RPV Network Should Remain Neutral in the Jeff Frederick Debate

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sandy Cope on March 16, 2009 at 10:44am

Deborah- The reason I referred to Jeff Frederick being involved in this website is in response to a comment he left for me when I questioned him as to what we were doing to counter the Democrats campaign-

At 9:42am on January 4, 2009, Jeffrey M. Frederick said… Sandy -- thanks for the note and for your interest. We're very busy at the Party, first trying to rebuild, and second (importantly) gearing up for 2009. We have been well aware of McAuliffe and his activities, but as you know, there are two other Democrats running for Governor. We're going to take each and every opportunity to point out why any of these three guys aren't right for the Commonwealth, but we also want to let them engage in their own circular firing squad (to the extent they'll be taking shots at each other, which I'm certain they will). They key to our success is coming together as a Party, building the grassroots, and providing our candidates with the help they need. All those things are in the works. It's not necessarily my job to make sure everyone and anyone knows what we are up to (in fact, in some cases, we don't want folks to know the details of our activities), but to implement the right plan -- and we have a great plan for 2009. BTW, for starters, we are exchanging notes on this RPV Network that I asked O.P. and Tom to setup and get going to help us build coalitions.

I may not be correct in that the RPV is paying to maintain this site, however, Jeff Frederick is behind it, as you can see from his own words to me above. It is absolutely a conflict of interest for those that Frederick appointed to start this site to use it cause further divisions within the party. Clearly this is a very contentious issue, and out of the more than 1,100 members on this site, there are those passionately in favor of Frederick, and those just as passionately opposed to Frederick. Taking sides, and therefore promoting "an agenda" is not conducive to representing all Republicans in Virginia. It is wrong.

Deborah Munoz said:

Sandy,
O.P. pays for the website and uses the proceeds from products he creates himself, such as buttons and T-shirts to pay for the costs involved for keeping this site. O.P. was selling his Red Dog Express and Sarah Palin buttons at CPAC He's been donating a lot of time also, as does Tom Whitmore. He started the website as a networking tool for Vets and expanded it to include other concerns relevant to Republicans. Although it has an electronic link to the RPV site, there is not a financial link. This is probably something most of us are unaware of, and no matter where we all stand personally on individual issues, I would like to say thanks to O.P. for creating the site and gifting it to us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Whitmore on March 16, 2009 at 3:11pm

Sandy,

You are wrong on a number of counts.

Since it is our personal site I am of the opinion that we do an exemplary job of remaining neutral and allowing views..

The founders pay for this site out of their own pockets, the RPV has not contributed one red cent.

99% of our effort here is directed at the Mission statement goals.

Yes we do have a personal agenda and that is to build Virginia's grassroot organization into the strongest in the country, to enhance communications capabilities between all levels of the Republican Party of Virginia, to post and share events that folks from all over can participate, to advertise the campaigns and the campaign opportunities of candidates statewide, To establish ties between neighboring Committees that they may help each other in our common efforts, To provide a forum for folks to discuss issues, both local and national. To instill a comaraderie and accountability between elected officials and the grassroots who put them in office, and to unite the grassroots and the leadership in away that, we the people, the "grassroots" determine the the direction we want to see our party go, not the other way around.by a handful (77) of our leaders.

Yes, we have a personal agenda, we want for ourselves and our committee members, for the members of every committee in the Commonwealth of Virginia and every member who has joined RPVNetwork to have a voice and for that voice to be heard.

Yes we did approve a pro Jeff group, but in seeing how many blogs, leaders, politicians and media were aligned against him with little or no evidence we allowed the group to go up. Just as none of us know who the SCC members are that signed on to the letter, no one knows who is on the group except those that were invited. It is a private group moderated by the creator, similar to a couple of other groups on the site.

Since what they are saying in there comments is not for public consumption I don't see how we have lost neutrality to any great degree. It is akin to you being able to private message someone on the site rather than post on their wall.

