RK ARCHIVE - The Final Straw

Still, as much as I love Leslie, I've been holding back a decision on the race, because despite tactics, personality, and positions on a number of issues, especially the Tyson's Tunnel, I had to respect Gerry Connolly's service on the Fairfax Board of Supervisors. True, he's favored developer interests over land use interests, but keeping a million people happy is never an easy thing to do.

Nonetheless, the news today of the shady dealings with SAIC and expanding revelations about Gerry's involvement in the military-industrial complex have pushed me over the edge. This is not a man we need representing us in Congress. I see no possible way that Gerry Connolly would do a better job of serving the interests of all of the 11th district than Tom Davis did.

Pay-to-play politics is going to be a key issue this fall, with Obama drawing stark contrasts between his lobbyist-free campaign and McCain's all-lobbyists-all-the-time version. Can Gerry Connolly, himself an employee of the biggest and most powerful beltway "body shop", possibly reinforce Obama's message of "government for the people"? I don't think he can. In fact, by putting Gerry Connolly down ticket, I think it could seriously cost Obama votes in what has become the vote-bearing breadbasket of Virginia Democratic politics.

I wanted to stay out of this one, but there's just no way I can. Gerry Connolly has again and again proven that he is the wrong candidate for this district. Leslie Byrne will carry the banner for Democrats, progressives and all of Virginia to victory this fall. After the revelations of today, there's really no other choice.

Comments

I'm completely sympathetic (Hiker Joe - 5/29/2008 3:44:42 PM)

to the difficulty of balancing the needs of various elements of a constituency.

But I can't agree with your statement "he's favored developer interests over land use interests, but keeping a million people happy is never an easy thing to do."

Connolly has favored developer interests in exchange for money, not in an attempt to be fair.

Here's the core of the latest problem (Lowell - 5/29/2008 4:08:05 PM)

"The Rosenberg email is a clear violation of federal election law, by both SAIC and the Connolly campaign. Specifically, it's a violation of the prohibition against corporations making a contribution to candidates for federal office," said Byrne campaign manager Joe Fox. "Any reasonable employee would understand this to be a directive from the corporation to make a financial contribution to Gerry Connolly's campaign for Congress. This is a violation of employees' First Amendment right of free association and a clear violation of federal law."

I beg to differ (Eric - 5/29/2008 4:18:23 PM)

well, differ a little bit...

That's the core from the legal perspective. From the public perception angle you've got a clear case of extremely questionable activity, if not down right corruption, being put on display for all to see. We've had enough of that from the Dubya administration - not to mention questionable activity from the current 11th representative, Tom Davis.

Furthermore, we're going into a Democratic primary and it's becoming clear that Gerry's biggest backers view him as another Tom Davis. And ~~supporters~~ investors like SAIC would know very well what Connolly is. I know I wouldn't want to be a Republican running in the Democratic primary.

This is a big deal (legacyofmarshall - 5/29/2008 4:47:15 PM)

I've long hoped that Byrne wins on June 10, but I wasn't totally sure it was possible. Friends of mine who knew way more about the race always said there was little chance Connolly would lose.

Now those same people are saying Byrne's chances have skyrocketed in the past week and today, with this news, this looks like a real race. It's sad that I hear little positive from Byrne, and in the media (mainly blog, occasionally mainstream) it's all anti-Connolly and all how bad he is - but it's good that it will hopefully end in the 11th getting a better representative this November.

By the way - who else is bothered that Tom Davis and his supporters have all but endorsed Connolly? How often does this happen - that an outgoing Republican legislator supports a wiener of the opposite party as his "legacy?"

*Genuine* suprise? (Sui Juris - 5/29/2008 4:51:52 PM)

Is anyone here genuinely surprised and upset about Connolly's employer supporting his election bid? Seriously? A couple of days ago, someone here described the VA political blog community as one of the "most sophisticated in the country" (or something like that). I've really got to wonder about that. If the outrage is the usual hacktacular stuff designed to gin up support, well, okay. If it's genuine, I'm not sure we can lay much of a claim to sophistication.

