Even still, I am telling you to refrain from using my first name — one gentleman to another.

This is about how you have cited certain articles in support of your contentions while at the same time omitting exculpatory statements made by key officials in those same articles.

And it’s my assertion that I have not omitted any exculpatory statements. As I have explained, the statements that you see as exculpatory I see as, when taken literally, being significantly less than exculpatory. You simply give more benefit of the doubt than I do. As a Democrat, it’s my job to give less benefit of the doubt to Republicans; as a Republican, it’s your job to give less benefit of the doubt to Democrats. So it goes.

If you would spend some time south of Charlottesville, you would understand that Virgil is very much a man of the people.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Don’t come on here and present a bunch of idle speculation and call it fact.

I hope that have presented no speculation as fact. I attempt to label my opinion as such when it’s not sufficiently obvious that it is, in fact, speculation.

While we are having this colloquy, I have to ask why you have suddenly begun to address me by my first name as opposed to “Rowhey.”

I’ll call you whatever you like. I’ve never particularly understood the concept of a nom de internet, but it’s all the same to me. Everybody’s got a right to decide for themselves what they’d like to be called.

What kind of bike do you ride?

It’s a 1973 Honda CL350. It’s in beautiful shape — the odometer’s hasn’t ticked past four digits. It would perhaps not be my first choice of motorcycle (I’m a tall guy; it’s a small bike), but it was my grandfather’s, and I like to keep such things in the family. That said, my wife is not fond of motorcycles (to put it lightly), so it’s been many months since I’ve ridden.

Triumphs and Norton both make (made) beautiful bikes. I’ve never had the opportunity to ride either, but I certainly would enjoy the opportunity. If I were going to get a classic bike (and, since my wife reads this blog, I ain’t sayin’), I’d have to get an Indian. My wife has a picture of her grandfather sitting on his Indian, many years ago, and I’d sure like to have that bike. It was America’s first motorcycle.

It’s my understanding that a new company calling itself Indian has started up, and intends to bring back the Indian in the spirit of the original business. I’m dubious — particularly since another company tried that a few years ago and did a terrible job of it — but optimistic.

As a Norton fan, perhaps you could set your sights on a Kenny Dreer Commando. I don’t know about the specs on it, but it sure is a beautiful bike.

Even still, I ask that you refer to me as “Rowhey.”

What kind of bike do you ride? I ride Harleys but have interest in Nortons and Triumphs. See you on the parkway sometime.

All the best,
Rowhey

The last I checked, I posted as “Rowhey” — not under my first name.

You and I can agree to disagree on many, many issues but I think that you owe me the respect that I have showed you by not addressing you by your first name.

You have not presented a complete and total picture on this subject. Rather, you have cherry picked bits and pieces to suggest that Congressman Goode is somehow on the take.

Your statement right here, tells me all I need to know about your bias: “[t]he correlation between the two events is either a truly striking coincidence or constitutes causation.”

You don’t have any fact to support that contention. All you do is speculate. In the process, it is very clear that your only interest is to smear the name of a much beloved Congressman. If you would spend some time south of Charlottesville, you would understand that Virgil is very much a man of the people.

Alton has laid out the facts regarding the contributions and the timeline.

Don’t come on here and present a bunch of idle speculation and call it fact. Too many people know better.

Whether or not Rep. Goode “did his job” is very much a matter of speculation. He made big promises to Martinsville after being given a staggering sum of money by MZM. That deal went bad. The question is whether his judgement was clouded by the money that he’d received. I cannot see any way around that being so. The amount of money he was given was so enormous that it was the subject of international media coverage. The correlation between the two events is either a truly striking coincidence or constitutes causation.

1. From that same Roanoke Times article, John Sternlicht, general counsel of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (“VEDP”) is quoted as saying, “[t]he company is usually on the hook but in this instance, based on [Martinsville’s] urgent request, this is what we did.”

2. Wade Barlett is quoted in the Bulletin piece stating that Goode “didn’t have anything to do with the performance agreement. That was a decision of the city council.”

The primary thrust of these statements is that Martinsville very much wanted this deal. In fact, the Roanoke Times piece references the dire economic circumstances of the Martinsville area:

“… given Martinsville’s dire economic conditions — unemployment in the area at the time was nearly four times the state jobless rate of 3.4 percent — Sternlicht said the state agreed to make an exception. ‘The company didn’t make any fans here at the state by acting this way,’ Perez wrote in an e-mail to his colleagues at VEDP.”

