LansdowneLiving.com

The online meeting place and marketplace for Lansdowne, VA

Randy Minchew’s Bizarre Mailing – Full of Distortions

Rating: No Rating

So it begins.

You may have received mail from Randy Minchew attacking John Whitbeck for his time serving on the Lansdowne on the Potomac HOA board. Those of us that live here know that Randy Minchew's attacks are false, and easily debunked, but the recklessness he shows in the mailing is disturbing. (He even misspelled Lansdowne in his rush to print.)

The reason for this negative mailing is to distract voters from Mr. Minchew's own record of raising taxes and donating to liberal Democrats. Randy has never denied that he repeatedly advocated for higher taxes or that he has given money to liberal Democrats down in Richmond.

Please tell all of your neighbors and friends to not believe Randy Minchew's false attacks and to vote for John on August 23rd.

________________________________________________________________________

If anyone is interested the following is the jist of the mailing:

Accusation: He tries to tie John to the Openband contract.

Reality: John was not living in the community when the contract was signed. No resident board member had anything to do with the creation of the Openband contract. The Openband contract predates any of us here in Lansdowne and was set up between Openband and the developers of Lansdowne.

As a board member, John has continually worked to allow Lansdowne residents to have their own choice of internet service provider.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Edward Washignton on August 15, 2011 at 6:07pm

The site you use to advocate for the tax increase was written by a member of the Citizens for Better Transportation. This was the PAC designed to support the referendum. After they lost the PAC gave its remaining money to the Democratic Party. The man who wrote the article is a hard core liberal who was a Democrat elected in Arlington. Good job fact checking who wrote the article though.

No one is attacking Governor McDonnell. We are attacking Randy, who in his own mailer calls himself a, "proven anti-tax consersative." This is despite very publicly advocating for a sales tax increase that was defeated with 63% of the vote against it in Loudoun County. Randy says he is anti-tax but advocated for higher sales taxes, is this statement incorrect?

Also here are some Republicans who were against the referendum: George Allen, Ken Cuccinelli, Speaker Howell, Dick Black, and Bob Marshall. Did I forget to mention that 63% of Loudoun voters thought higher taxes were a bad idea and voted against the referendum? So the tax increase was such a great idea but somehow crashed and burned like the Hindenburg at the polls, is that what you are saying?

It does not matter who is in favor of higher taxes, it is always a bad idea. Whitbeck is his own man and will always oppose higher taxes. Randy will just be a lacky who does what he is told by developer interests.

Also just to confirm, you are admitting that Randy was for higher taxes correct?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by johnf on August 15, 2011 at 6:32pm

It doesn't matter who the source of my information was. I found a source that referred to how many Republicans were in favor. And then I showed you the votes. Are you denying that almost all of the Republicans were in favor and you had to dig hard to find the few that weren't? John Whitbeck and Barak Obama are in favor of going into debt without paying for it.

In other words, you are judging a fiscal conservative on taxes? What an incredibly simplistic and high school level notion of fiscal conservatism. I suppose if we had a world war, you would refuse to increase taxes to pay for the military. NOT raising taxes is not in ANY way an absolute sign of a fiscal conservative. If you spend money like crazy and then drive the government into debt, then you are no different from a liberal if you won't pay for your spending. This is a great example of how John Whitbeck is like Barak Obama. Both take on debt without a care. Spending is what matters and this is where Whitbeck's record falls apart.

You and John Whitbeck arer absolutely attacking Governor McDonnell. The Governor was in favor of the very same thing you are attacking Minchew for. Are you expecting readers to think that when you attack Minchew for something he advocated that McDonnell ACTUALLY VOTED FOR, that you are not attacking the Governor? The reality is that you are and that John Whitbeck is going to have to explain to the Governor why he was bringing up nearly 10 year old issues that McDonnell was involved in.

John Whitbeck must cease his open criticism of McDonnell for his support for the referendum.

"It does not matter who is in favor of higher taxes, it is always a bad idea."

Really? Again with the high school level rhetoric? Taxes are an outcome of spending. Lower spending and you lower taxes. Raise spending and you raise taxes. If you raise spending for good reasons, then raising taxes is a good thing. Why is this hard for you to understand? Whitbeck has a spending problem.

Are you in favor of slashing the military? It takes taxes to pay for them. Why do you not want to defend this country? If something is appropriate for the government to do, then taxes can be a fiscally conservative way to do it. Perhaps this is too much for you to understand. I know that John Whitbeck is typically simplistic in his analysis of issues.

Randy is in favor of lowering taxes overall. There is more than one kind of tax. But since Randy is in favor of smart spending, he is in favor of lowering taxes.

