letter to the editor by Tom Davis' ex-wife?

Reality Check

Saturday, November 24, 2007; Page A15

I was disappointed that Amy Gardner's Nov. 10 Metro article ["Can Va.'s Davis Team Divorce Themselves From Politics?"] took the opinion of others that I "despised politics" and that this was a likely reason for the dissolution of my marriage to Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.). It was an utterly superficial statement and a slap in the face to me.

I was well aware of Tom's high political ambitions before we ever went on our first date. During the 30 years of our marriage, I facilitated his career while at the same time curtailing mine and raising our three children. It was a role I understood and accepted.

I also find it antiquated that Gardner suggested that careers must be shared for couples to be the ultimate "soul mates." That's hardly what it's about.

-- Peggy Davis

Vienna

Weird, or what?

I've spoken at length on immigration and if folks are interested, I'll paste my answer to this question a little later on.

Contractors are beginning work even before the federal government has decided whether or not to spend $900 million in federal funds.  The tunnel's fate isn't sealed.  But to the question, how do we stop it?

First, support me and my campaign because January 2009 is just around the corner and I am ready to take on this fight in Congress.  In the interim, I will continue to talk about this issue through election day.  I will have a bully pulpit on this issue and I will use it.  But I will need financial support, volunteer support and your vote. 

Second, go to the tysonstunnel.org website and learn how to effectively reach out to your local, state, and federal elected officials and urge them to support competitive bidding, side-by-side comparisons, etc.

I think there is a legislative option, but I don't see an advocate who will take it on.  I will in January 09.

The Federal Transit Administration will rule very soon on the fate of the $900 million.
We need to ensure that Phase 1 of this program is competitively bid. (It isn't)

As Lowell has mentioned, the sole-source contractor that was selected ran the flawed "Big Dig" in Massachusetts.  I believe in competition, and am amazed that there wasn't oversight on this project by the current member of Congress from the 11th District.

We need to have the tunnel option through Tysons fully and honestly compared, with the aerial option, before a final decision is made.

The bottom line is that I will do everything in my power as a member of Congress to ensure the Tunnel option has the same opportunity for selection as the above ground option.  I am confident that once the side-by-side comparison is made, the tunnel option will be selected. 

On a related note, what do you think the best way is to enact sound public policy like a revenue-neutral carbon tax in the context of constant lies, distortions, and hysteria by the Rush Limbaughs of the world?

The power industry will fight this, but they will have to respond.  Traditional coal plants are the least expensive and most reliable way to generate power in the US.  And since the CO2 emissions associated with burning the coal are basically free, and CO2 being emitted by these coal powered energy plants world-wide are the biggest contributors to global warming, it is obvious to me that this is where we need to start.

We need to put out big numbers, like your 80%, or even a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions would be great start ...
We won't achieve those numbers overnight, we have to begin now and work up to the 80% level in a handful of years.

There will also have to be a realization that technology (like switching to more nuclear power generation, carbon-free generation plants, wind, solar, etc.) alone won't get us to a reduction in emissions ... that we'll also need to shift an entire generation's mindset, behavior and habits.  And there will be costs both at the personal and commercial level.

20 years of inaction and the myopic view of the Bush administration have brought us, and the world to the precipice.  I look forward to bringing solutions like those proposed above to the House floor and voting to bring change to this most important global issue. 

Another proposal would be to demand that all power plants have carbon free emissions in the US by a certain date.

Yes, energy is a security issue.  Our country is importing 64% of oil from foreign sources and studies say it will grow to 75% by 2030 if we don't change our policies.

Under Republican rule, we've lost the moral high ground on energy issues, and it has affected our security.

In summary, energy security affects our health, our economy, our quality of life, our actions in the Iraq War, it is incredibly important.

I'm eager to get to Congress to bring my knowledge on this issue to use, and to bring meaningul solutions.

Thanks for coming on RK to live blog.  It's great to hear from a new voice and I look forward to learning more about what you stand for and the path you'd take if elected to Congress.

With that in mind, and your intro, I'd love to find out more about how you'd first attack the global warming problem.  Many of our country's current contributions to global warming are deeply ingrained in our society.  Whether it's cultural (drive, drive, drive cars/suvs/trucks/boats/atvs/etc with more power and low fuel economy) or business (coal plants are cheaper, better fuel economy costs too much to develop, shipping produce over local grown, and sooo much more) it's going to very difficult to pry even the slightest concessions from individuals or businesses. 

So what specifically will you be targeting intially and what approach will you be taking to try to realistically make progress against global warming given a country that is truly addicted to mass consumption of energy at the lowest cost?