In closing let me remind you that their are numerous posts on the site, unkind to the creators, that's their author's opinion, just as you have yours. Shooey, I will even offer up that we are extremely gracious, seeing as how, this is all, on our dime!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandy Cope on March 16, 2009 at 5:49pm

Tom- I, as well as many other members on this site, I believe, have been under the impression that this site was created by the Republican Party of Virginia, not as a personal site started by 2 NOVA Republican Party Committee members, and fully funded by the two of you. As a matter of fact, I thought that the "Donate" tab, at the top of the site was to collect donations for various Republican candidates running for office in Virginia. Are the donations for the maintenance and upkeep of the site, or are those donations meant for Republican candidates?

You say I am wrong on several accounts, yet the only area where I appear to be wrong is in that I didn't know that the site was funded by you and O. P. Ditch. Hey, when anything is one ones own dime, they sure do have the right to allow or disallow whatever their personal beliefs contain. I do believe that the knowledge of this fact does put a major damper on the neutrality issue for all those who post here. One must now believe that the moderators here are controlling the message, despite the fact that you have been "kind enough" to allow some dissention to both you and the Frederick issue. I brought forward a message I received from Frederick, on my page, stating that Frederick asked both you and O. P. to start this site. You cannot remain in a neutral position when you are doing Fredericks bidding. It is unfortunate that this site has come to such flames. It is also unfortunate that Virginia Republicans can't even go on the main Virginia Republican site to voice their concerns, because I am assuming it also is controlled by Frederick as the current party Chair. It is beginning to feel that Virginia Republicans are being controlled by a few.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandy Cope on March 16, 2009 at 6:00pm

Tom- Most importantly, how can you and O. P. Ditch come out in full support of Frederick, and, also be in support of Bob McDonnell? Have you changed your minds on supporting Bob McDonnell, because of his request for Frederick to step down as the VA Republican Chair, as well as 5 Republican Representatives representing the State in Washington? How can you reconcile your positions with supporting the Chair, while apparently then opposing what you both have promoted as the best Republican to run for Governor in years? It appears that the party heirarchy is more important to you than getting a good Republican elected to the highest office in the State, otherwise I would think you both would have anticipated the destruction that this issue is causing to the entire Republican Party of Virginia, and would have avoided this drastic error in judgement. You can't be for something, and against it at the same time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed Drain on March 17, 2009 at 1:42pm

I heartily disagree. The issue should be discussed more, not less. The whole idea of removing Jeff without informing the thousands of delegates that voted him in smacks of totalatarianism where the will of the State overrides the will of the people.

Besides that if you remove all information, you are not representing anyone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judith Magnussen on March 17, 2009 at 1:56pm

Tom Whitmore said:

Sandy,

You are wrong on a number of counts.

Since it is our personal site I am of the opinion that we do an exemplary job of remaining neutral and allowing views..

The founders pay for this site out of their own pockets, the RPV has not contributed one red cent.

99% of our effort here is directed at the Mission statement goals.

Yes we do have a personal agenda and that is to build Virginia's grassroot organization into the strongest in the country, to enhance communications capabilities between all levels of the Republican Party of Virginia, to post and share events that folks from all over can participate, to advertise the campaigns and the campaign opportunities of candidates statewide, To establish ties between neighboring Committees that they may help each other in our common efforts, To provide a forum for folks to discuss issues, both local and national. To instill a comaraderie and accountability between elected officials and the grassroots who put them in office, and to unite the grassroots and the leadership in away that, we the people, the "grassroots" determine the the direction we want to see our party go, not the other way around.by a handful (77) of our leaders.

Yes, we have a personal agenda, we want for ourselves and our committee members, for the members of every committee in the Commonwealth of Virginia and every member who has joined RPVNetwork to have a voice and for that voice to be heard.

Yes we did approve a pro Jeff group, but in seeing how many blogs, leaders, politicians and media were aligned against him with little or no evidence we allowed the group to go up. Just as none of us know who the SCC members are that signed on to the letter, no one knows who is on the group except those that were invited. It is a private group moderated by the creator, similar to a couple of other groups on the site.

Since what they are saying in there comments is not for public consumption I don't see how we have lost neutrality to any great degree. It is akin to you being able to private message someone on the site rather than post on their wall.

