It is a great endorsement!  I do not think I could have done a better job! 

My favorite part seems to be a nice summation of all of Jerry Kilgore's years in working for Virginia: "abdication of responsibility"

Should you like to learn more read about Jerry Kilgore's "abdication of responsibility" check out the eavesdropping (http://www.raisingkaine.com/1109/trackback/), meth watch (http://www.raisingkaine.com/762/trackback/), and prision break (www.therealjerrykilgore.com).

"Rat":  That's what I just love about you right-wing Republicans, you can dish it out but you can't take it.  Too bad, your boy's goin' DOWN in just 10 days, so get used to it!

Glad to see that the corner of the state where I went to law school are seeing different opinions. How many votes will it sway, I have no clue.

David:  Are you asking the writers at Raising Kaine, the candidate Georgia Allen, or someone else?  Thanks. - Lowell

I am very interested in finding out where you stand on gun rights. I am not a one issue voter but this is an important issue to me.It could sway my vote

Thanks for clarifying Kaine's position on illegal immigration. I had become convinced he believes in providing tuition benefits (and other benefits) to illegals and I wondered why he'd not expect  benefits to be provided by the illegal employers instead.
Kaine's position on illegal employers remains unclear to most people - this may hurt him. 
Conversely, Kilgore's hypocrisy on illegal employers is also not widely known.
Let's hope the Kaine folks correct the situation without further ado! 

Rat:  I have not given up on you.  There is still time to do the right thing.  It appears as though, in your post above, you are realizing that the Kilgore offers nothing, and yet you cannot bring yourself to admit Tim Kaine is the man for the job.  It's ok, man, I hope you will excercise good judgement when you pull the lever on Tues. Nov. 8, and vote for Tim Kaine as our next Governor!

Ron:  Of course he doesn't have a "legitimate defense" or any argument at all (except for ad hominem attacks, of course).  Right wingers almost never do, with a few exceptions like James Young.

What part of "illegal" doesn't Kilgore understand?

All parts that have to do with illegally eavesdropping on Democrats.

All parts that have to do with sealed and dealed depositions.

All parts that have to do with attempting to run an insurance scame to be re-imbursed for penalties and legal fees accrued due to criminal actions on the part of the Republican Party of Virginia.

All parts that have to do with open government.

All parts that have to do with full financial disclosure of campaign contributions.

All parts that have to do with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or George Bush.

Warner 2008!  I agree, no more Senators, and preferably a Southerner.  Centrists also have the benefit of not appearing to be party hacks, which is always nice.

Warner 2008!  I agree, no more Senators, and preferably a Southerner.  Centrists also have the benefit of not appearing to be party hacks, which is always nice.

Don't worry, Lowell, Kilgore's plan to allow local referenda determine funding will stop anyone from overruling local wishes.  Of course, that means that not only is widening the interstate bad policy, as you effectively point out here, but the idea of it in the face of Arlington residents' opposition is a vapid, meaningless promise.

That is... We won't have to worry unless the local referenda promise is actually a deception and Kilgore truly wants to suppress local decision making.

Can't have it both ways, Jerry...

"Jim," do you know what James P. Moran's position on I-66 widening is? Arlington officials pretend not to know.

However, we do know that it will cost $200 million to widen I-66 in Arlington. A good question is where the other $175 million is going to come from.

If you say that DOT will pay for it then why wasn't it in the last authorization? Why did DOT only pay $27 million if it intends to pay $200 million?

You refer to this alleged 100 percent federal funding of I-66 widening as being "easily obtained." Everything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do it himself.

Davis, Wolf and, arguably, Moran came up with $27 million. If it was so easy to get the rest then why didn't they?

Did you know that if DC ever needed to evacuate due to immediate danger, thousands would perish due to congestion, since the proposed widening will do away with the breakdown lane in six places.

Do you believe that in the event of an emergency cars will not break down?

If you are downtown and there is a WMD attack then you should pucker up and lovingly KYAGB. You will not survive the fire next time. Don't even think about it.

You know, policies are meant to change. Just because building I-66 sounded good 28 years ago, doesn't mean that it is a good idea to widen it now.

Remember, it was mostly moderate income housing in Arlington in 1977. I was only 24 years old.

