Democratic "leaders" in Richmond have apparently succeeded in delivering their nomination to fill Ken Cuccinelli's seat to Dave Marsden. As the filing deadline closes (appropriately on Black Friday)- no other Democrats are prepared to file to challenge Dave for the nomination.
But don't mistake that for a united party.
As I mentioned before, one of the driving factors behind the failure of a candidate to emerge from Sully District was the location of the vote. The "process" was voting in one location (the largest precinct in Marsden's Delegate District), on a single weeknight in rush hour- where the commute to vote from Sully could reach an hour or more! Ouch for "democracy".
Now in an effort to make it look like he has real support, Dave is out with his list of endorsements. Only problem is the list is big on political elites- and very light within the 37th Senate District. In fact- only 14 of the 46 endorsements live in the 37th District. 3 of the 46 endorsements have their names spelled wrong (it's Petersen, Jaskot and Jaffee) which doesn't speak well for the quality of staff Dave has surrounding his campaign either.
Who's not on the list? Three of the other four candidates polled against Dave in the recent poll (Janet Oleszek, Kathy Smith and Luann McNabb) apparently decided not to be listed in support of Dave yet- even though he is unopposed. And Delegate-Elect Kaye Kory apparently has more respect for voters in the 37th than other Delegate-Elects Scott Surovell, Mark Keam and Patrick Hope who all think they know who should represent this district. In fact Kaye is the only re-elected or incoming member of the House in Northern Virginia who has chosen to not be listed in support of Marsden- an impressive display of early fortitude that the others could learn from.
Congratulations are in order for Delegate Marsden. Not so much so for all the elected officials willing to white-wash Dave's fake move and claiming an address away from his wife to try to win an election. All these elected officials have done is shown that they value partisanship more than honest governing, and given voters in their own district an ugly look into their political souls.
NLS- you missed the lack of any African Americans on this list. Someone better tell David that the black vote is a key part of the Democratic coalition in Centreville...
Posted by: He doesn't know a bunch of the D Vote in Centreville is Black does he? | November 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM
(grin) So the fact that Ben doesn't actually live in the 37th district mean we should discount his opinions???
Point is, I DO live in it. And I'm tired of being people who make Pat Robertson's political heir look moderate in comparison. Marsden' voice in that state senate sounds awfully good to me!
(and I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!)
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | November 27, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Did you learn anything from the last election? Throwing out Pat Robertson to scare voters didn't work to defeat Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling or Ken Cuccinelli. Just ask the WaPo. It won't work this time either. You're going to have to do better than screaming Robertson with the hope of scaring democrats into voting for your guy.
Surely your candidate will have something positive to say. Surely he will give voters a reason to vote FOR him, rather than against the other guy/gal. You know, run like McDonnell/Bolling/Cuccinelli did. It might just work for you too. We know fussing about how conservative your opponent is will not work.
Give it up. Or don't, and face yet another loss.
Posted by: Janie | November 27, 2009 at 12:50 AM
I agree with Janie. If Robertson didn't work against someone who went to his law school and who Pat was one of the top contributors too- why would it work in a special election against an anonymous Republican name?
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | November 27, 2009 at 12:56 AM
I, along with Ben, am really disappointed with Scott Surrovell and Chap Petersen for going along with this farce. Not so much with the rest of the delegates and delegate-elects. When it comes down to it Keam and Hope are nothing more than party hacks along with most of the delegates on this list. Most of these activists are little more than has-beens desperate for a comeback either within the DPVA or local office. As much as I think Janet Oleszek is a joke of a candidate, I have a lot of new found respect for her and the rest of these jilted women for how they've carried themselves in this Bullshit. As far as I'm concerned, if the dems want to select a candidate without any grass roots input, they can go ahead and try to win the general election without us.
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | November 27, 2009 at 02:03 AM
Bubbles, I agree it is a catastrophic endorsement for anyone like Petersen, Surovell, Englin or others trying to pretend to be "grassroots" driven.
These House members all lectured on us on "good government" when the Republicans were not recording votes in committee- but apparently they are more than happy to endorse outright voter fraud. Nice.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | November 27, 2009 at 07:15 AM
Kaye Kory is on the list of endorsers.
Posted by: 37th district voter | November 27, 2009 at 08:45 AM
Ben, are you going to run for the delegate seat if Dave wins?
