Sorry, but RCDC was none of his business.  I'll take my support elsewhere.

I'd really like to hear what he has to say.

I have always liked however Brian Moran.

Brian Moran '09!

It's very few of the bloggers who are pontificating about it's business. However that doesn't stop them from trying to sway opinion. If you want to just talk about politics, it's the same thing I've been telling Dianne over and over again-- get more people to come who are on your side-- and you win.  Lambert will get his, but on the question of whether he should be kicked out, he won because more people felt he shouldn't be kicked out than felt he should.

I demand to hear from Creigh Deeds on this.

If these claims are true, Deeds needs to provide a good explanation. 

He is someone who I would have supported enthusiastically for statewide office before this revelation.  But this is an issue that it seems he should have left up to the RCDC.

The RCDC shouldn't have any say in whether or not Benny deserves to be a Democrat.  The voters should. 

And you know what?  Now that I'm a role, and am feeling no shame, I can finally say this:

THE RULE IS WRONG.  I've endorsed Republicans before, and I will continue to.  I also consider myself a Democrat. 

Although you are entitled to your opinion, you're not an elected official so you are free to "endorse" who you choose. As an elected official, Lambert agreed to abide by the party plan.  The rule is clear and should have been enforced. But, once again, Ds demonstrate the ability to put loyalty to an individual before loyalty to the party. It will be our downfall if we continue to do so.

And, had you been on the receiving end of such behavior, as I was in my 2005 campaign, I suspect you'd be singing a different tune.

An elected official, Democrat or Republican, who endorses someone from the opposing party in a contested election, should be booted.  Lambert's decision in this election was particularly egregious, given the enormous stakes (control of the US Senate, for instance).  Also, Lambert didn't just issue a pro forma endorsement of Allen, he freakin' campaigned for him.  Hard.  That's utterly inexcusable, and definitely grounds for kicking him out of the party. 

"Control of the Senate?"

That's 20/20 hindsight.  Nobody knew when he endorsed that we'd take over the Senate.  McCaskill was down at the time, and Webb was back by about 7 or 8.  It's only now that we realize the control of the Senate was in the balance.

I don't kick ANYBODY out of the party for ANY reason.  You want to be a Democrat, then you are a Democrat.  Apparently, I'm the only REAL big-tenter around here.

Loyalty to the party?  Screw that.  I'm loyal to what I believe in, and I'll support and candidate, regardless of party, who best matches me.

Don't get me wrong, I think McEachin should primary Benny.  But I think the voters should decide, not the "party."  This is still the "people's party", isn't it?

...so let's give 'em a choice - Donald McEachin for State Senate!

Donald McEachin for State Senate!!!

If your a loyal Webb rebel, you will get on board and primary that turncoat Benny Lambert.

Let's go Dems, and take back Virginia!

I'm not devoting my time to defeating a Democrat.  I'm going after Republicans.  I want to take back that majority, so Dems like myself (in conservative areas) have a chance once in comes time for redistricting.  Of course I hope McEachin wins, but my effort is going towards taking GOP faithfuls like JMDD and Cooch out.

But I'm not questioning the loyalty of any Democrat who supports Lambert in the primary.

Dems had no shot at the Senate without Webb's victory. They had NO margin for error.

Ford was an attractive candidate in Tenn., but the GOP nominated a moderate in Bob Corker and Tenn. has the smallest percentage of black voters of any state in the south.

Remember, at the time of Lambert's endorsement, Ford was winning.  He didn't fall far behind until mid-to-late October.  Virginia was actually last on the list when Lambert endorsed.  Just pointing that out.

Look, I wrote long ago that Lambert's reasoning for endorsing Allen was faulty (my first post on DWT).  But I'm saying that one man caused the election to be that close.  That election was that close because the Republican GOTV caught us by surprise, and reminded us that they still are more organized than we are.  I honestly don't think Benny changed enough votes to make a difference.

endorsed Al Gore in 2000, I think it could have made up a meager 527 votes or whatever it was.

The fact that Lambert didn't change enough minds is sheer luck.