I wish politicians would just try riding the bus to work. It is so clear for those of us who live here that bus funding is inadequate. How about using those "easily obtained" DOT dollars for Springfield to Reston commuter bus service?

We need money for electical and hybrid buses. Where's our money? Where's the beef! Where's the beef! (chanting by angry mass transit riders continues.)

It's Moran's fault we don't have the money. He is letting Wolf and Davis steal $200 million that we should be getting for our brand new commuter buses running here in the 8th.

Where's our money, congressman! Where's the beef. It's in Tom Davis's back pocket, along with Jim Moran himself.

Jim:  You're seriously arguing that "smart growth" is responsible for sprawl?  And that widening I-66 heading EASTBOUND will help evacuate DC in the event of an emergency?  Huh?!?  What next, up is down and right is wrong?  My head is spinning.

Oh, and how on earth did Tim Kaine "poke fun at Jerry Kilgore?"  This is an independent, grassroots blog and I wrote this piece, not Tim Kaine. Also, I would point out that I have lived in Arlington for over 15 years, have driven on I-66 countless times (as has my wife), and am strongly opposed to widening it eastbound as Kilgore promises he'll do. 

By the way, my views on this issue are identical to those of the ENTIRE Arlington County Board, as well as most Arlingtonians who live - as I do - in neighborhoods near I-66.  So you're saying we're all wrong, huh?  Wow.

The most recent $185 billion federal transportation authorization bill included a $27 million earmark for I-66 widening in Arlington.

Isn't it supposed to be the job of a local congressman to express approval or disapproval of transportation earmarks inside of his own district?

What is Rep. Jim Moran's position on I-66 widening in Arlington? Does he have one?

If the Republicans are pandering on this issue then what is Moran doing? Does he support the $27 million federal earmark for I-66 widening in Arlington? Does he oppose it.

There is no point in my calling his office to ask, since even though I am a constituent his office does not return my calls.

I thought someone here might be able to find out what Rep. Moran's position is on the already-authorized $27 million federal earmark for I-66 widening in Arlington.

Here again that ad with the lemming cars jumping off the cliff into the Potomac is a good one. Shows one more case of the Republicans not thinking more than one move ahead (like invading Iraq)

Kilgore's I-66 mantra is one of his more blatant bits of political pandering, which is why he's more specific about it than any other transportation proposal.  The people who can be (falsely) led to believe they will benefit from it (outer suburbs) are more likely to be Republicans, and the people who get screwed by it (Arlington and Falls Church) are heavily Democrats.

Campaigning is a competition, but we all benefit from officials who govern for the benefit of all Virginians, not to benefit their supporters and contributors and screw everyone else.  By making this a signature proposal, Kilgore has clearly signaled where he stands on that question, and it's not on the side of good government.

Howell, I'd like an honest opinion on the Virginia governors election. How do you think Kaine's campaign GOTV efforts measures up compared to that of Kilgore and the GOP? I've been reading several blogs and the general consensus seems to be that the GOP has a much powerful GOTV machine, coupled with their 72-hour program. I emailed the DNC to find out whether they have volunteers on the ground or making those crucial gotb phone calls, but I haven't heard back from them. I'm pushing hard for Kaine and I signed up today to make phone calls to the voters.

I'm out of state here in North Dakota. Thanks. 

Rachel:  As far as I can tell, the Democrats are doing great with their GOTV here in Virginia.  I think the best thing you can do is to make those calls and also to get your friends to volunteer as well.  Lots of voters, unfortunately, only show up every 4 years.  That's a shame, because local and state elections really do matter -- especially now with the Supreme Court possibly kicking the abortion question back to the states...

Lowell (not "Howell") :)

"I?ve been reading several blogs and the general consensus seems to be that the GOP has a much powerful GOTV machine, coupled with their 72-hour program."

The GOP has what it has always had here: tons of money to pay tons of out of state mercs to do paid phone calls and door knocks.  However, of note is that the Democrats have not ever had or utilized a GOTV effort in the state until this year (Kerry campaign pulled out months before the election, there was really nothing much the two years before that, and surprisingly little was done for Warner).  This year will be quite interesting, because this year, for the first time, they do.  That extra bounce they expect from their 72-hr plan may well turn out to be matched by an unprecedented Dem turnout bounce... leaving the more popular Kaine on top. 