Of course, Clinton knew he did not have the votes for ratification, but as a technical matter, Senate never voted on it.

Mr. Denneny,

I noticed on your resume that you have a B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering and you work for Boeing.  Aero. Engineering/Space/Rocketry hold a special place in my heart so I was wondering...

1) When, if ever, do you think the Space Shuttle should go out of service and how should NASA fill the void of bringing materials to the ISS?

2) Do you think we should back out of the ISS (partially or entirely) and pursue independent space travel and research?

3) What do you think about the middle-stage missile shield that Congressmen like Sen. Stevens propose?  Given your experience with the Navy, do you think a first-stage sea-based (essentially launching the ABMs off converted ballistic submarines) would be a better approach to stopping incoming ICBMs?  Should we even have a missile shield?

4) To what extent do you believe that the federal government should fund commercial aerospace projects?  We've come a long way from the NASA-controlled-and-built Vanguards to Orbital's independently-designed-and-built Pegasus in the early '90's.  It seems we've come to the point where Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop/Orbital wants to build something and the federal government foots the bill?  Is free enterprise dangerous in such an expensive market?

Alright, sorry about all that.  Mr. Denenny, if you have the time/desire to answer those questions I'd think very highly of you.  Naturally you might not have time in the 1 hr. you're live-blogging, but maybe sometime before or after?

Best,

Legacy of Marshall, the exceptionally nerdy side

We can't do it all, and I think allowing and empowering private enterprises is a smart solution.

I am also not a fan of Ballistic Missile Defense.  As a former Naval Officer, I am well aware that the only BMD system that has had some level of success is the sea-based system using US Navy AEGIS-equipped ships. 

I believe that deterrence is what has worked in the past, and what will work in the future.  We need to ensure that we maintain a strong nuclear deterrent force, in our Naval Submarine force, our bomber force, and in our ICBMS.

*The Arab states want it to keep going to distract their people from their own misery and oppression (which, in reality, have nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians)

*Extremists on all sides have no interest in peace

*The "religious right" wing of the Republican Party actually WANTS war between Arabs and Israelis as fulfillment of "end-time" prophecy.

*It's a nasty conflict over land and water with religious overtones.

*The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights; return those, and the conflict ends.

*The Arabs' desire to destroy Israel, regardless of how many compromises it makes (e.g., Israel pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza but was attacked from those places anyway)

*Corrupt, incompetent Palestinian "leadership," including the rejection by Yasser Arafat of the "deal of a lifetime."  More broadly, the tendency of the Palestinians to -- as the saying goes -- "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

*Other?

Thanks.

That covers when it will end (I know a vague answer)

For the origin, I think we have to blame the Balfour Agreement and what happened after World War I as the spark.

And it has been relatively downhill ever since.

I know we don't want to turn this into an academic exercise, but I think what we have now is an untenable situation with Hamas, Fatah, and intransigence by all parties.

Bottom line, I have a deep understanding of this issue and I'm disappointed that the Republicans and President Bush  have been disassociated with this issue.  I look forward to serving in Congress, and when this "ripeness" is achieved, I'd like to be in a position to help bring about a solution to this century-old conflict.

By the way, if you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend "A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East." Great book.

You're right, it has been ugly.  I just don't know if they've reached ripeness just yet ... I thought two summers ago we were there.

I think we need the culmination of great international leadership, US leadership and regional leadership (and ripeness) to come together and put together a meaningful peace proposal.

I just don't think we're there yet and ready to go in Annapolis on Tuesday.  I blame Bush and his disassociation.

Maybe the next Democratic administration ...

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

This declaration is considered a great event by many Jews, a terrible event by many Arabs.  22 years later, the British White Paper of 1939 severely restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine just as World War II and the Nazi Holocaust were about to break out.

Can you please detail for me your prior involvement with the Democratic Party?

Also, can you please state for me in your own words why you are a Democrat.

As a college student and YD, I have never had a lot of money to give away, only my time, blood, sweat and tears- is that not enough?

Are there not other ways to contribute / fight for progressive values?

Are we not the big tent party which welcomes, and encourages people- especially veterans to become engaged?

The Byrd machines days have come and gone, let us not repeat the same mistakes!

For many of us, disposable income is hard to come by... and I don't thin he should have to buy his way into the party...

Why he is a Democrat, though is a fair question. I look foward to the answer.

Military personnel are allowed to claim any state for residency purposes so we have stability.  We moved  a lot.  To put it in perspective, my daughter is 12 and she has lived in her sixth home, all due to military moves.

I decided to switch my residency to Virginia in 2005 because I knew I would end up staying here after retirement.

