MASON CONSERVATIVE

Richard Harding Poff

Sadly, little has been mentioned about the death of former congressman and State Supreme Court Justice Richard Harding Poff.  Its a travesty nothing more has been written because Poff was one of the founding fathers of the modern Virginia Republican Party.  He was one of the old "Mountain and Valley Boys," that followed the lead of Mr. Republican, Ted Dalton.  Back then, as many of you out there probably lived through, Republicanism in the state legislature could be counted on one hand.  Dalton, Poff, Linwood Holton, Joel Broyhill, Richard Obenshain, and William Wampler, Sr. were at the forefront of Republican politics in the 50s and 60s as the Byrd Machine fell and Virginia realigned its parties to more reflect their national brethern.  

Poff, Broyhill, and Wampler were the recipients of what some historians refer too as "Presidential Republicanism" in Virginia where Harry Byrd and his machine would "give the nod" and endorse the more conservative Republican national candidate while keeping tight control of its Democratic machine at home.  They rode General Eisenhower's coattails in 1952, shocking Democrats across the commonwealth.  What developed was essentially a three-party system run by the Byrd Oligarchy - Byrd, Harry Jr, Blackie Moore, Bill Tuck, Willis Robertson, Howard Smith, Lindsay Almond, Mills Godwin -  that rallied around Massive Resistance.  Since suddenly the ruling elites were allowing people to vote Republican in national elections, it allowed the party to start to slowly grow - though with fits and starts.  For their measure, Democrats began to resist Byrd as well - more liberal politicians like Armistead Boothe, William Spong, George Rawlings, and most notably Henry Howell emerging from the post-war period representing new cities and suburbs with new residents unfamiliar and unappreciative of the Byrd regimes tight controls over the state.  So you had Mountain Valley Republicans, Suburban Democrats and the Byrd Machine that was strongest in Southside and held the courthouses (its not perfectly symmetrical because Broyhill represented the suburbs).  They ruled by poll taxes, literacy tests, and other ways that restricted the vote.  But eventually, more than anything, modernity got them in the end.  Byrd retired in 1966 and Booth and Spong challenged Byrd Jr and Robertson in the same year, Byrd barely won and eventually left the party while Spong beat Robertson - and Rawlings knocked off Judge Smith in a shocker.

But back to Poff, he is most known for almost becoming a US Supreme Court Justice (Lewis Powell got the nod, instead).  Poff's career is interesting because of the balancing act he required.  On the one hand, he signed the Southern Manifesto, but on the other was quite supportive of other civil rights issues.  He also seemed to have steered clear of a lot of the issues that fractured the state party - the divide then was just as it is now - and it centered on what to do with all the old Byrd Democrats.  Obenshain, Warriner, and Broyhill (himself something of a protege of Judge Smith despite being in different parties, they shared the same philosophy) favored bringing in many of the old Byrdites and creating a conservative party while Holton wanted to keep the party at its progressive, Mountain and Valley roots of moderation and more center than center-right.  Holton spent his career fighting Byrd and Massive Resistance, and saw it as really a disgrace and take over by the right wing to bring in Byrdites.  This was cemented when Mills Godwin switched parties in 1973 and had John Dalton as his LG running-mate to stop Henry Howell.  When Broyhill and Obenshain (and Richard Nixon) wanted to bring Harry Jr. in to the GOP in 1970 and not nominate a US Seante candidate, new Gov. Holton insisted that they do.  And then in 1972 when Sargeant Reynolds died and liberal Henry Howell was running for LG as an independent, Obenshain and Broyhill again did not want to split the conservative vote, but Holton personally recruited a candidate to run.  Both times Holton's man finished third, and it led to the eventual takeover of the party by Obenshain.  If anyone wants to understand why old Linwood Holton, now known as Tim Kaine's father-in-law, endorses Demcrats these days- THAT is why.  I'll have to go back and check, but I believe Poff was largely aligned with Holton but please correct me if I'm wrong.

But I wanted to mention Poff here because along with Dalton (both father and son), Holton, Obenshain, Dortch Warriner, Wampler and Broyhill; he was one of the founding fathers of our party in Virginia and his election in 1952 with Wampler and Broyhill was a breakthrough moment for two-party politics in Virginia.  And also because unlike many of these others, Poff does not have some extension to today's GOP.  Obenshain, who died in a plane crash running for the Senate in 1978, is lionized by many of the old hands that knew him and his son is in the State Senate, his wife, I believe, was for a time a member of the House of Delegates, and his daughter Kate was had a term as RPV chairwomen.  Ted Dalton's son John became governor in 1977.  Holton, as I said, is Tim Kaine's father in law and his daughter Ann (Mrs. Kaine) was a state judge.  Wampler's son has served in the state senate since 1988 (until his impending retirement).

