Category Archives: campaign

Cruz Blames His Supporters for Dirty Tricks, but Blames Trump for Violence

Ted Cruz is a hypocrite. And he has proven once again he will say anything to get elected.

The message below was sent out just prior to the Hawaii Caucuses, very reminiscent of the Cruz lies about Ben Carson in Iowa:


Ted Cruz issued the following statement, passing the buck and blaming an unauthorized supporter:

According to Cruz communications director Alice Stewart:

The at-issue emails and social media posting was not sanctioned by the Cruz for President campaign. The campaign became aware of the email this morning by press accounts and upon investigation learned that some volunteers in Hawaii were involved in the posting. The individual(s) who sent this had no authority from the campaign to do so.

The campaign’s counsel has contacted those responsible, who were in no way authorized by the campaign, and demanded that the material be removed and further use of official campaign logos for any purpose be terminated.

Ted Cruz Hawaii, for its part, claimed to be “officially sanctioned” by the Cruz campaign before its website was taken down.

So Cruz passes the buck when it comes to his own campaign and blames his supporters who actually state their communications were officially sanctioned.

But who does Cruz blame when a Donald Trump supporter punches a protester? Or when violent protests instigated and backed by Bill Ayers, BlackLivesMatter, Bernie Sanders supporters, F**K The Police, Occupy Wall Street and other thuggish groups? Well, he said:

“But in any campaign, responsibility starts at the top,” Mr. Cruz continued. “And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”

Any campaign except his own of course.

Ted Cruz is a hypocrite.


Article written by: Tom White

Late Night Political Jokes – 2-15-2016

The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

  • President Obama just visited LA. Or as Donald Trump put it, “The state is being taken over by Kenyans.”
  • Donald Trump just promised that he will no longer use foul language on the campaign trail. So now when people ask him his policy on ISIS, he just says “I’m going to bomb the shy-diddly-doodles out of them.”
  • During a recent rally in Louisiana, Donald Trump actually autographed someone’s baby. Even crazier, when he handed the baby back to the parents, Trump said, “Congratulations, your baby’s worth three times as much now.”

Jimmy Kimmel Live!

  • Do you know that every Presidents Day Michelle Obama lets President Obama eat one Skittle as a treat? Meanwhile, Donald Trump spent his by photoshopping his head onto a million-dollar bill.
  • The 31st annual LA Marathon was this weekend. Between the marathon and Obama’s visit it was a big week for Kenyans screwing up LA traffic.

Late Night With Seth Meyers

  • Republicans and Democrats are fighting over whether President Obama should be able to appoint Justice Scalia’s successor. Democrats say that he should, whereas the Constitution says that he shall.
  • The Ted Cruz campaign has pulled a new ad after it was revealed that the actress in it has appeared in soft-core porn; and now Jeb has hired her to teach him how to act like he’s enjoying something.
  • Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were both in Las Vegas over the weekend. Hillary attended a campaign rally, while Bernie played the nickel slots.

Article written by: Tom White

UKIP Gains Momentum in Oldham West

The Torygraph, I’m sorry I mean the Telegraph (UK), reported that UKIP is sending maximum resources to Oldham West and Royton to seek a surprise by-election win December 3 and is urging Tory strategic voting for the libertarian party:

New polling suggests the UK Independence Party has dramatically cut Labour’s lead in the previously safe seat of Oldham West and Royton, which became vacant when the former minister Michael Meacher died last month.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Mr Farage, the Ukip leader, said the contest was now so “close” that he would be throwing all the party’s available campaign resources at winning, in the final few days before Thursday’s vote.


Mr Farage said: “We are going to give this a very big push. I am going to be there almost all week. I have cleared the diary out of almost everything else. One of the things we have to do is try to get Tories to vote Ukip tactically to vote Labour.

Labour senses the political momentum shifting to UKIP but it is an uphill battle (The late incumbent won with a 14k margin last May):

Labour sources fear that they could lose if Ukip’s surge continues – and defeat would intensify pressure on Mr Corbyn’s already embattled leadership.

According to both Labour and Ukip insiders, the Labour leader’s opposition to a “shoot-to-kill” policy against terrorist gunmen in the aftermath of the Paris attacks has been particularly damaging to Labour’s standing in the constituency.

UKIP has cut the Labour lead to seven points!  The Guardian has a very reasonable assessment of the potential – and the uphill climb:

Oldham West should not be a difficult defence. Its long-serving MP, the late Michael Meacher, bequeathed a 15,000-vote majority in a seat he comfortably held for 45 years. Yet reports from the campaign trail suggest Labour is nervous and Ukip buoyant. Comparisons are made with the neighbouring seat of Heywood and Middleton, where a collapse in the Labour vote nearly delivered an upset victory for Ukip in 2014. Could Labour lose? It is possible, but Oldham West is much tougher terrain for Ukip than Heywood; Labour’s starting majority is larger, and there is a hefty ethnic minority vote unlikely to switch to Nigel Farage’s party. Ukip needs everything to go its way to get into contention.

