If my endorsement were worth anything, you'd certainly be welcome to it!

After 30 years or so of listening to politicians talk about the environment while doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it, I'm glad to see a real environmentalist stepping up to run.  Make some waves, brother...

I may just have to move to your district to be able to vote for you! The 47th is fortunate to have such a dedicated environmentalist and community activist running for this position. By starting your campaign now as opposed to next year you are truly living a "Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today" manifesto. Eisenberg had better start thinking about his plans much sooner than he anticipated because you are off the ground and running, and people will take notice.  

On one hand... I've always loved Miles' blogging and everything he stands for - environment is my number one issue and this couldn't be a better video.

On the other hand... Just because our party is doing well doesn't mean it's time to start thinking we can start challenging good Democrats like Al Eisenberg.  Primaries to draw the party further to its extreme are always detrimental.

That having been said, if Al is retiring - go Miles!  You have my full support and would be so honored to work alongside you in the House of Delegates.

"I would be so honored to work alongside you" it ought to read.

Hmmmm.

You know that's not what I meant.

What I'm saying is that Al Eisenberg is a good Democrat.  Convince me right now that Miles is running to Eisenberg's right and you'll get a big great Tim Kaine eyebrow out of me.

Furthermore...
If we ran an environmentalist candidate against Phil Puckett that would be a major policy shift for the person holding that district, extreme is a word I'd use.  Arlington... not so much.

So lets put it this way - we must always strive to have candidates and elected officials who match their constituencies - not their party base.  Fortunately Arlington is home to some of the most liberal Democrats - so if Al Eisenberg is indeed too conservative for the district - by all means have a primary.  Just remember that it always goes the other way.  If we get a liberal Democrat elected in Southwest Virginia expect him to be defeated in a primary or general election.

I might not be expressing myself all that well.  Do I get more than a "hmmmm" however?

he's so cuteeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. That's why he should win. Hahaha.

My girlfriend!  She's also even more of an environmentalist than me so I guess it's okay... but still...

"Primaries to draw the party further to its extreme are always detrimental."

Al Eisenberg and Miles Grant are probably equally progressive.  What we're talking about in this case is a chance to bring fresh, energetic leadership on the environment and other issues I care about to Richmond. Also, I think primaries are good in the vast majority of cases, and I certainly don't see anything "extreme" about this one.

Primaries in general don't hurt, and I dismiss the argument that Bob McDonnell will automatically win in 2009 because our party has a primary as foolish (flashback to 2008 - which party had the long primary - which party won the White House...)

I can't agree however with the premise that Al Eisenberg isn't good enough until someone explains to me why he ought to be replaced.  Have you ever lobbied him on environmental issues?  Has he been unreceptive?

with a great deal of energy and passion, willing to fight for progressive values.  I think Al Eisenberg is a good man, votes the right way on all the issues, but I don't believe he has that "fight" in him at this point.

...I DO believe Miles Grant has that fighting spirit.

Never created an account and never posted a comment.  Just enjoyed the commentary.  I know Al Eisenberg personally.  I know he is one of the most progressive people you will find and his record backs this up.  He's served Arlington extremely well for over 35 years.

I respect Mr. Grant's right to run.  But I completely disagree with the way he announced his intentions to run.  He never called Delegate Eisenberg to inform him of his decision, which is always the proper thing to do when you are challenging an incumbent that is a respected and good/loyal member of your own party.

Yes, Del. Eisenberg has been contemplating whether or not to retire for some time now.  My feeling is that he deserves the time to make this decision on his own.  The decision of Mr. Grant to decide right now, when the filing deadline isn't till when?  April, 2009?  That's a sign of disrespect toward Del. Eisenberg and what he has done for Arlington over the past 35+ years.

It was a low-ball way of announcing a run.  Some may not agree because he obviously is an established poster here, but that's the way I feel as well as many others I have talked to.

BTW, Parkhomenko won't run unless Eisenberg retires and that comes from Parkhomenko himself.

i generally refrain from posting myself, but honestly i thought the same thing about the way this was announced.

at the very least it would have been a sign of respect to talk to Del. Eisenberg first, regardless of whether or not he intends to retire. no incumbent should ever take their elected position for granted, but as a fellow Democrat if you're going to launch an attack on a sitting Dem then you damn sure better have a compelling narrative to back it up.

Lamont challenging Lieberman was one thing... but this? at best i'm hearing an attempt at trying to establish a "old & busted vs new hotness" foundation for the reason behind this primary challenge which frankly i don't find compelling at all.

as for saying you "should've been forced to wait until six weeks", that just strikes me as a juvenile response... you're obviously free to handle your campaign as you see fit, but clearly need to understand that actions have consequences. taking a disrespectful tone with people who question the need for this primary challenge won't help your case.

I am not sure why you use the words "launching an attack."  Just because two people are running against each other in a primary does not guarantee that said primary will be filled with negativity.  