As a Naval Officer and public servant, I didn't make a ton of money, and didn't write big checks to campaigns. 

It's late, and I'll do my best to convey my emotion on this topic into succinct words.  Probably the best short answer is, if you ever watched the movie "Hoop Dreams" and shed a tear, you'll know you are a Democrat!

If that doesn't satiate you, read on!

- Our party represents change in the status quo, for the betterment of all
- Our party offers hope for all Americans
- We are the party of education
- We believe in the hope of the human spirit
- We believe in the goodness of mankind
- We believe that everyone isn't fortunate enough to be healthy all the time, to have a stable home life, to have  disposable income.  There are people out there with real problems, and we need to protect them, and offer them a hand up at times, not just a handout.
- We are the party of fiscal responsibility
- We are the party of leadership

When I commanded my fighter squadron, I was literally in charge of 225 peoople and 12 fighter jets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  We made life and death decisions in combat, and operated in one of the most dangerous environments, the flight deck of a naval aircraft carrier.

Mission accomplishment was the first goal, but in reality what mattered most to me were my people.  Taking care of them was paramount, and because of that, they took care of us and provided us with well maintained and safe aircraft to fly everyday.

That is why I'm a Democrat, I'll put people first, and as your Congressman, if I take care of the people, the rest will work out in the end.

A great question.  Thanks.

*The environment, including implementation of his "Cool County" initiative, controlling sprawl, and preserving trees and open space.

*The Metro to Dulles project and specifically the Tysons tunnel issue.

*Openness in government, "sunshine."

*Helping other Democrats, particularly in the most recent election.

*Illegal immigration.

*Crime and gangs.

*Taxes.

Thanks.

I believe in non-discrimination and would support any act that brings justice to those that engage in hate crimes.

Mr. Denneny,

I am a registered voter in VA-11.  I thank you for entering the race.  I also thank you for participating in the live blog event yesterday at Raising Kaine.  I have some questions about a particular answer you gave to a question.  I asked my questions early this morning in the comment thread, but you may have stopped reading and answering before then.

Basically, I wonder why you felt compelled to add that you believe in both same-sex marriage AND civil unions.  Typically, the civil union option is offered by those who don't believe in same-sex marriage.  Lowell and another commenter responded to my questions in the comment thread, giving you the benefit of the doubt, by saying that you were just opining that two people who could get legally married, might still opt for a civil union.

Can you please let me know if that indeed is what you meant?

Thanks,

Joel Rutstein

So here's my question: do you believe that America's relative lack of knowledge with regard to the Middle East, Islam, Arabic, oil, etc. plays a role in our less-than-stellar track record over the past few decades?  Would you favor a major boost in funding for study of "hard" languages like Arabic?  How about ending the idiotic "don't ask don't tell" policy, which has led to several highly trained Arabic speakers being discharged?  Finally, can you comment on the policy of our intelligence community to deny security clearances to people with relatives or even friends who live, or have lived, in "sensitive" countries -- the very countries where we NEED expertise and where America's diversity could be a major strength, not a weakness?

Thanks.

- Funding boost for Arabic ... I'd like to let the market shape that for civilian use.  In other words, bright young people need to know it is important to learn Arabic, and it is in their self-interest, so they should.  For the government (Military/CIA, etc.) I'm all for bumping up the incentives because that is for our national good.

- Yes, end don't ask don't tell.  I was a CO of a fighter squadron, 225 people, some were gay, didn't matter, they did their jobs.  They shouldn't have had to live in fear of being persecuted.  We need talented people in the military to fill a variety of important jobs.

- Guilt by association without probable cause for security reasons is unwarranted.  We need diversity, people should be given low-levels of responsibility, monitored, and then their clearances can be raised. 

After the Democrats took over Congress and Henry Waxman took the chairmanship of the House oversight committee, the past chair, none other than Tom Davis, was quoted as saying, "For the administration, and for a lot of others, people need to be careful now. Someone is looking over their shoulder."  I couldn't believe Davis would openly admit that the oversight committee under his leadership hadn't been keeping a close eye on the most reckless administration since Nixon (or maybe ever).

You'd be dealing with a new president when you (hopefully) take the oath of office in 2009.  What oversight role do you see Congress playing when it comes to that next administration?  Would you push for closer scrutiny, or would that be punishing the next president for the sins of the current one?

This is not intended to be a divisive question by any means; I just want to hear where you think the two of you are separate. Thanks for taking the time!

Many primary votes, like me, will vote for the Democrat they think has the best chance of beating Tom Davis. 

Leslie and Gerry both have powerful bases of support, political experience, and the ability to both take and throw elbows in politics.

