so you can get rid of the ridiculous idea you float that he is in the race as payback on behalfof Harris Miller.

I don't know what if anything he knew about his campaign manager's role in the Senate primary, but I might also point out that there were some key people on the Webb side who used poor judgment in the issuance of the comic book that started that whole mess.

Doug got in the race without knowing
- if Davis would run again
- if Leslie would get in the race
- if Gerry would get in the race.

I think with Chap now having endorsed Leslie it might be very hard for Doug to mount a viable campaign.  Hard, but not impossible, despite all of Leslie's endorsements and her access to a ready built political network that Doug cannot match.

And Davis's ability to 'deliver" for the CD was contingent on him being part of the majority.  It might be the the reason, along with the 3 million he spent, that he was able to defeat Andy Hurst in '06.  The dynamics are not there now, he just spent 900,000 of his federal campaign funds on Jeannemarie's losing race, and I would be surprised if he decides to runs for the House again.  And he is the only Republican with a snowball's chance in Hades of carrying the district.  As leslie rightly pointed out yesterday, in her LT Gov race in'5 she carried the CD comfortably.

Teacherken, I guess by elevating and repeating the allegations of the commenter named Ben I "float[ed]" the idea that Denneny is in the race to avenge Miller.  I do appreciate knowing that Denneny himself was a Webb supporter.  I don't know that Resnick is actually Denneny's campaign manager which is why I amended my original post.

I do think that regardless of Denneny's own support for Webb and Denneny's entering the race before Byrne, Denneny's hiring of Miller's campaign manager who may have been a mudslinger, combined with Byrne's dismissive characterization of Denneny as a shark jumper and the money and support advantage you concede Byrne has over Denneny, Denneny's continuing to remain in the race may be due to a desire to grab Miller supporters who won't forgive Byrne before the primary.  How's that for a run-on sentence?

I also agree with your assessment of Davis' poor prospects for re-election.  In fact, I tried in vain to make the case for Hurst in '06 when it was obvious well before election day that the Dems would retake the House.  I figure if the Dem nominee next year runs a horrible campaign, the voters of VA-11 might just be stupid enough to again believe Davis is worth another two years.  I hope not.

Finally, may I assume that your almost total silence on Connolly means you, too, think he'll have a tough time against Byrne and may be thinking of not running?

Thanks for so quickly reading and commenting.

This blog rocks!

1) he endorsed Miller, not Webb, in the Senate primary

2 a number of people told him that if he wanted to run for Congress he couldn't wait until Davis withdrew to announce, because by then they would have committed to other people.  He has had  close working relationship with Davis, and it is hard to imagine him entering even a clear primary to run against Tom

3) Connolly has pissed a lot of people off recently, especially on Tyson's Tunnel, and on his support of Linda as a Democrat for the County Board.  IIRC he was critical of doug when Denneny came out in strong support of the tunnel

4) Leslie has built up a lot of IOUs over the years since Davis defeated her in 1994.   She has a lot of strong supporters who would run through a fire or a brick wall to get her elected.   She is an effective communicator, as she showed here in her live blog yesterday.  She would be formidable in a one on one race against any one man.  But if there were two men running against her, she is in my opinion guaranteed to win the primary.  At this point I don't know if there will be one, two or three men running against her.  Hurst could run again - he told me at Chap's celebration that a lot of people were encouraging him to get into the race, and that he knows he could raise the necessary money. Were Davis to announce he was not running, a four-way race is possible.   But meantime Leslie is locking up endorsements and support in a way that makes it difficult for anyone else, even Doug, to be able to compete.

I have not endorsed anyone.  I am offering the remarks that I do as someone who is friendly with three of the four possible candidates - ABC - anyone but Connolly is my attitude.  Which probably means I shouldn't show my face at his celebration?

Peace.

I'm intrigued by the notion that Connolly might not run if Davis does.  Even if Connolly decides to run for the Dem nomination despite a Davis re-election bid, I wonder if Byrne could turn Connolly's "close working relationship with Davis" to her advantage.  I really appreciate your insights.  Right back atcha on the peace thing.

several times. Where did Leslie say that Doug Denneny had "jumped the shark?"  What I read was Leslie's response to Eric's question about keeping the campaign "out of the gutter"  and "avoid[ing] garbage like the recent Providence primary where one candidate actually sent mailers accusing a fellow Democrat of being a Republican."

