I guess when Gerry gave this quote "But I think all of us are appalled that my major opponent would go so negative in a Democratic primary against a fellow Democrat. It's over the top and very unfair." he forgot all about last year's DEMOCRATIC primary between two DEMOCRATS where he and Linda Smyth completely distorted the truth (i.e. lied) when they called Charlie Hall a Republican.

Guess it's only negative and worth whining about if it's against Team Gerry.  Any negative lies about a fellow Democrat where the attack supports Gerry's point of view are clearly fair politics.

That is exactly what I thought of when I read that quote.  

In fact, after the Obama rally last night I went to visit two friends of mine who live in upper PWC there in Gainesville, and they were showing me all the mailers that they were receiving--Greg said he's been getting 4-5 per day from both sides, and that he's disgusted with the negative tone, but that he definitely is voting for Leslie Byrne.  I told him that was a wise choice, and that one of the mailers he showed me in which Gerry was criticizing Leslie's negativity, must have taken a lot of gall for Connolly to produce and send given that he didn't lift a finger last year for fellow Democrat John Foust and after what he'd done to Charlie Hall in Providence.  And I also pointed out to him that I thought Gerry's coziness with Tom Davis was telling, and he definitely agreed with that.

One regaular Dem's vote for Leslie, yeah!

Interestingly, there were no signs out that way along Heathcote Blvd or Old Carolina Rd (main streets in their neighbhorhood) except for LORI ALEXANDERs!!???  What is that about?

worked very hard to get the 2003 primary opponent to his anointed successor kicked out of the party. Fortunately, he failed.

He used the same tired refrain against her that he did against Charlie Hall: Ack ... She's a Republican! Circle the wagons!

This should be an issue in this campaign.

Connolly is the most vindictive person I know. There has been talk about Connolly being a "victim."  Connolly is only a victim of his over-sized ego.

He has regularly abused constituents and other Democrats for years. About the only one he hasn't abused is Republican Tom Davis. Does that tell you anything?

She is Gerry's chosen next Chairman of the Board if he wins.  CONFLICT?  Maybe not the best person to quote???

If Gerry does win (ugh, I hate the sound of that), how is his COB position replaced?  

He resigned his seat as he was sworn in- Jan 1995 after winning in 1994.  The Board called a special election for May.  Both parties can not have primaries in special elections- so there must be a caucus or convention run by each county committee.  

The end result is likely a late spring special election with all 250+ regular polling places open all day.

I've been inundated with mailers in this primary election; Emily's List has flooded us with mailouts quoting chapter and verse on Connolly's conflicts of interest and political donations from his employer/fellow-employees of the government contractor for whom Gerry works (in addition to his job as Chair of BOS--- which is the moonlighting job and which the day job, I am not sure).

I was beginning to think maybe there was too much negative until I realized the quotes were accurate, and that was what was making Gerry's campaign squeal. The question is: does all this "negativism," even if it's true, actually end up tar-brushing Leslie as well as Gerry? Doug Denneny, in his stump speeches, certainly makes a good case that Leslie and Gerry are in the mud together, and his is the only positive campaign.

I thought people were supposed to like Amy Gardner, according to this dispatch from Lowell on May 29:

Thanks to the Washington Post and Amy Gardner for doing their job -- investigative journalism -- and exposing potential corruption in high public officials. That's how the media is SUPPOSED to work, and how it SHOULD work all the time.  If it did, we'd all be a lot better off.

So we're now back to hating her reporting?

I have a major beef with this blog or any blog that dreams up this media bias angle. I have many friends who are journalists (not in this area) and they don't take sides. That's for the columnists and op/ed pages.

The negative reaction this time is because this doesn't put Byrne in a positive light. If it was another article about "war profiteering" (which is a silly, stupid charge because we're at war and our troops need to be supported), then this blog would be fawning all over the piece. That's fairly obvious.

At least Amy is a credentialed reporter who knows what she's doing. Ben Tribbett the Jackass is up to his old tricks again "reporting" that Davis was going to endorse GC, which is patently made up and false. And now, Ben Tribbett is saying that because of him, this imaginary event isn't going to take place.

Unbelievable.

But that's the kind of "reporting" you support?

I haven't liked Amy Gardner's reporting for a long time now. Read the article and tell me whether that's good reporting or not, regardless of who it helped (and, frankly, I think it helped Leslie Byrne for Gardner to raise the EMILY's List anti-Connolly mailer just a few days before the election).