And because I'm 30 and didn't live during this and I'm not that smart, I must suggest EVERYONE who lays eyes on this blog read Frank Atkinson's splendid two-volume history of the Republican Party in Virginia with both The Dynamic Dominon and Virginia In The Vanguard, which is where I learned all of this.  And please, if I'm wrong about any of this please correct me.

RIP Richard Haridng Poff

"All The Civility Of Television Wrestling"

If having Jeff Frederick, Bill Carrico, and Adam Ebbin in the Senate means that somehow the "staid" tradition of the chamber is compromised, I say so be it.  While Jeff Schapiro's tone might be one of someone unhappy, not me.  The Senate has been a broken chamber for a long time.  Barons like John Chichester and Richard Saslaw have too long made themselves more important than the grassroots and principled activists around the state that elect politicians.  I'm not saying we can never have compromise, what I'm saying is we need people with principle to compromise.  For too long we have had senators who put themselves and their own sense of self-importance ahead of principles.  And its both parties.  Chichester, Potts, et al had as much to do with the terrible 00s that the GOP had just as Saslaw, Howell, and their gang have for the Dems this decade. 

And while its no secret that I do like candidates like Carrico, Frederick, and others; Schapiro bringing up guys like Adam Ebbin is important to note too.  I respect someone like Adam Ebbin far more than someone like Dick Saslaw, because Ebbin has a purpose to his politics far beyond the positioning for the next election.  This is a big, diverse state and having an openly-gay member of the state senate would really show that we have entered the 21st century.  And if you have any knowledge of Virginia history, it has always been the General Assembly last castle of change in the state, whether liberal or conservative. 

So I am happy to see new faces, more principled, ascending to the Virginia Senate.  Schapiro might mock it an atmosphere of professional wrestling, I see it as finally a chance for principles to be represented in the Senate.

 

Roads

I had the fortune of driving from North Carolina to Fairfax today taking Rt. 29 the entire way north.  It was beyond frustrating driving on roads in Pittsylvania County that were immaculate but I was the only one on the road.  I was ready to pull my Northern Virginia hair out!

Tito Munoz and Patrick Forrest Impress At FAYR Meeting

Had the pleasure of joining my fellow YRs at Velocity 5 last night in Merrifield to see a whole slew of candidates that included state senate candidates Tito Munoz and Patrick Forrest, Drainesville supervisor candidate Dennis Husch; and school board candidates Nell Hurley, Lolita Mancheno-Smoak, and Sheila Ratnam.  It was a good time.

I'd never met Tito Munoz before and, though I have endorsed Jeff Frederick, came away very impressed.  I was worried he might rely on his personal story too much, because it is a good one.  But he's clearly sat down over the course of the last few months and really done his homework.  He was citing specific bills on issues like charter schools and income taxes and he seemed very comfortable within himself.  He also stayed really late with everyone.  Munoz talked about liberty, about being a state senator that doesn't tell counties what to do, and most importantly he stressed his ability to reach the Hispanic voter with his radio show and personal story.  That primary is going to be interesting, and I'm still supporting Jeff but this made me feel much better about our chances overall because of the quality we have.

I'd never met Patrick Forrest either, and I think that Janet Howell might have gotten too cute in redistricting herself away from Caren Merrick.  Forrest is a young, very intelligent guy with some community roots.  He stressed Howell's inability to really accomplish anything, her disastrous attempt at drawig the senate districts, and talked about Virginia being a vibrant, young state that needs vibrant young representatives.  And he's right!  He answered questions with a lot of passion and knowledge, and he looks like he's really willing to put the work in.  Its impressive that we found a guy who is this good to take on someone as powerful and entrenched as Howell.  Its a good sign.

I encourage all of you to come out to these YR meetings, lately we have had a great run of candidate forums.  Last month we had Steve Hunt, Jason Flannery, Andre Muange, Chris Grisafe, and Robert Sarvis.  So its fun, V-5 is a great place (I sometimes go to watch the UFC fights). 