I believe that if Leslie was referring to any particular candidate or campamign, it would have been to the one that Eric referenced.  

but I believe Doug Denneny to be a smart, principled, class act all the way. He is certainly nobody's stalking horse or puppet, he's about as independent and strong a person I've met in politics this side of...well, Chap Petersen and Leslie Byrne. :)

Leslie Byrne was swept out of office in the Gingrich GOP landslide of 1994.  Byrne had voted for the Clinton tax package, which Republicans demonized as the end of civilization as we know it.  Instead, it helped lead to a balanced budget, ultimately a surplus (that Shrub promptly squandered), and indirectly to the prosperity of the 1990s.  Byrne was part of that, and unfortunately she -- along with 53 other Democrats -- lost their seats last year to Gingrich's idiotic "Contract ON America."  The point is, that election was an aberration, certainly not one that you can blame Leslie Byrne for losing.  To the contrary, she was punished for doing the right thing.

I agree with your assessment of Byrne's loss in '94.  Still, a loss is a loss, and voters otherwise willing to listen to Connolly might make up their minds on that fact.  I wouldn't.

in part that he was JUST re-elected to a 4-year term on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.  How can he turn right around and say, "haha voters, I didn't really mean what I said about wanting this job, I'm actually interested in a different job altogether -- suckers!"  Obviously, he wouldn't say it like that. :)  But still, what's he going to do, announce for Congress in early January, right after the first board meeting of his new term?  

Connolly had no real opposition this year.  I don't think voters otherwise disposed to listen to him would be that upset if he ran for VA-11.  It certainly wouldn't be a surprise to anyone paying attention; Baise (and others) wouldn't shut up about it  If he were to run for VA-11, I'm sure he'd trot out some blather about the importance of grabbing the seat for Dems and characterizing himself as the only credible savior.  The good news for Connolly detractors is, as Ben Tribbett has pointed out, Connolly hasn't shown that he can bring out impressive vote totals for himself.

claimed that they were facing a tough challenge in Baise, which is why they had to hold onto their huge war chest and not donate it to other Democrats (Janet, George, Chap, etc., etc.).  I have several emails from the Connolly camp claiming just that -- Baise could drop huge sums of money at the last minute and possibly beat Connolly that way, blah blah blah. I never believed it for one second, but it's typical of the type of games we get from Connolly and Company.  Just like "Charlie Hall's really a Republican."  

I worked Vienna #2 for Chap on election day.  One of the people also working the precinct was there for an independent candidate for the Hunter Mill District seat held by Cathy Hudgins.   It was Charlie's wife, and I actually wound up in a brief chat with Charlie, who was also supporting her,  via phone.  Just noting that while I would not call Charlie a Republican (a charge that might more properly have been directed at his opponent, who was supported by Connolly)I can see the activity this cycle being used against him should he run again in a Democratic primary.

Byrne proved throughout that liveblog that she is very smart.  It's true she didn't say a candidate had jumped a shark, but following the as yet undisputed allegations about Denneny hiring Resnick and Resnick sliming Webb, and, because there is no other candidate running against her as of now, I think Byrne has to accept that a reasonable interpretation of her remarks is that she thinks Denneny has jumped the shark.  Moreover, as I understand it, jumping the shark does not mean being a dirty campaigner, rather it means someone who irretrievably went too far to be anymore considered worthy.  I think Byrne meant to tell Ben that she thinks Denneny hiring Resnick was the equivalent of Fonzie water ski jumping over the shark.  She's the new Queen of Cool in the race.  Long live the Queen!

Eric's comment, not to Ben's.  

Obviously, she was replying to Eric's comment in the sense that she didn't click on the reply button to Ben's comment.  On the other hand, the jumping the shark reference only in response to Eric's comment makes no sense.  Several hours transpired between Ben's reply to Eric's comment and Byrne's reply to Eric's comment.  I still think the more logical interpretation is that Byrne knows what jumping the shark means and was referring to Denneny.  Let's hope Byrne shows off her sophistication about blogs and weighs in herself.

if she chooses to do so.