....she often gets easily observable and very palpable situations in NoVA politics completely wrong.  I can recall reading her articles frequently about political issues and events where I'd attended or been actively working, and wondering after reading her articles if we were talking about the same issue or event.

Really, she misses the mark--a lot.  Her facts sometimes aren't very factual, and she often doesn't get two sides of a story....

But in the diary promoting Tribbett's Davis endorsement lie on NLS, Lowell only quotes one source - Tribbett.

I have never seen such dirty campaigning.  I can only hope that Leslie Byrne is not behind this, but she does have a close relationship with Tribbett and Lowell.

is true. I have no idea, one way or the other. That's Ben's story, I just thought it was worth passing along but I certainly have not confirmed it.

Gerry and Linda's completely false and misleading smear attack on fellow Democrat Charlie Hall last year.  

That was utterly despicable, especially coming from the Chairman of Fairfax, but since your guy Gerry was behind it you probably think it was fair campaigning.

"credentialed reporter"?  

Are you talking about the kind of tags that get handed out at special events?  Those kind of credentials?  

Simply writing for the Washington Post?

to give bloggers "credentials" at events.  Really, the only difference between bloggers (aka, "citizen journalists") and corporate media journalists is that they tend to make more money at it (although in a growing number of cases, that's not even true anymore), have access to more resources, and do the job full time (of course, there are people like Kos who blog full time).  In terms of quality, you'll find a wide range in both the blogosphere and the MSM.

The political coverage in the mainstream press seems to run the gamut.  As a general rule most print reporters do seem to have formal training which tends to equal a less partisan presentation of the facts.

In the case of Gardner the open question is still "what was the genesis for the story idea?" -- was this a story idea suggested by an editor?

I think Eric did a good job below of outlining some editorial comments by the reporter -- comments that should have been attributed to someone rather than just inserted into the article as a transition into the Bulova quote.  

Instead of getting a quote from Bulova it would have been a valuable exercise for Gardner to attempt cold calls into the district to get some views from ordinary citizens -- or even to try to get comments from people at metro stops.  Are people paying attention to the race?  If so, have they received mailers?  What is their opinion of the mailers?  That would have required a lot more leg work, but this kind of story might have lent itself to that kind of treatment.

Using the Bulova quote -- and representing Bulova as something of a disinterested observer (a "supporter" is probably too mild a description) -- may have been just a case of laziness or deadline pressures.  It's interesting to note that there were only something like 5 comments attached to Gardner's article on the Post website.  This doesn't appear to be a story that was generating a whole lot of attention.  

My own view is that Gardner is still a cut above most cable news "journalists," but I agree with some of the criticisms of the reporting here.  The story angle wasn't exactly a revelation.  

On the plus side, at least someone is reading the article.  

As a side note, I'll be curious to see what kind of coverage the race gets on primary day -- I imagine the Post will have more detailed coverage on Monday or Tuesday.  

This "article" is outrageous, for all the reasons cited in the comments here. But the comments on washingtonpost.com don't go to the heart of this problem--the blatantly biased reporting Amy Gardner does for the Connolly machine. The Post needs to hear that discerning readers are disgusted with the coverage of Fairfax news and politics.

this one?

Let Gerald E. Connolly cry. Women have a hard time winning elections and as long as Emily's List has told no lies, I support them in their support of Leslie L. Byrne. The public needs to know what the candidates stand for and the information is helpful to them. Some Democrats may think Emily's List is "unnecessarily divisive" but, obviously, others do not. Generally, it is better not to go negative in a primary, but that is a rule that has frequently ignored by many candidates -- not necessarily those backed by Emily's List.

I was thinking more like the information that, despite the implication of the headline, the only Democrats reported as decrying the EMILY's List mailings were Connolly himself and Bulova, his chosen successor. And about how the reporting on the campaign has had a consistent pro-Connolly slant (up to and including the choirboy photo of Gerry that always seems to accompany an Amy Gardner piece).

Same thing for Tom and Jeannemarie Devolites Davis.  Why does the Post allow this?  Oh wait, I almost forgot, they always endorse Tom, Jeannemarie, and Gerry.

Reporters and op/ed pages are separate. The Post's endorsements have NOTHING to do with the reporters. Two separate entities.

As for this statement:

Note that I said IF what Ben says  (0.00 / 0)
is true. I have no idea, one way or the other. That's Ben's story, I just thought it was worth passing along but I certainly have not confirmed it.

