were consistently petty. Then it would be either quite hilarious or incredibly pathetic. You are just serious enough in your analysis to confuse us. My word; pick a schtick and stay with it!

Even the real Larry Sabato has the guts to make predictions.

Oh please, the prediction would have been: Toss Up

[Shaun Kenney]

Ben -- that's entirely true! That having been said, we poll workers are a fairly superstitious sort (if it rains, it GOP turnout, if it's warm, it's Dem turnout, etc.) so I'll take what I can get.

[Shaun Kenney]

Prediction?

Paaaaiiiiinnn.

At least, that's what Mr. T's prediction would have been.

[tooconservative]

Ben told me 10 minutes ago he thought it was a toss-up.

No wonder he has a good record..he never makes a stand.

JUST LIKE DAVE MARSDEN

[tooconservative]

Ben told me 10 minutes ago he thought it was a toss-up.

No wonder he has a good record..he never makes a stand.

JUST LIKE DAVE MARSDEN

[James Young]

Ben, WHAT IS THIS FIXATION ON CLOTHES?!?!?!

I'm pretty sure your fixation on Parmelee (who was upset over your assessment of his Christmas attire) must be latent homosexuality. ;-)

[A Voter]

"Brokeback Blogg'n"

[ZB]

James and AV,

Can you stop with your homophobia, please?

Many thanks.

Kisses and hugs,

ZB

[willis]

"Fudgepack Mountain" Young is incredibly fixated on homosexuals. It's amazing.

[James Young]

ZB --- Opposition to the radical homosexual agenda is not "homophobia," except in your Bizarro World. I guess when you can't win an argument on the merits, you're reduced to name-calling.

ZB and willis --- grow a sense of humor.

Can someone outline the homosexual agenda for me? I must have been absent the day they went over the agenda and I'm not really sure what's on it, but I'd like to be prepared in case I get called on.

Also (having not seen the agenda), I'm not really up to speed on why it scares people so.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

You need to look up the defintion of homophobia then. One of those definitions involves displaying prejudice toward gay and lesbian people. Are you telling me that by labeling people who want to stand up for their firm belief in their right to participate equally in society as perpetrating a "radical homosexual agenda" does not stem from prejudice?

I'm intrigued Young, tell me more.

[A Voter]

Gays, lesbians, and straights all have the same rights. They all have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. The gay agenda, Doug & anon, is to gain special rights beyond this.

[James Young]

I don't own a PC dictionary, Doug. However, I do know my Greek and Latin roots, and recognize an effort to belittle the opponents of the radical homosexual agenda when I see one.

And AV is absolutely correct. Partisans of the radical homosexual agenda don't want "to participate equally in society"; they don't want "tolerance"; 'fact is, they have both.

What they don't have, and will never have from me and, I believe, a majority of Americans, is "acceptance" of their perversions.

You know that's my position; I know that you --- by virtue of your support for gay "marriage" --- have no respect for the language. We've both known these things for a long time. So why are we wasting our time talking about it over a simple "bon mot" to Ben?

The funny thing is, if you had the courage of your convictions, it wouldn't bother you so.

[Josh Israel]

The gay agenda is the right not to be fired from your job purely because you are gay---or because your boss THINKS your gay. As of now, that is PERFECTLY LEGAL in Virginia.

The gay agenda is to not have to worry about being beaten to death and left to die at the hands of those who seek to terrorize an entire community.

The gay agenda is for a loving, committed, monogomous same-sex couple to know that we will have the right to visit each other in the hospital.

The gay agenda is not special rights--it's equal rights. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, the FOUNDER of the Christian Right movement in America, himself has said that the right of gay and lesbian people to be protected from employment and housing discrimination is not a special right, but a question of equal rights. Yet, we saw in Washington state last week, like so many states the Republican Party almost uniformly opposes any effort to grant that basic rights.