And the Independent reports the sudden and numerous appearance of the Farage Labourite in the district:

Labour Party internal polling suggests that it is within 1,000 votes of losing the Oldham by-election to Ukip.

Canvassing by activists over the past few weeks has found that swathes of voters who backed Labour in May are preparing to desert the party in the by-election, in what should be one of its safest seats.

Senior figures close to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn are understood to be “very worried” and fear the party could lose the seat.

It might be interesting Thursday evening.  (And I am off work Friday so that means potential for multiple victory laps if UKIP wins!)


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Tony Lippa Wins Sheriff Race In Caroline County

I endorsed Sheriff Tony Lippa and would like to congratulate him on his victory in Caroline County. I think he’s done a great job as Sheriff and he has such wide support due to his service.

lippaThat said, I also want to publicly thank Chris Wooldridge for running and for his campaign. The time I spent with him and his family today was endearing. As I’ve written before, whoever won this Sheriff’s race would leave Caroline County in great hands. Chris ran a great campaign and his family should be seen as a valuable addition to our county. I have so much respect for all the young residents that came out to vote today and I know many of them came out to vote for Chris.

Tony Lippa is extremely popular in Caroline County and for good reason. Today we simply saw an unwillingness to go from something good to something good.

But here is something I saw today that has lifted my spirits beyond election results.

Chris Wooldridge and Clay Forehand brought hundreds of young people to the polls today. I’m 36 years old; and on election day I usually feel like a child, but today, I saw 20-somethings and 30-somethings and 40-somethings coming out to vote. We saw about 300 more voters than we expected and that’s because a few young men decided to run for office against popular county staples. Clay Forehand won and Chris Wooldridge (who unlike Clay was in a 3 way race) came in second.

We residents of Caroline County should be proud today. Chris Woodridge and his family should be proud. While it was clear that Tony Lippa retains overwhelming support in the county, despite being challenged by the most serious and qualified candidate in years, Caroline County deserves not only the debate and the challenge, but the participation we saw today.

A Sea of Orange swept over the Madison District in Caroline today. Dozens of Lippa supporters poured in to campaign for our Sheriff. I recall one voter respond that if signs and t-shirts were votes, Lippa had nothing to worry about. They were right.

I hope Caroline Residents will be as inspired by today’s events as I. Two great individuals ran for Sheriff and our county is the better the for it. Thank you, Tony Lippa for the service you’ve provided. Clearly the county is endeared to you and you’ve earned their support. Thank you to Chris Wooldridge, as well, for running a disciplined and thoughtful campaign. You’ve both made Caroline County politics and law enforcement a focus and a proud reminder of what makes Caroline County great.

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Winchester Commonwealth’s Attorney Abrams Says FOIA Does Not Apply to Campaign Work During Business Hours

We have a very interesting race going on in Winchester. It seems the acting Commonwealth Attorney claims that work done at the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office on his campaign by office workers during the working day is not subject to FOIA requests.

A better question is why are the employees of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office working on a campaign when they are supposed to be at work for the people?

The letter below is a response to Marc Abrams refusal to hand over the documents requested in the FOIA.

You just can’t make this stuff up! It’s definitely time to look at strengthening Virginia’s FOIA laws.

Mr. Marc Abrams

Acting Commonwealth’s Attorney and Custodian of Records

Office of the Winchester Commonwealth’s Attorney

24 Rouss Avenue, Suite 200

Winchester, VA 22601

Re:       Followup to Your September 29, 2015 Freedom of Information Act Response

Dear Mr. Abrams:

We received your response to our second Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request on behalf of Darryl Major, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. You will recall that on September 23, 2015, inter alia, we asked for records in your office relating to time spent by your staff on your candidacy for election as Commonwealth’s Attorney including a certain appeal to the 10th District Republican Committee relating to your campaign.

In your response of September 29, 2015, you declined to provide many of the records requested, stating that “Any discussion pertaining to political matters would not constitute a public record” and thus is not “required to be disclosed pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.” We make the following follow-up requests on Mr. Major’s behalf.

From your refusal to provide the requested records, it appears that you are taking the position that even if your staff had spent substantial time during working hours on your political campaign, you would not be required to disclose records confirming that work because they are not “public records” within the definition of the Virginia FOIA. Based on this same rationale, you also refuse to disclose campaign emails sent from private accounts during work hours to advance your political campaign. And, you also refuse to disclose certain “personal pictures of Marc Abrams” stored on office computers, which were attached to two emails, both dated July 14, 2015, which emails were provided in response to our initial request, also dated July 14, 2015.   (We certainly cannot understand why you originally believed that the two emails you provided was responsive to our request, but then took the position that the three photographs attached to those emails were personal, and not responsive to our request.)


