Read the Bills Act Coalition

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Jeff Frederick thinks he is more powerful than the President of the U.S.A


Posted by MAXIMUS

RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick is desperately trying to hold onto a Party Office that he was elected to serve in. How desperately?

Frederick is making the argument that because he was elected to the post, he is not subject to the removal process that will occur regarding his Chairmanship on April 4, 2009. Frederick states that because he was elected by supporters at a convention, that the 80% (plus) of RPV State Central Committee Members that are aligned against him have no legitimate basis to remove him from Office. To that point, each and every State Central Member is elected to serve in their posts by their respective Congressional Districts and or allied groups such as YR's, CR's, and the VFRW. Further, the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman are elected at State Conventions (or by SCC in the event of a vacancy prior to the expiration of a term on RNC).

Basically, you have elected party folks who represent over 80% of Virginia's Republicans that are making this move to oust J-Fraud. Throw in Bob McDonnell, the former AG who is now the Virginia GOP's Gubernatorial standard barer, and all Republicans from all across Virginia are now ready to unleash a big ole' can of whip up.

Any reasonable and logical person sees this as game, set, match for Frederick. Yet, Frederick continues to pledge to fight his removal. Like John McEnroe, Jeff Frederick has a foul temper and narcissistically thinks every thing is (or should be) about him. However, unlike John McEnroe, Jeff Frederick has a battleship mouth and a row boat ass. Frederick simply can't back up the smack he talks. The mouse didn't even get recognized as "retiring from service" on the floor of the House of Delegates. As other Delegates gushed over other retiring colleagues such as Frank Hargove, William Fralin, and Kenneth Melvin, nobody mentioned Frederick was leaving the House. Sorry, in all fairness to John McEnroe, at least he could back up every bit of smack he laid down.

Back to the point, Frederick states that he should not be subject to the removal process as outlined in the Plan of Organization for the Republican Party of Virginia simply because he was elected to the Chairmanship position during a convention. That is a fallacious argument--and I'll use the example of President Barack H. Obama to illustrate. The President of the United States, elected by a majority of the voters, is subject to a removal process when it's warranted (i.e. impeachment). The Kool-Aid Drinkers from Camp Frederick are very vocal in stating that just because J-FRAUD was elected by a convention he must be allowed to serve out his term and he is therefore not subject to the removal process as defined in the Plan of Organization of the Republican Party of Virginia. Thus, Frederick thinks he is above reproach and more powerful than the actual occupant of the Office of President of the United States when it comes to removal from Office.

In Frederick's alternative universe, he is not subject to the rules. In Frederick's alternative universe, it is acceptable for a grown man to de-sac and literally run out of RPV Headquarters in an effort to avoid being served with the Bill of Particulars which outlines the basis for Chairman Frederick's removal. This actually happened on March 3, 2009. This may be a shocking revelation for some; however, I fully expected this type of behavior from a passive-aggressive narcissist who actually cried his way out of Navy boot camp back in the day. I strongly suggest that the RPV SCC members bring some tissues with them on April 4, 2009 as **someone** will certainly have a boot camp déjà vu moment. This. Is. How. I. Roll.

14 comments:

Loudoun Insider said...

Great to see you unleashed again, Maximus!

Well said, my friend, well said.

ReaganConservative said...

Since you didn't reference any other articles, or e-mails, I was curious where Jeff was making this argument.

Steve Albertson said...

I love how your comment app admonishes commenters to keep their remarks civil. If only the posts could do the same.

There is nothing about this post that makes a real argument. The entire premise is false, and demonstrably so. The statement that Frederick believes he is not subject to the rules because he was elected at a Convention is a ridiculous straw man (Frederick thinks he's more powerful than the President? Please...have more respect for the intelligence of your readers). As is made clear in the only source documents available to the public show (posted by Jeff's pal LI), Frederick only said he would not cooperate with a process intended to overturn the will of the Convention. (Does he not have that option?) His statements imply a valid argument: that the only direct election of a Chairman that we've had in years (i.e., not appointed first by Central) should not be overturned lightly, particularly when the vast majority of those who *purportedly* support his ouster were outspoken supporters of his rival.

You, on the other hand, make no argument at all. You simply keep shoveling manure, hoping that some of it sticks.

I don't know how I feel about the charges leveled against the Chairman (this mysterious "Bill of Particulars" you reference), but that's because I don't even know what they are at a level of detail greater than malicious innuendo. All I keep seeing from rabid Frederick opponents is the same old garbage hurled at him this same time last year, when he first ran for the Chairmanship (from the same people, too). It's clear that many people don't like Frederick, but last time I checked that wasn't a disqualification for party office.