If you think those rights are "special rights," just keep in mind that it is perfectly legal in Virginia for a heterosexual person to be fired from their job for NOT being gay. How do you like that, A Voter?

[Not Jack Herrity]

Josh: It is also the law in Virginia that you can be fired if your boss doesn't like your shoelaces. The fact is if you don't have a clear employment contract, you are an "at will" employee and there are a myriad of reasons for which you can be terminated, including the catch-all, "I just don't like you all that much."

In the process of carving out exceptions to at-will employment for special groups, we seem to have ignored the fact that you can still be fired in most states for "good cause" or for "no cause." Where you can't be fired is for "bad cause," which generally includes statutory protections such covering racial or sexual discrimination and a few other categories, including certain types of "whistleblowers."

NJH

[Josh Israel]

NJH---I believe that someone's sexual orientation... or someone's PERCEIVED sexual orientation... constitutes bad cause. Jerry Falwell agrees. Why don't you?

[Jonathan]

James Young,

Why don't you c'mon down to the Old Dominion Brewery to watch the results stream in with me and my fun loving Loudoun Democrat friends. We'll watch Governor Kaine dismantle W's state of disunion address. You can whine about this agenda or that, and I'll provide free counseling.

[Jay Squires]

Thanks Josh posting for attribution on a blog where we've both had some fun using snarky pseudonyms. Ben, hope to get the chance to meet you soon.

Mr. Young's comments are deplorable but not because of his bigotry. Bigotry is after all a matter of opinion, and I am loathe to sanction opinion.

Instead, Mr. Young's comments display an unfortunate and unyielding ignorance.

As a gay employer, I'll agree that it's quite correct that I can fire my assistant because she's happily married to a man. Not that I would. She speaks Greek.

[Not Jack Herrity]

Didn't say whether I agreed or not. Just pointed out something that doesn't get a lot of press.

NJH

[A Voter]

Josh,

You seem to appreciate this perversion more than most. I am happy to accept your feelings on this, but I don't have to agree with you.

From your comments can I conclude that you agree with 'everything' that Rev. Jerry Falwell has said on the issue of homosexuality, or is this simply you picking and choosing the statements of his that you WANT to agree with?

[Jay Squires]

NJH: I'll reply to you since you raised the point, though I saw your comment to Josh.

The debate comes down to this. Should employers be permitted to fire for characteristics which which have no relation to work and - importantly - are intrinsic.

Virginia is an at-will state. Red hair should not be a protected classification, because it's not intrinsic, "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing."

In humans, race and gender are intrinsic. Sexual orientation is intrinsic. (Let the debate begin ... but understand that by entering that debate with anything other than biblical injunctions you're ceding to me the fact that sexual orientation *could be* intrinsic).

You're right that expanding protected categories erodes the at-will doctrine. Pardon me while I take a call from a Ford employee... be right back.

[A Voter]

Jay,

I wouldn't concede that there is any evidence to show that homosexuality is inherent quality to begin with.

It is a choice. You can choose to do many things with your life. Not all of them are healthy, beneficial, nor deserving of special rights.

[James Young]

Well, gee, Josh and Jay, maybe we should just add special protections for drunks, and wife-beaters, too. After all, so long as it does not affect job performance, what business is it of an employer, anyway?

And Jonathan, I don't need counseling. Apparently, you think I do. I remember a place (happily, no longer extant) where political dissidents were relegated to the tender mercies of politically-acceptable psychiatry: the Soviet Union.

Thank you for confirming what many of us have known all along about you crypto-Socialists.

And congrats to Herring. Now that he's elected, let's see if he lasts past a negative vote on fag "marriage."

[Jay Squires]

Well, here we are. Given the fact that the November cycle will be so damn boring, except for the marriage amendment, we might as well start the debate.

AV, since you've taken the pro position on what I guess you'd call "gay choice", let me ask you to offer some objective support for the proposition that men and women choose to be gay. Reams of medical and psychological research, simple common sense, and the inherint instinct of all humans to avoid hard tell me that you're full of it.