You state, “[Goode] merely came up with the concept and left the details to others.”

I think that the above-referenced quotes make it clear that MZM and the City of Martinsville came up with the concept in conjuction with VEDP.

Congressman Goode was doing his job. He was trying to promote his district and bring jobs to an area very much in need of them.

He did his job. Nothing more and nothing less. It’s not the first deal to go sour.

1. Bartlett says that Goode had nothing to do with the agreement. That is was a decision of the City Council.

2. Goode states that he didn’t know the details of the agreement.

You cannot make a statement that “[Goode] merely came up with the concept and left the details to others” without inferring certain things that are not in the public record.

But that’s not what Mr. Bartlett said. As the Bulletin explained, he said that Rep. Goode “was not involved in drafting a performance agreement.” Which, as I explained, is surely absolutely true. Neither I nor anybody else has said that Goode was involved in that process. The Roanoke Times relying on documents procured from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, makes very clear what his role was. I’ll reproduce the relevant portion here:

From the first e-mail sent to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership on Oct. 1, 2003, it seemed clear who was behind the latest business prospect in Martinsville.

“Project Goode” was the subject line of a message from Tom Harned, who was then the city’s director of economic development. Harned said Goode had called him with a tip about a company that might be interested in the city’s vacant shell building.

[...]

Goode made a suggestion to the city: It could seek two $250,000 grants from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and the Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission to help retire the debt on the building.

The catch, however, was MZM’s refusal to participate. That meant the city would have to sign a performance agreement obligating it to repay the forgivable loans if the company did not meet its projections — 75 jobs and an investment of at least $4.4 million — within 30 months.

[...]

Usually, it’s the company that makes such a commitment.

What we can see here quite clearly is that Rep. Goode’s role was to act as rainmaker, connecting Martinsville with MZM. As I have explained, that’s where things get fuzzy. Goode’s role was to vouch for MZM, brokering this deal between MZM and Martinsville.

If there’s any question about the prominence of Goode’s role in this, one need look no further than the video of the grand opening. Martinville thanks Rep. Goode for convincing MZM to move there, and MZM thanks Goode for convincing them to come to Martinsville. He was the broker. I can’t say whether he acted in bad faith, I can’t say how specific his role was. But I can say that there is nothing that Mr. Harned’s labeling the matter “Project Goode” makes clear his prominence in the transaction, that there’s nothing Mr. Bartlett said in the Bulletin that is inconsistent with that, and that there’s nothing I’ve said that implies that Mr. Barlett is being anything less than honest.

Not.

It seems to me that you took Alton to task for inferring certain things on his own…and that you never meant to imply those things.

Aren’t you now inferring from the Bulletin article?

Here’s an example….

In the Bulletin, Wade Bartlett, the Martinsville City Finance Director, is quoted saying that that Goode “didn’t have anything to do with the performance agreement. That was a decision of the city council.”

Further, Congressman Goode is quoted in that article stating, “I never talked to the state when the agreement was being drafted.”

In a prepared statement, Goode wrote, “I do not know the details of the agreement between the state of Virginia and the city of Martinsville.”

In your post, you wrote, “[b]ut parse the words in today’s statement closely and you’ll see how both can be true: no, Goode didn’t draft the document; surely the city has attorneys for that. He merely came up with the concept and left the details to others.”

Let’s do parse this out because I think that the language of the statements for Congressman Goode and Mr. Bartlett are quite clear.

1. Bartlett says that Goode had nothing to do with the agreement. That is was a decision of the City Council.

2. Goode states that he didn’t know the details of the agreement.

You cannot make a statement that “[Goode] merely came up with the concept and left the details to others” without inferring certain things that are not in the public record.

In fact, you cannot make that leap without first accusing Mr. Bartlett of being a liar.

It would fall under the category of a “vessel not under command” which means that it can not manuever to avoid other vessels. It would not be a “vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver” as those are vessels which are restricted due to specialized operations, such as trawling or dredging.

She would identify her situation at night by displaying two all around red lights in a vertical line. This can be remember with; red over white, fishing at night and red over red, the captain is dead.

The day shapes to identify a vessel not under command are two round black shapes displayed in a vertical line.

Ref: COLREGS 27 (a)

If you feel I am talking down to you, perhaps that is an indication that you are not up to the debate at hand. Please, let me know where I am talking down to you and I will be happy to simplify my message just for you.