In closing let me remind you that their are numerous posts on the site, unkind to the creators, that's their author's opinion, just as you have yours. Shooey, I will even offer up that we are extremely gracious, seeing as how, this is all, on our dime!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judith Magnussen on March 17, 2009 at 1:57pm

Judith Magnussen said:

Tom Whitmore said:

Sandy,

You are wrong on a number of counts.

Since it is our personal site I am of the opinion that we do an exemplary job of remaining neutral and allowing views..

The founders pay for this site out of their own pockets, the RPV has not contributed one red cent.

99% of our effort here is directed at the Mission statement goals.

Yes we do have a personal agenda and that is to build Virginia's grassroot organization into the strongest in the country, to enhance communications capabilities between all levels of the Republican Party of Virginia, to post and share events that folks from all over can participate, to advertise the campaigns and the campaign opportunities of candidates statewide, To establish ties between neighboring Committees that they may help each other in our common efforts, To provide a forum for folks to discuss issues, both local and national. To instill a comaraderie and accountability between elected officials and the grassroots who put them in office, and to unite the grassroots and the leadership in away that, we the people, the "grassroots" determine the the direction we want to see our party go, not the other way around.by a handful (77) of our leaders.

Yes, we have a personal agenda, we want for ourselves and our committee members, for the members of every committee in the Commonwealth of Virginia and every member who has joined RPVNetwork to have a voice and for that voice to be heard.

Yes we did approve a pro Jeff group, but in seeing how many blogs, leaders, politicians and media were aligned against him with little or no evidence we allowed the group to go up. Just as none of us know who the SCC members are that signed on to the letter, no one knows who is on the group except those that were invited. It is a private group moderated by the creator, similar to a couple of other groups on the site.

Since what they are saying in there comments is not for public consumption I don't see how we have lost neutrality to any great degree. It is akin to you being able to private message someone on the site rather than post on their wall.

In closing let me remind you that their are numerous posts on the site, unkind to the creators, that's their author's opinion, just as you have yours. Shooey, I will even offer up that we are extremely gracious, seeing as how, this is all, on our dime!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nydia B.Weinstock on March 19, 2009 at 2:32am

No way!! if it was the "old party insiders", using this site for their own benefit and destructive politics, you most likely would allow it! But when people, the grass roots of the party, and the voters want to point out to the old insiders of the Republican party that it is time for them to retire, and go to where they belong: "hell"! They were the main reason the Republican party went down the toilet!!, Let the new fresh blood with its innovative, smart and new ifresh deas try to help this country and pull it away from those "old cronies" of the Republican Party. Stop trying to ruin this country, even more, by taking away the new good fresh brains and minds who have more common sense, new ideas and a promising future for our country. It is time for the OLF FARTS TO GO!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandy Cope on March 19, 2009 at 7:16am

Nydia- When I posted this thread, there was little information out there about just what was going on with the Frederick/SCC debate. Some were calling for Frederick's head, some were calling it a witch hunt. I am not sure how anyone could form their opinion on what appeared to be speculation, unless they had inside info. Now that the entire case against Frederick has been posted, along with Frederick's responses, one has a better opportunity to form a more factual opinion. I find myself now in a position of thinking it falls more into the witch hunt category. If the committee members were having real difficulties with Frederick, and they were more concerned with the "good of the Party", rather than what appears to be the "power of the individual or committee", a meeting between Frederick and the committee members should have been sufficient to resolve differences. If what Mr. Whitmore says, that it is a battle between the moderates and the conservatives, is true, I side with the conservatives, as it has already been proven in many elections that to become Democrat Lite (moderates) is a losing proposition. Why vote for Democrat Lite when you can have the real thing.

Nydia B.Weinstock said:

No way!! if it was the "old party insiders", using this site for their own benefit and destructive politics, you most likely would allow it! But when people, the grass roots of the party, and the voters want to point out to the old insiders of the Republican party that it is time for them to retire, and go to where they belong: "hell"! They were the main reason the Republican party went down the toilet!!, Let the new fresh blood with its innovative, smart and new ifresh deas try to help this country and pull it away from those "old cronies" of the Republican Party. Stop trying to ruin this country, even more, by taking away the new good fresh brains and minds who have more common sense, new ideas and a promising future for our country. It is time for the OLF FARTS TO GO!!

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion