First a little bit of history . . .

Once upon a time in a land that looked a lot like Virginia, but with a far fewer Northerners, Democrats dominated the political landscape. Governors, senators, local representatives, mayors, and dog catchers were all Democrats and the few who considered themselves Republicans kept a low profile outside of the occasional cocktail party. Now, it is true that for much of that time, the Democrats held power through their support of segregation, political intimidation, and maybe a touch of corruption. But much of that story belongs to history so we'll skip through all of that. The only thing you needed to know is that Harry Flood Byrd ran Virginia, and you voted the way he told you to vote. And Henry Flood Byrd told you to vote Democrat (unless that Democrat was Kennedy, but that's a whole 'nother story). Eventually, Byrd departed from this mortal coil and his successor, Prince Harry Flood Byrd Jr. went the way of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace and left the new pinko version of the Democratic party. 100 years of tradition disappeared in short order and the Democrats of Virginia were left rudderless.

Still even without an agenda other than maintaining the status quo, the Democrats essentially were the state legislature throughout the 1970s and 80s. There were terms in which the Republican Senate caucus could not have formed a regulation basketball team let alone muster up the balls to refer to the estate tax as the "death tax". With seemingly no one other opposition than Marshall "Concession Speech" Coleman, the Democrats held the governor's mansion throughout the 80s and into the 90s. But unchecked power was bad for the Democrats. Like many a flightless bird, any survival instinct that may have developed decades ago during actual contested elections, had been bred out of them through predator-free generations. With their political muscle slowly atrophying, the party leaders fought amongst themselves for the power they couldn't share. Eventually, wire tapping, cocaine parties, and sex scandals garnered more headlines than political initiatives.

By 1993, the Democratic gubernatorial lineage read Robb, Baliles, and Wilder. Don Beyer and Mary Sue Terry were groomed as the logical successors for the house of Dems. Mary Sue Terry faced off against a little known candidate from Charlottesville, a former one-term congressman who lost his seat in the controversial Virginia redistricting of 1990. The Democrats had redrawn several of the districts to gain even more ground than what they had known for the last century. Mary Sue coasted through the Summer with a 25 to 30 point lead over this legislator without a district. And then the dam finally broke . . . The little known candidate, George Allen, quickly gained ground and trounced Terry on election day, winning fifty-eight percent of the vote. From that point, Allen's career took off and the Democrats in Virginia went into a tailspin. Over the course of the 1990s, the Democrats would lose every statewide office and control over both houses of the state legislature. The final nail in the coffin of the Grand Old Democrats came in 2000 when George Allen defeated incumbent Senator and former Democratic golden boy Chuck Robb, to complete the Republican takeover of Virginia politics. There's a lot more history here, but those are the high (or low) points that get us to where we are today.

What about Mark Warner, you ask. Isn't he a sign of the resurrection of the Democratic party? Maybe, but I think it's far more likely that Mark Warner, like Bill Clinton, is the aberrant case of a gifted candidate who wins despite his party's ineptitude. Do you think Tim Kaine would be governor of Virginia without Mark Warner's popularity? Seems unlikely to me, and from what I can tell the Virginia Democrats concur. Having lost twice now to George Allen, the Democrats have a new strategy: nominate a Republican. I'm sure most Allen and Webb supporters would come together to disagree with me on this one, but take a look at Webb's stated positions on the issues. Clearly, he disagrees with the current administration on Iraq. But if not for the Iraq conflict, would he be a Democrat? Look for yourself. On the few issues on which he gives concrete statements, his positions are remarkably similar to that of the president.

This is not to say Webb is better or worse than Allen. His bonafides as a Democrat have no bearing on whether he'd make a fine Senator. My point here is that unless the Democrats want to become the agnostic wing of the Republican party, they should start defining true positions on important issues and then nominate candidates who will champion those issues. Until then, the good news for the Democrats is that there are plenty more Republicans to choose from for the next Senate race. The bad news for Virginia is that we seem to be on a path to have little more choice than the Virginia of fifty years ago. Harry Byrd would be proud.