Oops, sorry I got your name wrong, Lowell. My husband and I are doing phone banking tonight and throughout this weekend. We'll get our friends on board. Thanks for the feedback.

Lowell, interview the Marsden campaign. They have a massive effort going on, way beyond the sometimes limp volunteers passing out info at the door to the polling place. Interesting, and worth a discussion.

QUICK! On the grassy knoll; if we go back in time we'll know who shot Kennedy...J.R. too! And the CIA flew planes into the trade center too, right? Conspiracty theorists unite! I mean, it couldn't posibly be true that there are such things as scheduling conflicts right?

"notice":  Exactly right.  McCain bailed.

Walt: No conspiracy theories needed here.  It's very simple - Kilgore doesn't want to appear with Bush/Rove/etc., and apparently McCain doesn't want to appear with Kilgore.  All of that is perfectly understandable without resorting to crazy conspiracy theories, so I have no idea why you brought them up.  The CIA flew planes into the World Trade Center?  Where do you guys come up with this lunacy?

Senator McCain has a shot at running for the Presidency, why on earth would he want to ruin his chances by cuddling up to Mr. Corrupt

In fact, if my sources are right, McCain bailed..... to be at an event with Mark Warner!  They apparently were both recieving some sort of civic award.  Seems like Jerry's not a priority for McCain.

"Notice": Wow, very interesting!

The Rev: Good point.

Rachel, you've made my day! Thank you for making calls!!

My favorite quote from the Washington Post:

"At the end of this election, Virginians will see me standing up with Mark Warner, and they will see Jerry Kilgore standing up with George Bush," Kaine said. "They'll get to ask the question: Which is being better run, Virginia or the nation?"

Washington Post - November 5, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110400634.html

Hopefully this works as well as the negative ad campaign!

Nevertheless, Bush boy is still POTUS, so there will be ample publicity and as favorable a presentatio as possible in the press on election day. How nice.

Kaine is just so friggin awesome!

even beter:

In The Post poll on the governor's race, 70 percent of Virginia voters say they think the state is going in the right direction, and nearly two-thirds say the country is seriously off on the wrong track.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110400634_2.html

All these people entire staffs set to work out schedules ahead of time.  And this time of year, they all have the budgets to bring in people wherever they need to at the drop of a hat.  If McCain said no, then he said no, and it wasn't going to happen anywhere, anywhen.  No conspiracy theory there.  He bailed.

Jonathan: Just to tweak you, I feel like answering "Yes! He was totally in charge of the event."  But, alas...he wasn't.  As I think I made clear, Moran just did a little "MC" routines while stalling for time as TLC were running a bit late. He also gave a speech.  Is that acceptable, or would you prefer to continually find fault with what was a GREAT event and a GREAT day to be a Democrat in Virginia?  (Hint:  don't answer that question, just consider it rhetorical!) :)

My goodness.  Leslie looks fabulous.

Jim Moran has much to be self-deprecating about.

Are you saying that Jim Moran was the Master of Ceremonies at this event? This is even worse than I thought.

Jonathan: You know, you should actually show up for these events once in a while. If you had made it today, for instance, you would have seen a wonderful event in which Jim Moran was a funny, gracious, self-deprecating, and skillful master of ceremonies.  I have absolutely no idea why you are so obsessively anti-Moran, but whatever gets you up in the morning I suppose...

Any word on whether Jim Moran delivered his patented "Republicans are the party of greed" speech?

Moran, it will be remembered, lives in two mansions worth a total of more than $7 million. One of the two mansions is in Frank Wolf's district.

Since audiences know very little about Moran, they are easily flummoxed by this consummate con artist. That is why I am interested in knowing whether Moran trotted out his "party of greed" speech one more time.

Sounds like it was great! I wish I could have been there but I'm doing all I can for tomorrow.