However, we know that several, if not all, of the employees of the Commonwealth Attorney’s office for whom you are responsible, have been involved in your campaign.

  • Several of the employees of the Commonwealth Attorney’s attended the over three-hour civil hearing in Winchester Circuit Court on July 17, 2015, in which some members of the Winchester Republican Committee unsuccessfully attempted to stop the primary which was held on July 18. And, it must be remembered that this was a hearing in which none of these employees had any official role — attending only to observe a case apparently brought by your political allies.
  • In addition, several of the employees of the Commonwealth Attorney’s office attended two of your public campaign events — one where you announced the launching of your campaign for the Republican nomination (on June 17, 2015), and when that proved unsuccessful, a later one where you announced the launching of your campaign as an independent candidate (on July 31, 2015).[1]

This conduct occurred during work hours when your office staff was being paid with taxpayer funds to do the public’s business. Although you provided no actual records relating to employee leave, you created a summary sheet purporting to evidence leave taken by your staff members on two days only: for you and two staff members on the date of the July 17 hearing in Winchester Circuit Court involving the Republican nomination, and for you and nine staff members on the date of your July 31 campaign event. Of course, from this summary sheet, it cannot be determined whether leave was requested at the time, or if it was requested only after your office received Mr. Major’s request for records.

In view of the foregoing, we have two requests.

First, regardless of your view of the statutory requirements for compelled disclosure of records, the people of Winchester have a right to know whether you have been faithful to your responsibility as Acting Commonwealth’s Attorney to prevent your staff from spending office time on your campaign, misusing tax dollars for that purpose. Therefore, we would again ask that you disclose the actual payroll records reflecting the taking of leave by your employees on the dates previously requested, rather than summary sheets, as well as all other instances where your employees have been involved with your campaign, revealing whether they were on leave or on official time.

Second, section 18.2-112.1(b) of the Code of Virginia provides:


Any full-time officer, agent, or employee … of any City … who, without lawful authorization, uses or permits the use of public assets for private or personal purposes unrelated the duties and office of the accused or any other legitimate government interest when the value of such use exceeds $1,000 in any 12-month period, is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

Accordingly, based on the incidents cited above, and your refusal to provide the actual payroll records, and your refusal to provide other emails and photographs and other records developed by or emailed by your staff, we would respectfully request that you forthwith either refer this matter to another Commonwealth’s Attorney for investigation, or apply to the Court for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, or refer the matter to the “Bureau of Criminal

Investigation of the Department of State Police.” See Virginia Code § 19.2-155 and § 52-8.1.

Lastly, our September 23 FOIA request asked a question about a June 19, 2015 email to you from a Frederick County Sheriffs Deputy which included a veiled threat against one of your political opponents. In response, you said your office has no records about investigating that apparent threat, thus implying you have done nothing with respect to this written threat.

Please confirm that you took no official action whatsoever in response to this apparent threat.

Sincerely yours,

William J. Olson

cc:         Mr. Darryl Major

[1] Additionally on October 16, 2015, several of the employees of the Commonwealth Attorney’s office for whom you are responsible, attended a press conference held by Howard Mannheimer endorsing your candidacy.

Article written by: Tom White

Unbelievable. Amazing. Over $800,000 to be Spent in the Del. Mason/Overy Race! (If you Vote for Overy – Or Del. Yancey – Don’t Forget to Vote Mark Matney for Senate!)

I heard this from a source and then confirmed it here at the Daily Press:

93rd House of Delegates District

Del. Monty Mason, D-Williamsburg: $367,187

Lara Overy, R: $463,235

It’s amazing.  Unbelievable.  Makes a guy like me want to reconsider Citizens United!  And the reason why (I read the book!) is that this seat is now targeted by the GOP.  That means someone sees something that means Overy can win.  The Daily Press says this:

If House Republicans are putting their money where their mouths are, they’re expecting to speak loudly in the 93rd District House of Delegates race, where they’ve poured big sums into Lara Overy’s bid to unseat Del. Monty Mason, D-Williamsburg.

In the last round of campaign finance reports before Election Day, Overy reported the biggest sum received by any House candidate for the first three weeks of October: $463,235. Mason raised $367,187. The bulk of both candidates’ funds came from party groups.

“It’s fair to say we don’t invest big in races where we don’t see momentum,” said Del. Greg Habeeb, R-Salem, who directs the House Republican caucus’ campaign efforts.

And the Del. Yancey/Simonds race also has attracted money from the parties.  (There might be more for TV ads!)  This means competitive races.  So help Lara Overy and Del. David Yancey!