Also, Ford never had a chance. An old roommate of mine goes to church with Gov. Bredesen and hangs out with that whole clan, they all knew it. Everyone in Tennessee knew it. The Ford name is mud in that state.

Webb-Allen was ground zero. Always was.

Way back when Webb was down by double-digits?  It wasn't ground zero then, my friend.  Don't get too cocky, people.  Just as much as Jim Webb won that race, George Allen lost it.

and gave people a reason to take a look at Jim Webb.  I won't disagree with that.

As far as Lambert's endorsement is concerned it came in September--a few weeks after the Allen Breaks, VA statement and ensuing PR debacle.

I agree with Chris on the consequences of the Virginia election.  A tilt of 4,500 votes would have had negative repercussions not just for Virginia, but for the nation, and to a degree, the world.

it wasn't a "botched joke" or riding around in a tank. The man is scum, and people saw evidence of it.

Republicans think the macaca video was like an act of god or something. I've been waiting for years for people to see George Allen for what he is. It was inevitable. That's not cocky, that's a fact.

Should John Warner be booted from the GOP for not supporting Oliver North? What about the Dems who supported Lieberman over  blog darling Lamont?

Would George Allen do that?

And John Warner didn't endorse Chuck Robb, did he?

Thanks to those Lamont-Dems, we have a shaky hold on the Senate and have to do all kinds of crap to keep Joe on board.  I'm glad I gave $50 to Joe during the primary.

Were the majority of Democrats in the state of Conn. Or as Joe calls them, extremists. You know, the 60%+ of Americans who don't support Bush on the war.

Lamont would have destroyed any Republican in the Nov. election one-on-one. Then we wouldn't have a shaky hold on the Senate. Instead we have a "Democrat" calling other Democrats traitors. Yay!

I love moderate and conservative Democrats....when they represent their constituents.

the party plan that everyone is quoting as the hard and fast rules don't say that you're kicked out for supporting a Republican instead of supporting the Democrat. They say that you are not allowed to actively support someone running against the Democratic nominee. Republican, independent, whatever.

that "not support" of North was of Marshall Coleman (after he failed to recruit Jim Webb).

To be quite honest though, John Warner probably could win Virginia without the support of the party machinery.

Had Benny Lambert thrown his weight behind Gail 4 Rail Parker instead of Allen or Webb, I suspect the intensity of the negative response would be ratched down several notches.

"Loyalty to the party."  That sounds way too Stalinist for me.

My loyalty isn't to my party or any single person.  It's to my issues.  The party comes second.  I believe spending our time, effort, and resources on defeating the Republicans IS being loyal to the party.

And Vivian, if I ever am in the position where I hold some office, you can bet that I will NOT follow that rule, and I would hope that my own elected officials would do the same.  I hope Jim Webb supports the right candidate all the time, not the right party. 

If a Republican broke line and endorsed a Democrat, I wouldn't say "that's wrong."  I'd welcome the endorsement.  It would be hypocritical of me to think differently when it is the other way around.

I know that the rule is clear, Viv.  I disagree strongly with the rule.

with party loyalty: run as an independent. 

So you're saying that even with all the work I've done for Democrats, and all the time I give, I can't run as a Democrat just because I support a few Republicans?  I'm voting for Stolle (R) this year.  So, if I continue to support Stolle, I shouldn't be allowed to run with a (D) at the end of my name?

Not sure why you're putting words in my mouth, and I'm not sure why you're trying to pick a fight.  I simply believe that if you are a member of a party, you are under an obligation not to actively oppose the party's nominees...

I was just trying to clarify something and understand where you are on this.

Regardless of party affiliation, I think it's WRONG to restrict who you can and can't publicly support.  If I did ever hold office as a Democrat, I can promise you that if a Republican was closer to my views than the Democrat, I would offer my support to the Republican.  I'm loyal to my own convictions, then to the constituents, then to the party, and finally to any individual.

A person cannot caucus or go to convention as a delegate if they don't affirm to suppport only Democratic candidates.

That's the way it has always pretty much been, and will stay that way.

Doesn't make it right.

maybe, but you are not the entire Democratic Party.

But remember, neither are you.  Just because you want strict party loyalty doesn't mean the average Democrat does.  I honestly don't think the average Democratic voter cares.