Rick Perry: Conservative With No Apologies

Mark Levin is the most outspoken of the Right in insisting that we embrace all conservatism, not simply choose between candidates from various "wings" of the party.  And right now, our candidates each represent one slice of the conservative diaspora:   Bachmann is the tea party, Romney and Cain are business, Huntsman is establishment, Santorum is pro life, Paul is libertarian, Gingrich is intellectual.  But none, thus far, have been able to embrace all facets of the conservative movement.  We argue with each other over what is more important, that we should make a truce on social issues, that "purity is a loser."  I agree that purity is a loser, but conservative principles are not.

Rick Perry is not only a total conservative - every movement is represented in him - but he has a 10 year record in Texas of implementing conservatism.  And what are the results?  Low unemployment, 47% of all new jobs in the last two years were created in Texas, serious tort reform, low taxes, and a general pro-business atmosphere.  On top of accomplishments, Perry also had an basic intellectual message built solely on the 10th amendment.  His vision is states leading America, and in free market competition with each other.  Perry wrote in Fed Up! that if California wants to have gay marriage, they should be allowed to have it.  If Massachusetts or Vermont wants universal health care, they should have it.  But the people will speak with their feet, and its true.  Compare the three liberal states against the three conservative - California, Illinois, and New York vs. Texas, Florida, and Virginia.  Its not even close which ones are surviving the Obama recession better. 

Unlike any of the other candidates, Perry has both a well defined ideology and vision and an actual record to back it up, AND practically he is a proven politician who can win and raise serious money.  And he's not afraid to fight.  He won't hedge here or there, won't grant the left any ground on policy, and he certainly won't run away from the greatness of our country.  When I look at Rick Perry, I see someone I don't have to compromise to vote for.  I don't have to say, "eh, at least he's for >insert generic conservative issue<, even though he's against >insert generic conservative issue<"

And I don't know about you, but this speech sounds like someone who will run for president:

Is The Virginia House Of Delegates The Museum of Democracy?

I've never gotten fired up much about partisan redistricting because, well, I don't really have a problem with it.  Largely because I think that any given election is dictated as much by the candidates themselves more than anything else.  Yes, you can have a district conservative or liberal, but that generally matches the views of the constituents.  And when someone goes off the reservation, the voters will speak - I always point to Tom Perriello's defeat of Virgil Goode as proof of that.  And I also believe that when it comes to politics and the creation of districts, there really is no such thing as non-partisan.  Everyone has some kind of agenda, I just prefer the people that make decisions are people we can elect or defeat.

So there is my theory on redistricting, some have said its kind of cynical.  But even I was taken aback when I saw THIS list from VPAP outlining the contested elections in the House of Delegates for 2011.  I was stunned.  Of the 100 seats in the House of Delegates, ONLY FIFTEEN WILL BE CONTESTED BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN AND A DEMOCRAT.  That is an astounding 15% COMPETITION RATE.  Wow.  

For the record, here are the districts:  9, 10, 13, 19, 20, 31, 34, 36, 37, 42, 52, 59, 64, 75, and 87. 

As a comparison, there will be 17 competative state senate seats out of 40, at a clip of 42% competition rate. 

It made me wonder why this is?  Part of it is certainly is redistricting, but I think any Democrat in Virginia should be ashamed of their leadership and candidate recruitment.  On the list of delegates not being challenged are people like Jim LeMunyon, Tim Hugo, Rich Anderson, Tag Greason, Ron Villenueva, Chris Stolle, and Tom Rust; candidates who in the past have had to win close elections and many of whom are freshman.  Democrats failure to, thus far, find candidates to run in these districts is almost laughable and makes one wonder if DPVA Chairman Brian Moran should spend more time running his party rather than running scam schools. 

But it makes me wonder on a different level how, in Virginia's political culture, important competitive elections are at this local level.  Now we aren't in the Byrd days anymore, but Virignia's political tradition has been slow and uncompetitive since James Barbour, John Daniel, and Thomas Martin ripped Virginia out of Reconstruction and away from the Readjusters and turned it into the conservative southern machine they built and one Harry Byrd took over and perfected.  Virginia isn't like many of the old New England (NH has 400 seats in their house of representatives, 1 for every 3,300 people) and Midwest states where competitive elections have been part of the states political traditions since before the Revolution.  There is a certain complacency I detect at times in Virginia, and maybe its the fatigue of having elections every single year.  Perhaps every now and then folks are just tired of it. 