Do you even live in the 41st anymore?
Posted by: GOPHokie | November 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM
No and No! (and he isn't going to win).
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | November 27, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Ha- Kaye Kory appears and the names are spelled correctly. Go Team Lurch!
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | November 27, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Janie seems to either dislike me or is simply unable to read any of my posts. I don't think that anyone can say that I was tossing around Pat Robertson's name as a scare tactic in the last election. I was yelling about a positive message from August on. What I DID say in my last post was that years of having an EXTREME right wing state senator are motivation enough for ME to get out there and support Marsden. If that doesn't work for someone else, that's your own business.
And what are we calling "grass roots?" Is it only about agreement with ourselves? Because it's hard to see why supporting Marsden means you are somehow not a "grass roots" supporter. I mean, if you are out there fighting to get your ideas heard, educating voters on why those ideas make America and Virginia a better place, electing the best candidates you can, recruiting the best candidates for the future that you can find, and doing this by reading, writing, posting, knocking, talking and sometimes going hand-to-hand with people, isn't that the very essense of "grass roots?"
I've never been interested in bring defined as anything for the sake of ideological purity if the group. Maybe this is because I grew up in such a hardcore religious fundamentalist world, where wearing earrings meant you weren't really a "Christian" that I find such narrowness defeating and destructive. So if someone like me, who lives in the 37th isn't sufficiently "grass roots" or I'm "disappointing" someone out there by supporting the only Democratic candidate running in this election then I will just somehow have to live with having disappointed you or not being a member of the ideologically pure "grass roots" club.
However, I will of course keep doing what i'm doing (including posting here) because I believe in what I'm doing. And it's fun!!!
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | November 27, 2009 at 01:00 PM
Marsden by 2 points
Posted by: not anyone in particular | November 27, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Ben:
Why attack Scott and Chap, two of the brightest stars in the party? Are they not entitled to make a judgment about who is best positioned to win the seat? Can't they also repay any support they may have gotten from Marsden in their election efforts?
It is absolutely wrong to suggest Scott or Chap acted without integrity in this matter. If you disagree with their actions, then you have a different opinion but you need not vilify them because in this instance they happen to disagree with your judgment.
As to Marsden, he can and will likely win. Odly the McDonnell win will help him in that many independents like divided government as a hedge against the excesses of any single party. And they should worry as Steve Hunt's "issues" in order of importance gleaned from his website are:
1- Pro-life
2- Preventing government from "micromanaging industry", i.e., let the environmental and financial abuses tolerated during the Bush years continue
3- Privatization of core government services to the needy, i.e., lets do less with less
4- "Open government", whatever that means since there are already laws in place covering that notion
5- "Jobs", i.e. oppose the stimulus lifeline that helped avert disaster and then "foster an environment where business can flourish", i.e., "you are all on your own" - essentially a "do nothing agenda"
6- Solve the transportation mess by NOT SPENDING GOVERNMENT DOLLARS but leaving it to "private sector solutions" with an emphasis on "the importance of the automobile" and "offshore drilling", i.e., "pie in the sky"
7- Healthcare - favors "market-based solutions" like the ones that have been serving us wonderfully to date - the Republicans should get it in their head that the market does not work well in the case of healthcare just like in the case of the electricity monopoly - nothing will improve without government regulation - but Steve Hunt wants effectively to do nothing
8- Education - he is for cutting school dollars plain and simple after you read through all the mush
9- Energy - "Drill baby, drill" and more polution if there is a short-term gain are his motto - He is pro "science-based protection of the environment", i.e., no effective protection, essentially
10- Immigration - He wants to continue the Republican party scapegoating of illegal immigrants for all our ills, afterall it is convenient to blame others and be dishonest about the fact that illegal immigration has fed the low cost business environment and economic engine of Virginia that has created many jobs for U.S. citizens that would not otherwise exist
11- "Defending our men/women in the military" - Whatever that mush means it does not mean apparently being critical of Republican hero George Bush's mismanagement of Walter Reed and not doing right by our veterans
So, Ben, if that is who you want, continue attacking Marsden.
As for Marsden, opposing the above agenda of the culture warrior, Steve Hunt, along the policy lines of supporters like Scott and Chap should carry him to victory.