Besides, out of Arlington there ought to be primaries every year since the General Election is almost a foregone conclusion.  This is a chance to enfranchise, and keep involved, many young Democratic activists in an exciting way after the '08 election.

by nature challenging them in a primary is an attack.

not saying that it shouldn't ever happen, quite obviously it should and our system is well-designed in allowing for it, but how it's handled will speak volumes about the challenger and their reasons for bringing it.

personally as someone who's represented by this delegate seat i'm very interested in what happens with it... i'm looking forward to hearing the case made by Miles and any other challenger, as well as hearing the case made by Del. Eisenberg if he decides to run for another term.

this has just been my two cents on my reaction to it so far, and a little bit of free advice. :)

and I respect your perspective, but I have to agree with IOB that it is completely unfair to characterize Miles' (or any person's, for that matter) candidacy for public office as "launching an attack," even if in doing so that person failed to observe some protocol you think appropriate, and even where the incumbent is a member of the person's party.

If you stick to the issues, I can't see how the mere fact of a candidacy can be open to criticism, or is, "by nature," an attack.

In fact, I don't see where Miles even mentions the incumbent at all. He only talks about his own views.

I think this is pretty cool that Miles is following his passions to try to make a difference, and I wish him the best of luck.  

campaign on the issues - environment, human rights, infrastructure - that he cares about.  What's wrong with that?!?

Just because you're an incumbent doesn't mean that someone can't challenge you. In fact, I'd say it's healthy for our Democracy. Anyway, if people believe that Al Eisenberg is doing a good job and are happy with him, they'll reelect him so what's the threat here?  I mean, this is a TOTALLY safe Democratic district, after all.  

at no point did i say that an incumbent shouldn't be challenged, just commenting on the perception of how this has been handled.

again... just my two cents. :)

challenging an incumbent was "by nature" an attack, didn't you?

if you're going to run to remove an incumbent from their seat, then it absolutely is an attack on them.

i'm not sure what the hangup is with that word in particular, and i don't particularly care what you choose to call it that you think sounds better... but it is what it is.

To call something an "attack" is to characterize it, not to define it.

The word  "attack" carries all sorts of negative connotations.

When you say, "My opponent is running attack ads," you don't mean it as a compliment. You mean it as a way of saying, My opponent has no positive agenda and hopes to get elected by unfairly criticizing me."

I think the most that can be said factually is running to remove a incument is a "challenge" to them.

and when you're running to remove someone from a seat, you're not paying them a compliment either... ;)

if you're going to make the case that you're a better choice for a position than the incumbent, then at some point you're going to have to explain to potential voteres why... and that won't come across as a compliment either.

but no worries, please substitute the phrase "challenge" in my original post if you find that more palatable.

that when someone runs for political office against an incumbent, they do so because they believe they would do a better job. It also goes without saying that they have to convince the voters of that.  If so, they'll win. If not, they'll lose.  Again, this is Democracy 101.

i was surprised to have to explain that one myself. :)

Yoiu didn't need to "explain that one." Sheesh.

Rather, it was the use of the word "attack," and the way that word frames the issue and suggests a narrative in the sense of it being a negative judgment, to which I objected.

I mean, how much do we, as Democrats, talk about the way in which campaign issues and narratives are framed are so essential to successful candidacies.

Ok, I've been at this one enough, and will be signing off this thread. you can have the last word if you wish.

and it's why intraparty primary challenges raise their own concerns..

imagine that you're an incumbent running for re-election, can you honestly say you wouldn't see someone challenging you with a primary as an attack?

whatever you choose to call it doesn't really matter..

when Lamont challenged Lieberman, how was that perceived?

if someone were to challenge one of our Democratic senators with a primary, would that be seen as an attack?

if someone were to challenge President-elect Obama in four years... would that be seen as an attack?

arguing semantics doesn't really make a difference.

I represent the "new hotness"? And I'm "juvenile"? You've got an awfully strange way of lecturing people on respect and courtesy.

Oh, so now global warming is Miles' fault.

Who's attacking now?   :)

with all due respect, i'm not the one running for office... ;)

i'm looking forward to hearing from Miles and anyone else running for this seat... just expressing my thoughts on how this was announced, and how vadem885 was responded to.

That seat belongs to the voters in that district, not Mr. Eisenberg. I don't have any significant problems with Mr. Eisenberg, but he's not some figure of royalty who needs to be consulted and have his ring kissed before someone runs against him.

but he's not some two-faced jerk either, who has betrayed his party.  Lowell and everyone besides Miles [who in fairness has remained silent on the subject I believe], has agreed that if nothing else, Al Eisenberg is a good Democrat.  That alone merits a phone call.  

To say that the courtesy of a phone call is owed is not to say that someone has to kiss any rings.  It's called being a decent person and an adult in a situation that could potentially be fraught with difficulty.  It's stuff like this that turns campaigns that could be positive and polite into unpleasant ones.  THIS is how you avoid bad feelings.