Please always refer to Congress as "this Republican Congress," since the Republicans run the show. True, sometimes with the connivance of a Democrat here or there, but the thrust of these news stories should be that it's the REPUBLICANS who are doing these terrible things, and we need to start fixing it in the minds of voters so they will perhaps stop tarring both parties with the brush of contempt as "politicians," lumping even progressive Democrats with the corrupt neo-conservatives, and refusing to bother to vote or pay attention. (They're all the same, just politics")

Given that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and that it is daily becoming more obvious that most of the big Republican campaign contributors and their lobbyists have actually been writing Republican legislation "word for word" and calling the shots in regulatory agencies, you can be sure the Republicans will continue doing everything they can including voting fraud to hold on to power in Congress and thus stonewall any real investigations. And, if any investigation ever rears its ugly head, it will be ruthlessly cut off, termed "just political harrassment by unpatriotic liberals," and smeared out of credibility by the echo chamber, the managed media. Or am I being too negative? God grant the Washington Post article is not the last we'll see.

  I really can not understand why the people of this country don?t demand justice and truth from the corrupt republican leadership that have taken over our country, they have been given a pass on policies they are making in secrete. When are the people of this country going to stand up and say enough of the lies and corruption, enough of the killing of our young Americans, enough of the rip off artist robbing the poor and the middle class to make the rich richer, enough of theses crooks labeling you if you don?t agree with their corrupt and crooked point of view. 

Dave S.  What kind of "foolishness" are you talking about?  Demanding that the Republican Congress declare war if we truly are at war?  Demanding sacrifice from the American people, as was done in previous wars?  Can you please explain how the national Republicans are "showing seriousness" in any way, shape or form on national defense matters?  Thanks.

Lowell, you said, "Dave S. What kind of ?foolishness? are you talking about? Demanding that the Republican Congress declare war if we truly are at war? Demanding sacrifice from the American people, as was done in previous wars? Can you please explain how the national Republicans are ?showing seriousness? in any way, shape or form on national defense matters? Thanks."
  First off, your history is wrong on WWII, there were substantial resistance actions by bitter-enders in Germany well after surrender. I don't buy your dismissal of Bush - all wars are dreadful and involve decisions which could have been done better, Eisenhower lost a lot of guys.
  Second, "showing seriousness" - well, they committed troops, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, against what they identified, and I think believed, were threats to our country. 
  "Demanding sacrifice" - as we hear daily, we've lost over 2000 soldiers, many more have been injured.  Looks like an immense sacrifice to me. We are putting huge amounts of treasure into this war, which we will be paying for for years to come.  What do you want?  Ration coupons? Victory Gardens? 
  Why do you favor a draft?  The military does not want one.  They do better with volunteers, who are motivated and for whom they can make higher requirements of training. 
  This all looks more like a list of ways to try and hurt the war effort, rather than a list of things to make it work better.
  So, yes, profoundly unserious, if you think we have been attacked, are under threat, and need to try to change the dynamic in the Middle East which results in danger to our country.

Terrorism is not a new thing, and it can never be "defeated" as a state enemy as a whole can be defeated by sledge hammer military action.

I know certain Democrats were mocked who suggested the better response to terrorism would be to treat it basically as a  police and criminal matter--- after we had, correctly, smashed the sponsoring state of the Taliban, of course. If the situation had been handled thusly, we certainly would not be where we are, nor would we have created a self-fulilling prophecy of "clash of civilizations." We really have in some measure created this particular insurgency enemy (called terrorists), and every reasonable analysis even those out of the Pentagon admits we are creating more terrorists than we're killing. That horse is out of the barn now, and we have to start from where we are not from where we wish we were, thanks to Bush and his cronies.

But the last people to fix the problem of Iraq is the cabal which created the situation, and everything they say now is suspect. Clearly, the American people are losing confidence in their leadership, and no longer trust them. Even if the Bush cabal is forced into something called an "exit strategy," few will believe them, or trust them to execute it successfully in an honorable fashion. Sad but true. There is no good answer, least of all "staying the course" (what on earth does that really mean, outside of a phony John Wayne swagger?). I'm uneasy about saying "out in 6 months," or some such explicit time limit. Perhaps setting goals: "if x number of Iraqi police and soldiers are trained, then we will withdraw x.

But what we hear is that permanent bases are being built. That sounds like a colonial occupation to the rest of the world, and is not exactly an exit strategy, now, is it? If you think the Bush administration is telling us everything, I've got a bridge I'll sell you in Brooklyn. They have never levelled with the American people, why does anyone think they are now? They literally can't afford to.

