Monday, November 26, 2007

Tom and Gerry, the clock is ticking.

How can we enjoy the holidays waiting to find out whether Tom Davis will run for re-election and whether Gerry Connolly will run for the Democratic nomination for Davis' seat?

Today, Sen. Trent Lott announced he's resigning before the end of the year. According to

"A Lott friend said part of the reason, and a factor in the timing, is a new lobbying regulation, signed by President Bush in September, extending the existing lobbying ban for former members of Congress from one to two years. The lobbying ban takes effect at the end of this year."

Undoubtedly, Tom Davis knows the effective date of the new lobbying ban, too. C'mon Tom, go for the gold! It'll be a win-win: more money for you and a better representative for your constituents.

Speaking of the voters of VA-11, does Gerry Connolly really think delaying his decision to run is hurting anyone but himself? Leslie Byrne is out there campaigning up a storm. If Connolly does run, he'll have a higher hill to climb, not only to persuade us that he has something to offer that Byrne doesn't, but also to offer a good explanation for the delay in announcing in order to overcome our doubts about how badly he wants the job.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Tom Davis admits he didn't do his job.

I missed this Washington Post article when it was published last month. I read about it in a comment made today at Raising Kaine.

Tom Davis' quote at the end of the excerpt below speaks for itself.

White House Feels Waxman's Oversight Gaze
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 25, 2007; A01

[Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee] has become the Bush administration's worst nightmare: a Democrat in the majority with subpoena power and the inclination to overturn rocks. But in Waxman the White House also faces an indefatigable capital veteran -- with a staff renowned for its depth and experience -- who has been waiting for this for 14 years.

"We have to let people know they have someone watching them after six years with no oversight at all," said Waxman, 68. "And we've got a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick."

Republicans have their share of complaints. They say that Waxman's staff cuts corners, plays "gotcha" with witnesses and committee Republicans, bypasses GOP staff members by interviewing witnesses rather than depositioning them, and would rather investigate than legislate. But even some of them speak with grudging admiration.

"For the administration, and for a lot of others, people need to be careful now," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), the ranking Republican on the committee. "Someone is looking over their shoulder."

Monday, November 19, 2007

I knew George was tanking, but Laura, too?!

A Troubling Case of Readers' Block
Citing Decline Among Older Kids, NEA Report Warns of Dire Effects
By Bob Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 19, 2007; C01

Americans are reading less and their reading proficiency is declining at troubling rates, according to a report that the National Endowment for the Arts will issue today. The trend is particularly strong among older teens and young adults, and if it is not reversed, the NEA report suggests, it will have a profound negative effect on the nation's economic and civic future.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving

From the Washington Post's VA politics blog -

Corey A. Stewart, chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, said today he won't be a candidate for Congress next year.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

The Washington Post Asks, Is Tom Davis a Eunuch?

Eventually, I'll have to start a new blog, because I doubt Chap will face another Jeannemarie ever again.

Until then, I'll use this one to track the political future of Mr. Jeannemarie, a/k/a, Tom Davis (R-VA-11).

Today's Washington Post has what amounts to a pre-death obituary for the Davises.

I commented on a bunch of quotes from the article in a diary at entitled "With friends like these..."

I saved the best quote for here:

Michael W. Thompson, a longtime friend who is president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, a center-right think tank based in Virginia....Just because she lost it doesn't mean he's a eunuch."

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

The system works for a change!

Chap, congratulations and thanks for running. I'm confident you'll do great things in Richmond.

Voters, thanks for voting.

Let's enjoy this victory and soon return to the task of improving our representation.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Chap's Positive Election Eve Message

Please take the opportunity tomorrow to vote. Thanks.

Below is Chap's election eve e-mail message.

Friends, Virginians, citizens of Fairfax:

Tomorrow is Election Day. For me, it's been a year of knocking doors, shaking hands, and giving speeches. Now the day of reckoning is here.

With all the attacks, counter-attacks and media blitz, it's important to remember why we started this effort in January. And why we will end it victoriously tomorrow. Quite simply, the General Assembly of Virginia needs new leadership.

With new leadership, we can produce a 21st-century transportation system which does not just "tax and pave" but rather integrates new technology, proper land use, and energy conservation.

With new leadership, we can become a leader in preserving our open spaces, promoting renewable resources and encouraging sustainable living.

With new leadership, we can build our legacy of higher education with expanded campuses, merit-based scholarships, and student loan reform to permit opportunities for all.

With new leadership, we can demand that Assembly members are fully accountable to their constituents, not their financial contributors.

With new leadership, we can change the tone of the Assembly from one of division to one of unity. We can knit together the disparate elements of Virginia to create a state that is first among equals.

Tomorrow, when you go to the polls, vote for a positive change for this community and our Commonwealth. Vote for new leadership.

I'm Chap Petersen, Democratic candidate for State Senate, and I respectfully ask for your vote.


Chap Petersen

Visit us at

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The Final Fortnight

The most important e-mail message I received today is reproduced below. Please read it. Thanks

Friends, Virginians, citizens of Fairfax:

Twenty-five years ago, a band called Twisted Sister had a hit called "We're Not Going to Take It!" That's where this campaign is sitting. For ten months, we have walked this district, meeting voters and spreading a positive message of "new leadership." As we close in on Election Day, our spirits are high. And we're not taking it anymore.

Our opponents have no message (except slogans they borrow from us). On TV, it is fabrication, attack, fabrication, attack. Their thought is that we don't have the funds to fight back.


Today, we are airing a TV commercial that sets the record straight. Here it is. My opponent doesn't want people to see it, because it exposes her State Senate term as just another "no show" job. Apparently, she only shows up to raise Fairfax County taxes!

With every donation at, we keep this commercial on the air. And we keep our positive message on the ground and in the mailbox. That's the winning combination as we close in on Election Day.

Please help us keep this commercial on the air (and "no show" legislators out of the Virginia legislature). A donation of just $250.00 buys an additional time slot. As we prepare for Election Day, please contact or (703) 349-3361 to help us on Tuesday, November 6th. And, as always, let us know how we can represent you better.


Chap Petersen

Visit us at

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

and we'll all live happily ever after (or at least for a term)

Once upon a time, the Davises must have been either sufficiently impressive candidates/incumbents or incredibly lucky on their election days. That was then.

Recently, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis publicly and proudly called herself a Republican In Name Only, a/k/a, a RINO. Yesterday, Tom Davis effectively told the National Press Club that he couldn't even withstand the fight for the Republican nomination for Senate next year, let alone hope to defeat Mark Warner. But Tom, ever the babbler, gratuitously added the following, "so what? I've been a committee chairman in the House. I've got my portrait hanging on a wall. I've been pretty productive legislatively."

To recap, we're supposed to vote for Jeannemarie three weeks from yesterday, ignoring the party banner she and her husband have been running under their whole careers and which party they've reliably supported on issues from embroiling our military in the middle of a civil war in Iraq to imposing four digit fines for speeding? And, next year, we may have to consider sending Tom back for another two years, overwhelmed by the fact that there's a picture of him on wall and he's been "pretty productive?"

Tom Davis is many things, but he's not stupid. In fact, he's so taken with his own intellect that he just had to confirm what we all know about the virtual impossibility of getting the Republican nomination for Senate via a convention and he just had to signal yesterday that he thinks his wife will lose to Chap three weeks from yesterday. He knows better than anyone that if he can't even get his own wife re-elected this year, not only does he lack the support of the Republican faithful outside VA-11, his support within his district is gone.

Unfortunately, because Jeannemarie can't convert her campaign warchest to personal use, and because there are few other RINO's out there to donate the money to, the next 20 days will see more negative and lying ads about Chap. I suppose Republicans in Jeannemarie's district were so depressed anyway that her crappy campaign couldn't do any more harm to bringing out her vote. All she has left is trying to depress Chap's support.

The good news is that not only is Chap running a brilliantly uplifting campaign, but we have the power to do something quite easy to help ourselves for the next four years (and beyond, if Tom hangs it up) by getting off our butts for a few minutes on election day and voting.

If we do, like all good fairy tales, this one will have a happy ending.

Monday, October 15, 2007

PWC Residents, Please Secure Four No Votes

According to the leading private PWC resident in favor of tomorrow's proposal to fund the anti-illegal immigrant resolution, four of the eight Board members are committed to voting yes. That means the remaining four members must vote no to stop this hateful and recklessly expensive proposal. I strongly encourage PWC residents to do all they can to encourage the members listed below to vote no tomorrow.

Mr. Nohe
Office Phone: 703-792-4620
Office Fax: 703-792-4610

Ms. Barg
Office Phone: (703) 792-4646
Office Fax: (703) 792-4993

Ms. Caddigan
Office Phone: 703-792-4645
Office Fax: 703-792-4622 

Mr. Jenkins
Office Phone: 703-792-4668
Office Fax: 703-792-4669

Sunday, October 14, 2007

PWC Voters, Are Stewart's Priorities In Line With Yours?

Do Prince William County voters really care so much about illegal immigration that they'll re-elect a County Board Chairman who demands that the Board this coming Tuesday commit to spending more than $14 million on top of all the other required spending on schools and other services and even while cuts are contemplated for schools and other programs?

Check out the whole article from today's Prince William edition of the Wash Post - - including the last line I excerpt below.

Jump in Tax Rate Looms as Home Values Plunge
20 Cent Increase -- $257 Extra in Average Bill -- Required to Pay for Schools Plan and Other Priorities
By Christy Goodman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 14, 2007; PW01

Prince William County residents will see an increase in next year's property tax rate, no matter what.

County officials estimate that real estate values will drop by 14 percent on average, requiring at least a 13 cent increase to the 78.7 cent property tax rate to keep revenue stable. But to properly staff public safety agencies, pay for technology upgrades and build roads approved in a 2006 bond referendum, the tax rate would need to be closer to 95 cents. And to fund the county schools plan, the rate would need to grow to nearly 99 cents, for a $257 increase in the average tax bill.

These rates don't take into account the Police Department's need for $14.2 million over five years if a crackdown on illegal immigrants is carried out, or the costs of defending a lawsuit filed by civil rights organizations over the clampdown.

The projected rates do include cuts to employee benefits and delays in expanding the public safety training center and in constructing schools.

"We will be looking at declining values of residential real estate for four years in a row," County Executive Craig S. Gerhart said to the county supervisors during a meeting Thursday to discuss financial matters.

County staff members estimate a 30 percent drop in average home values between fiscal 2008 and 2012. And the real estate woes have led to a "ripple effect" in sales and business taxes collected by the county, said Christopher Martino, the county's finance director.

Despite what Supervisor W.S. Covington III (R-Brentsville) termed a "pretty scary" outlook, the chairman of the Board of County Supervisors, Corey A. Stewart (R), refused to consider a less-expensive, staggered implementation of the illegal-immigration crackdown. A vote on the program is set for Tuesday.

"It all has to do with priorities," Stewart told the board.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Vote for Chap and help put Tom out of his misery.



"Republican leaders gave former Gov. Jim Gilmore a boost today by choosing to hold a convention to nominate the party's candidate to run for the U.S. Senate next year.

The party's state central committee voted 47 to 37 to hold a convention rather than a primary.

Gilmore, saying a primary would cost money needed to take on Democrat Mark R. Warner in the Senate race, had pushed for a convention. Eleventh District Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, saying a primary would broaden the party's base and boost the candidate's name reognition, sought a primary.

Neither Gilmore nor Davis has announced his candidacy. There was speculation that Davis, now, would not seek the nomination, leaving the field to Gilmore. A Davis spokesman said he would announce his intentions after the Nov. 6 General Assembly elections."

Friday, October 12, 2007

Can pride, just this once, go before a triumph?

You gotta love the poll numbers that show Mark Warner trouncing either Gilmore or Davis if next year's Senate race were held today.

Once again, I must liberally borrow from, which, safely outside the bubble of denial represented by the Washington Post, tells it like it is. I wonder how Jeannemarie the self-proclaimed RINO (Republican in Name Only) feels about Tom's voting record on abortion.

"The Post perpetuates the myth that Davis is a 'moderate,' which his voting record proves is untrue. Example: Davis has participated in 54 roll calls regarding Iraq. So how many times did this 'moderate' fail to just rubber stamp the Bush Cheney position? Once, a February 2007 nonbinding resolution. So he's a moderate because he only rubber stamped Cheney's demands for endless war 53 times instead of 54 times? And it certainly doesn't look like he's 'moderate' on women's choice. He participated in 23 votes and he voted the religionist right position against choice all 23 times. I'm sure the Post has some reason they call Davis and other wingnuts moderates. Maybe it's because they have never been photographed in a KKK or Nazi costume."

Countering a Demagogue

Raising Kaine did a great service today by publicizing some brave filmmakers who are documenting the scapegoating of immigrants that is occurring in Prince William County.

Please visit

I hope they can find some average Prince William County residents to go on camera. I'm sure the average voter, though they may tell poll takers one thing and may very well re-elect Stewart, isn't nearly as proudly racist as that one guy who couldn't abide hearing his cashier at Home Depot speak Spanish. I think if more voters could hear from the silent plurality out there who are in denial about the realities of immigration, legal or otherwise, they would feel safer listening to their own hearts and consciences and not demagogues like Stewart.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

How Can Anyone Ever Vote for Either Davis Again?

Constituents of both Davises needn't wait until next year to send a message to them that it's time to retire, and this November Jeannemarie can be replaced with Chap!

Check out the latest outrage from Tom excerpted from

The House just passed the War Profiteering Prevention Act by a vote of 375-3. It criminalizes war profiteering. Did someone decriminalize it? Not allowed is "overcharging in order to defraud or profit excessively from war, military action, or reconstruction efforts" and if Bush signs it-- lol-- it will be "a felony subject to up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal profits of the crime."

If your mind works anything like mine, you're probably wondering what kind of sick slobs voted against this, right? I'm sure you know which party they all come from. The misanthropes who don't want to see war profiteering made illegal are:

-Richard Baker (R-LA), who has voted with Bush on every single Iraq roll call. H'es 100% so why sully that now?

-Tom Davis (R-VA), who is now trying to appeal to a much more right-wing and lunatic fringe GOP base as he tries to run for the Republican nomination to replace Senator John Warner and is trying to show that, at heart, he's just as insane as Eric Cantor-- or even more so. In the past, when he just had to deal with a moderate suburban district outside DC, he even once-- out of 55 roll calls-- opposed some Bush-Cheney scheme of destruction in Iraq. But that was then. Now's he's desperate to butch up his image. That and a big fat bribe from Erik Prince, the North Carolina Republican war lord who runs Blackwater and has given Davis over $700,000 in "campaign contributions." A real American that Davis. This was his argument against the bill-- which even kooks like Patrick McHenry, Mean Jean Schmidt and Doug Lamborn couldn't buy: "Hundreds of contractor lives have been lost over in Iraq, and I think the widows and the mothers, of these sons and daughters who've been killed in Iraq would be, I think chagrined to hear their sons referred to as profiteers."

-Mike Rogers (R-AL), as crazy as they come, so nothing more or less could ever be expected of him. You want to know exactly how crazy? Just look at his voting record regarding the well-being of America's military personnel. He's a lot more interested in the well being of America's war profiteers than of the young men and women who are on the front lines.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, the Dada Party Candidate

Jeannemarie Devolites Davis has asked us to ignore the GOP label which will appear next to her name on the ballot. This is beyond negative campaigning which only seeks to discourage turnout; she's actually trying to attract voters by claiming she's an independent and not a Republican. I suppose there are voters out there who won't know that the term RINO or Republican In Name Only is an insult and not a term of praise, but would those voters be encouraged to vote for someone who, in effect, is saying "I'm not who I say I am?" I'd give her credit for resorting to the ultimate form of postmodern campaigning, if I thought this was deliberate. Then again, maybe she's practicing politics as an aural artform. If I hear the "message" described in this article - - I could very well be mesmerized enough to forget to vote.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

2009 Can't Come Soon Enough

Webb gave it a great shot today. I can't express how sad I am that he was done in by John Warner. The only explanation for Warner's terrible decision is that he wasn't wholly sincere in his pre-retirement announcement that a meaningful, albeit small, withdrawal was necessary. Once Warner did announce his retirement, he should have been more free, not less, to demonstrate his independence from Bush.

Bush's stance is, as it has been; he will not compromise, and he will not countenance a loss on any vote. At this point, the Dems would have to shut down funding for the war to accomplish any change. Alternatively, they could try to impeach and convict both Bush and Cheney. It just so happens that I'm in that still too small group who would favor such extreme actions. I challenge anyone who does disagree with Bush, but isn't willing to support those extreme actions, to shift focus to Congressional Republicans. While they don't have any more direct control over Bush than their Democratic counterparts, many of them have already begun their re-election campaigns.

My representative, Tom Davis, is waiting until after our state elections this November to officially announce his intentions for next year. People more knowledgeable than I predict that Davis will try to succeed John Warner in the U.S. Senate, and that Warner himself seeks that result. Davis has said absolutely nothing to discourage such talk. I also happen to be represented in the VA Senate by Davis' wife. Davis is campaigning vigorously for his wife. He's justifying a vote for his wife, in part, relying on his personal credibility. Davis has been anything but clear about where he stands on withdrawing our troops. I ask my fellow constituents of VA-11 to demand that Davis tell us where he stands on the war. If he won't clearly state that he would have voted with Webb today, it's fair to assume he'd act just like his mentor and the man he probably hopes to replace. That's unacceptable to me. I'm going to vote for Chap Petersen over Ms. Davis anyway, but I'd like to believe that on the most important issue facing us today, if someone siding with Bush asked me to vote for a particular person, I'd be highly inclined not to.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

John Warner's Valedictory Period May Be Over

I was trying to think of a term, analogous to a honeymoon period, to describe the way we were all supposed to say nice things about John Warner in the wake of his retirement announcement.

In any event, the Wall Street Journal has reported today that Warner is reconsidering his support for his VA colleague Jim Webb's proposal to require that our troops be given as much time off between tours as the length of their tours. I learned this from which reports that Warner is "reconsidering his position" in light of the administration's willingness to move closer to him on expediting some reduction in U.S. troop levels this year in Iraq. "It took a lot of convincing to make the first units come home before Christmas," Mr. Warner said. "There is a lot of importance in that."

This is patently a false rationale. Warner initially "broke" with Bush by saying that a symbolic number of troops needed to be withdrawn to make clear to the Iraqi government that our commitment is not open-ended. Bush's pledge to bring some troops home by this Christmas sends absolutely the opposite signal to Iraqi government. Between Gen. Petraeus' testimony and everything the Bush Administration has said since, it is clear that the only troops that are coming home are those that were going to have to come home anyway because the surge can't be sustained beyond the middle of next year.

So, can we please quit saying what a great independent statesman Warner is? Without even a re-election bid at stake, he's caving for, I guess, purely partisan reasons. Combining this with Sen. Majority Leader Reid's statement today that compromises with GOP Senators about Iraq are off the table, I fear that not only will John Warner not bring Tom Davis closer to the Dem position, Davis will vote with Bush yet again.

Corrected - If it's Tuesday, Tom Davis must be veering right again.

Yesterday, Vice President Cheney spoke on behalf of Rep. Graves (R-MO). Cheney took the opportunity to pep up the partisan crowd by trotting out the latest boogey man from the evil left,

I think it's worth arguing whether should have employed the rhyme "betray us" in an ad in the New York Times criticizing Gen. Petraeus. What's clearly not worth arguing is whether the Times gave some kind of benefit in the rate charged for the ad. In an report on Friday by Katharine Seelye, the Times itself explained that the rate says it paid was the usual rate for that kind of ad requested by the advertiser on a "standby" basis, i.e., no guarantee that it will run on the preferred date.

[The 9/24/07 Wash Post reports that the New York Times admitted it should have charged full price for the ad because the date of its running was promised to Moreover, the ad's content violated NYT policies on personal attacks. While I still think Tom Davis was grandstanding, in this case, it appears he was right.]

Here's what Cheney said yesterday: The attacks on Gen. Petraeus by in "ad space provided at subsidized rates in the New York Times last week were an outrage."

Today, Tom Davis wrote House Government Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman calling for hearings on "the New York Times's possible in-kind political contribution to in the form of a discounted advertising rate."

I can only guess that because the GOP can't directly tie the Democrats to, and because the GOP thinks that attacking only won't sufficiently rouse the rabble, the GOP wants to shift the focus to their longstanding presumed liberal enemy, the New York Times.

Can we please put to rest any notion that Tom Davis isn't, and hasn't been (see Schiavo subpoena), a reliable flunky for the worst kind of right-wing propaganda?

Arguably, Davis is simply signaling his willingness to lean hard to the right in anticipation of facing competition in next year's quest for the GOP nomination for John Warner's Senate seat. I don't think it matters what Davis' motivation is. Tom Davis is all too willing to talk and act contrary to the ideological sentiments of his constituents.

I'll end as I have in previous posts here. Tom Davis is literally running around campaigning for his wife to be re-elected to her VA Senate Seat. He's put off officially announcing his plans for next year. Tom and Jeannemarie Devolites Davis would like their mutual constituents to believe that they're moderate. Maybe Jeannemarie is more moderate than Tom. Maybe not. Regardless, Chap Petersen is clearly in the mainstream of a majority of his would-be constituents. A vote for Chap not only will give us a better State Senator next year, it will send an unmistakable signal to Tom Davis that we're fed up with entrenched politicians saying one thing and doing another.

Vote for change! Vote for Chap!

Sunday, September 16, 2007

"The Iraq war is largely about oil."

This ought to matter greatly, not only because it seems true, but also because of who said this: Alan Greenspan. I'd like to believe that this revelation will result in substantial changes soon in terms of our troops being withdrawn from Iraq. My hopes are not high. Bush would like to see a semi-permanent presence of around 50,000 troops somewhere in the region, probably in the massive bases built in Iraq. He analogized it to South Korea. I suppose in the fervor in the wake of 9/11, if Bush had described building a firewall against terrorists in the Middle East to last for decades, he still may have received bipartisan support. Even if everything had turned out just as it has, we might be exactly where we are today. Bush and the Republicans might even be less unpopular, because most people now suspect that Bush knew or should have known that Saddam had no WMD and that Bush knew or should have known that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. So, even if the invasion of Iraq created a front in the war on terror and terrorists in Iraq that had not been there before, most Americans might have accepted those costs as reasonable in an effort to protect our country from terrorism. What I shall never accept, however, is that most Americans would have accepted the costs, human, financial, and constitutional, if Bush said an invasion was necessary to secure access to oil. In fact, given the way Greenspan has self-servingly expressed other regrets about taxes and fiscal policy, I think it's fair to wonder if his revelation about oil isn't just the last available cover for the real reasons we invaded Iraq, which not only would have been unacceptable to most Americans but also would have been so outrageous to even suggest that the post-9/11 anger would have been redirected at Bush. I won't speculate, because I don't know, why we invaded Iraq, but it seems obvious to me that the only justifiable response by Congress is to take power away from Bush, at least by exercising control over funding, if not by impeachment. Any further delay at this point makes Congress complicit in at best the biggest mistake in U.S. foreign policy history and at worst major war crimes.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

John Edwards / Mark Warner / Chap Petersen

John Edwards is taking advantage of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's reticence. Tonight on MSNBC he's purchased two minutes to call for Congressional Democrats to refuse to give Bush any more money for the war without a fixed timetable for withdrawing our troops. I also understand that Edwards, going further than Clinton and Obama, thinks any residual troops should be those required for protecting our embassy and any humanitarian workers and no residual troops for the phony Global War on Terror or to train Iraqi troops.

As everyone now knows Mark Warner has announced that he will announce after this November's state elections that he will run to succeed John Warner in the U.S. Senate. VA Dems are ecstatic. VA Republicans are even more depressed than before and that's saying a lot. I'm confident that Mark Warner will use this period between now and this November to campaign vigorously for the most winnable seats for Dems.

Speaking of a very winnable seat for a Dem, I'm more excited than ever, and that's saying a lot, too, about the prospects of Chap Petersen winning his race against Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, a/k/a, Rep. Tom Davis' wife.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Obama and Hillary Again Tied on Our Future in Iraq.

Today, Barack Obama spoke on Iraq and released his plan for withdrawal. He and Hillary Clinton are now both for withdrawing our combat troops beginning now and ending sometime next year. It's now incumbent upon them to actually push legislation to accomplish this and not vote for anything less. It's also incumbent upon those of us who want Barack and Hillary to go even further even faster to push them to support legislation that matters, i.e., no more funding of anything but withdrawal. We also want more troops to be withdrawn, not just the combat troops, but virtually all the troops.

Monday, September 10, 2007

step backward tomorrow / step forward Wednesday?

It's not my VA Senate District, but I just found out District 39 Sen. Jay O'Brien is hosting a town hall meeting on "illegal immigration" tomorrow at Crestwood Elementary School. I encourage District 39 residents whose ugly sides haven't yet been captured by the anti-immigrant activists to show up to counter the haters.

On Wednesday, it's been reported that Barack Obama will give a major address on Iraq. Let's hope Hillary Clinton's movement toward meaningful and timely withdrawal as well as the chilly reception Petraeus and Crocker are getting today will spur Barack to move even further toward more meaningful and quicker withdrawal.

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Hillary nudges ahead of Barack on Iraq

I guess I should have done a more thorough canvass of news sources before I asserted earlier today that neither Hillary nor Barack had shown any recent leadership on ending the war. Dailykos got an e-mail from the Clinton campaign in which Hillary says she's for an immediate redeployment ending no later than 12/31/08, and she vows to do all she can to move Bush in that direction. I went to her official campaign website and didn't see any reference to this, but I don't know why Kos would lie. Barack's official campaign website and the sources I've consulted still show no new word from him. For now, I have to give the edge to Hillary. Barack, the pressure's on. Here's a link to Kos' post -

Credit for Warner/Signs of Dem Life/ CHAP!

I've been remiss in not updating and not timely giving credit to our very own Sen. John Warner for not only sticking to his guns in breaking with Bush but also for helping move toward getting us out of Iraq. I think you almost have to give the lion's share of credit to Warner for Gen. Petraeus' recent statements about a small redeployment maybe even by the end of this year.

Speaking of recent statements, there have been very hopeful signs from the Dem Senate Leadership on Iraq. Sen. Maj. Leader Reid has vowed not to compromise for the sake of compromise, and Sen. Durbin has vowed to stop giving Bush blank checks on funding the war. Though neither Sens. Clinton nor Obama need to take a leadership role here for the sake of their Presidential campaigns, it'll be very interesting to see how quickly they rush to the head of the parade if next week's debate turns into an anti-war rout.

Finally, the most recent news is that within the hour I spotted none other than Chap Petersen going door-to-door in my Lake Braddock neighborhood. We had a nice, albeit brief chat in the middle of Olley Lane. In the off chance any of my neighbors actually read this blog or perhaps see this post over at Waldo's aggregator, Virginia Political Blogs, and you haven't had the pleasure of meeting the #1 candidate on the scene today, you're in for treat. Go Chap!

Sunday, August 26, 2007

John Warner Day Four

Sen. Warner skipped a day of making news yesterday, but it was worth it. Today, he made another step forward in saying for the first time he'd consider supporting Congressionally mandated timetables for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, if President Bush doesn't initiate such a move himself. Just three days ago, Warner explicitly said he'd vote against such proposals. While I still think Warner could and should make a personal plea to Rep. Tom Davis to join Warner, Warner's shown sufficient leadership thus far to drag along some fellow Republican Senators.

[I based this post on an AP report, but that report didn't attribute any of Warner's remarks today to any forum other than Meet the Press. I just watched Meet the Press for myself. Warner was pressed pretty hard by Tim Russert to answer the hypothetical of what Warner would do if Bush's spokespeople testify on Sept. 15 and don't promise actual withdrawals of troops. Warner only would say that he wouldn't want it to see Bush veto a bill presented to Bush by Congress. It's possible that Warner was saying he wouldn't vote for a withdrawal proposal unless there were at least 66 other Senators who would also vote for it. Thus far, there haven't even been 60 Senators supporting timetables. If we get to 66 not counting Warner any time soon, I can't imagine Bush wouldn't jump in front of that parade, but, then again, I was one of the few idiots who thought that Bush wouldn't actually invade Iraq in the first place even on the eve of his doing it.]

Friday, August 24, 2007

John Warner Day Two

It ain't much, but I'll take it. The AP reports that the White House asked Warner to clarify his remarks yesterday to say that he hasn't broken with Bush. Warner refused. While I think Warner's snubbing of Bush may help embolden other Republicans to do the same, I'm still hoping for something more concrete. Here's a link to the AP story -

coulda been worse

Unfortunately, I had to go to work and missed Tom Davis's appearance yesterday. The Washington Post has done a pretty good job of covering it, complete with video excerpts - It looks like no one took me up on my suggestion that Davis be asked about his constituents punishing his wife if Davis continues to support this horrible war. Remember we still have the power. If you live in Jeannemarie's district and you regret voting for Tom last November, please consider voting for Chap this November.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Please Tell Tom Davis How You Feel on the War.

Tom Davis has agreed to confront us and answer our questions on the war. The details are at the bottom of this post.

Davis has been increasingly at odds with his constituents on this. He has abdicated any sense of constitutionality, leadership, and morality in letting Bush do whatever he wants. It is imperative that Tom Davis know that though we feel abandoned by him, we are not disheartened. More importantly, many of us are especially empowered right now. Thanks to his personal life and VA's political calendar and map, those of us who live both in Tom Davis' district and his wife's district can tell Tom that if he doesn't immediately start voting the right way on the war, this November, Jeannemarie will be the first to experience the consequences. Of course, the Davises have already written off my vote, but I strongly urge those of you who are independent and Republicans to acknowledge how some things are above politics, and, as I've stated before, if Jeannemarie loses this November, Tom Davis' own political future will have suffered a major, probably fatal, blow.

Major thanks to Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq for organizing this forum. The group is soliciting questions to ask Davis. E-mail them to Thanks also to Alice Marshall at for the tip.

I encourage those who can make it on Thursday afternoon in Burke to join in this important opportunity to show Tom Davis (and Jeannemarie) exactly where the people whom they represent stand on the war. If you can't make it, please send your questions and remarks to the e-mail address above.

Accotink Unitarian Universalist Church
10125 Lakehaven Court, Burke
Thursday, August 23 2-3pm

Monday, August 6, 2007

Our Community and the National Blogosphere

Just a quick note to let you know that the two-fer I've been blogging about, getting both John Warner's and Tom Davis' seats into the Dem column next year, was mentioned in the latest posting at Maybe if people go there and find this site, we can get the big moneyed, many eyeballed, national blogosphere to realize that by grabbing Jeannemarie's seat this year, we can make it a three-fer.

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Do we have more to fear than fear itself?

I was looking through the list of Senate Democrats who voted for the surveillance reform bill yesterday. Sixty votes were needed, and 60 votes were obtained. To get to 60, some usually reliably anti-Bush Democratic Senators voted to give Bush everything he wanted for another six months. Among these surprising Bush supporters were Carper of Delaware, Mikulski of Maryland, and our own Jim Webb. Prior to the Democratic cave-in, Sen. Lott had explicitly warned of an imminent terrorist attack and claimed that voting with Bush was necessary to try to prevent the attack. Lott even advised residents to leave town until Sept. 12, the day after the sixth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/01. Of all the Dems needed to get to 60, is it possible Carper, Mikulski, and Webb signed on, because their own constituents would likely be affected by any such attack? Why Mikulski and not Cardin? Is it because Mikulski's term is up before Cardin's? [Biden still hopes to be nominated, and obviously Warner voted with Bush.] It sure seems like important information about our safety is being kept from us. I hate not knowing whether I'm being paranoid or whether the most rational explanation is that the information is so bad and so imminent that the costs of publishing in terms of panic and damage to our political institutions outweighs the damage of the attack itself.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Obligatory Harry Potter Post

Can one be too prescient? I would have thought not before reading the latest post at I generally like this site. Mark Kleiman is very smart, articulate, and his political leanings are close to mine. Apart from the times where we disagree, the main criticism I have of the blog is that there's an arrogant tone that undercuts his intent to persuade, assuming that's what he intends [I know that's my main intent in blogging].

Anyway, check out what as of now is his latest post making his predictions for what happens in the last Harry Potter book. If anyone's reading this post, and doesn't want to have some major plot points spoiled, stop reading this now.

Am I the only one who thinks Kleiman's a little too accurate? I really doubt he'd cheat at something so trivial. Assuming he just is that good a guesser, I wonder if he cares that his being so right here may have damaged his credibility on more important matters in the future. I'd have commented there, but I don't think that's an option.

I'm happy to discuss Potter generally. I devoured the whole thing yesterday. Bottom line - it's worth it. If she has it in her, J. K. Rowling really ought to start another series soon. One last tidbit to stir conversation, the movies are fine, but when the books are that good, what's the point?

Monday, July 16, 2007

Random Monday

So much happening, so little time to blog.

1. First things first - Bush and Cheney still suck and should be impeached. The reasons for, and sources of information on why, are obvious and need not be repeated here. The latest news is somewhat positive, in that today Sen. Majority Leader Reid appears set to pull an all-nighter tomorrow, unless, of course, a sufficient number of Republicans blink, which is doubtful.

2. Health care - Have you seen Sicko? You should. Whatever you think about Michael Moore, he is doing all of us a favor by highlighting what would be our number one issue if Bush and Cheney hadn't committed war crimes by waging an illegal war. The latest news on this is pretty good, too. CNN picked the wrong guy to challenge. In their latest rationalization, CNN said the following:

"CNN has always prided itself on balanced reporting of claims made by special-interest groups. Moore's documentary "Sicko," which makes an impassioned case for a complete overhaul of the U.S. health care system, was not exempt from that reporting."

Excuse me?! Are they seriously accusing Moore of being a "special-interest?" For my part, I'm damn grateful that he's done what he's done. Sicko is a powerful statement that may do more to improve more of our lives than CNN has ever or will ever do. I actually think CNN was lazily displaying their knee-jerk approach to journalistic objectivity by assuming that any opposing force to a clear special interest, like the for-profit health care industry, must also be a special interest. At what point, do the needs of individuals get to be heard, if not for heroes like Moore? If CNN really thinks we have no more moral standing than corporations who exist solely to make money, I will gladly join him in doing whatever it takes to bring that corporation to its non-corporeal knees.

3. Chap, naturally. How great is it that Chap actively blogs at oxroadsouth and not only do we get to hear about personal stuff that demonstrates how a part of our community he really is, but he's taken on some really hot button issues like guns. His latest posting is on the number one local issue - the newly imposed abusive driver "fees". Chap nails it by calling a spade, a spade. These "fees" are nothing but disguised taxes, and, as such, are very poorly designed. Chap is able, as even some Dems (even Gov. Kaine sadly) aren't because they supported the "fees," to criticize. He even points out that a one cent increase in the state gas tax would raise the same amount of revenue as the "fees." I only hope he isn't Walter Mondaled about this. Thanks to Alice at GOTV for alerting me to Chap's latest post.

4. Finally, the 2008 Presidential race, for which, I'll make an exception to my policy of not talking about 2008 before we settle the 2007 elections. Ben, over at NLS, has endorsed Hillary. How can I break it to my Chicago brother the Obama supporter that it's now over? Seriously, I can see a strong case for the Dems coalescing around Hillary and making history. Anna Quindlen at has made a good case for a Clinton/Obama ticket (for the record, I touted this a while ago - ask my brother). We would even have a very good local reason for supporting Hillary, namely that an excited electorate seeing an older blonde at the top, might sweep another older blonde, namely Leslie Byrne, to victory in the 11th CD. I wonder if Jeannemarie would bleach her hair to continue her disguising her GOP dark roots if Hillary got the nomination.

Thursday, July 12, 2007


Today, Tom Davis, who was elected to represent us in the U.S. House of Representatives, again spat in our faces by voting against a bill that establishes a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. He's not listening to us. He's not even listening to Sen. John Warner, the man whose seat Davis badly craves. Instead, he appears to be one of the few remaining diehards who still listens to Bush and Cheney. I wonder if he would listen to his wife. Is she even brave enough to state her position on the number one issue? Shouldn't she have to come out of the closet on this? After all, she not only wants us to give her another term in Richmond and not vote for a damn impressive challenger, Chap Petersen, this November, a number of people believe her husband would love to have her succeed him in his House seat as he ascends to the Senate. Dream on Davises. Until we hear otherwise, we have to assume that on this, as on every other issue, Jeannemarie would vote exactly as her husband does, and increasingly against the interests and wishes of their constituents. See, for example Jeannemarie's vote for the very flawed transportation bill. Also, please note how she crows about her leadership on that very bad bill. What's next? Is Tom going to lecture us on how courageous he is in prolonging our nightmare in Iraq, just as Bush claimed today to be standing on principle, as if either of them has any principles? Would a prinicpled person subpoena Terri Schiavo? Give us a break! Better yet, let's give ourselves a break.

Impeach Cheney.
Impeach Bush.
Vote for Chap.
Never vote for Tom.

Monday, July 9, 2007

9/11, The Last Refuge of a Certain Scoundrel

Bill Kristol has labeled Senators Domenici, Lugar, Voinovich, and our very own (and Kristol's, too, I think) Warner as "pre-9/11 Republicans." If Karl Rove is Bush's brain, we should remember that Bill Kristol was Dan Quayle's brain. It's also instructive to remember that the Weekly Standard is Rupert Murdoch's attempt to put a pseudo-intellectual face on neoconservatism. Finally, we should remember that neoconservatism is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "might makes right." Check out what Straussians have to say about the noble lie. It is true, as Kristol writes, that our soldiers' sacrifices should be acknowledged. It is nonsense, however, for him to wrap himself in their courage, especially as he attacks politicians who actually put themselves up for re-election every six years. What penalty has Kristol paid for being consistently wrong in his policy recommendations? I imagine that Murdoch's checks have been consistently coming all these years. Moreover, what the hell does "pre-9/11" as a perjorative even mean? Lots of very sensible things were done in the aftermath of 9/11, from increased airport security to better intelligence coordination among previously stove-piped agencies. Of course, much remains to be done, like stepping up port and border security. Additionally, much foolishness (airline bans on liquids) and deviousness (the Patriot Act) was foisted on us in the wake of our fear. Nothing, however, was more foolish or more devious than invading and occupying Iraq. Long before 9/11, Kristol and the other armchair warriors were recommending using our military to "solve" the Middle East. It has been proven in the writings of O'Neill, Woodward, and Tenet that the opportunity 9/11 presented to get rid of Saddam was openly debated by Bush and Cheney by 9/12 at the latest. Given all we know now about the deceit that put us in Iraq, the incompetence that has failed to prevent the civil war now engulfing Iraq, and the sheer absurdity that every day we delay in orderly withdrawing from Iraq makes us less safe, to hide behind 9/11 is truly the last refuge of the scoundrel named Kristol.

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Is the iron hot enough?

With national Dem silence, Paris Hilton's travails, the Libby commutation, and Live Earth, I forgot about the summer campaign to target Republicans who might break with Bush and Cheney on Iraq. See for more details.

Anyway, how convenient is it that one of the targets is our very own Tom Davis? It's even more convenient for those of us blessed to live in both Tom's Congressional District and his wife Jeannemarie's VA Senatorial District.

So, while Chap deftly counters Jeannemarie's ill gotten money and negative campaigning, simultaneously presenting his positive vision for our VA Senatorial District's concerns, let's help him out and ask Jeannemarie what she's doing to get her husband to do the right thing on Iraq.

A while back I extolled the happy chance we have to kill two birds with one stone in defeating Jeannemarie this November and badly damaging Tom's political future next year. This became three birds with the likely retirement of Sen. John Warner. Now, we can make it four birds with a serious blow to Bush and Cheney on Iraq.

I refuse to believe that my fellow voters of both Tom's District and Jeannemarie's District aren't snugly in the majority of current polls. Only Republican attempts to get us to stay home on election day can stop us. Frankly, I think it'd be immoral not to vote for Chap this November.

Saturday, July 7, 2007

If The Hague Pardons Bush and Cheney Will They Go Away?

Nixon resigned over a tape showing he participated in covering up a bungled burglary. Clinton was impeached over a dress with DNA proving he lied about, and obstructed the investigation of, an extra-marital affair.

After all this spilled blood and treasure, can't we throw out Bush and Cheney over their "plan" to indefinitely maintain over one hundred thousand of our military personnel in a place where the best case scenario is that our losses and their civilian losses will be held to a minimum and the worst case scenario is unsustainable losses for us, unconscionable losses for their innocents, and the strengthening of Iran at the very time we're rattling our sabers against them only helping those there who want Iran to join the nuclear club?

How ironic is it that Bush and Cheney are hiding behind the legalistic fiction that, because they haven't committed any high crimes or misdemeanors, they can't be impeached? This from the gang who thinks the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" anachronisms.

The problem is there seems to be no political leverage to bear. Democrats only benefit from the further degradation of the Republican Party. Republicans are so close to the bottom they see no upside at all. What could possibly force Bush and Cheney to orderly bring our troops home? More frighteningly, what could possibly prevent them from taking the fight to Iran?

If the thought of a lying politician being allowed to remain President from August 1974 to January 1977 was abhorrent, the thought of Bush and Cheney being allowed to remain in office one more day ought to be doubly so.

Still, I don't think a sufficient number of people are ready to break the law. I know I'm too afraid to. I can only cowardly confess that I hope my representatives come back from their August recess and use the power of the purse to force a Constitutional showdown.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Should we care?

Should we care about today's attempt by the Washington Post to define the race between Chap and Jeannemarie? (

Is it fair that they mention Jeannemarie's huge amount of campaign money from corporate donors and support from her husband without drawing a connection between the two?

Is that especially unfair because they paint Jeannemarie as the more liberal of the two candidates who might otherwise be expected to be less favored by business?

Is it also unfair to mention not only the gun control issue but to elevate the "whisper" campaign about Chap's church being part of the anti-gay group of churches that split off from the Episcopal Church?

Is it possible that the Post left on the cutting room floor more pro-Chap quotes from Gerry Connolly, leaving only Connolly's calling them both "titans?"

Is it responsible for the Post to not mention at all that party affiliation matters?

Finally, can Chap afford to sit by and let the Post define this race as anything other than it is - positive, effective, and badly needed leadership to solve our problems vs. more of the same?

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Win Win Win

In addition to stopping the bad and starting the good (see post immediately below), impeaching Bush and Cheney would send a sincere signal to the rest of the world that we regret the harm Bush and Cheney caused in our name, beginning the healing process. It would also be an unmistakable warning to our future leaders that there are lines that must not be crossed.

It's never too late to do the right thing.

Bush and Cheney have equated themselves with the Constitution, daring us. How simple, how orderly, how peaceful it would be for the House to impeach. I think it could be done quickly, too. The number of Bush and Cheney supporters who think impeachment proceedings would redound to Bush and Cheney's benefit, as happened to Bill Clinton, is shrinking every day. Only our own fear to call for it allows Bush and Cheney to continue to delude themselves into thinking only they can keep all Hell from breaking loose.

I don't believe that even Bush's own daughters believe he is that important.

On the other hand, Bush and Cheney can all on their own cause tremendous damage as long as they're in power. They can also prevent good and necessary things from happening.

If Scooter Libby did not deserve to spend one day in jail after a Republican prosecutor successfully convinced a jury of Libby's peers to convict him and a Republican judge to sentence him, according to Republican instituted guidelines, what the fuck could we have done that was so bad to deserve one more day under Bush and Cheney's rule?

Just because we accepted the official results of the 2004 election, does not mean we are stuck with Bush and Cheney for a full four years.

Monday, July 2, 2007

Regime Change Begins at Home

On today's Libby commutation fiasco, Larry Johnson made an excellent point at; Bush can still pardon Libby.

The less anguish we hear from Libby's pals, like DeGenova, when the pseudo-liberal mainstream media points out that Libby is still being punished by having to pay a fine, losing his law license, and being labeled a convicted felon, the more we'll know that commutation is just Bush's down payment to keep Libby happy and quiet. The full pardon will come later.

There are no more excuses for voting Republican at any level.

Even Ralph Nader has got to realize at this point that change is imperative. The ascendence of a purer progressivism will just have to wait.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Boo Dem Infighting! Hooray Dem Blogosphere!

Today's non-scandal about Dillard was a very interesting lesson for me about local politics and the blogosphere. I think the incredible speed with which the rumor was raised, debated, and quashed demostrates the power and importance of the blogosphere and the intelligence of the campaigns in picking up the debate and engaging the blogosphere directly. For the first time, I really think the freewheeling nature of the blogosphere needn't become politically correct while politicians can remain so.

I still see big problems and big opportunities this year and next. In retrospect, I think a more progressive Dem than Marsden probably could have won in 2005. I wasn't paying attention at the time; so, I won't opine on what occurred before Marsden was nominated. I do believe that Marsden being not as unacceptable to Republicans as a more progressive Dem would be, combined with Dillard's support for JMDD, helped the Republicans (probably led by Tom Davis) allow Marsden to run unopposed this November. This will hold down turnout and help JMDD.

There's a lot we can do, however, to counter this. Chap being Chap is our biggest weapon. We should act as if Chap needs all the help he can get. I don't know how anyone with a lick of sense who's paying attention can't prefer Chap to JMDD, but, greatly encouraged by Republicans, our fellow eligible voters aren't even registering, let alone voting.

We can even turn this to our advantage, though. Tom Davis thinks he can be elected to the U.S. Senate next year. He knows that to get the Republican nomination, he'll have to act even more like a typical Virginia Republican and not just another Fairfax County insider. We have to, and I think we can easily, make the case that JMDD is just a local version of Tom. A democracy hating, greedy phony who doesn't really care about representing us, doesn't really share our values, and, because she's been part of the problem for so long, has next to no chance of being part of our badly needed solutions.

Let's keep our eyes on the prizes and defeat JMDD this year and maybe we can easily capture both a House and Senate seat next year.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Put Them Out of Our Misery

Tom Davis' prominent place in the new report by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on Members of Congress paying money and steering benefits to family members (see Andrea Chamblee's latest great analysis over at RK and elsewhere) stands as another straw on our camel's back. As Alice Marshall pointed out the other day at GOTV, Davis has added far right Bushian authoritarianism to his corruption in threatening to subpoena Valerie Plame. And, it's almost impossible to understand Davis' defending Lurita Doan, a person that even Bush's own appointee found to have broken the law and recommended that she be fired.

It seems more and more likely that Tom Davis has seen the writing on wall as far as his future representing CD-11 is concerned. An intriguing post at Rudeclerk (a site I just discovered today) suggests that had the Dems been more united and supportive, Andy Hurst would have done even better than he did and may have won. I think the late breaking and surprising Dem wave last year was realized too late to help Andy. In fact, I think that if the wave had come earlier and been more appreciated here, the Dem establishment might have pushed a more well known and experienced candidate.

One last tidbit of info, take it for what it's worth - I've heard unconfirmed rumors that Davis has lucrative private sector opportunities awaiting his retirement from public life.

Given all the above and given that Davis can wait until after this November to announce his intentions as far as his House seat goes, it really does seem that Davis might try for John Warner's Senate seat if Warner retires, and, even if Warner doesn't retire, Davis might be seriously considering not running for re-election.

If Davis has given up on his CD-11 constituents, why should we have to put up with his wife for another four years, especially when we have a far superior option in Chap Petersen?

I don't know which Dems will run for CD-11 next year. I've heard Connolly. I've heard Byrne. Hurst may try again. We're quite lucky in that, as in the case of the leading Dems for President, all of the above are way better than Davis or anyone the GOP is likely to nominate.

I say let's help Tom Davis make up his mind by demonstrating this year what we think of him. Vote for Chap this November. We'll get a better state Senator, and we'll tell Tom Davis that we're sick of him and his sordid baggage (and, no I'm not calling Jeannemarie baggage. Sordid, on the other hand,....).

Monday, June 18, 2007

are cooler heads prevailing?

A big shout out to NLS and RK, who, in recent posts, have had nice things to say about Linda Smyth, RK, in particular given its big disappointment last Tuesday.

RK should also be commended for raising the number one issue, the Iraq war, in connection with local politics. Via RK, I've learned of a coalition called No Iraq Escalation, which, last Thursday, announced a summer campaign to target Republican Members of Congress, including our very own Tom Davis. They hope to pressure the Members to reverse their stands in support of the Bush Administration's war "policies." You can be sure I've already alerted them to the great leverage they can exercise this year on Tom Davis, because his wife is trying to hang on to her seat.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Don't DeBaise Yourself. Vote Democratic.

Let's take the energy from our schadenfreude and turn it to our political advantage. If the bad guys whine about politicizing, let's never let the public forget that good government is in all our interests, and our candidates are the good government candidates.

Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest came to town in 2001 with dollar signs in their eyes. Crooks like Abramoff were waiting to help them cash in, of course, excited to skim a bit off the top for themselves. It's so obvious that Norton, Griles, and Federici never gave a damn about the environment. If Baise didn't know that, he's too stupid to be County Board Chairman. If he did know that, he's too corrupt to be County Board Chairman. Connolly ought to win in a romp.

I'm more interested in whether the Abramoff taint that's all over Baise has also touched Tom Davis. Even if he isn't directly connected, how can Tom Davis as one of the heads, if not the head, of the Fairfax County Republicans not be compelled to make Baise come clean or withdraw from the race? And if Tom doesn't speak up, it's reasonable to ask his wife what she thinks. Every day the Davises don't demand their own party clean up its act, it's fair to conclude that such a purge would implicate themselves.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

just 'cause I haven't posted in a while

Today, Tony Snow looks almost exactly like Max Headroom.

Now that it looks like Bush stashed his watch in his pocket, and it wasn't stolen in Europe, should those Europeans be insulted that Bush thought someone might have stolen it?

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Truce with Newt for a Day

Well, I just got back from my daughter's graduation from the U. of Mary Washington (Yay Amanda!). As I've blogged ad nauseum at my old url,, I had been quite distressed at the prospect of Newt Gingrich being the commencement speaker. To his credit, and unlike the crap spouted by his introducer VA House of Delgates Speaker Howell and the crap in the printed program about Newt, Newt himself absolutely refrained from any partisanship in his remarks. He told the graduates to dream big, work hard, learn every day, enjoy themselves and be true to themselves. Amanda's Aunt Lilli almost grabbed Newt for a photo op with me, but I couldn't go that far, but for this one glorious day, I'm at peace with Newt. Tomorrow, on the other hand....

Sunday, May 6, 2007

So coincidental, it's almost creepy.

Just after my inaugural post below, I was invited by Alice Marshall to contribute to her blog, GOTV ( Alice and I agree about the importance of Chap Petersen's victory this November. I'll primarily blog about that race at GOTV. When I do dare to branch out from that there, I'll try to stick to politics as Alice mostly does and as the noble GOTV name befits.

I hope to tie this year's Virginia GOP to the rapidly crumbling national GOP.

I hope to enlist this year's resurgent national Dems in the effort to elect this year's Virginia Dems.

Next year, as I shift focus to the national races, I'll turn the tables, hopefully strictly positively following massive Dem victories in VA this year.

Loyal Dems, be forewarned; I'm not beholden to any candidate or party. It just so happens that I know of no GOP candidate for whom I'd vote, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. I will try to be as constructive as I can with my criticism of Dems. Without buying into the reprehensible GOP meme that 9/11 changed everything, I realize the importance of making the most of our two party, winner take all, system; so, I'll stay away from rehashing history, like the impact of Nader in 2000. I'll especially avoid such unpleasantness at GOTV.

Good ends never justify bad means. Today's GOP does not act as if it believes in that principle. To its credit, today's GOP has acted as if it will abide by the clear, un-stealable, will of the people. If the margins are big enough and the stakes are small enough, the GOP will accept defeat.

The first campaign I ever actually volunteered for was Dave Marsden's 2005 race for the VA House of Delegates. I told Dave before I signed up that he was far from my ideal candidate, but his opponent was a cookie-cutter version of a young unprincipled GOP ideologue. I could not sit by and let such a person be my representative. Dave won big (almost 60%!). It's a good feeling to realize one is in the mainstream of one's district. As a freshman Delegate, Dave and I have disagreed, sometimes uncomfortably publicly, but he truly listens and explains his positions. Unless and until someone closer to my views challenges him, that's all a constituent could ask for. And even the GOP may have gotten the message that we we're comfortable with Dave for another two years, because they have yet to announce a challenger for this November.

My VA Senate district is obviously larger and likely more diverse than my VA House of Delegates district. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis is the incumbent, not an inexperienced novice. She also doesn't act like a rabid ideologue like Michael Golden. She also has a lot of campaign money at her disposal (too much of it derived from her husband's office and position in the national GOP leadership - I'll probably post a lot on this later, both here and at GOTV but for more details see the blogwork of Andrea Chamblee and another blogger at On the other hand, Chap Petersen is an experienced office holder with proven popularity, and he just concluded a very impressive first quarter fundraising period. It should also be noted that in 2003 with a big money advantage against a much less well known opponent, Jeannemarie's victory margin wasn't all that impressive.

Chap ought to be regarded by independents as an acceptable alternative to Jeannemarie. His fundraising ability and how he uses that money will help in that regard. If the clamor for change we saw nationally last year can carry over to this year's VA elections, that will also help Chap.


Citizens can be very unhappy with the status quo, but if they don't think their votes will make a difference, they won't bother. I'm going to do all I can to argue that replacing Jeannemarie with Chap will make a huge difference. I'm going to continue to advocate that national Dems, VA Dems, and Chap himself push that message loudly, proudly, and often.

If the voters of my VA Senate district turn out in great numbers and give a big margin to Chap, we may even see Jeannemarie and Tom retire from public life, and you won't have to read my ramblings at next year's blog, vote[challenger to be named] That's got to be a pretty good incentive in itself, no?

new url, same old sh*t

Though there's probably a way to do it, I can't figure out how to post to my old url - All I could figure out from Blogger was how to set up a new account. I kinda regretted the specificity of the old url anyway, particularly after Hurst lost. Nevertheless, I like setting out my main motivation in the url. This will make it harder for those trying to find me from links to my old url in others' blogrolls, not that I've been blogrolled much. Anyway, welcome to the new and not improved Watch This Space.

The bottom line, folks, is that Chap Petersen MUST be elected this November! Defeating the Republican incumbent would be reason enough, but when one considers that her defeat will cripple her husband's political future which may include a run for the U.S. Senate, we can kill two birds with one stone.

You can leaf through my old url to see all the lovely prose dedicated to defeating the disgusting Davis duo.

Please come back here for new developments and invective.