What kinds of standards are those? Just passing it along regardless of the truth or not? That's what's wrong with blogging, in general, sometimes...just throwing stuff out there that's not true like the Obama is a Muslim meme.

So if you have no idea if it's true, why "report" it?

Again, this is more of a personal issue I have with baseless attacks against journalists than about this particular race.

that the editorial and reporting are SUPPOSED to be separate, but from what I've seen the past few years, the Post's coverage of the Davises in particular makes me wonder.

On Ben's article, we know that Connolly and Davis have a close relationship.  We know that Connolly didn't help Chap last year against Jeannemarie.  We know that Davis doesn't like Leslie Byrne. And we know that Ben has had excellent sources in the Davis camp over the years.  Lots of circumstantial evidence, that's for sure. Which is why I passed along the NLS story with the caveat that I didn't know if it was true or not.  

Lowells's balls over his assessment, how about you tell us why you think today's article was fair journalism?  Or, at least I think you consider it fair based on your comments.

I'll help you out with my take...

* The title: "Campaign Mailing Is Called Divisive, Group's Fliers Backing Byrne Attack Connolly".  This is an immediate set up to tell readers there is a bad guy afoot and since Connolly is being attacked he must be the victim.  Ergo, Byrne (and her supporters) is the bad guy.  Ok, I know Amy may not have written that title, but certainly the Post had something in mind.

* The article then plays up the fact that some "Democrats" think this is dividing the party.  Which would be fine if those "Democrats" weren't one single Democrat who is a strong Connolly supporter and has a vested interest.

* Now, if you're a Byrne supporter, there is one positive in this - that the message about the slimy relationship between SAIC and Gerry is repeated.  Although it's unclear if this was some sort of weird way to even things out or if Amy intended to use it make people angry at the message.

* There are loaded phrases about the two outside groups participation:  
a) When talking about Emily's list we get "Most of the group's activity, though, has been in opposition to the race's best-funded candidate... -- and not in support of Byrne.".  Clear use of negative phrasing when talking about Emily's list and positive phrasing when talking about Connolly.  Yes, these are true statements, but the language constructs are pointing readers in specific directions.  

 b) When talking about Gerry's outside help - "...he has responded with a few sharp mail pieces of his own, Connolly noted that the two independent groups spending money in the 11th on his behalf...  ...have done so exclusively with positive messages. (They also have spent far less:...".  Clear use of positive phrasing when discussing Gerry and his outside supporters.  Not to mention the "independent" bit - implying that they are doing this on their own and Emily's List is working for/with the Byrne camp.  The one I really like is the very weak "sharp mail pieces" when referring to Gerry's attack ads.  

To Amy's credit, she does put in a comment from Leslie.  So I won't say it's completely biased.  But from the outset there is clearly a good guy and a bad guy according to the tone and content of the article - which is to say that this isn't exactly fair.  Perhaps Fox news "fair and balanced", but not fair.

Thanks for the run-down.

the person either won't respond, or WILL respond but completely non-substantively (e.g., ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs, red herrings, etc.)?

...thanks for the snarky comments, Lowell. My goodness, I always have respected you and the tone you bring to this site. What's up with your uncool comment? Of course, no matter what I say below you'll discount because you already have prejudged me and put labels on me. In the spirit of a fellow Obama supporter, I'm a little disappointed in your comment. Obama people don't act like that.

Gardner's article asked the simple question: why is this admittedly pro-woman group attacking a fellow Dem rather than promoting Byrne's credentials as a candidate?

The quote from Bulova is powerful because she's a member of Emily's List and understands its supposed purpose. It's not like she's a random woman on the street. She's an accomplished elected official who has donated, participated with the group and now she's publicly saying, "wait a minute here...this isn't the group I know."

This is Bulova's view point, not Gardner's.

Gardner also clearly states Bulova's close relationship to Connolly.

Gardner then writes about the issues Byrne and Emily's List are raising, so that makes it a balanced article. A Connolly partisan should/would be upset that those ideas weren't expressed further by their side, for example, how "war profiteering" isn't this big bad ugly taboo. We're at war and our troops need to be supported by civilians in the private sector. Why is Byrne against the troops? That doesn't come through, so that further shows this article is not tilted one way or another, it's focused on the actions of Emily's List.

Gardner provides the facts about Emily's List expenditures and SEIU and firefighter's expenditures. All facts. How is that tilted?