Joel: I believe you mis-read my comments or they weren't as clear as they should have been. My "jump the shark" reference was in response to Eric who was asking about plegdes to clean campaigns. I was saying that voters are smart and that any candidate that goes overboard on negative campaigning will pay a price of lost support. It wasn't directed toward any primary or general election opponent. It was just an observation about how negative campaigning is viewed by voter.

n/t

Ms. Byrne, thanks for elaborating on statement.  In my opinion, in the contest for odd statements made by declared candidates for VA-11 in liveblogs on RK, it's now 1 to 1.  Mr. Denneny claims there are same sex couples out there who, given the opportunity to be legally wed in a civil ceremony, would still opt for a civil union.  Now, you claim that excess negative campaigning amounts to jumping the shark.  Whatever.  You still have a virtual lock on my vote.  I truly respect and admire your willingness and skill in participating in the blogosphere, and I hope you continue, even after you're elected.

I know three such couples, although none of them live in the 11th CD.   They are like some heterosexual couples I know who would also like civil unions but do not want to be married.  Some people don't like the idea of marriage, but want the ability to pass property, and to be able to make medical decisions for a loved one.  The latter is especially important for some gay couples I know, especially where one is HIV positive.

I thought civil unions were devised because of the controversy about the term "marriage" being applied to same sex couples.  I thought that entering into a civil union would give a couple all the same rights and obligations that married couple have.  You'd get the right to pass property and the right to make medical decisions, etc.  You'd also have to apply to enter into the union and go through a legal process to have the union dissolved.  What would make the idea of marriage objectionable?  The religious connotation?

 

for others the unhappiness they saw in the marriages in which they grew up

who have lived together for years, even decades, and have ZERO desire to get married.  Why would it be any different for gays?

I was questioning why a couple who desired to enter into a state recognized union would choose a civil union over marriage if the only difference were the name.  Teacherken says the couple might be put off by the religious connotation of the name, or they might not want to give their union the same name as marriages gone wrong.  Denneny claimed he was trying to accommodate such couples when he said he supported both same sex marriage and civil unions.  I still find that an unusually liberal stance for a politician to take, but being an unusual liberal myself, I have no problem with it.  I do have a problem with Byrne's definition of jumping the shark, but it has no effect on my support for her.

an excerpt from Stephanie Coontz' op-ed piece in the New York Times on 11/26/07

Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people's interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America's children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.

Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.

As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor's benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn't married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner's wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep - who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor's benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn't serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

Perhaps it's time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem "licit." But let couples - gay or straight - decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

Our legal system is based on common law.  And this means that the institution of marriage is more clearly defined through the history of case law regarding it.  Civil unions don't have that history.  I don't understand why anyone would prefer that.  Essentially why choose an untested vehicle for conveying rights than one that is time tested?  I can understand wanting Civil Unions when marriage is denied to you, but not when presented with a choice between the two.  

If people don't want to get a marriage license for whatever reason, that is up to them.  But I don't think that necessitates the defining of some separate legal term for a binding union.  If people want something less rigorous, there are avenues for them to achieve that: living wills, durable power of attorney, property ownership agreements, contracts, etc...  Though in Virginia that is complicated by our most recent Constitutional amendment.

And as far as I know you are absolutely right about the genesis of Civil Unions.  According to Wikipedia, the first nation to adopt Civil Unions was Denmark and it was specifically established for same-sex partners.  

Thanks tx2vadem.  I was feeling rather lonely.  Just between you and me, I think Denneny was displaying some political naivete by calling for both same-sex marriage and civil unions.  I also think Byrne was backpedaling to deny she was claiming that Denneny had jumped the shark.  I hope these minor glitches don't deter them from returning to the blogosphere.  Getting called out can be humbling, but I think a little humility is good for politicians and voters alike.

What a fun little controversy!  Nice job Joel.  :-)

Thanks Ben, but your getting Byrne to refer to "jumping the shark" whatever she claims she meant beats my getting Denneny to dig in his heels on being pro-same-sex marriage AND civil unions.