Over at the Huffington Post, national blogger Howie Klein has weighed in with his views on Gerry Connolly. And they're not pretty.
As the Washington Post has pointed out, Leslie's opponent, Gerry Connolly, basically a Zell Miller/Joe Lieberman type Democrat, is trying to trick voters into thinking he's suddenly a progressive, just the way Lieberman persuaded Connecticut voters in 2006 that he had seen the light and had suddenly become anti-war. Let's go over why Connolly is such a terrible choice for grassroots and progressive Democrats.First off, Connolly's record conforms to the worst stereotypes of the corporate Democrat and threatens to cost the party a long-awaited takeover. Connolly has been mired in questions about his employment with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), one of the worst of the major defense contractors, his cozy relationship with business developers and his general affinity for what most of us would call pay to play politics.
Connolly's most egregious offenses against the progressive agenda are only recently coming to light, largely due to his own hypocrisy on the Iraq war. Connolly, who was a proud "moderate" until the moment he declared for the House, has taken to touting his anti-war credentials by claiming that he's "been against the Iraq war from the beginning" and that he plans to "hold CEOs criminally accountable for wasting taxpayer's dollars."
[...]
Gerry Connolly is running for Congress claiming that he plans to "hold CEOs accountable for wasting tax payers dollars" all while working for a company that made the case for the Bush Regime to attack Iraq and that has been accused of cheating taxpayers out of millions of dollars related to defense contracts.
Look, let's be clear about something here: there is NOTHING WRONG in my opinion with working for SAIC. There are thousands of fine people who work there, and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. Hell, my own brother used to work there; I also worked with a bunch of SAIC people when I was at the Energy Department, and they were great folks. Anyway, I just wanted to say that because some Connolly supporters seem to think that if we mention Connolly's hypocrisy in claiming to have been against the Iraq war from the beginning (no evidence whatsoever that he was, of course), we must hate SAIC or something. That's utterly ridiculous, an intentional distraction by the Connolly campaign from the real issue, which is...
...Gerry Connolly's own possible conflicts of interest and hypocrisy on the Iraq War. The fact is, Gerry Connolly is running to represent the 11th CD in Congress. Why would it be inappropriate in any way, shape, or form for him to answer questions about whether or not he has any possible conflicts of interest with regard to the Iraq war? And why would it be inappropriate in any way, shape, or form to ask what evidence Connolly has that he was "against the Iraq war from the beginning," as he keeps claiming? And no, attacking the messengers -- whoever they may be -- is not a serious response.
By the way, the last time I checked, we didn't live in a monarchy and Gerry Connolly was not king. To the contrary, this is a representative democracy and Gerry Connolly is running to be the peoples' representative in Congress. Why, then, shouldn't the people be able to ask him serious questions pertaining to one of the most pressing issues of our time, the Iraq war? Hmmmm.
I don't know, and Klein doesn't claim, that SAIC did anything that would have violated the anti-profiteering legislation that Byrne supports, but what SAIC did do is bad enough. I encourage everyone to read the Vanity Fair article, but in a nutshell it makes the case that SAIC was one of the chief private sector proponents of the war and has profitted greatly from it.
What particularly galls me about Connolly is that one of the very few reasons he cited for wanting to make the jump from the County Government to the Federal Government was to weigh in on matters of war and peace. Combine that with his completely unsupported claim to be against the war, and you have a candidate who ought not to be trusted.
We have only until June 10 to hound Connolly about both the war and SAIC's role in it.
p.s. I have to be gone for a couple of hours. Have at it!
The discussion of SAIC as a defense contractor obscures Connolly's advancement of "pay to play" politics and zoning in Fairfax County.
As reported in the 2003 Washington Post article entitled "A Question of Conflict", Connolly was hired by SAIC in the **new** position of "Community Relations Chief" after he met with SAIC's General Manager who had a "vision for an underground shopping area" at the proposed SAIC rail station in Tysons.
Two weeks after Connolly was hired by SAIC he voted, as Providence District Supervisor, for a rail station on SAIC's doorstep. He did this without disclosing his financial ties to SAIC.
Any proposed land use, such as the retail mentioned by SAIC's GM, would have to be approved by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, of which Connolly is Chair.
Additionally, Connolly is on the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors representing SAIC.
So while SAIC is a high tech firm employing thousands of local citizens, more importantly, in the context of this primary, they are a major landowner in Tysons and Reston who hope to reap huge profits by rezoning their property. Connolly controls their destiny in that regard.
When looked at in this perspective, few people I know doubt that SAIC hired Connolly to advance their real estate interests in Fairfax County.
Is this the kind of member of Congress we want representing the 11th District and the Democratic Party?