The contrast between the candidates could not be more clear, kind of like chosing between Steve Hunt of "the Flat Earth Society" and Dave Marsden of the "Reasonable Approach to Governing Society." We vote in the 37th and in our household it is a no-brainer to support Marsden.
Posted by: Anon | November 27, 2009 at 06:07 PM
As a voter in the 37th (and a Republican), I am thrilled that Dave Marsden has been "appointed" as the Democrat nominee. Let's look at the campaign issues that have been created. 1) Dave doesn't live in the 37th and any pretense of residence based upon renting (but possibly not using) a room in a private home is absurd. 2) Dave, an incumbent, received only 49.66% of the vote against a political newcomer in his recent re-election with a mere 208 vote margin with over 20,000 votes cast. 3) Dave has been a back-bencher in the House of Delegates with no discernible record so he has no track record to use to attract voters. 4) Dave was "appointed" as the nominee by the power brokers in the Democratic Party so any expectations of his independence and willingness to listen to the voters are questionable. 5) Dave appears to be confused as to whether he is really a Democrat or a Republican, having been both in recent memory.
In addition to the above campaign issues created by Dave's candidacy, we should not forget that 1) McDonnell, Bolling and Cuccinelli all carried the 37th Senatorial District, 2) Pat Herrity easily carried the 37th District in the special election for Board Chairman, 3) the Republicans are energized and know how to win special elections.
Unlike the Democrat "appointment", the Republicans will hold a firehouse primary next Tuesday to allow the voters to select our nominee. Regardless of who wins the nomination, the Republicans will hold onto Ken Cuccinelli's seat.
The only regret I will have with Dave Marsden losing this Senatorial bid is that he will continue to be the 41st District Delegate.
Posted by: cageyd | November 27, 2009 at 07:43 PM
Gretchen: If your position is based on reason, thought, and logic--not just some left-wing drivel--please provide us some concrete reasons for why Dave Marsden will make a good senator in the 37th. Which of his goals from his 2005 race has he met? What has he actually done for his constituents in the 41st, and what will he do for his constitutents in the 37th?
He promised to work to get NoVa its "fair share" of state funding. What progress has he made on this goal? None. He didn't even understand the composite index in the infamous "Ouch, Mr. Speaker!" video.
He said he was the "juvenile justice expert" who would bring innovative ideas to solve increasing crime (and gangs) in the region. hare" of state funding. What progress has he made on this goal? None. Oh, sorry, he sponsored a bill to improve information sharing among government agencies. And that has led to some serious changes, like...um...well, nothing.
He said he would "reach across aisles" and "put politics before partisanship" but hasn't crossed party lines for any meaningful piece of legislation. He rewards party leaders who anoint him the nominee by obeying them when they tell him to obey. "Sit, Lurch, sit." "Will do, Dick!"
He said he would vote for increasing the gas tax before he said he would not vote for increasing the gas tax before he said he would vote for increasing the gas tax before he said he would not vote for increasing the gas tax. Documented, verified, and absolutely hilarious. Dave Marsden never met a position (or party affiliation) he wouldn't change.
Dave Marsden: 4 years, 0 results. He was a Republican until it was more expedient to be a Democrat. He was an independent thinker before it was more expedient to obey the leadership. He lived outside the 37th senate district until...well...he still does.
Dave Marsden: Ambition, not Representation.
Anon Marsden staffer: Yes, everyone Marsden runs against is a right-wing whacko, blah-blah-blah. You'd think they'd come up with something new after using the same script for 5 years. And I can't wait to see him trot out the Dillard endorsement AGAIN. (Hint: Nobody cares anymore.)
Frankly, it's too bad NLS couldn't encourage a better candidate to enter the race, as Marsden will probably win against the weak GOP field. The irony is that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the GOP had fielded a strong candidate in the 41st.
Yes, Dave Marsden is of the "Reasonable Approach to Governing Society" if governing means not accomplishing a single meaningful goal for your constituents.
I can't wait to see who the party leaders anoint in the 41st after Marsden wins. Who do you think will it be, Ben?
Posted by: NoWonderYou'reAnon | November 27, 2009 at 08:05 PM
(laughing) Ok, if I do NOT support Marsden, I'm leaving behind my "grass roots" heritage and disappointing people. If I DO support Marsden (and I do!) then I'm just spouting "left-wing drivel." Honestly, this is a tough blog to manage!!