If by average Democrat you are talking about someone who doesn't have strong party identification, then I think you are also talking about the kind of person who is probably indifferent to Democratic party rules.

The type of people who set the rules, tend to be the type of people who strongly identify with a party.  They are the ones who invest innumerable volunteer hours into a party because they believe in the positions and agenda of the party.  Therefore they are the ones who are most likely to place a value on party loyalty. 

Mark isn't just expressing a personal opinion here.  This is simply a statement of fact.

That means that a local Dem Committee has chosen to support, endorse, and work for you.  That's talking about a lot of money and effort from the committee volunteers.  You can't expect the endorsement and support for a member or a candidate who won't pledge not to support a Republican over a Democrat.

Your reluctance to want to agree to the party bylaws indicates you'd probably fit more nicely with the Independents. 

But he didn't openly endorse him or campaign with him.

A little snark here.

Once again the distinction is between an ordinary voter and a party official. 

If you back Republicans openly as a Democratic official (someone who has benefited from the state party machinery)--then yes, in my view this is a strike against you. 

If you back Democrats as a Republican official--well, I might see this as a sign of independence. 

Am I being inconsistent?  Yeah a little bit.  But this is the political reality.

As far as past votes go, these are not a big issue in my view.  I'm sure I've voted for Republicans who have voted for Democrats, and I know I've voted for at least one Democrat, who as a private citizen voted for Republicans.

I would also point to Doug Wilder.  Wilder is now an independent and endorses accordingly.  If you do not need assistance from a party to win elections, then you are not violating any code of reciporcity when fail to toe the party line.

I'm simply talking about political realities here.  If you're looking at getting into politics professionally these are the realities that you'll have to reconcile yourself too.

out there who I would support in a heartbeat and still consider myself a Democrat.

And remember, it's George Allen Lambert supported. Not Stolle or John Warner. Lambert supported a racist scumbag who made me embarrased to be a Virginian.

If you support a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Demcorat, that's understandable. It still makes you a Democrat because the GOP as a whole is still anti-abortion.

Name one Democratic principle Allen stands for that justifies a Dem supporting him?

But I'm not getting into that debate.  So it's not the candidate, but the issues?  Well, where do I stand?  What about many of our conservative-moderate Dems out in the western part of the state?  A lot of them are pro-life, pro-family values.

Again, I DON'T agree with Lambert's decision.  But I still think he should be allowed to endorse who he wants.  Primary voters can make him pay for that endorsement, and they should.

In addition to running as an independent, run without any party support.

If you don't support the party, the party shouldn't support you.

Build your own organization - your own voter file, your own volunteer base, your own GOTV effort, your own poll workers, your own sample ballots.

the 'rule' doesn't just apply to electeds. It applies to every member of the committee.

I assume that you've "voted" for Republicans, not "endorsed" them in the capacity as a party official.

Lambert would have been within his rights to vote for George Allen as a private citizen in the voting booth; or if he had qualms about the Democratic Senate nominee--he could have simply withheld his support.  Instead Lambert allowed George Allen to traffic his support under the label "Democratic State Senator Lambert".  He used his party affiliation against the Democratic nominee.

As far as Deeds is concerned, if he felt strongly about Lambert's service, I think he should have made an above-board, public appeal to the full RCDC.  Once again, I am withholding judgement, but in my view this doesn't look good at all.

With this whole Deeds thing... all I've seen is speculation, hearsy, and rumor from JC and Ben.... is there anything substantial?

That's a point that's worth hammering home.  In my view though, if JC says it's so, then I'll have to take the statement seriously.  He tends to be a credible source.

if Ben say's it's so......

that I didn't go that far. 

The story originated with J.C.--so my degree of skepticism was slightly less than it might have been had the story orginated on a blog professing to be accurate 99.7% of the time.

I don't know how much closer I can get to an endorsement as a blogger.

And if I were a public official, that wouldn't change.  I think loyalty to the party MUST be second to loyalty to your own issues.

What confused me about Lambert was that Allen wasn't in line with Benny's issues.  Had, however, a Conservative Dem endorsed and supported Allen, I don't think I would've been that suprised or upset.

http://donkeywithatr...
Top story says it all.