As far as anyone can tell, John Whitbeck is in favor of RAISING taxes. Looking at his history of spending, there can be no other conclusion. He forced Lansdowne into raising dues and now pretends he is against raising taxes. Unfortunately for him, his record shows otherwise.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Krysta on August 15, 2011 at 6:47pm

WHO CARES is someone gives to someone in the other party? It just shows they can think for themselves who would be a better candidate, and not fall for failed party politics. I am, however, disturbed by both Mr. Minchew and Mr. Whitbeck regarding Open Band. Why did Whitbeck sneak his BFF Bona into a closed HOA meeting knowing Bona had just accepted a ton of money from Open Band (and the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a suit against OpenBand)? And why does Minchew endorse the same candidates who accepted such funds when he is speaking against Whitbeck over OpenBand? These guys are both using OpenBand as a political vollyball at the expense of the homeowners. I am voting for the woman who is running...I know nothing about her, but she has to be better than these GOB's.

Edward Washignton said:

Ask and you shall receive, here is a copy of the mailing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62331763/Minchew-NegativeB.

Minchew clearly misspells Lansdowne 3 times in the mailing. Now could you please give me a copy of the mailing where Minchew does in fact spell the name of the community correctly. Oh wait it doesn't exist does it?

You are clearly also lying about maintaining the monopoly. The mailer says,"John Whitbeck didn't stop a deal that gave Openband." How was John supposed to stop a deal when he was not a resident when the deal was signed? The word maintain is not even written on the mailer. Why are you lying on behalf of Randy Minchew?

Finally, Randy is attacking John because Randy advocated for higher taxes: http://www.bvbl.net/images/minchew-op-ed.png and he gave money to Democrats: http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/money_out_details/318?committee_.... See totally sourced with all the facts.

Have you always been a liar Mr. Footen or did this just start recently?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Cravens on August 17, 2011 at 12:28pm

johnf (John Footen), do you have some sort of inferiority complex with Whitbeck?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by johnf on August 17, 2011 at 12:56pm

Not at all. I don't know him personally at all. I have only seen him a couple of times and spoken on the phone a couple of times. We have never had cross words, although we disagreed on Openband. I have nothing personally against him and I have said many times, I am sure he is a nice guy and that his friends like him.

It is valid to criticize a candidate for public office. I first became of John Whibeck's political approach when he was president soon after I moved here. You can find it all documented here on this site.

I noted that he was accused at the time of being part of a conspiracy of some sort associated with a flag football team. Mixed in with this were numerous substantive accusations of bad leadership and bad decision-making on the part of John Whitbeck. I spoke out at the time that John's lack of reaction was typical of people who are not ready to lead. Instead of engaging his critics in open discussion and finding common ground, he chose to ignore.

I later observed this same behaviour personally when I was chair of the Openband committee and was recommending the action that has just recently been finally taken. John Whitbeck was adamantly refusing to take action or even to take the time to understand the issues. When I indicated that it was his fiduciary responsibility to read the documents and understand the issues and take the action he has now finally agreed to, he got oddly defensive and shut down communication.

In a related note, I was an observer to the vote counting in John Whitbeck's most recent election. I had seen odd emotional behaviour in him the first time I saw him in person. It was the first night we were counting votes in his most recent election and he was highly disruptive to the vote counting process and seemed to be teary eyed. It was very strange.

My issues with John Whitbeck are solely around his performance and ability to act as a leader.

From personal experience, I can say that John Whitbeck genuinely seems incapable of understanding complex issues. I can't say why, but I saw it over and over again, even as recently as the latest townhall on Openband where he seemed not to have a grasp of the legal points of an issue he had been involved with for well over a year.

His habit of cutting off communication with critics is another sign he is not ready to lead. In this regard Hani is far better prepared to be a leader and I had an email exchange to that effect with him recently when Hani was criticized in an email I was CC's on. He engaged the critics and diffused them to some degree. He at least made those critics feel respected. I was not one of those critics by the way. John Whitbeck just shuts down. As an example, he has not once reached out to me during this campaign to discuss my concerns although he knows my email and should still have my phone number.

This sensitivity will not serve him well in politics.

I could go on, but my critiques are simply political in nature and in no way personal. I have no interest in being in politics or the legal profession, so I can safely say that John Whitbeck does not inspire inferiority in me. John Whitbeck is the kind of Republican that those of us who are in the TEA party have been working against. We need real conservatives and Whitbeck is not one. He may even honestly believe that he is one. But his belief or words does not make it so. It is his actions. And this is where he falls far short.

So I ask you, rather than questioning my motivation, which I have been very open about, I ask you to defend John against the substance of my points if you can. That is what debate is about. I present my argument and you present yours. If John Whitbeck is not ready to hear some debate about his credentials and face a little heat, then it is further evidence he is not right for politics.

I have been very good about documenting my assertions. If you wish to refute them, then please do.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by johnf on August 17, 2011 at 1:02pm

One other note. Just like I was suspicious of the flag football conspiracy, I would ask that you be suspicious of the idea that there is a conspiracy against Whitbeck as I have heard others claim. Of all his critics, I only really know one - Nancy. The rest I may have met once or twice, but most I have no idea who they are.

John Whitbeck manages to inspire this negative reaction from so many people all by himself. The question he should ask himself is why. And whether politics is a good career path or whether he should stick to divorces.