I used to like Dillard before reading this.  He's touring the state right now with the League of Conservation Voters doing trainings for GA candidates. He also used to be the darling of teachers. I guess he has in his retirement lost touch with reality.  Shame.

This story is completely false. Dave is actively helping Chap and Janet, going above and beyond.

Del. Marsden isn't helping Devolites Davis in any way. Jim Dillard isn't passing out lit for Dave. Dave, however, is passing out lit for Chap and Janet, and is helping ID voters for their campaigns.

Frankly, the fact that you'd post this garbage is disappointing, and even more, creates drama that doesn't help Democrats win seats this year.

The only person who profits from misinformation like this is Ken Cuccinelli and Devolites Davis.

Furthermore, as I said elsewhere -

Please check your facts first before posting a story like this.  Jim Dillard is not knocking on doors for anyone.  He does not have any Marsden campaign literature.  The only person knocking on doors is Delegate Marsden in his district and he is supporting Janet Oleszek, Chap Peterson and George Barker.  He is working very hard to meet his constituents and at the same time introduce them to their Democratic candidate for senate. 

I?ve been at the doors with him, and can personally attest that he is helping Janet and encouraging voters to support Janet. His message is that Janet will be a stronger voice for Fairfax than the incumbent Senator.

This does nothing but divide Democrats in a year when we need to be united. Dave?s focused on helping Democrats win this year.

If you or anyone else wants to get involved in the campaigns please check out their websites and contact them; we can't ever have enough Democratic volunteers. 

- Pete Hackeman, Marsden for Delegate campaign manager

and they're insisting the story is accurate.  Obviously, we don't want Democrats feuding, so I'd welcome a quick resolution of this issue.  I personally don't want to make a big deal out of it, I just want to see everyone supporting Chap 100%.

Dave Marsden will continue to work hard for Chap, Janet and George Barker and raise money for the House Caucus.

The only thing standing between us and a resolution are these ridiculous, imaginary attacks of a Democrat who is currently working hard to elect other Dems.

Again, unnecessary drama like this only takes away time from people supporting Chap.

I invite anyone who is skeptical to come volunteer with Dave Marsden as he walks door to door for Janet and Chap. Look forward to seeing you.

Assume for the moment your sources are correct, and that Jim Dillard is supporting Dave Marsden and JMDD. That is Jim Dillard's right, and is not surprising given that he was a Republican delegate, even though he endorsed Dave Marsden to succeed him.

Even if Jim Dillard is doing this, it doesn'tin any way reflect on Dave Marsden's support for Chap and other Democrats. (Unless of course, you see Dave Marsden doing these things)

Dave could, and probably should, ask Jim Dillard to either hand out his lit or JMDDs, but not both together. That's reasonable. But the original post seems to imply that Dave Marsden supports JMDD over Chap, and that doesn't follow from the facts.

isn't controlled by Dave Marsden.  The only thing Del. Marsden could do would be to ask Dillard to stop doing what he's doing (assuming my sources are correct and Dillard is, indeed, doing it).

If none of them have names, you don't have a story.

And one thing I won't do is reveal them.  Maybe that's the way you do things at your blog, but it's not the way I work.

Pete has come out and put his name and reputation on the line and said that this is not true, if you can't come forward with  a real person and not a "source", then you should rescind your  inflammatory allegations (this is not the sort of content that people want when they read a REPUTABLE blog like RK).

We don't do that on "reputable" blogs.

Lowell, I understand that sources might not call if they'll be "outed." An active Democrat might not want to be named in this story. However, doesn't Ben -D E S P I S E- Dave Marsden?  (Or is that Bulova?)  It also seems strange that a homeowner with nothing to lose hasn't confirmed this (although inactive voters and non-voters might not tune in yet).  The sources have a right to stay unnamed, but given Ben's feelings and the campaign's denials, I also have a right to withhold jugement.

I also looked up Marsden's financial support, and no Marsden has given money to any Republicans.  Neither has Hackeman. Dave has donated money to Chap and Janet.

And it's not a Republican either.  It's also not someone who has any axe to grind against Dave Marsden, to the best of my knowledge. 

Get off it already. 

Many professional journalists don't name names, so this "you have to name a source or it's not real" is a bunch of crap.

Just because you know someone's name doesn't necessarily tell you the accuracy of that person's story.  A named person can lie just as much as an unnamed person.  If said named person has enemies those enemies will automatically assume a lie or just attack the person's credibility - regardless of what is known.

Y'all are carrying on as if Lowell revealed his source this story would either be stone cold fact or an outright lie.  Gimme a break.

Is it better with named sources?  Sure - I won't argue this.  But can it still be legit without named sources?  Of course. 

She knows one thing, apparently, and she's going to keep repeating it because she thinks it makes her looks smart or something.  OK, everyone, like a parrot now:

"No source, no story"
SQUAWK!!!
"No source, no story"
SQUAWK!!!
"Alice wanna cracker?"
SQUAWK!!!
"Send them to The Hague"
SQUAWK!!!
"No source, no story"
SQUAWK

Continue ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

I will try a gentle defense of Alice, Lowell.  Just because she says it a lot, doesn't mean she's wrong.  You've written on logic and fallacies and this is one of the fallacies you've told us about.  (Even a broken clock is right twice a day.)

I applaud you for checking the story and getting a source.  However, Alice wants to judge the credibility of the source for herself, and she wants a source with the courage to be named.  That's what the marketplace of ideas is all about.  She can believe your source or not, and so can each of us.  Either way, it'll be true - or not - regardless of whether we want more substantiation.

If the Washington Post reports that unnamed Administration officials are saying we're going to war with Iran within a week, that's not a story?  Do you think Alice wouldn't splash that all over her blog because of here ridiculous "no source, no story" rule?  Yeah, right.

With regard to logical fallacies, there are many, but having a source that you refuse to reveal is not one of them.  It's simply the minimum in journalistic, or blogging for that matter, ethics.