(Seriously, aren't some of you tired of the theater?)

What a difference a week makes (Alter of Freedom - 5/29/2008 4:58:20 PM)

Last week we began to see some comments regarding just how heated this race for the 11th nomination was getting and how we needed to keep things in our house in good order and keep the attacks on policy concerns. Again, that was last week.

I reiterate my concerns that what we are seeing here is the firecracker not unlike Obama/Clinton to where we are simply one spark away from those that support one over the other now will not support the other if they are to win the nomination.

I have gotten this message from about two dozen Clinton supporters in the last few weeks that they will not support Obama in the General without a Hillary VP slot. Thats not to say they will support McCain though.

Now, today I made a few calls to friends in the 11th and now I am seeing the same discontent with the process. Niether side will support the other. Moderate Dems appear poised to support Gerry while the more liberal in the district see Byrne as the standard bearer.

In fairness I do not see Republicans keeping this seat anyway so maybe that is very fortunate for the Party given the animosity that is brewing between the camps and supporters.

Most of it he said she said or the fixation with endorsees or companies that support one or the other or even lobby groups and special interest. Lets not kid ourselves about this whole Lobbyist issue either because no one is going to get elected without special interest moving its people. Special interest is not simple a Republican thing folks, last time I checked the Teacher Unions and the like never seem to support the other side. We need them to you know.

Will you here support Gerry if he wins out fairly? Or against the Republican in the Fall will you simply go on record as saying he is simply a DINO.

I'm no stratagist but everyone here better hope Byrne wins. In the 11th you are providing the opposition with everything it needs to make a run and potentially steal the seat in an election it should lose it.

Perspective (snolan - 5/29/2008 6:00:06 PM)

Thanks Alter of Freedom, keeping things in perspective is a good idea.

I really hope Leslie wins the primary and the general.
I cannot vote for her as I now live in the 10th, but I have contributed and asked friends to do the same.

Having said that, if Gerry wins the primary, I will endorse him over Joe Oddo and Keith Fimian. Neither is right for the 11th district, and Gerry will be more willing to cooperate with the rest of Congress than Fimian.

Having a bigger and bigger tent for the Democratic party means that some characters we may not like end up in the tent with us. Heck, I am in the tent now, and considered myself an independent fiscally conservative green/socialist before - so I guess I am an odious character to many long-life Democrats.

I can only speak to those (Alter of Freedom - 5/29/2008 9:05:02 PM)

Moderates that I have known, worked with on campaigns or have spoken with Brimur. I am not a pollster and frankly your assuming thousands of moderates across NVA feel this way. Byrne is very progressive on many issues that go against what most moderates, either Dem/Rep, consider the right approach. Its the old inter Party struggle betwen the center and the left or right. The independents I have spoken with are coming down more for Connolly. I will follow-up in the days ahead to pin down exactly what issue it is specifically driving them in that direction.

Hmm I see this differently (snolan - 5/29/2008 11:46:23 PM)

I don't see it as left vrs right....

I see it as progressive vs big-machine/reluctant to change.
I see it as people powered vs corporate power.

To me Gerry Connolly is every bit like Hillary Clinton. Big corporate power, greed, institutionalized and centralized administration. Yes, some very good things can come out of that; but also a whole lot of damage.

I see Leslie Byrne as a progressive, willing to speak out and say what she means, weather we like the news or not. You'll know where you stand.

Perhaps I am completely wrong on it, but that is my feeling.

Reality check (citizenindy - 5/30/2008 9:24:00 AM)

Correct the centrists aren't progressive because all progressive is is a code name for liberal

Centrists actually....

Like lower taxes

Like NAFTA

Want a congressperson who will support the business community but more importantly most of the jobs around here (including lower class service jobs which are a direct result of the white collar jobs existing) which for the record are largely based on government consulting including the defense industry (20% plus of the job base)

Want a balance between the enviroment and economic propserity and freedom

Aren't interested in carrying water for socialist unions

Reality Check (The Grey Havens - 5/30/2008 11:00:22 AM)

Centrists don't exist.

