I blogged before about Tom Perriello, Manchurian candidate for the radical leftist agenda to bring down this country. Perriello's Ivy-bred background and affiliation with radical advocacy groups allying with America's enemies makes him the perfect politician for George Soros and the Democrat Party. But why did Perriello decide to run against Virgil Goode? Why didn't Perriello just wait to be a member of the Obama Administration, or the Clinton Administration (which was a scary possibility when he first started his campaign!) Why elected office?
Perriello claims to have made the decision to run against Virgil in the fall of 2007. He quickly raised an impressive sum of money for a long shot challenger in what was considered a safely Republican seat. While other Democrats in 2008 like Nye or Connolly had legitimate reasons to be seen as challenging Democrats, Perriello had nothing going for him. Virgil had been around forever. It wasn't an open seat, or a vulnerable Republican like Thelma Drake who narrowly survived in 2006. Yet Perriello made a strong case to his New York donors that they should give him money. How?
Because the liberals wanted to get rid of Virgil Goode.
Ever since switching parties, Virgil had been a sore spot for the liberals around Charlottesville. But his advocacy against illegal immigration and radical Islam, the same radical Islam that Perriello and his allies favor in their efforts to undermine the United States and our allies like Israel, put a big red target on him. It's almost too convenient to think that Perriello decided to run against Virgil and just so happened to know so many wealthy donors who wanted to get rid of Virgil. The question has to be asked, did Perriello decide to run against Virgil or did George Soros tell him to run against Virgil?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Does it matter if he was asked to run? Virgil's time had come, and there are a lot of us conservatives who thought it was only a matter of time before someone knocked him out.
ReplyDeleteIt was a shock that it was Perriello that beat him, but we all know why (Obama on the ticket, bad year for Republicans, etc.).
Virgil's nice, but he seriously went off the deep end a bit in his last term or two.
Perriello probably ran because someone mentioned it to him, and he liked the idea. It's not that hard for people previously connected to Soros to get Soros' money. So there was a young, "conservative" Democrat with an unusual campaign (that tithing thingy, with a heavy emphasis on how he was such a good Catholic), combined with a bad R year, and voila... Congressman Perriello.
Why should it matter if Virgil wasn't "vulnerable"? Shouldn't we be trying to compete in all 435 districts? Nancy Pelosi will never get beat if no one runs against her. Jesse Jackson Jr. will never get beat if no one runs against him. Jose Serrano will never get beat if no one runs against him. Etc. Etc. Etc.