Enough with the damn vendetta, people!  Look, I'm pissed at Benny, too.  But I'm not letting it cloud the rest of my judgment.  Creigh Deeds is a loyal Democrat, and is focused more on winning the majority and helping Governor Kaine rather than "punishing the wicked."

Have you people lost your way?  What are you becoming?  You're so obssessed with getting revenge on Benny Lambert that you're forgetting so many things...like the majority!  Instead of attacking Democrats, why don't we go after Republicans?  That way, when it comes time to redistrict, we won't get taken to town, and Democrats like myself in conservative areas like Virginia Beach will have a freaking chance!

You people are driving me crazy.  I have to get out of here.  This "Heretic Hunt" has gotten out of control.  You've gone from attacking a Liberal Democrat who made one mistake, which didn't cost us anything, by the way, to attacking a life-long Democrat who I personally saw countless times doing what he could to support Jim Webb.

This makes me sick.

I have always been a big Creigh Deeds fan.  I worked as hard as I could to get him elected in 2005, but unfortunately, I didn't succeed.  Regarding this incident, I certainly would not be pleased to hear about any Democrat supporting Benny Lambert, but I'd have to weigh all the factors and look at the overall situation before deciding how, if at all, it would affect my political calculus.  Which is why I look forward to Creigh Deeds' comment on this matter...

If this is the will of the committee, then fine. Majority rules, that's Democratic. I just want to know what role Creigh, who's not from Richmond, played in this...and why.

Second of all, this race between Webb and Allen was razor-thin. Webb won Lambert's district by a smaller margin than Kaine did in '05. Had Allen pulled this victory out, this country, and the world for that matter, would be a different, and more dangerous place. THAT'S A BIG F*CKING DEAL. 

One mistake my ass. One decision by one person can change the world Dan.

The same reason that Lowell keeps throwing out his opinions!  He cares about what happens.  The only difference is that Creigh is a very respected member of the Senate, and has enough influence to change some minds. 

If you didn't want Creigh involved, you should've banned all of us non-Richmond bloggers from participating in the discussion as well.  Set the terms, man.

I want Lambert to be challenged by McEachin, and I want him to be defeated.  But I want the people to make that call, not a committee, and not because of some bogus rule that I think is BS.

Lowell is a blogger.

What I want to know is how Deeds may or may not have influenced the vote. If all he did was recommend voting for Lambert, that's forgiveable because it's not necessarily an endorsement for his re-election. It's more a matter of principle. I can live with that.

What I want to know is if favors were promised in exchange for this. I just think it's weird that a simple phonecall from Deeds making a suggestion could turn someone's vote. It sounds sinister to me. But I PRAY I'm wrong.

He's a State Senator, not a Delegate.

Second, what Creigh recommended was letting the public decide.  He just asked that they let the people decide Benny's fate rather than the committee.

A simple phone call from Mark Warner can change minds.  I've seen it happen.  A call from Tim Kaine can do that.  A call from Jim Webb can do that. Creigh may not be on that level yet, but he's close.

State Senator.

sensibilities, he would be a party of one.

There's a reason that we call them "representatives," and "public servants".  The elected officials "represent" the views of a constituency.

There's a place for personal convictions in politics, but a politician won't last long if he or she acts in every instance with a mind solely towards his or her personal views.  That's a violation of a sacred trust in my view.

As a voter, you are representing the views of one person when you step into the voting booth.  As a representative you are representing the views of many people as you go about the people's business.

They represent the constituency, not the party.  People don't vote for parties.  That's a parliamentary system.  They vote for the individual person.  Whether or not we choose to associate with a party is our own choice.  But we don't vote Democrat for Senate.  We vote Jim Webb for Senate.  I'm not voting for the Democrat, I'm voting for Jim Webb, and his stance on the issues.  That's how our system works.  We vote for a person because of where they stand, and if we later find that we don't like where they stand, we vote for somebody else.

I have bucked the party line too, but I do take party affiliation into consideration.  Especially when one party starts skewing too far away from values that matter to me.