There are only those who choose between a moderate position and whatever extreme the far-right is screaming most loudly about.

You discredit yourself when you assail the hard working Americans who support and belong to unions. McCarthism is alive and well, thanks to bigots who carry water for the Republican party.

Heckuva job. With your help, Republicans might just make their comeback.

Pitiful

So do they or don't they Exist (Alter of Freedom - 5/30/2008 11:34:02 AM)

Look you guys know and have slammed me often for sitting in the middle (the center) because I find issues on both sides that I support. I can be a fiscal concervative but not a social conservartive. I can be supportive of gun rights and ownership but also be Pro-Choice on abortion. See where I going?
We like all to often to box people politcially like we are checking it off on some survey. Its not that way anymore. I can be progressive on issues like infrastructure (alaFDR) but not be inclined to go hell bent on a the global warming binge full throttle. There are things though I can support and get around like conservation, land management, fossil fuel, and some forms of cleaner mandates, but be against Cap and Trade.
By the way centrists, okay us fence sitters as many like to call us, were not all in favor of NAFTA just the moderates backing Bill Clinton liked that deal.
And you can be progressive in your thinking and agenda (again ala Teddy R and FDR) without being a liberal.
By now I know what your thinking....Alter is really confused. Yeah, don't I know it.

Its because we aren't hyper partisan (citizenindy - 5/30/2008 11:56:11 AM)

Most of the people on this site are hard core democrats

They can't comprehend that we don't follow the party line on every issue

And Alter for the record. I think I am exactly like you from the Republican perspective. Basically in general I lean republican but I don't follow all of there issues lock stock and barrel and they do some pretty stupid stuff to turn off what I would call "normal centrist" people on many occassions.

Also to all the Raising Kaine kids. It has crossed my mind at certain points to become more like Alter and switch from lean republican to lean democrat. However, based on the comments viewpoints and tone used by a significant minority on here I am always convinced to stay where I am as a lean Republican.

I agree 100% (Alter of Freedom - 5/30/2008 12:54:06 PM)

I look at issues driven agendas and not DNC or GOP driven agendas or manadtes from the top down. I like to look at an issue and determine "where" I "think" I stand and then challenge myself and not view. Sadly, I think most just tow the line at times and get caught up in the "hyper-partisan" politics you refer to. I am completely against personal attacks in any form, because under God in my view we are all fallable people. I prefer issues and policy. I like to see my representatives vote on issues not just the ones I am passionate about but all issues. If you are not going to vote or vote "present" it makes little differecne to me whether your A Dem, Rep or Jesus---step down and let someone else lead from the front. I hate the "NV" or "Abstain" tactic---its like folks do not challenge themselves to do the homework to make a stand on a position. Oh but Alter--it may not be politically suitable for someone to vote Yeah or Nay---yeah my point exactly.

Tone as you refer is huge. It is the single biggest factor I think why some really good things-like the environment- get less traction than it should because of the perception it is being run by climatologists and liberal craziness perpueting a myth upon America. You know-attack the messenger.
Sometime we need to focus as much on how we present positions as we do the postions themselves.

socialist ... extremist yada yada (j_wyatt - 5/30/2008 2:55:27 PM)

Anecdotally, there's a right winger I converse with frequently in my business who is a classic, unsophisticated, unworldly, white male conservative who almost literally listens to and watches right wing talk radio and Fox 24/7 who constantly refers to Senator Clinton as a socialist and Senator Obama as a left wing extremist.

I've tried as gently as possible to explain that, these days, most true left wingers view Clinton as a triangulating centrist, if not Republican Lite. And that it is impossible in any state wide senatorial election for a quote unquote left wing extremist to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Yes, on a sliding scale, Senator Obama is one of the most liberal members of the Senate, but he's in no way an extremist. Of course, all this falls on deaf ears.