We could probably do without the straw men.

this one doesn't look like it's going to take long to get unpleasant:

http://notlarrysabato.typepad....

NLS has a habit of making the candidates he opposes look great by mere comparison.

But if Miles Grant, Adam Parkhomenko, or hell, Mickey Mouse wants to challenge him in a Democratic Primary, then they are well within their rights to do so, and don't owe him anything in advance of such a decision to do so. And not calling him is hardly some lack of decency on the other candidate's part.

I don't have a dog in this fight--I live in a different district, and I have no bone to pick with either Grant or Eisenberg, both of whom strike me as good men and good Democrats. But I hate the notion of entitlement that we give to incumbents.

I don't live in this district either.  But I do know Al Eisenberg's record of service to the Democratic Party and the people of Arlington, and that's the reason I so strongly disagree, Red Sox.

As several people have mentioned, it's important to remember what happens if Miles Grant is able to secure the Democratic nomination and then the seat: he goes to Richmond for a couple of months each year and works with who?  Al Eisenberg's old colleagues.  You don't think people know how you treated their friend?  That you didn't have the courtesy to call him up and let him know that you'll be running against him?  

That matters people, it matters because it effects your ability to successfully represent your constituents.  

The most valuable traits a legislator can have are the trust and respect of his colleagues.  You think it's tough being in the minority?  Ha! Try being in the minority when even your own Democratic colleagues don't trust and respect you.  It's a recipe for failure.  They are more important than ideas, passion, and vision combined.  You simply cannot get things done down there if people don't trust your judgment because the session is so short that there's no way everyone can become experts on every issue that comes up.  It's just impossible.  So your colleagues have to trust that you know what you're talking about, that you're a straight shooter and that you'll comport yourself in a manner they can rely on.    

THAT is why this is such a big deal.  It speaks to what Miles Grant does and does not understand about being an effective legislator and implementing all of the admittedly great ideas he may have.  I'm with him on the issues, but this is a very poor way to start a campaign.

Did I say to wait 6 weeks before the primary?

I said it was a low-ball way to announce a run.  The proper thing to do would have been to call Del. Eisenberg and inform him that you are planning to run for his seat.  It didn't even matter when that call takes place--you could have called him in October or early November and still file your papers on November 12th.

And nobody said anything about Del. Eisenberg being "entitled to keep his seat for as long as he likes".  I respect your right to run.  I was told he found out about your intentions when he was called by a reporter for a reaction.  He deserved better, IMO.

You can dismiss that if you want, but you honestly can't see where I and many others are coming from?

wait to being their campaign until the incumbent decides, on whatever timetable he or she feels appropriate, whether to seek reelection?  I've been following American politics for a long time, and that's one I've certainly never heard before.  I've also never seen Miss Manners or anyone else address the question of a courtesy call to the person you're challenging.  Has that been standard operating procedure, is it just for long-time incumbents, or what?  Bottom line: this is a Democracy, people have a right to run, voters will decide who they want to represent them. Period.

:)

The idea that a challenger needs to get the thumbs up from an incumbent before challenging him in a primary is all sorts of stupid.

i'm not saying incumbents should never be challenged, nor am i saying that Miles shouldn't run if he feels he's better suited to the seat. if anything, i look forward to hearing more about why.

i just think Del. Eisenberg deserved better than to hear about this challenge first from a newspaper.

of why Ned Lamont did not, as we agree, owe Lieberman a courtesy call, but somehow Miles owes this to Eisenberg. Do we have a list of criteria for how "good" of a Democrat you have to be before you cross the threshold of deserving a phone call from a challenger, especially one who the incumbent has so little of a relationship with, he's never heard of?

That's just ridiculous.  You know darn well the difference between someone who publicly calls out his own party and someone who supports progressive values every step of the way.

Apparently certain Democrats deserve this "courtesy" and other ones do not. Shall we appoint you as the arbiter of who is entitled to be apprised of a potential opponent's intentions, and who isn't? If not, perhaps you can suggest someone willing to fill the role.

Lamont didn't have any contact with Lieberman prior to his formal campaign announcement, or there weren't any communications between their respective camps... both of which strike me as somewhat foolish assumptions.

but this is argument is even sillier than the semantic one from earlier :) (and has even less to do with how this particular challenge is being received in a much smaller community)

that if even your OWN supporters acknowledge that the guy is a good Democrat, then he is.  And no, I'm a little busy at the moment, but I'll get back to you on that arbiter gig.

Given the choice between two equally good progressives I will always choose the newcomer over an incumbent - Jefferson spoke about the need to clean house every so often.

Nevertheless, the only thing that concerns me more than the environment, is what will any politician do to help improve the lives of our citizens - including good available education, stable jobs, access to health care, equal opportunity, and the guts to standing up for the "little person" against big corporate interests.