If I lived in the Northeast, or California, I'd probably end up voting for Republicans more frequently.  In Virginia, I would be reluctant to support a Republican for the House of Delegates in large part because the state GOP has skewed to far to the right in my view.  They seem to be obsessed solely with divisive social issues, and not real meat and potatoes issues of governance (like transportation for example).  Also, I can't tolerate their use of closed sessions to kill bills anonymously without registering votes.  In my view the Virginia state GOP has lost its sense of civic responsibility.  So party affiliation will be a significant consideration for me in 2007.

The Jim Webb choice was as much a case of voting for a party as for an individual person.  But for me this was an exceptional case.

I always vote for the individual because the name comes before the capital letter.  Sure, I take party into account, but it comes second to who the person is.  If a true communist kind of guy ran in my district against a Moderate Republican...I'm not hesitating to publicly support the Republican.  2006 was my first straight ticket.  I voted Webb, Kellam, No.  Before that, I had always had a mix of Dems, Indies, and Republicans.

preach on

my preach on was for Dan

From Not Larry Sabato:

Ben:
Creigh thinks that the voters of Sen. Lambert's district should decide all of this. Unfortunately, what's up on the blogs isn¹t very accurate. Hetalked with Jim Nachman about this a while back, expressing some concern that forcibly removing Lambert could be divisive for the party and send the wrong message to Virginians. However, the suggestion that he is orchestrating some sort of conspiracy in bad faith is absurd. It's unfortunate that these accusations were made before Sen. Deeds was given achance to respond and that they were made without proper attribution. Thankyou for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.

Very Truly Yours,
Peter

I agree, 100%, with every single thing that Creigh said.

If Creigh supports McEachin in the primary, it will show that he is a man of principle and integrity. If he supports Lambert, I won't call him a turncoat, but I might look elsewhere if he runs for Governor.

Not you, Chris.  And not Lowell.  But some other people who shall remain nameless owe an apology to Creigh.

Maybe this explanation still won't satisfy some people. It'll be interesting to see if there's fallout regardless of this e-mail.

... the last time I heard "let the people decide" was when some of our Ds voted to allow the Marriage Amendment be on the ballot.

Leaders lead. If they don't, they aren't leaders. And passing the buck ain't leading.

is the GOP currently laughing at our issue and thanking us for being distracted by intra-party infighting?

If our actions lead to a yes answer- then the solution is clear.

I do have to make clear that while I'm totally with you on this Lambert/RCDC thing-- I have to agree with Vivian and some of the others regarding some of your above conversation.  That's a different issue though, and a different blog post :-)

I can tell you the NoVA GOPers would view this kind of small scale intra-party squabble with envy, not laughter.

(Flipper performs a back flip in honor of Vivian Paige for her remarks!)

Vivian's comments hit the nail on the head!  A  political party has rules and those rules have to apply to all elected officials of that party - NO EXCEPTIONS!  And the grassroots has to DEMAND enforcement of these rules. 

It's appalling the Deeds got involved in this and he will certainly pay a huge political price for doing so.  It's even more appalling that the RCDC voted the way they did this evening - Deed's actions as well as those of the RCDC are such a slap in the face to Jim Webb - and to all Democrats who worked so hard to get Webb elected. 

And how did our fearless 2006 7th Congressional District Democratic candidate for Congress and Richmond Democratic Committee Chair Jim Nachman vote on this issue?  Did he buckle to pressure from Deeds?  Maybe Deeds' promised him the number two slot on the ticket in 2009 in exchange for his vote to keep Lambert in the party!  LOL!  And maybe Benny will be there AG running mate!!!!!!!!  LOL!  But who knows? 

 

by the time 09 decisions are made. Creigh is fine.

"A  political party has rules and those rules have to apply to all elected officials of that party - NO EXCEPTIONS!"

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't enforce rules.  I'm arguing that this rule is wrong.

Colgan, Saslaw, Miller...3 others

And don't presume to know how I feel about HBCUs.

I know you want to participate here, but get your facts straight.

Evidently you don't know anything much, becuase that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.

My suspicions about your name?

