Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

So the list is:
Ed Gillespie, Anthony "Tony" DeTora, Wayshak "Shak" Hill, and Charles "Chuck" Moses



Ed Gillespie- Former RNC Chair, Career politician.

Tony DeTora- House Policy Advisor, former Commercial Space Business lobbiest. Career Politician?

Wayshak Hill- Former Air Force, Financial planner for Allstate. Anyone got more on this one?

Charles Moses- Is this ( http://www.transformed.com/bio-ChuckMoses.cfm ) the right Charles Moses?


So, who's the best of the lot to bring the voice of the people to the Senate? Why?
Discuss!

Until NOVA or Tidewater are ceded to MD the race is a lock for Warner, so why bother?

I will take any of those. I have a good friend that is very politically astute that loves Hill.

As for tidewater....you never know. My immediate family lives there (all stout conservatives) and several of her friends who were once very pro-Obama are now incredibly angry (lost health care....job layoffs etc etc). A few of them turned before the election. Some of the others are upset now with the effects of Obamacare on their families (children unable to get jobs, enormous debt, and now the requirement that they purchase health plans they don't need).

So if the GOP person campaigns on ideas and has guts and gumption and is willing to tie Warner to his lap dog position on Obama's lap they have got a chance. If they run like Cuchinelli or Romney....yep Warner is in.

Also, if enough of the NoVa YAHOOS (Yankee Ass H0les Out of Other States) see Gillespie as one of them and are mad enough about similar thing, it might help tip the scales.

mamabearCali wrote:As for tidewater....you never know. My immediate family lives there (all stout conservatives) and several of her friends who were once very pro-Obama are now incredibly angry (lost health care....job layoffs etc etc). A few of them turned before the election. Some of the others are upset now with the effects of Obamacare on their families (children unable to get jobs, enormous debt, and now the requirement that they purchase health plans they don't need)

The problem with relying on the ACA to save the GOP is the people hurt by (business owners, the employed, etc.) it are not likely Democratic voters anyway.

Expect the ACA to have little real impact on voting trends.

ignore - double post

Kreutz wrote: The problem with relying on the ACA to save the GOP is the people hurt by (business owners, the employed, etc.) it are not likely Democratic voters anyway.

The hope is that the ACA has burned some middle of the road folks that lean democratic party, and might cause them to lean the other way at the next election. Just today, a person I work with who normally votes D commented on the ACA mess. And eventually, young people will realize that there is a price to pay for these policies and that they are the ones inheriting this financial mess, and they may also start leaning away from the democratic party. If the republicans would quit worrying about social issues and focus relentlessly on being the party of good conservative economic values, they could win the swing vote and the young vote -- and maybe even an election in Virginia.

I think trailrunner is right. I think you'll find there at a lot of working folks out there whose healthcare has been negatively impacted by the ACA, and they are not going to like it. Higher premiums, higher employee contributions (this will happen to the higher-paid employees as their employer cuts back their contribution to the premium to fund keeping lower-paid employees' contribution below the 9.5% of gross income ceiling)cancelled policies, bigger deductibles, loss of access to specific caregivers and facilities, etc. Gonna be plenty pissed-off to go around, IMO.

Folks, I was hoping this would be a discussion about these four individual candidates, their pros and cons and which one should get the nod to be in the general election.

I'd appreciate it if you'd address the question I asked in the original post, because it's important to understand who is getting the chance to run on the republican ticket, and why they should be the guy to go up against the other parties choices.

Thanks!

SpanishInquisition wrote:Folks, I was hoping this would be a discussion about these four individual candidates, their pros and cons and which one should get the nod to be in the general election.

I'd appreciate it if you'd address the question I asked in the original post, because it's important to understand who is getting the chance to run on the republican ticket, and why they should be the guy to go up against the other parties choices.

Thanks!

You're right. Sorry dad.

... so nobody wants to discuss the merits or issues wth these 4 candidates?

Huh.

SpanishInquisition wrote:... so nobody wants to discuss the merits or issues wth these 4 candidates?

Huh.

I did. They're all screwed. Not much else to get into.

SpanishInquisition wrote:... so nobody wants to discuss the merits or issues wth these 4 candidates?

Huh.

I dont know much.


I know Gillespie is a Washington guy that will have $$. A scummy politician , but one that might be better than the Obama lap dog we have now

I am only starting to learn about Hill. He seems like a decent salt of the earth sort, but if the establishment want to do to him what they did to Cooch we will have Warner for another 6.

Never heard of any of them except Gillespie and I don't know much about him. Hard to discuss them knowing nothing about them. I started to say if the candidate can't get his own story out then he's probably not a good prospect, but the republican kingmakers will decide whose story should be told, so that would be even less true than if they were all running.

They'd have to be real pieces of work to be worse than we got.

Not as bad as a piece of crap in office?
Can you win?
Two yesses get my vote.

Either it's getting better or it's getting worse.

2 years 9 months.

It's official: Ed Gillespie gets the nod.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06 ... -s-senate/

Yep.... So though I am not a fan, I am even less of a fan of Warner. Hopefully he has got some guts and will not just play patty cake with Warner.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Gillespie is a conservative on most issues, has lots of experience, and can raise funds, and gain endorsements from better known conservatives. It is possible he could win.

Almost any conservative would be preferable to Mark Warner who is just another carpet-bagging, lying DemoRat from NOVA, which is the same as a SOCIALIST who wants BIG GOVERNMENT!

So Gillespie gets my vote.

OleMan wrote:Gillespie is a conservative on most issues, has lots of experience, and can raise funds, and gain endorsements from better known conservatives. It is possible he could win.

Almost any conservative would be preferable to Mark Warner who is just another carpet-bagging, lying DemoRat from NOVA, which is the same as a SOCIALIST who wants BIG GOVERNMENT!

So Gillespie gets my vote.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OleMan is right on the money. Better a non-poisonous snake than a really poisonous snake, if you must have a snake in the bed.

I went to the convention with wife and daughter. Shake got our vote primarily because he is a true conservative that does not know how to play the Washington game as good as Gillespie. We did not need someone that knows how to play the game...we needed someone that will stop the game. My fear is Gillespie is not that person. When Ken Lay was still alive and Enron was about to tank, Gillespie got $700,000 as Enrons lobbyist. Everyone else got screwed. Nuf said???
Contact gillespies campaign and tell him not to play the game anymore. The career politicians are all coming out the winners and we, the taxpayers, are coming out the losers.f ya really want to make a difference join your counties republican committee. Make sure you are heard by your county's board of supervisors. Believe or not these politicians dodo stinks just as much as anyone else but they don't think so. You need to let them know you actually care and you will move heaven and earth to see they are voted out should they start playing the game. Next time you see a county supervisor ask them why they only think about increasing revenue and never cutting spending. When they increase revenue it means only one thing...most government employees are gonna get a raise...well what about you...the schmuck that was too stupid to get that gubmint job because you wanted to make a difference in private industry.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]