Is it healthy? Well, the great majority of worldwide AIDS cases are caused by heterosexual intercourse. Frankly, apart from the eugenics movement, I'm unaware of a time when civil rights discussions have been framed in public health terms.

Are gay citizens deserving of special rights? Certainly not. We're only deserving of the same protections that our society has established for others who are discriminated against because of intrinsic characteristics. The fact of the discrimination is beyond debate.

Is being gay beneficial? Fine question, here's another. Is being Christian or Muslim beneficial? I'm happy to concede that it is, but I suspect others, currently or historically, might debate me.

I suspect that most gay citizens don't find their orientation beneficial in many ways, due to the social and politcal discrimination we face.

Does society benefit from its gay members? Ask Pope Benedict when he's next walking in the Sistine Chapel. To analogize, I'm certain President Bush values the contributions of his Secretary of State, who is the benficiary of long-established employment protections based on intrnsic characteristics.

[Jonathan]

"And Jonathan, I don't need counseling"...look at me, I'm anti-gay...blather blather blather.

James Young, my husband warned me not to feed the trolls, but I strayed and you proved me wrong and him right. You need counseling, trust me honey. Please pass denial and go directly to acceptance where you will receive $200 and Oatmeal Man for President.

[Not Ben]

So we're clear, closet case James Young both chafes at being called a homophobe and uses the term "fag"?

Jimmy, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[James Young]

So we're clear, the radical homosexual movement doesn't want to be judged by their behavior, yet attacks someone who dares to use common terminology to refer to them, and attacks his sexuality.

NB and Jonathan, your perversion knows no bounds.

[Jonathan]

This is a political blog, not a space for you to expose your personal issues. Please abide by the rules of polite discourse. Be respectful to fellow posters. Do not engage in ad-hominem attacks.

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents." Sir Winston Churchill

[James Young]

Josh and Jay, you still haven't answered my question. Do we add special protections for drunks, and wife-beaters, too, when their outside activities does not affect job performance? Is that your principle? Or is it mere argument of convenience?

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

I just love when people prove themselves to be ignorant. Before either one of you starts name-calling me as a name-caller, allow me to display the ENGLISH LANGUAGE definition of "bigot":

big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

OK, A Voter & Rtwng & Jimmy Y:

You've all demonstrated that you are intolerant of our viewpoints on these subjects.

You've demonstrated it yourselves. Just because you don't respect our right to exist and live equally under the law with you and your super-obedient wives doesn't mean that we are name-calling when we say you are, in fact, bigots.

Thanks. Now go about your ways.

[David]

And furthermore, they weren't born that way. Nobody is born a bigot. They may have been taught these things by the equally ignorant, but remaining that way is a choice. Why anyone would choose to be this miserable is a mystery. It's not as if countervailing information isn't widely available.

[James Young]

"super-obedient wi[f]e[]"?!?!?

Mrs. Young got a good laugh out of that one. And then beaned me with a frying pan.

And Doug, I respect your "right to exist and live equally under the law with" me. I've done nothing to question your right to exist. However, you seem to define "right to exist" as having my approval for your practice of whatever sexual perversion strikes your fancy on any particular day. As for "live equally under the law," want to marry a member of the opposite sex who'll have you? Feel free. Invite me to the wedding, even. I'll buy you a set of steak knives.

And I'm not "intolerant to those who differ." Once again, you're confusing "tolerance" with "acceptance."

Learn the language.

[Who Cares?]

Leave this kid alone Ben! No wonder people think you are such a jerk.

[A Voter]

In response to your comment Jay- no, there is no proof that people are born gay.

Doug- Notice how you've decided that simply because we disagree with you, that we must naturally think that you shouldn't exist. (Which couldn't be further from the truth.) Perhaps this is an example of your own bigotry against those don't share your twisted point of view.