Deeds was not the only one. Saslaw, Miller, Colgan ...3 others

Posted by: Janet | January 25, 2007 at 11:28 PM

From NLS

I thought it was "Janet" too.

Let's say I'm a Democrat in Virginia Beach.  The Democrat nominee for some seat turns out to be an absolute wacko.  However, a Republican friend of mine who I get along with politically wants to run against him. 

I have four options, in my mind:

A) Endorse the Republican (though I admit, I wouldn't be that active, I'd just say it once and let him tack it on his website), and put somebody I can work with in office.

B) Publicly denounce the Democrat, but don't mention the Republican.

C) Keep my mouth shut and stay out of it.

D) Just smile and show up with the wacko because, hey, he's a Democrat too.

I'd rather do A, and if I had to I may be convinced to do B.  But C would be very hard, and there's no chance in hell D is happening.  My question is: would you people be cool with B?

the Republican in question was George Allen and the Democrat in question was Jim Webb. That's my problem. There's no justification for it that I can see.

In your example, you would have a legitimate reason for voting for the Republican. That's the difference.

It depends on how extreme the guy is? 
I'm confused now.  I thought the general rule was Democrats had to support other Dems?  I'm really confused.

I don't speak on behalf of others.

When the Louisiana GOP nominated David Duke for statewide office, Pres. Bush said that he had to go with Duke's Democratic opponent.

Republicans everywhere didn't call for his head did they? No. And if the Democrats nominated someone like Duke, I'd vote against him or her.

But Jim Webb isn't exactly a white supremecist.

Hadn't thought about it, but GHW Bush ended up losing his election too.  There are always political consequences.  I wonder if GHW Bush lost some of his core constituency because of the anti-David Duke stance.

The scary thing is, if the vote was just of white Louisianians, Duke would have won.

I think it SHOULD be, by rule, on a case-by-case basis.  Therefore, I think the rules of the committee are overwhelming. 

However, I'll still contend it should always be left up to the voters to decide whether or not somebody should be in or out on the party.  At the very LEAST it should be an open-vote for anybody who's a with the RCDems, not just those committee members. 

I get along with Watkins Abbitt though we disagree politically, and I have known his wife for years. Local Democrats know this and it isn't a problem as far as I know, and Watkins has a pretty good idea where I'm coming from.

We're fortunate to have an excellent Democratic candidate in Connie Brennan, but suppose we didn't.  If I felt strongly enough to vote against a Democratic candidate, then I would say so publicly.  Furthermore, the local committee wouldn't have to vote on anything, because I would simply resign because it would be the right thing to do. 

No, I'm not running for any office, but so what? When an individual is running for office as a Democrat, then that doesn't purchase exception.  As a matter of fact, those running for office as Democrats ought to be exemplary rather than half-baked and wishy-washy.

If you don't support the platform of a group, then you're in the wrong group.  It's that simple.  There will always be variation and differences to iron out, but we're talking about working directly against the mission and platform of a group and turning around and expecting their support.  That doesn't work.  Or it shouldn't.  It's just part and parcel of group give and take, and 100 years of exemplary participation in the group is not particularly relevant once such a choice is made.

If someone is a wacko to the degree you describe, then most people will know about it anyway.  The Oliver North example is a good one. And that's where the rules tend to be flexible.  The guy was a criminal, and the members of his party who chose not to support him explained their reasons publicly.

George Allen was the very antithesis of nearly every Democratic principle I can think of.  Certainly there are vendetta like attitudes floating about, but there is a large body of substance underneath if you can overlook that. 

But what about conservative democrats?  They really don't support the majority of the national party's platform.  Yet without them, we're in trouble.  Take away all the Blue Dog Caucus and give them to the Republicans, and we're in the minority again.  So, would you say that they belong?  Or do we sacrifice our new power over ideological principle?

Look, Benny Lambert supported the wrong guy.  I will never deny that.  Jim Webb could possibly one of the greatest Democratic leaders of my young life.  But it's the PRINCIPLE that I'm fighting for.  I think that, as a Moderate Democrat, if I choose someday to run for office it should be okay for me to endorse moderate Republicans over Democrats that are too far to the left of me.  I'm not talking about endorsing Pat Robertsons, here.  I'm talking about endorsing the Ken Stolles of the world.

that I like conservative Democrats....when they represent their constituents. If you live in an incredibly liberal district and you frequently vote republican, you qualify as someone who should be replaced. I LOOOOVE Ben Nelson, because he's the only Dem who can win statewide in Nebraska right now. The likely alternative would be a Republican.