Let it be noted that my right wing interlocutor likes Jim Webb. We've found some rare common ground on that. The heroic Marine and the gun thing is a huge plus, but what he says he likes most about Jim Webb is that Webb says what he thinks and not what is politic. This guy has actually used the word respect when it comes to Webb, as in he has a lot of respect for Jim Webb.

Democrats take note.

Who and what are you speaking to (Alter of Freedom - 5/31/2008 12:14:31 AM)

I am not a supportor of Connolly if you have ever cared to read othe posts I rather like Byrne but ujlike others am objective and if its a reference to McCain---uh I supported Obama in the Primary.
Again anyone who even thinks of challenging people on the issues even if it our/your guy gets the knife---yeah real change eh---if your are not willing to follow suit with the meaning of the platform then one blotter an oversize banner at the bottom of every post Grey Havens. Whats pitiful is not being willing to be critical equally across the board.

My turn to chime in here (Alter of Freedom - 5/31/2008 12:21:23 AM)

The Point Lowell is not you---your missing his point. The point of his arguement is Kaine. The turning on Kaine on the issue of Wise County plant for example demonstrates an instance where the Governor did "not follow the Party line"--well not the Party but the "line" of many here at RK for sure.
Thats the point. As soon as someone moves away from the line you draw they get hammered for it and sometimes like in the case of Kaine lately it can be very, very critical.
You may be following the line or your line but Kaine did not and the fallout is what he was referring to.
The platform of RK in fact has become a medium of setting the line or standard as well for the Party. Hence the invites Lowell-RK is very powerful in the circles if you know what I mean.

This has nothing to do with a "line" (Lowell - 5/31/2008 6:14:19 AM)

The issue here is that people like Miles, Eric, and me are strong environmentalists and don't believe we should be building more coal-fired power plants. This has nothing to do with any party whatsoever; it's a view most of us have held for years if not decades. Remember, my favorite president ever is Teddy Roosevelt, who today would probably be a third-party candidate, but in his time was a Progressive Republican (what a concept!) and then an independent/Bull Moose.

So then (Alter of Freedom - 5/31/2008 12:05:25 PM)

If the Republicans adopt more of a platform (non-denial)like Gingrich is addressing with his environmental chnages would you endorse that or would you find yourself caught between the ideology of Party and your environmental views.
Many of you have worked in places like Dept of Energy or Wildlife Federation which have shaped your reality or insight on the issues and we all benefit when those insights are brought to bear on policy but we benefit more when the politics are left out. I know quite a few Republicans that are as green as you and as progressive as you on the environment and the issue is not "republicans" but the Republican leadership.
I have always likened the activism in the Republican party to the personality of most republicans I know and that is one that is laid back, hands-off menatlity like the wish government was but certainly that could change if members realize they are entering a period where they will remain the minority in Washington.
I think that is the vision behind Gingrichs revised platforms from 1994 and also that of young Republicans. Though not covered much by the media there is an attack right now upon the young Republicans, not by Democrats, but by the Libertarians and the Ron Paul supporters who are the more active psyche of the Republican Party---no matter how carzy.

So, what does this make me? (Lowell - 5/30/2008 2:35:21 PM)

*I support a balanced budget, am pretty much a "Concord Coalition," pay-as-you-go type.

*I support gun rights within reason (e.g., no need for more guns on school campuses in my opinion; close the gun show loophole)

*I support a strong military and am willing to use force, but I also believe in using all instruments of national power -- economic, diplomatic, etc. -- before we use the military.

*I believe that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

*I am strongly pro-environment, but also believe the market has a key role to play as long as "externalities" are included in the price.

*I support fair trade, in which there's a level playing field as well as protections for labor, human rights and the environment. I would not be a big fan of tearing up NAFTA, but I'd hope that we could add some of the protections I've mentioned.

*I believe in equal rights for all.

*Finally, I agree with Jim Webb that the "old labels" of "liberal," "conservative," etc. no longer apply. Personally, I relate the most to people like Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, RFK, and of course Jim Webb.

How is any of this outside the "center" -- aka, the majority -- of American public opinion? Answer: it's not. Don't believe me, check the polls.