The word "positive" is used as a way to describe Connolly's mailings versus simply repeating the talking points from Connolly that are positive. That's in contrast to  Byrne/Emily's List talking points are quoted word for word, so again, how is this article tilted? It'd be tilted if it read: "Gerry Connolly is x, y and z and a glowing bowl of sunshine" quoted from his direct mailings. In fact, it's more helpful to Byrne because her talking points are quoted.

A quote from Connolly expressing his thoughts about Byrne/Emily tactics. Perfectly acceptable in journalism 101. Same goes for the Emily's List political director, so their quotes are provided back to back to provide perspective. Again, their words, not Gardner's.

And then there's quote from Byrne, herself, for goodness sake! How much more balanced do you need this article?

Then there's an outline of the issues where they mostly agree, the turnout talk and finally a vanilla quote from the DCCC.

So, why all of the outrage that this is the "worst article ever?" C'mon, it's journalism. Facts and people's perspectives. I simply hate it when people try and attack a journalist as having some other motive. That's not the job of a journalist. A journalist isn't a blogger who can just throw their opinions or unsourced attacks on a wall. There are higher standards. She and other journalists have checks in place to prevent that -- they are called editors.

I will say, though, that one aspect of journalism, particularly at the Post, that bothers me is the disconnect between the article and the headline. As aptly noted, headlines are written by someone else because the reporter does not participate in designing the actual print paper. When a reporter submits an article, they have no idea where it will be placed in the paper or how much space will be available for the headline. I've seen disconnect after disconnect in that regard through the years and this one may have a slight disconnect that pushes the more vivid and controversial aspects of the story that may be overstated.

But on the whole and from a journalism 101 angle, this is a balanced article.

101, but probably not a 400 level article.  In terms of the Bulova quote Gardner simply states that Bulova is a "supporter".  The fact that Bulova has a heavily vested stake in the outcome of the election in terms of future career options seems to merit another description -- especially if the person has an active role within the campaign.  It doesn't strike me as the launching off point for an article.

It's not exactly news that an outside group would attempt to advance a candidate's standing by running up the negatives of an opponent -- especially raising criticisms that are completely above-board.  This story is kind of a "dog bites man variety" -- there isn't much of a story here.  If the group was running negative attacks that grossly distorted an opponents record that would make for a different kind of article -- but no one -- not even Bulova and Connolly are asserting the factual basis of these negative attacks.  They just seem to be saying that a person shouldn't raise negative questions in the context of a party primary.  

I agree with this with respect to certain kinds of negative attacks (read "gross distortions") -- if a candidate though makes misrepresentations about himself -- or hides certain details about his background; it strikes me as absolutely approproriate for an opponent -- or for affiliated groups -- to raise those questions.

There's a separate question here about the effectiveness of the mailings (e.g. whether a more positively focused series of mailings would yield a better outcome -- this is a question that will be answered on Tuesday).

I completely agree with regard to this being mostly a non-story.  It's news worthy because there is negative campaigning and one of the recipients of that negativity is unhappy?  That in itself, since Amy didn't go out of her way to discuss how much the Byrne camp was unhappy about Gerry's negative, er, sharp, mailers, pretty much says this is a pro-Connolly piece.  

And I'd add, from my earlier comment, that there are a number of subtle words and phrases which push the reader in the direction that Gerry is the good guy and Leslie is the bad guy.  Case in point, the word "sharp" to discuss Gerry's negative mailers.  That's much friendlier sounding than negative, especially in the context it was used.  And that was happening throughout the article.

I do agree that this is not the worst piece ever.  But it is a very Connolly-friendly piece at the height of the primary and not the sort of unbiased presentation/reporting that we should be seeing from the news department.

This is the second time in this thread that you've said something along the lines of, "We're at war and our troops need to be supported by civilians in the private sector."

What utter nonsense. News flash -- unethical war profiteering only occurs during WAR. Harry Truman elevated himself from a backbencher into someone that the Democratic party decided should be Roosevelt's successor specifically BECAUSE he decided to take on war profiteers during a time of war (and, I might add, a war that was much more consequential than this stupid Iraqi occupation).

The fact that you equate someone bringing up war profiteering with not supporting the troops evinces a deep unseriousness. I'd even turn it around on you -- if you don't care about war profiteering by unscrupulous contractors, then you are the one that doesn't care about the troops. Every day that our fighting women and men are suscepted to people with ulterior motives is another day in which our troops die because they have received substandard equipment and support and training.

Shame on you and your straw man.

You know why? Because we're in a war we shouldn't be in and that fact is not going to change until we have a new president. So until then, defense contractors must play a key role in supporting the troops.