When I had a chance to talk with Marsden, I asked him not only to talk about what he wanted to do, but also about his priorities. Both Republicans and Democrats can prattle on about any point ideologically, but unless it's a priority in the way you think, it doesn't really matter.
Now, all of us have our priorities -- mine just happens to be jobs. I honestly don't believe you can do much else without making jobs the number one issue (one of the reasons I was yelling so much during the Governor's election. Whether or not McDonnell's real priorities are jobs, he certainly talked a good game and convinced enough voters to try it out.)
Marsden's first priority, when speaking to me, was jobs. We discussed this for some time, and share a common ideology that people are more responsive to other priorities (he mentioned education, transportation and the environment, in that order, although I am NOT claiming to speak for the campaign, only about a conversation he and I had) when they are reasonably sure of their job prospects. I agree with this (see Pittsburgh references above.) So that makes it a lot easier for me personally to support David Marsden.
Because none of the Republican candidates, so far as I can see, is talking about this as their first priority. Again, I am certainly not saying that Republicans don't care about jobs (I'm sure someone else will call me names if I do!) but I'm not seeing as the main priority. Which, frankly, I think is a mistake. (See reference above to past Governor's race.)
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | November 27, 2009 at 08:22 PM
Anon,
How is Ben vilifying Scott or Chap? He (like me) is simply communicating his disgust at the situation and personal frustration with these two individuals, not questioning their integrity. The fact that you want us to shut up and go along with the ticket because any dem is better than any republican makes me thing you're one of the Marsden trolls or just a donkey whore. With the exception of abortion, I have a hard time seeing how Marsden is functionally different than most the republican NOVA delegation. Oh, and Marsden will get the crap kicked out of him and for the first time in my life, I will be cheering for the republican against the dem. At least I know Steve Hunt stands for something other than his own career advancement.
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | November 27, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Anon, you may have missed the latest poll which shows that about 3/4ths of the people in this country think the current health care system is just fine, and no longer see a "crisis".
People were just hoping they could get their world-class health care cheaper -- once they realized that the Democrats were going to drive health care costs up, plus raise a half-trillion in taxes to pay for it, they lost interest.
And it's funny seeing anybody suggesting the "stimulus" bill did anything but make the economy worse -- unless of course you are a government employee, because they got to keep their jobs.
Posted by: Charles | November 27, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Since I have been working for the VA Dem Party since before most of you were born, I feel I need to say somthing about all of this. I am so disappointed in the behavior of leadership. I have to wonder if there were any other men in the running would they have been treated the same way as these women were. I think not. I have give 28 years, each and every campaign season of my time and energy. I think it is time for me to give up. We appear to be no better than the republicans. 28 years of my life devoted to my party. I give up, I surrender, I quit. If we treat each other like this, we will never win. Janet did everything she was told to do and delivered. She has my respect. If you want to talk about character, it's Janet who would make phone calls for you, knock on doors, and even raise money for you. This is how we treat a dedicated member and worker of the party. Maybe all of us who have done the same for so may candidates for so many years should just retired. We are not appreciated, or respected. Let's just let the guys own it. It's their club.
While we have a few years left, why not retire and enjoy life. I think I'll give my political donations to the Salvation Army.
Posted by: A tired and worn out party worker | November 28, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Gretchen,
If Marsden actually moved into the district and was actually elected by popular vote, I would accept that and just maybe be convinced to go out to Burke and knock on doors for the man. But the DPVA and Marsden obviously don't want the people to be heard on who they want to represent them- and that to me is what is unforgivable here, not whatever issue profile Marsden claims to have.
This is obvious candidate fraud and voter suppression, not too mention Marsden is only unopposed because he and party leaders threatened other candidates. I don't know what planet you've been living on but Marsden cares only about his own political survival and advancement and stand for nothing else not to mention he's been a horrible delegate. I don't know how inept one has to be to make Dave Albo look like the level headed, engaged, responsible delegate but Marsden figured out a way.
I feel sorry for you that your hatred of the religious right will make you go along with just about anything including the suppression of democracy. Some of us still have certain principles that we aren't willing to compromise even if it means loosing every now and then and a free and open primary where every voice is heard is one of those principles. But quite frankly if the only thing you stand for is having people with D's next to their names get elected then you deserve a hollow suit like Marsden winning in a soviet style nominating process. You also deserve to have him loose to a republican, its just a shame people like you are going to drag down the rest of the district and the state in the process.