You say you're fighting for the principle? You're talking about moderate Dems only. Allen IS a Pat Robertson Republican. He's not Ken Stolle. So that means that YOU TOO are going on a case-by-case basis. You and me agree.

I live in a heavily republican area around stafford. Do you think I'd try and replace William Howell with a liberal Democrat over a moderate one? Of course not, even though I'm a liberal myself.

You're characterizing me as an uber-liberal idealogue, which I'm not.

Anyway, I'm going to sleep now. G'night.

Are you a party official? 

If no, then none of the answers you've listed matter.  Do whatever your personal preference compels you to do.

If you are a party official, then this is an easy question (if you enjoy your political job and want to stay in politics as a representative).

99% of the time some combination of "C" and "D" is the best course of action.

If you do "A" or "B" you are essentially telling the people who supported you, who are now supporting this other candidate, that their judgement sucks.  That's not exactly a way to win friends and influence people.  You better have a safety net in the GOP or a nice fall back position in the private sector.

The only exception that I can see to this is if your core supporters largely share your viewpoint.  If that's the case you would be stifling larger statewide ambitions--statewide party loyalists would likely be unwilling to return an unreturned favor when your numbers is called-- but odds are you would still have a political career inside your district.

In Virginia Beach, as a Democrat, it's much safer politically to denounce the wackos.  GOP outnumbers Dems by huge numbers.  C is dangerous, D is suicide.

Remember, we have to take time, office, and place into account.  That's why I don't support the rule: there's not enough wiggle room.  If I were a Democratic office holder in Virginia Beach, I think the people should allow a B, and maybe even an A, because:

1) It's politically the best move for me
2) We don't get many Dem office holders at the beach these days, and keeping me in office, therefore making a majority easier by having a Dem in a Red area, is more important than supporting a guy who has no chance.
3) You know just as well as I that with the right-wingers you have to be careful, because being silent can't hurt just as much as support.

If your objective is to endear yourself to the GOP majority, there are better ways to do this then endorsing GOP candidates.

I would study the Mark Warner model.  He didn't endear himself, or earn poltical points by being known as the guy who endorsed GOP candidates. 

On core issues, like gun rights, Warner's positions were acceptable to the political mainstream.  He also spent years cultivating personal and business relationships throughout the state.  He won over Dems and independents first; he then won over GOPers when he was governor.

If your objective is to get into politics in an area dominated by the GOP (e.g. over 55%), your best bet is to run as a GOPer.  As a Dem you would need strong support from the state party.  And there is just no way that the state party would support you if you gained a reputation as "the guy who always turns his back on state candidates".

That's just the political reality in my view.

At least not in the political sense.  They voted against Warner in 2001.  So what Warner did in his first campaign, actually, didn't work.  Kaine won the area mostly due to anger with Kilgore.  Phil almost won, but most of that was because of his name.  You need more connections than just the issues.

Can't you say it in a way that's not so harsh?

"With all due respect to my fellow Democrats, I can't find it in myself to support the candidacy of Mr./Mrs. so-and-so.  I believe that he/she is wrong for our district/city/state/whatever at this time."

That wasn't too harsh, was it?  Would you really be THAT pissed at Benny had he said something like that about Jim Webb?

There's the example of John Warner and Oliver North, which provides you with one set of answers.

In Lambert's case there was nothing that he, or any other party official, could have said to justify lending his or her party affiliation to George Allen's re-election efforts. 

Once again, by rejecting the party nominee--you are essentially telling the same people who nominated you--that they have poor judgement, and that you don't share their values. 

If you pursue that course there better be some pretty exceptional mitigating factors--and it better not be something that you do as a matter of habit.  As a representative, if you are tone def to these realities, your political life is likely to be very short.

Independent candidates live by a different set of rules.

See my comment to Janet above.