Barbara Comstock a no-show at weekend town halls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see more women in politics, but she gives women a bad name. She is in over her head. She needs to go.

She keeps beating women candidates. You should run. What position do you hold now to know she's in over her head?


At least she made her own way to this position, as opposed to using the political career of her husband as a springboard to launch her own successful political career

[Anonymous]

I hope someone good runs against her. She is afraid to talk to her own constituents!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone good runs against her. She is afraid to talk to her own constituents!

She has been meeting with her constituents. Just because she doesn't meet with you, doesn't mean she doesn't meet with her voters.

She represents hundreds of thousands of people. Like a smart politician, she focuses her time meeting with persuadable voters.

No reason to meet with folks that will never vote Republican or support yelling and screaming at meetings as opposed to civil bipartisan dialogue.

[Anonymous]

No reason to meet with folks that will never vote Republican

That's only true if you think the only reason a Representative should meet with his or her constituents is to get them to vote for him or her. Not true and deeply cynical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No reason to meet with folks that will never vote Republican

That's only true if you think the only reason a Representative should meet with his or her constituents is to get them to vote for him or her. Not true and deeply cynical.

Nice try, quoting one piece of an overall point.

It's only been 4 months since she was reelected. When you represent around 700K people, it makes political sense that she prioritizes her supporters and persuadable individuals.

Will concede that she tries to do what she thinks is best, even when I disagree with her.

However, what's the point in trying to communicate with folks that talk over people and don't let you finish your response?

Never seen the point in communicating with red or blue Kool-aid drinkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No reason to meet with folks that will never vote Republican

That's only true if you think the only reason a Representative should meet with his or her constituents is to get them to vote for him or her. Not true and deeply cynical.

Nice try, quoting one piece of an overall point.

It's only been 4 months since she was reelected. When you represent around 700K people, it makes political sense that she prioritizes her supporters and persuadable individuals.

Will concede that she tries to do what she thinks is best, even when I disagree with her.

However, what's the point in trying to communicate with folks that talk over people and don't let you finish your response?

Never seen the point in communicating with red or blue Kool-aid drinkers.

OK, so you ask people to be level headed and not hyper partisan.....then

You have no idea if the people who have requested meetings and been stonewalled and/or cancelled on are level headed/rational people.

The one who got cancelled on last minute and lied to about why is a rational person. She's a doctor. She's not a "paid protestor" or a kool aid drinker or someone who isn't going to let you finish a response.

You make a lot of assumptions about people and their reasons for requesting meetings.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]No reason to meet with folks that will never vote Republican [/quote]

That's only true if you think the only reason a Representative should meet with his or her constituents is to get them to vote for him or her. Not true and deeply cynical.[/quote]

Nice try, quoting one piece of an overall point.

It's only been 4 months since she was reelected. When you represent around 700K people, it makes political sense that she prioritizes her supporters and persuadable individuals.

Will concede that she tries to do what she thinks is best, even when I disagree with her.

[b]However, what's the point in trying to communicate with folks that talk over people and don't let you finish your response?

Never seen the point in communicating with red or blue Kool-aid drinkers.[/b][/quote]

OK, so you ask people to be level headed and not hyper partisan.....then

You have no idea if the people who have requested meetings and been stonewalled and/or cancelled on are level headed/rational people.

The one who got cancelled on last minute and lied to about why is a rational person. She's a doctor. She's not a "paid protestor" or a kool aid drinker or someone who isn't going to let you finish a response.

You make a lot of assumptions about people and their reasons for requesting meetings.[/quote]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree that it doesn't make political sense to meet with partisan voters.

Good politicians make assumptions about groups of voters all the time. It's hard to get to know hundreds of thousands of constituents personally.

The email chain I believe you are referencing and the website show that the Comstock folks were telling the truth.

For example, complaining that she took other "afternoon" meetings when the date stamp behind one picture is AM. Folks are known to take pictures in the morning and post them on Twitter in the afternoon.