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | November 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Mr. Bubbles
Please tell us how the leadership threatened other candidates.
Posted by: Not A Virginia State Senator | November 28, 2009 at 12:46 AM
senator,
Im sure Janet Oleszek and Luann McNabb can tell you much better than I can. Also, you and I both know that they don't exactly leave their threats on voicemail.
Just out of curiosity, how much does Marsden pay you for this shit?
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | November 28, 2009 at 01:16 AM
Funny Mr. Bubbles funny. Marsden pays me nothing. Someone cannot ask a question without you getting your nose out of joint. I find it amusing that so many people know so many things and yet when asked a probing question they cannot answer the question. You are the one saying that people were subjected to threats. Yet you seem completely unable to articulate the threat. Why is that?
Posted by: Not A Virginia State Senator | November 28, 2009 at 01:21 AM
Janet Oleszek and Luann McNabb began raising money and calling supporters following the 2009 general election. Oleszek has made no secret ever since her defeat in 2007 that she wanted to run for the seat again. She initially had enthusiasm and backing from both Richmond and FCDC for a run since she was the logical choice to step up. Then Marsden jumps in to the race. All of a sudden the rules on the primary are changed and Oleszek declines to file. All this occurs after the Connolly, Bulova, and Moran camps jump in behind Marsden. Any logical analysis of their electoral histories will reveal that intimidation are common tactics for all three but I'm suppossed to believe Janet gave up her dream and ambition without intimidation? Your level of smugness seems to suggest you have some level of undestanding of politics which means you know the people doing these things know how to not leave bloody gloves behind at the crime scene. I can no more physically prove my argument than you can prove yours but at least I have enough circumstantial evidence and logic to back my claims.
Im sorry that Marsden isnt paying you for this. Perhaps if your communications and new media skills were better you'd have a career as something more than a troll. Finally, you have idea who I am so don't make judgements about the shape of my nose until do. Smacking you around like this is just something to keep me entertained on a cold and dreary winter night until Mrs Bubbles arrives.
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | November 28, 2009 at 01:56 AM
My dear Mr. Bubbles. First I do not care who you are. Nor am I particularly concerned with the shape of your nose. Second you have no clue as to who I am.
I am not here to troll. I am just curious as to what you mean by intimidation. If intimidation means telling someone that they are not going to win. Then I am certain that occured. However, someone who won't run because someone told them they can't win just does not want it bad enough.
Moreover, if its as bad as you and others assert the aggreived parties should say something. The fact that they have been silent is telling.
And as for your smacking me around, don't flatter yourself. I know more about this matter and most things political than you will ever know. I just like reading the things that you post. Its like watching a soap on TV. You know its not true and it makes you laugh.
Posted by: Not A Virginia State Senator | November 28, 2009 at 08:33 AM
(laughing) So now I'm a "Marsden troll" and a "donkey whore." You have to love blogs!!!
Ok, here is what I see, and I'm going to call it straight. I think the way this election (for State Senate) has been set up and handled is wrong. I think that Dem leadership has dropped the ball in a big way, and left those of us who really care about Dem ideas and policy in a position of having to run around much weaker than we could have been, or should be. I think some of the stunts pulled, which Ben has brought to our attention, such as the "poll" and the single firehouse primary, are frustrating, and I'm personally angry about them.
I will also say that while I don't know Luann McNabb at all, I know Janet Oleszek very well. We live in the same neighborhood, she is my precinct captain, and in the years I have worked in Fairfax County, no one has been more dedicated in her community or to the party. I have nothing but good things to say about her, and had she decided to run, I would have been among the first to support her.
But she isn't running. Marsden is.
Another thing I'm calling like I see it -- as angry as I am about some of the things I've seen going on, I can't sit back and see words like "threaten" and "intimidate" without calling them out as sexist. For instance, no one has suggested that Chuck Caputo was "intimidated" or "threatened" into not running. And any candidate, of any gender, who finds political power stunts like the once we've seen here as "threatening" and "intimidating" is kidding herself about her ability to lead on any significant level. If you can't handle local shenanigans in your own party (and both parties have been doing them since parties began) then what makes someone think they can handle it in Richmond or DC?
Again, I love Janet and wish she had run. But she didn't. And I'm dancing with the Party that has been the best best partner for the ideas I want in government, even as I see clearly things that need to be challenged and changed.
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | November 28, 2009 at 12:52 PM
(Mr. Bubbles - I clearly did not explain myself well enough before, but I certainly don't hate the religious right. I remain to this day one of the most religious Democratics I know, and I have never hated Republicans of any kind, since that would mean half of my friends would have to be cut off, and that would be stupid. What I did say is that I learned a great deal about politics and people from having grown up in that world.)
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | November 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Gretchen, your cogent analysis of the situation is really on point. However, I'd just caution you that Ben's reliability on ANYTHING involving Dave Marsden is about 0%. For instance, he makes a whole lot of assertions about a poll, but never does he post anything in it or give any indication that he actually saw it. He just makes stuff up and says, "this MUST be how it happened." Mularkey. What possible motivation could Saslaw and the Senate Caucus have had for rigging the poll? Even Ben can't come up with one! Anyone who knows Saslaw knows that he wants to win this seat more than he wants anything else. He's ONLY concerned about getting the strongest candidate, period. It wouldn't have been in his interest to not get an accurate impression of who the strongest candidate was, at all actually. When you've been in politics as long as he has, then you know that a bad poll is worse than useless; you'd ALWAYS rather get accurate information than get smoke blown up your rear end.
His next big gripe is that the polling location was chosen to keep other candidates out. First, as I point out in the next post, the polling location wouldn't have hurt Janet one bit; she's in the same part of the Senate district as Marsden! Second, if Luann had announced and been in the race, then things almost certainly would have been different. But as you point out, they weren't running, Marsden was.
Ben has an agenda and an ax to grind and his repeated stunts over the last several weeks make this perfectly clear. Moreover, he's not the least bit opposed to just making things up, especially when he knows that the people who actually do know the truth won't come on here and call him out.
Posted by: Oh please... | November 28, 2009 at 03:25 PM
Oh please --
great handle since it so perfectly captures what so many of us feel....is there anyone in politics who doesn't feel that way at least some of the time?
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | November 28, 2009 at 03:46 PM
Gretchen,
Its nice to finally see a Marsden supporter admit this was a flawed and rigged process. Your claims of sexism are just completely absurd on so many levels. Using your logic, I could just as well say that suppressing a fair and open primary is sexism on behalf of Saslaw and Cramwell because they dont think a woman can compete in this district. If Chuck Caputo got the nod from the senate caucus, started raising money, made phone calls, prepared to file, and then dropped out because party leaders publicly raised questions about his viability in a general election (and ive been around long enough to know that worse things were prob said behind closed doors) then I would say that he was intimidated as well. I left him out of this simply because he wasn't as far along in the process of running as Janet was.
I find it very curious that the only argument you and others can make on behalf of Marsden is that the seat needs to be in the hands of a D (albeit one in name only) which is what makes you a donkey whore in my opinion. No one has been able to elloquate a positive case for Marsden's candidacy and quite frankly that's pathetic. He has been around long enough in government and politics that one should have no problem coming up with a compelling candidate story and issue profile for him but that hasn't materialized in this process. This tells me all I need to know about him and this farce of an election. Like I said before, I'm disgusted enough withe the DPVA and Marsden as a person that I have no problems sitting this one out and quietly cheering for the republican. You're right in that hate was too strong a word but you obviously have some level of antagonism towards the religious right (not to be confused with the religious community as a whole) that's distorting your judgement.
Senator, this has been your third post and you really haven't said anything of value. You remind me of Dick Cheney during the Valerie Plame affair or Karl Rove during the US attorney scandal.
As for your other claims of "knowing more about this matter and most things political than you will ever know" well this is a common line/tactic used to bully ignorant and weak minds by those who are washed up and desperate to return to power. I've seen it used to very little success many times over the last two cycles by wannabe narcissists trying to be shot-callers that I don't take any of it seriously. To be quite frank, it you were in any position to be half of what you claim, you either wouldn't be talking to me at all or be choosing your words much differently. Unless of course you actually are Dave Marsden (fitting handle if that's the case) and this situation is more pathetic than I realized.
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | November 29, 2009 at 01:28 AM
(grin) So now it's my judgement that has been "distorted." Aren't you sort of saying that you know me better than I know myself? And how is that different from you assertion (which I think is justified) in saying that people who claim to "know more about this matter and most things political than you will ever know" isn't just as unhelpful to the discussion here?