And this is what you're against. How shameful of YOU:

SAIC to help protect military installations

By Doug Beizer

Science Applications International Corp. will help protect Defense Department installations from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attack under a new contract with the Army Space and Missile Defense that could be worth as much as $500 million over five years.

http://www.washingtontechnolog...

Not absolutely horrendous either.

I see this as more of a case of a reporter just kind of mailing a story in.  Keep in mind this story is front page of the Metro section on a Friday -- not exactly a big story.

I absolutely agree with you that the Bulova citation probably needs a lot more explanation than just "supporter" -- "campaign surrogate" or something along those lines would seem to be more accurate.  

The substance of the article boils down to: "Political campaign upset over negative PAC mailings".  This is a non-story -- space filler.  Connolly and his people don't really take the substance of the mailings to task (e.g. they don't say the charges leveled in the mailing are false) -- they just don't seem to like the fact that the mailings are negative.  Of course they don't.    

I know of a few who where on the fence - until the recent flyers - now they are with Connolly or Denneny.

Not kidding.

by perceived "negativity," even if in this case what EMILY's List says is totally factual.  However, there will probably be many others who are persuaded by EMILY's List.  It's like the saying goes, people always say they hate "negative" campaigning, but the reason it doesn't go away is that it works.  Again, though, in this case I'd like to know what the "negativity" was exactly.

So I just got my mail for the day and while we're on the topic of mailings, I think this Leslie one is suspect and misleading. Her latest has her picture on one side with bold text to indicate she's been endorsed by Jim Webb. That's great and true. But then flip it over and there's a huge picture and quote from Mark Warner, which sure implies that Warner endorsed her, too. That's not true. She did the same thing in 1994:

From the Washington Post in 1994:

Rep. Leslie L. Byrne, a Northern Virginia Democrat facing a tough battle for reelection this fall, is being criticized by a congressional colleague and several businesses and fund-raising groups who say she has inaccurately portrayed them as supporters of her campaign.

The complaints focus on fund-raising packets recently sent to several Northern Virginia groups by Byrne, a freshman being challenged by Fairfax County Board Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R) in what analysts say will be one of the year's costliest and most competitive congressional campaigns. The packets indicated that Byrne is supported by Rep. Helen Delich Bentley (R-Md.) and a range of businesses and political action committees.

But Bentley and several of the groups listed say they are not committed to Byrne, or have endorsed Davis in the campaign in Virginia's 11th Congressional District.

In a letter this week, Bentley chided Byrne, saying that the Democrat had used out of context a laudatory comment Bentley had made last year.

"It was never intended for that use, and I hope it will not be used so in the future," Bentley, a candidate for Maryland governor, told Byrne in the letter.

The Byrne packet also included a list of "Congressional Support and Endorsements." Among the groups listed were the Virginia Medical Political Action Committee, a branch of the American Medical Association that says it intends to support Davis, and the Greater Washington Board of Trade, which has not endorsed a candidate, representatives said.

Sandra Peterson, a legislative assistant for the medical political action group, said it has told Byrne that she would not have its financial support or endorsement this election. "There was a letter sent to her," Peterson said. "She can't say we didn't notify her."

Sorry, but your criticism doesn't pass the laugh test.  No where on the other side of this mailer is there any indication at all that Warner has endorsed Byrne.  Rather, Byrne is using, CLEARLY MARKED WITH THE ACCURATE A-LOT-MORE-RECENT-THAN-1994 date of 2005, a laudatory remark that Warner made about Byrne.  It is highly unlikely that Byrne's done anything in the last three years since Warner accurately complimented Byrne on Byrne's constant unwavering willingness to take on fights for what she believe is right that would cause Warner to object to Byrne using his statement now.

With all due respect, I think most of us here know that most voters glance at mailers in about two seconds before they hit the trash. So the goal of this mailer was a success -- make voters think Warner endorsed Byrne just as Webb endorsed her (as indicated on the flip side).

I'd argue that Connolly's so-called "positive" mailers are similarly deceptive, because the morons who spend two seconds glancing at them would believe that Connolly really is the progressive in the race instead of the opportunist that he is.  Connolly is a mere pretender, because 1) he wouldn't get in the race before scary Tom Davis announced his retirement; and, 2) when he realized Byrne would be able to convincingly make the case that she was right on the war before it was even waged, Connolly claimed to have been against the war, too, but has yet to prove that he ever publicly stated his position before this year.