When the featured "arguments" I see to remove him are vile smears and unsubstantiated gossip, I begin to suspect there isn't a real firm basis for ouster. If you are convinced otherwise, then instead of juvenile name-calling and rumor mongering, show us the concrete details. Otherwise you're just pouring salt into our party's wounds.

LI: I can respect the basic gist of what you are saying on this issue (to boil it down, you think Frederick is an embarrassment). I don't agree, but hope you can see how others might regard it as a tremendous disappointment for that type of thing to serve as the basis for overturning so many people's votes. You too have made the argument elsewhere that this is akin to impeaching a president, but I should like to point out that the standard there is being guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it were just plain embarrassment, I think we'd have seen a lot more impeachments at this point in our history.

Tim Boyer said...

I fear you are more contemporary than conservative;

If you wanted to be honest you'd get the facts, not to mention use them.

I hold Frederick to the standard of removal because you don't like him, then I am sure you would agree that two of the locomotives behind this train hold themselves to the same standard.

Tucker Watkins and Jim Rich started this effort among their SCC members;

Interesting, considering Jim lost his district to Obama, and Tucker lost the only election Virgil ever lost with full control of the campaign.

If you want to see this issue from the perspective of someone who is not in the pocket of the establishment, go to my blog.

president said...

To blame Jeff Frederick for the mess that has been at RPV is just a way to stay in denial over the core problems that exist in our Party. If Jeff is actually guilty of something then let’s look at the charges. But if Jeff is being used as a scapegoat so that the Virginia GOP doesn’t have to address the failures of some of our Republican elected officials to live by conservative principles, that ship won't sail. It is those failures and this power grab by the SCC that divides the party, not Jeff Frederick’s leadership. As for raising money, no one is raising much money. The government is giving it all away which started under GOP leadership.

When our candidates, the SCC, and the party demonstrates, through their actions that they value and believe in the Republican Creed, and unify in support of one another, we will win elections again.

Jeff Frederick won the election fair and square. If this action by the SCC is the equivalent of impeachment, I have seen nothing impeachable here. If there are such offenses, why won’t the SCC be fair and put the charges out there for ALL to see and let the grassroots decide. Although, some are of the opinion that it is the SCC who ARE the grassroots.

The GOP ship sank in November because the core (principles) had too many holes in it; not because of Jeff Frederick. It's never going to sail again if we don't unite and patch those holes. This action is distracting and destructive to the party far more so than anything Jeff Frederick has or hasn't done and will further leave the GOP in peril.

Could it be that the SCC is fearful of losing the control they had over the 2008 convention? One can only speculate why this and why now, just before the convention. Divide and conquer?

Jody L. Wilcox said...

Tim don't fish for hits on my blog because no one reading yours , you disagree with the post because you like Jeff personally (we all do, he’s a nice guy) and more people read the TCC. It's obvious that there are pros and cons to the current RPV Chair as there is with any leader.... This blog is not in the pocket of anyone and has several posters that I approved to let post here. Maximus is more than capable of expressing his lack of confidence in the RPV Chair and has, in previous posts, explained why. The blogophere is for opinionated commentary so I find it funny that you believe your opinion is somehow more valuable than Maximus’s.... or all the posters on TCC (just don’t read read then) please post the evidence that Jeff has done a better job than his predecessor and has fulfilled on his campaign promises....he threw down the gauntlet that the RPV chair should be held accountable to state central committee, the people and to results; we are only expecting him to honor those promises.

Since holding people accountable for their actions is at the very core of conservatism, I say my blog and the people who post here are doing a pretty damn good job of holding all politicians and people to the standard that they should be held to for the etterment of our party. Although, we post in very different styles, Maximus's contribution to the TCC has been invaluable and has held the the tenants of the contemporary conservative in spades....I welcome anyone to post a counter argument on why we should keep Jeff Frderick as RPV Chair ......When do we hold the leadership of our Party accountable? If not not now, when?

ccMAXIMUS said...

Tim Boyer:

Why is it that RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick uses a compnay he is affliiated with to process all online RPV donations?

Walter Curt, the uber millionaire donor to the GOP, gave RPV a 100k donation. Frederick ran it through RPV online donation and Frederick retained a 7% commission directly in his pocket. This is beyond unethical--espicially when Frederick took the above described action AFTER he promised the executive committee that if RPV did business with an entity in which he has an interest, Frederick would inform the Exec. Committee.