I have always said that I would be supporting the Democratic candidate in this race, and so my position has not changed. I've studied the Republican candidates and I don't want those priorities taking precedence in my district. I've admitted that I don't know David Marsden that well, but I've liked what I've come to know in the short time I've had before being thrown into this election. I've also admitted that I find the way this election has been set up and managed to be frustrating and angry.
However, given all of the ground that I've given here, it seems clear that unless I completely agree with you, I'm still a donkey whore with distorted judgement.
I guess I'll just have to find a way to live with that!!
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | November 29, 2009 at 02:01 PM
Marsden has to be THRILLED that Ben has decided to cyber-stalk him. (Of course, Ben and Janet also stalked him in the real world, too, lest we forget.)
Who was the last NOVA Democrat that Ben cyber-stalked? None other than Congressman Gerry. That went pretty well for him, as I recall.
Good luck with your latest mission to thwart a Democrat who prevented your sugar momma from winning a seat. It won't end well for you, son, but good luck nonetheless.
Posted by: I.Publius | November 29, 2009 at 04:27 PM
Gretchen,
Reread my post, especially where I said if Marsden won this in fair manner, I would be out in Burke knocking doors for him. What makes my comments different than senators is that I'm trying to salvage what integrity is left in this process, i.e. dems in the campaign should at least be fore something. My big complaint is that this whole process is fatally flawed not that people are supporting candidates I don't agree with. If you can tell me what about Marsden's issue or candidate profile inspires you (which was curiously absent from your last post and not just that he's the lesser of two evils) I'll retract my donkey whore comment. As a matter of principle I don't support or vote for dems simply because they are D's, I need to believe that they will do great things in office not simply being place holders and rubber stamps.
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | November 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Oh and Ben,
Mike Burns was coordinated campaign staff before he was FCDC executive director, not Marsdens. I know in a lot of ways thats just a technicality but coordinated campaign staff usually aren't beholden to the candidates whose districts they are assigned to and I dont see Marsden having enough influence to arrange Burns current job on his own.
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | November 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Mr. Bubbles,
I can respect that you can't vote for person X for whatever reason. I can also respect that while you (or anyone) will vote for person X, you can't actively support them in any other way. I've been in that position myself, and likely will again.
But for me, in this case, lesser of two evils is just fine with me. I've had only a few days to get to know Dave Marsden, and am not seeing the red eyed monster that some have portrayed him to be, but a thoughtful person on the same page as I am on core issues. To be honest, there have never been very many Democratic candidates that have "inspired" me, and I don't use emotion as my guide when voting (although it's nice to have inspiring candidates, don't get me wrong.) For me, while the inspiration is nice, it's often a little too cult of personality for my taste. That doesn't mean that for another voter that should mean anything or that there is anything wrong with seeking out candidates who inspire you, simply that your criteria isn't mine.
I guess we've sort of reached an impasse. (I'm afraid this still makes me a donkey whore!) I don't think there is anything I can say to you that is going to make you understand my position any better than I've already said or even respect me as a person who disagrees with you, and I'm genuinely sorry about that.
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | November 30, 2009 at 04:57 PM
Mr. Bubbles,
You are very destructive and have no idea what you are talking about. You have this conspiracy theory that is 100% bogus. I agree that Janet would have been a much better candidate and am disappointed that it turned out this way. However, you and Ben are making a story up that is not factual. There were no threats made by anyone against any of the candidates. And to the extent there may have been shortcomings in the process, they were the result of a process rushed through quickly and had no intention of blocking any candidates from running.
Posted by: Chris | December 01, 2009 at 07:51 AM
Gretchen,
Well spoken and your points are fair enough. I retract my donkey whore comment :)
Chris,
I have enough facts and circumstantial evidence to show the whole process was fatally flawed. I will cede that "threatened" might be to strong of a word but there was obviously some intimidation going on behind the scenes but perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me why I am wrong. The idea that any of this is the result of a process that has been rushed through sounds completely bogus. I have a very hard time believing FCDC and the DPVA didn't have some contingency plans if cooch won. As inept as the party has been this year, they aren't that stupid and reckless.
Posted by: Mr. Bubbles | December 01, 2009 at 12:16 PM