94th House of Delegates District

Shelly Simonds, D: $155,572

Del. David Yancey, R-Newport News: $72,299


Instead, both candidates’ reports show their major emphasis is on a different kind of outreach. Yancey received $36,364 from the state Republican Party for mailers, and Simonds received $37,663 from the state Democratic Party for them.

This kind of spending (not even considering the outside money from Bloomberg and I am sure others) has a tendency to discourage candidates from running and thus another reason for uncontested races.

BUT my point in writing this is:  If you are voting for Del. Yancey or Lara Overy and you see this name on the ballot:

Mark Matney

Vote for him, too.  I told Mark yesterday when I heard about this spending blitz – wouldn’t you like even a corner of the Overy mailings!  Mark will have or has had two mailings and a huge lit drop this weekend.  This Overy spending (and the Yancey money too) increases the chance Matney will win.  We’ll watch these races next Tuesday.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Yes Dr. Lessig Should Be In the Debates

I have been somewhat fascinated in an admiring way about the campaign of Dr. Larry Lessig for the Democratic nomination for President.  I wrote earlier about the campaign and how I have some significant disagreements with his platform.

But I admire what he is trying to do – raise these structural issues to the fore in an unconventional manner.  He should be in the Democratic Presidential debates.

I have asked the Lessig campaign if he will be interviewed for the blog and I’ll let you know what happens.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Exclusive: Va Senate Candidate Siobhan Dunnavant Under Federal HHS Investigation

Three and a half months ago, in June 2015 I filed a complaint against Virginia State Senate Candidate Siobhan Dunnavant for what I believe was a violation of patient privacy laws. It seems the good doctor used her patient database to send a letter advising her patients of her candidacy for the Va Senate and what they could expect should she win, and during the campaign.

I am no expert, but had she stopped there, I believe no laws would have been broken. But the letter I received that came from one of her patients went much further. In June I wrote:

During the recent Republican Primary campaign for the Republican nomination for State Senator in the 12th Senatorial District, some disturbing actions were taken by one of the contenders, Dr. Siobhan Stolle Dunnavant.

I received a letter sent by Dunnavant’s campaign to her patient list. The letter explained what her patients could expect as far as medical services should she win the primary and the general election. And that much, in my opinion, was both proper and professional.

However, the letter goes on to solicit campaign volunteers and yard sign placement in her patients yards, which is not medical at all. And the kicker for me and numerous health care professionals I have spoken with was that the letter was paid for and sent by Dr. Dunnavant’s campaign.

The numerous health care professionals I spoke with all said that this is a HIPAA violation. Name and address are personal identifiers and the campaign letter was addressed to her patient list.

So I felt it my duty to file a complaint as I believe this letter crossed the line of what is allowed.

As I said, I am no expert. But today I received a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services Regional Manager Barbara Holland stating:

“We have carefully reviewed your allegation and are initiating an investigation to determine if there has been a failure to comply with the requirements of the applicable regulation.”

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the investigating body.

They are investigation whether or not Dunnavant has violated the Federal Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information. Specifically, my allegations are that she provided information to her campaign for the purpose of soliciting contributions, volunteers and votes. I should note that the letter to Dr. Dunnavant’s patients stated that it was paid for by her Campaign.

It was specifically my intent to get this matter cleared early, but the wheels of justice turn slowly. But it is my intent to hold politicians and candidates to a high standard. And I believe Siobhan Dunnavant did not measure up to these standards by using her patient database for political purposes.


Article written by: Tom White

Marco Rubio Promotes Welfare AND Citizenship For Illegals In Middle Of America’s Immigration Crisis

As record numbers of Muslim migrants enter the United States, and as a surge of Central Americans swamps our southern border, GOP presidential candidate

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is using his presidential campaign to promote citizenship for those who come here illegally and take American jobs, benefits and residency.

In a September 21 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Rubio said that within 10 or 12 years — which would be after the U.S. foreign-born population has swelled above 51 million on current trends — “you could have a broader debate about how has this worked out and should we allow some of them [the illegal foreign-born] to apply for green cards and eventually citizenship.”

In a quote provided yesterday to New York Magazine, Rubio’s spokesman made clear that Rubio’s position on citizenship for illegals has not changed since he worked with President Obama and Senator Schumer on the “Gang of Eight Bill.”

Rubio’s spokesman declared:  “Marco has repeatedly stated — and did so again last night — that he is open to green cards after 10 years.”

A “green card” is the document that entitles foreign nationals to collect welfare, draw Social Security and Medicare, bring their foreign relatives into the U.S., and become voting citizens. In fact, the Obama Administration is currently working to get as many people on green cards as possible to vote before the 2016 election. The Obama Administration refers to green card holders from foreign lands as “New Americans,” echoing Rubio’s campaign theme of a New American Century.

Read the rest on Breitbart

Article written by: Tom White