Your military experience is laudable and I thank you for it, but you are basically a rookie in politics. Let us also recognize that your record is certainly not that of Jim Webb's and in a district like Tom's military service isn't as important as it was for a state-wide in Virginia.

Why should voters believe you are the most viable choice when both Leslie and Gerry have giant bases of support both at the grassroots and financially? 

Leslie, Gerry, Tom, etc., were all rookies at one point in their careers. Jim Webb is a "rookie politician" and it seems like he's doing a competent job, so your question is just off base IMO.

Finally, and maybe I'm being too traditional, but the point of representative government is to take some time off from your career, serve your country and your constituents, and then return to private life. We have too many career politicians today and when you call someone a "rookie" it's very discouraging for others who may want to enter elected life but so many people see professional politicians as the only people who can possibly know how to serve in Congress, at the local level, etc.

As for your second point, I'm a partisan Democrat. You're right everyone is a "rookie" at some point, most don't jump to Congress as their first step. Leslie was a State Senator. Gerry was a supervisor. Only super-stars like Jim Webb get promoted to the big leagues right away. To say I'm discouraging people from running for office is laughable...especially in a forum as obscure as this.

The point for me is to get more Democrats elected to Congress, and I'd like to know from Doug why he thinks he has a chance of doing better agaisnt Tom Davis than Leslie or Gerry.

It's a fair question, and one he has going to have to answer a ton more to win this primary.

- it wouldn't be any fun

- he has no real argument to persuade a Democratic district to vote for him on the grounds that he can deliver for the District.  He might lose against ANY Democrat, and he knows it.

I am assuming he's running untill I hear otherwise. If Davis decides not to run I'll be shocked...

I still think my quesiton is fair.

Voters have been responding to my campaign and my message.  As an Iraq combat veteran, I have been talking about our need to begin an immediate, smart, phased withdrawal, and I have the expertise and leadership to back up my plan. Nobody else in this election can deal with Iraq, the number one national issue, like I can.

I have exceptional leadership and communication skills, I have a deep understanding of all the issues that matter to both the district and the nation.  And I'm going to talk about them, like I'm doing tonight.  Who else is going to take the time to engage you like this?

Everyone I've spoken to is thankful that there is a straight-talking person who has Capitol Hill experience, leadership experience, and who isn't a career politician.  Someone like them who will give it to them straight.

Our voters want change, they want to end thirteen and counting years of Republican rule in this district, and they know that I will be able to win the primary, and more importantly, the general election.

Will you oppose national level right to work laws?

And right to work is a Federal issue too... some folks would like to see it done at the Federal level.

It has traditionally been a state issue, and that is not going to change in the near future.

Regardless of what you think is fair, it is appropriate for a candidate for Federal office to focus on those issues that are Federal.

You might as well ask him what he plans to do about your subdivision not getting plowed when it snows.

- Need a huge investment in light rail in the region
- Metro needs a stable source of funding
- Metro expansion of service into the 11th District, to include smart bus/bus expansion
- Federal highway improvements in the region
- BRAC funding to cover the unfunded mandates of the Ft. Belvoir BRAC surge (22,000 new commuters, where are the matching transportation dollars?)
- Huge investment in smart transportation initiatives
- Telecommuting initiatives for the federal workforce
- Lead an all-encompassing task force to plan transportation for the region initiatives through 2050.
- To include studying increases in rail and a second, southern crossing of the Potomac to bypass through traffic off the 95/495

Based on your experience, would you say that things in Iraq are better, worse or about the same as the main stream media portrays them?

Also what do you think the implications of the United Kingdom withdrawing their troops, combined with Australia's new Prime Minister possibly withdrawing their 500 troops?

Military leaders will continue to paint as optimistic a picture as possible on the situation in Iraq, but I've been there, twice on the ground (briefly) in 2004 and 2005.

As a special assistant and legislative assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was able to get a first-hand view of the conflict, and then read daily reports on the conduct of the war.

The frustrating problem for the servicemembers is that they are given a mission, they'll fulfill it, and then they'll discover the mission is flawed.

Back to my "ripeness" comment from earlier tonight.  The surge has provided a window for the Maliki government, some breathing space.  The concept is flawed (only through tough love and pressure with them will we get results) and we'll find that they won't negotiate, and our troops will be right back where they were before.

It is sad, it is costing us $10B a month and untold trillions in future costs.

Time to begin a smart, phased withdrawal now. 

I will be very appreciative of your support, your contributions and your vote. 

Together, we can make a difference.

Thanks and goodnight,

- Doug

Please add Doug as your friend on Facebook:
http://www.facebook....

And join the group:

http://www.facebook....

Myspace, and updated website with email updates coming soon!