I don't have the age or experience to really know much past 2001 in terms of local elections in Virginia, but this can't be normal.  15 PERCENT of House of Delegates seats will be up for grabs.  What is it about this chamber?  Moreso than the state senate, the House of Delegates seems to be the true barometer of the states politics.  Maybe its because Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, James Madison, and Patrick Henry all served in the House that it carries more gravitas?  The House had been the last of the Byrd redoubts before the fall of the Organization. 

I'm searching for a reason why only 15% of our delegates will be in competitive elections this year?  And the number of actual seats that might flip are even less because I suspect the 10th, 19th, 31st, and 87th won't actually be competitive.  That lowers it down to 11%!!!  Anyone else have any idea why Virginia won't be able to affect any change in the House of Delegates it might want?  Or is the commonwealth satisfied with the House and the fact that there is no energy against what they are doing means nobody wants to run?  Is it because the state senate is such a battleground that that is where all the attention is, and candidates serious about a future in politics want a crack at the upper chamber?

Someone, please help me understand this!

(PS - thanks to Brian Schoeneman, I WILL be one of the few Virginians will the ability to vote in a real competitive House of Delegates district.  And I proudly will cast my vote for Brian)

Thoughts On GOP "Debate"

1.  CNN sucks, and John King sucks even more.  And I usually like him.  But on all of these issues, I wanted to hear what all the candidates had to say.  Give them each two minutes and a buzzer.  Seven candidates over two hours . . . it can be done.  And King constantly "uh uh uh uh" as soon as any candidate got going or started mentioning Obama was annoying.  They try SO hard to be equal it just comes off as being ridiculous.  Say what you will about MSNBC or Fox News, at least they have an identity that gives their networks some juice.

2.  The issues . . . they were talking about God, stupid this or thats, gay marriage, abortion - all important issues - but they didn't start about foriegn policy until 20 minutes left?  Barely mention about Cap n' Trade?  King didn't challenge the candidates on their individual weaknesses.  Garbage.  Give me Chris Wallace! 

3.  Romney was largely given a pass, while past statements by Herman Cain were brought up, Romney's weren't on global warming.

4.  There is still room for a conservative.  Santorum is sharpe, articulate, but just never got any juices going.  Bachmann is energetic and smarter than people give her credit for, but lacks experience.  Ron Paul is Ron Paul.  Newt Gingrich is just too smart for his own good, talks over peoples heads, and stumbles in the actual application of politics.  Someone like Rick Perry could come in and just blow this whole race up. 

5.  Romney remains the frontrunner, because the format protected him and the other candidates - notably Pawlenty - failed to really challenge him.

6.  Not sure how Jon Huntsman fits anywhere in this?  He's like a more boring combination of Romney and Pawlenty who can speak Chinese. 

7.  Michele Bachmann is what Sarah Palin would have been had she decided to study national issues rather than become a celebrity.  She has got some serious chops and I think she can do some real damage.  Didn't know she was on the House Intelligence Committee.

Overall, I'm underwhelmed but its early.  This is just the beginning, this is where the jockying starts, the candidates will move this way and that, work on messaging, and someone will emerge.  Anyone who thought they were tuning in and expecting to see the next president is kind of crazy.  The process will prepare them.

The Cuccinelli-Oleszek Television Debate

I had forgotten about this but Cuccinelli and Oleszek not only debate in West Springfield that I went too, but they did on local television as well.  Someone sent this too me to remind me about it.  Youtube can slow down my webpage, so I'll put them all below the jump.

Have fun with this, Braddock Democrats.  Chap Petersen is going to be a VERY tired man in November because he'll be running two seperate races essentially by himself.  The man has energy, but sheesh, good luck with that.

The Oleszek Uprising

"Democrat Janet Oleszek is a Fairfax County School Board member who has run a lackluster campaign, at times embarrassingly short on substance. The district, in Fairfax County, deserves better choices; we make no endorsement."  -Washington Post, 10/15/2007

Let me remind folks here exactly who Janet Oleszek is before I begin to analyze her run against, first, Chris Wade and then possibly John Cook.  Janet Oleszek ran, in 2007, one of the most embarrassingly weak campaigns I've ever seen.  Everything was on her side.  The political mood in Fairfax why hyper-Democratic, she had strong ticket-mates, weak Republicans up and down the ballot, and an opponent in Ken Cuccinelli some considered maybe too conservative for South Carolina, much less Fairfax County.  Her entire campaign was predicated on NOT interacting with voters and NOT interacting with Ken Cuccinelli.  Folks, she didn't have to campaign at all and she probably would have won.  The surrounding 34th and 39th districts overwhelmingly elected Democrats (Petersen and Barker) over experienced and more moderate Republicans (O'Brien and Davis).  She lost.  She barely lost, but she lost.

Much of this has to do with Cuccinelli's immense political skills, his ability to win over independents by his strong community support through a basic phrase I've heard him say, "you can't fix abortion without fixing roads."  Despite being one of the most outspoken conservatives, Ken took care of his district.  What Cuccinelli also did was tailor his campaign specifically to Oleszek, eventually turning the campaign from a fight about political viewpoints to one about competence.  Supervisor John Cook would have much less ideological terrain to cover than Cuccinelli did, and Oleszek has a worse reputation now than then as a campaigner.

In making the campaign about competance, it came to a head in the one and only debate the two had that fall, here is my extensive recap from back then.  She was inarticulate, unclear of facts, refused to take positions on anything other than boilerplate liberal talking points, and did everything should to get out of the debate at the beginning and then tried to ban someone from trying video tape this, even over the objections of a local reporter.  It exposed Oleszek's inherent political weakness, which is worse than anything ideological, that you can defeat her by convincing people she is incompetent.  Its worse than anything else in the world.  

So I wanted to remind people of her weakness both as a politician and as a public servant before I get to this next election.  I live in Monument precinct, so now I'm in Braddock District.  The thought of having a local supervisor who needs to have her hand held through every aspect of very complicated county business is distressing.  John Cook has an impressive community leadership background, a strong personal presence, a real command of county business that I think is unmatched on the Board.  He is nowhere near as conservative as Cuccinelli in terms of public recorded votes, so he won't have near the ground to make up to turn this from a vote about politics to one about competence.  I wonder if Janet will agree to debate Cook if he's the nominee?  Will she offer specific viewpoints and solutions on fixing roads, getting local control of local roads, reigning in the out of control Board of Education, funding solutions for Dulles Rail, and how she would vote on specific budgetary issues like the Incinerator that Herrity stood up to block.  Would she have voted for the Bulova compromise budget?  Where does she stand on the county being the biggest landlord in the county?  I wonder, because I've heard John Cook give detailed answers to every single one of those questions. 

But there is more going on here.  I'm hearing from various birdies chirping in my ear that this is as much about curbing Gerry Connolly's power than about anything that has to do with John Cook.  As NLS has pointed out, Connolly has a habit of electing loyal ex-Republicans like Linda Smyth and Dave Marsden.  Bulova and Connolly are a tight unit, and often more practical than purely progressive.  Bulova, for example, went out of her way to please the Republicans on the Board during the budget to get a unanimous vote.  Hidden because of Democratic victories in the past decade is a real divide between the professionals like Connolly and the more movement progressives lead by Chap Petersen.  Its no secret Chap and Connolly don't like each other, as proof by the deal Connolly and Tom Davis struck that no Republican would run against David Bulova in exchange for Connolly staying out of Jeannemarie Davis's race.  Connolly's control is similar to Davis's over the Republicans, based on purly practical politics that oftentimes leave the more principles liberals (and conservatives) left looking for table scraps.  I think many Democrats recognize what happened to the Republicans.  During Davis's reign, the Party was in atrophy without him.  I can't tell you how many times I heard "Tom will take care of it" in tight races.  And when he left, the local party was incapable of figuring out what to do without him.  We were waaaay too reliant on someone who, in the end, was looking out for himself and his wife over the wellness of the party.

There is a TON on the line in Braddock this year. 

Connolly's grip on the FCDC and the county structure is what is being challenged here.  Make no mistake, from the folks I've talked too, Chris Wade WAS recruited by Sharon Bulova and Gerry Connolly; who are now backing away carefully because of his past voting record for Republicans.  Putting up Janet Oleszek is gamble by Chap Petersen to curb Connolly's power locally, a revolt many progressives quietly would welcome.  The race had vexed the leadership, who recruited a Burke HOA leader named Kaila Quintana, but she bowed out when she became pregnant.  Chris Wade originally wanted to run for School Board, but was convinced to change because the leadership (Connolly and Bulova) didn't think Democrat Marc Greidinger could beat Cook.  Greidinger was forced to drop out for Wade, who possesed some of the bi-partisan background that Connolly is unafraid to embrace in candidates (Marsden is the perfect example).  This is, in my mind and from what I've heard, a direct challenge by Chap Petersen (who has endorsed Oleszek, which boggles my mind since he saw first how awful a politician she is) to Gerry Connolly.

Secondly, this is about stopping Cook.  The Democrats know what a force he can become, and already has become.  Unlike Pat Herrity, who lost a lot of support among conservatives during the 2010 primary, Cook has made no enemies in the party.  He has smartly brought in all forms of conservatives and Republicans to help him shape county policy.  Anyone who has heard him speak know he has a wide knowledge of the county, and he has real community roots through his HOA leadership.  More importantly, Cook has the real potential to move up in Fairfax.  Should he get reelected, he will automatically become a favorite to take on Democrat heir-apparent Jeff McKay for Chairman.  Another avenue, the Democrats surprisingly moved Cook from Dick Saslaw's state senate district into that of Dave Marsden.  Now I am fully confident that Steve Hunt will finally remove Marsden from office, but Cook remains an option off the bench. 

In Oleszek and Wade, the Democrats don't have much a choice and I'm sure they were hoping for a stronger nominee.  Oleszek is flawed by incompetence on the campaign trail, while Wade is flawed by being exposed as essentially a Republican in sheep's clothing.  John Cook is by far the strongest candidate Republicans have maybe in all of Fairfax.  Braddock District represents a lot this year - it has part of both Chap Petersen and Dave Marsden's districts in it; and Braddock is the linchpin in how Republicans could get control of the Board.  With Herrity and Frey in safe districts, Republicans are running a strong candidate in Drainesville (Dennis Husch), and need Cook to get reelected to have any chance at getting a majority by possibly picking off someone else.  But 5-4 remains a much stronger position from which to operate from.  

Everything now depends on what Wade does.  Will he stay in or drop out?  If he doesn't drop out, this will get very nasty - the book has been written by Ken Cuccinelli on how to beat Janet Oleszek.  Will Wade be willing to re-expose Janet's flaws in a primary, making her even more open season for Cook?  If he drops out, will the Connolly faction be willing to take this lying down or will someone else get in?  Could Oleszek withstand Cook systematically taking her apart for the next six months?

Anyways, many progressives in Fairfax might feel a sense of partisan satisfaction that a true-believer like Janet is in this race against a fake Democrat, but you have to be a true-believer not to remember or understand what a terrible candidate she was and remains.  They also seem to underestimate just how sharpe John Cook is.  He won by just 200 votes in his special election last time out, but has spent the last two and a half years studiously building an organization and continuing to reach out to his community leadership background. 

The stars are aligning for John Cook.  Its a nominal Democratic district, but has responded to McDonnell-style Republicanism and Cook follows that model well.  The Democrats needed to unify behind a candidate that reprensents all wings well, like Cook does for the GOP, and they now have the exact opposite. 

More Of A Mess In Braddock For Democrats

Ok . . . lets recap real quick.  Bona fide Democrat Marc Greidinger announces he's running against Supervisor John Cook over a beer.  Then he drops out when Chris Wade announces . . . seemingly recruited for the race by Sharon Bulova and Gerry Connolly.  Then NLS and Blue Virginia explode when finding out that Wade had voted in several Republican primaries.  Wade responds that his wife is a Democrat so he must be too, and he voted in GOP primaries to skew the results.

The last explanation is strange.  So does Wade think political activism is simply messing with the other side?  That's pretty childish, and surely not a sign of local or community leadership.  Secondly, Cook himself hit Wade most where it hurts:

"He’s voted in a few Republican primaries, has never voted in a Democratic primary," Cook said. "He did not vote in the local elections in 2007, has not been active in his community and from what I can see has not had any leadership role in any community organization or any community effort at all. I believe this job is about communities and it's about getting into neighborhoods. . . To me, the first qualification for this job is a proven record in your neighborhood."

Greidinger himself called Wade a Republican. 

Now, its OUT that Supervisors Penny Gross and Jeff McKay, Delegate Vivian Watts, and Senator Dave Marsden have endorsed Wade.  But where is Connolly and Bulova, who recruited him!  Are they hearing from the grassroots?  And what Connolly machine stalwarts like Watts and Marsden sticking their necks out for Wade?

There is chaos right now in Braddock . . . and if the grassroots candidate is who I hear it is, this will just get worse and I think expose some real fissures in Fairfax Democrats that have been around for awhile but hidden by the constant victories Democrats have had in Fairfax.