The specifics are many and are spelled out in the Bill of Particulars that was served on JFRAUD. If you are truly concerned with Jeff's leadership abilities, ask him for a copy of the Bill of Particulars. I'll be happy to debate the merits of the Bill of Particulars with you, point by point, mono on mono and I will crush you with truth.

Frederick is surly putting up a fight---I just wish that Frederick had fought this hard to stay in military boot camp instead of taking the cry baby way out. Like a real man, I made it through, so think again when you call me more contemporary than conservative--your prima donna Chairman couldn't hack it then and he can't hack it now. Some things never change when you live your life as a punk. You truly have no idea what the facts are in this case because your buddy JFRED won't release the Bill of Particulars to you in order so that you may see that the level of specificity is in that document that would sufficiently provide a rational objective person with ample information to make a rational decision that Frederick should be removed.

By the way, nice job on getting your ass kicked by Tucker Watkins for the 5th District Chairman's position. Word is you weren't conserverative enough.

Steve Albertson said...

Maximus: Why won't you release the Bill of Particulars?

ccMAXIMUS said...

Steve:

The Associated Press Released the Bill of Particulars. Link here: http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/FREDGAT12_20090312-200404/230344/

This is very, very serious stuff, not to be taken lightly.

Anonymous said...

J-Fraud should be perp-walked out of the Richard Obenshain Center.

The good man whose name graces the building where this scam artist offices must be rolling in his grave.

Steve Albertson said...

Thanks for the link.

Finally. This is very troubling indeed. But, like the fanfare before their release, the charges as a whole seem to imply more than they have the potential to deliver. From the sounds of it, a few of them promise to be fairly petty whenever the full story comes out, but a couple of them are certainly pretty serious, and damning if true as written. Frederick promises to release a written rebuttal, so I will reserve judgment. In the meantime, I'll prepare myself for all the "I told ya so" traffic.

Either way--if Frederick is caught dead-to-rights or if the SCC is exposed as trying to railroad the chairman--it is a shame that it had to come to this, and the people at fault should be held accountable. Just look at the URL...the RTD is calling this FredGate. We've got to do a better job of having our internal fights and airing our dirty laundry without writing the Dems' attack script for them.

ccMAXIMUS said...

Steve:

Two of the ten charges are the most serious. Specifically, Frederick steered all online donations through one of his personal business affiliates. That company then retained a 7% transactional fee on donations. Prior to this being discovered, Frederick and the Executive Committee entered into an agreement whereby it shall be disclosed to the Exec. Comm. that if any member of RPV staff has any direct family members employed by or with any firm/entity that serves as a Vendor with RPV, then the Chairman shall disclose the Vendor and the relationship. When Frederick was confronted by the Exec. Comm. that he was acting as a vendor transacting business with RPV and why he failed to disclose this, Frederick denied his involvement as a Vendor for RPV for several months. Frederick sought the Chairmanship for personal gain, not for expanding conservative Republican gains in Virginia.

And for the record, you'll get no "I told you so" smack from me. You asked a very reasonable and expected question about the charges. You did not know the information contained therein. Just don't buy the BS from JFRAUD about "this is an attempt to overturn the will of the convention that elected me Chairman by Ricmond elites." Funny, none of that is contained within the charges.

Frederick is an Officious Charlottean whose been busted with his mousey hands dipping in the cookie jar of donations from Virginia grassroots activists that believed in him. Jeff intentionally sought to profit from a volunteer office and took advantage of the trust that the grassroots activists placed in him. The gig is up.

Jason Summers said...

Jeff Frederick is a proven winner of elections and an effective fundraiser. He is a fighter. Given the decline of the RPV over the past 10 years, it is unbelievable that the party establishment is considering dismissing the fairly selected Chairman of the grassroots delegates. Jeff will certainly challenge the status quo and at times make some of us uncomfortable. Given that the status quo for RPV has recently been losing elections, Jeff Frederick may be exactly what is needed. The question is whether we have the courage for him to take us where the party must go to re-establish its position in Virginia.

Jeff, you have my full support.

Anonymous said...

Why is he allowed to claim that he is prior Navy? He left the Navy during training, but he lists that he was in the Navy from 1996-1997. He may have been in a delayed entry program, but he was not active duty until he reported for training. The word among his college classmates was that he left OCS after 13 days. I think it's an insult that he claims he is a veteran.