Also, the House art work competition is for constituents. Don't know why a doctor is more worthy of a meeting than an artist?

Also, they did offer another chance to meet with the Congresswoman on Friday around a series of votes which I've done before. It's normal practice.

Also, as a backup, they didn't offer a meeting with a junior staffer if Friday didn't work. They offered an aide and her Chief of Staff. The Chief of staff is the top staffer in her office, not some kid. That's perfectly normal practice for the Chief to step in for a Member.

Some of us read more than the headline. Comstock used to do op research at the highest levels. If she was "avoiding" this doctor maybe it was based on a reasoned political calculation. Like Hillary, we all make electoral assumptions. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny, I got a call from the House and it was for a telephone town hall this evening. You could just listen in on the line and if you had a question, you hit*3. Actually, it was pretty impressive. She talked about repeal and replace, investigating Trump/Putin/Russia stuff, infrastructure, taxes.

Oh look, it's Comstock's Constituent Services Rep posting...

[Anonymous]

Comstock's staff are boosting here--flag it and move on.

[Anonymous]

Yep there are a few of Barbara's people who were here defending her every move during election season too.

Sorry, Barbara but I'm going to donate and work my ass off for whoever your opponent is. Your voting record is not moderate by any means.

Also Barbara stacks her fake telephone calls with questions from supporters. News article about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone good runs against her. She is afraid to talk to her own constituents!

She has been meeting with her constituents. Just because she doesn't meet with you, doesn't mean she doesn't meet with her voters.

She represents hundreds of thousands of people. Like a smart politician, she focuses her time meeting with persuadable voters.

No reason to meet with folks that will never vote Republican or support yelling and screaming at meetings as opposed to civil bipartisan dialogue.

She represents every person living in this district. I was shocked when all our elected officials went to Dulles to help constituents during the travel ban mess and she was in hiding the whole time. It's in her district!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep there are a few of Barbara's people who were here defending her every move during election season too.

Sorry, Barbara but I'm going to donate and work my ass off for whoever your opponent is. Your voting record is not moderate by any means.

Also Barbara stacks her fake telephone calls with questions from supporters. News article about this.

Yes, she's not a moderate. However, that wouldn't matter anyway. The goal is still to defeat all Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone good runs against her. She is afraid to talk to her own constituents!

She has been meeting with her constituents. Just because she doesn't meet with you, doesn't mean she doesn't meet with her voters.

She represents hundreds of thousands of people. Like a smart politician, she focuses her time meeting with persuadable voters.

No reason to meet with folks that will never vote Republican or support yelling and screaming at meetings as opposed to civil bipartisan dialogue.

She represents every person living in this district. I was shocked when all our elected officials went to Dulles to help constituents during the travel ban mess and she was in hiding the whole time. It's in her district!

This has to be a troll. "Shocked" that she's acting like a Republican? Who do you think was elected a few months ago?

Anyone who reads and has studied her whole career knows she's a conservative.

With this level of understanding of the opponent, she may win again.

[Anonymous]

We're all making note of the things she didn't stand up to our idiot in chief about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone good runs against her. She is afraid to talk to her own constituents!

She has been meeting with her constituents. Just because she doesn't meet with you, doesn't mean she doesn't meet with her voters.

She represents hundreds of thousands of people. Like a smart politician, she focuses her time meeting with persuadable voters.

No reason to meet with folks that will never vote Republican or support yelling and screaming at meetings as opposed to civil bipartisan dialogue.

She represents every person living in this district. I was shocked when all our elected officials went to Dulles to help constituents during the travel ban mess and she was in hiding the whole time. It's in her district!

This has to be a troll. "Shocked" that she's acting like a Republican? Who do you think was elected a few months ago?

Anyone who reads and has studied her whole career knows she's a conservative.

With this level of understanding of the opponent, she may win again.

Nope, not a troll. The issue at the airport *in her district* was not a conservative/liberal issue. There was mass confusion and people who legally live in her district were being detained for no reason. She should have been there to assist her constituents.