Matt:  Here's what Armando had to say:

Representative John Murtha (D-PA), conservative Democrat, decorated Vietnam veteran, patriot, said those words today about our troops in Iraq. Murtha discussed his reasons with a gruff eloquence and with intelligence. Certainly persons of good faith can completely disagree with Murtha's assessment.

What they cannot do is question Murtha's patriotism. Murtha said "we have to do the right thing." And Murtha believes withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is the right thing to do.

You can take a look at the video of Murtha and make up your own mind:  http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/17.html#a5913

John had this do say:

He's a hawk, and someone folks look up to. He's not some "typical liberal." This is a big blow to the adminsitration, will help galvanize any Dems who are fence-sitting, and will likely sow even more doubt among Republicans...

This kind of foolishness is why I vote Reep in national elections (Bush, twice) even though I pretty consistently vote for and give money to Dems at the state and local level.  Until the national Dems show seriousness about national defense, I really don't feel I have a choice.

Kate:  You mean you didn't like my use of the phrase, "CHICKENHAWK, CHICKENSHIT COWARDS?" Ha ha.  That, of course, was largely for effect, but the sentiment remains -- if this is REALLY a war, than dammit let's get serious and treat it like one!

"dave s"; You didn't answer my questions at all, but have simply twisted words around in bizarre ways to try and prove some sort of point (God knows what it is).  Just a few comments:

*yes, we sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, but in Afghanistan we gave the Taliban and Al Qaeda tons of warning, then let the Afghans fight key battles for us instead of doing the job ourselves; that's Bush and Rumsfeld's fault, by the way.  On Iraq, we went in with far too FEW troops, few allies, no strategy for post-war, etc., etc.  In other words, we totally violated the Powell Doctrine, and instead decided to test out Don Rumsfeld's latest theories on "light forces," "schock and awe," etc.

*On "sacrifice," I'm not talking about the troops, as you obviously know.  They are heroes.  Period.  The issue here is calling for sacrifice from the American PEOPLE, as was done in WWII and just about every other war we ever fought. Are you saying that rich people should still get all their tax breaks, and ExxxonMobil its record profits, in a time of war-without-end?

*On the draft, I was simply making the point -- which you would have figured out if you had paid attention to what I wrote -- that if this really IS a world war without end, we should stop relying on a volunteer force that is in danger of flying apart at the seams due to lack of personnel, equipment, etc.  Also, I am in principle in favor of mandatory national service - no exceptions for rich people or children of politicians - in a time of war.  If we really ARE at war, that is. 
*Finally, on changing the "dynamic" in the Middle East.  Let's see, we're more dependent on Middle Eastern oil today than we were 4 years ago.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict still simmers, not resolved.  Iraq is turning into a falied state and haven for terrorists.  Iran has gone ultra-hard-line and is pursuing nuclear weapons.  And anti-American sentiment is higher than ever throughout the Muslim world. Yeah, we've really changed the dynamic, alright -- for the worse!!

Lowell, I agree with the general theme, and I, too,am not a formally religious person myself, but I understand how important religion is to most Americans; after all, it's hard enough to be a human being, and we need all the help we can get, and that includes religion. But only so long as religion is under some sort of governer or restraint, and doesn't run amok, trying to impose its particular dogma on the political system. Which is why the American system (separating Church and State and permitting no establishment of a particular religon) is such a glorious invention, arising as did out of the English Civil War and the battles of the Reformation... it separated political power from religion. The Democrats must not fall into the pit into which the Republicans tumbled, so what you propose must be very delicately handled.

Dan and Teddy:  I completely agree with you, and would point out that separation of church and state is there as much or more for the benefit of the CHURCH as it is for the STATE.  What boggles my mind is that anti-government conservatives would want a bunch of government bureaucrats telling them how to pray. Hello?

Do you speak Beagle, Genevieve? Did anyone ever ask the beagle? You know, to get a "fair and balanced" story?

Yes, I did think of that darned beagle (I owned a beagle once, or he owned me). Why are we continuing to tiptoe around the fact that most of the Bush Republican programs are tired old Tory junk gussied up in countryclub clothes to (supposedly) fool us dumb lower class folks?