Lee Carter

Del. Lee Carter, 50th, campaigning.

Del. Lee Carter (D-50th) has made it official -- he's running for governor this year.

Carter, who currently represents Manassas and parts of Prince William County in the state House of Delegates, said in a new release he's joining the crowded field of Democratic candidates to give Virginians a choice.

“For too long, we’ve listened to career politicians and pundits tell us that there is no other way,” he said. “But no more. In this primary we can finally pick a Governor that will fight for the rest of us.”

Carter will go up against former governor Terry McAuliffe, Prince William Del. Jennifer Carroll Foy (D-2nd), Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax and Sen. Jennifer McClellan (D-9th) in the Democratic primary.

“For the teachers and nurses. For shipbuilders and students struggling to make tuition. For everyone with a stack of bills on the kitchen table waiting to get paid. I’m running for Governor so the rest of us can finally get what we need and deserve,” his statement said.

Carter, a self-described socialist, represents the farthest left wing of the state’s Democratic party, and has at times been combative in Richmond and online in his support for labor rights, universal healthcare, environmental protections and taxes on the wealthy. His legislative track record, however, has been mixed. In the 2020 session, along with three other legislators, Carter sponsored a bill that successfully banned strip searches of minors when visiting someone in jail. Other bills he sponsored, like one that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana or another that would have allowed certain public employees to strike, were either continued to the next session or failed to get out of committee.

Carter won his first race in 2017, knocking off six-term Republican incumbent and House Majority Whip Jackson Miller by almost nine points. Two years later, he held off challenges from two sitting Manassas City Council members, first beating Democrat Mark Wolfe in the primary, then defeating Republican Ian Lovejoy in the general election.

In an interview with InsideNoVA last month, he said he’s been defying conventional political wisdom since he entered the field.

“People are clamoring for change, people need a big change and large scale fundamental change is possible. … It’s not all the time that the change of the magnitude we need is possible, but it is possible now and we simply can’t let this moment get away from us,” Carter said.


(47) comments

Rob Schneider

As a big union supporter, I found it funny that I saw Carter shopping at the Liberia Avenue Aldi (non-union) a couple years ago. I expect many people enjoy the low prices, but I wasn't sure if the most ardent pro-labor kind of elected officials would be strong supporters of union shops or not. I expect he saved $5 and I learned something.


And I thought there was no option worse than Blackface Ralph

Lynne June

Mr. Carter has a good chance of winning with the Justice Democrats behind him.

Brad London

This clown running is indicative of the further decline of Virginia. A radical socialist who hates America and it's exceptionalism. He does not believe in free enterprise and a market driven economy. In one word, he's a radical.

John Dutko

True Capitalists do not believe in free enterprise; they want slave labor and a consumer base that is forced to buy their goods.

Brad London


John Dutko

Prove me wrong.

Name a billionaire that has not exploited people, laws, or human rights.

Also, a capitalist is a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism. Which 99% of the population is not. They just delude themselves.

It's like being a sports fan: you aint playing the game, but you feel that your spiritual support is affecting the outcome of the actual players (and funnily enough, you pay their salary).

John Dutko

@Jack Print

You have clearly never read Wealth of Nations. Or any foundational work on economic theory. You only regurgitate what you have been told what Capitalism is.

Capitalism allows Chinese made products to flood the market, because robust profit margins are the goal of a business.

There is no altruism in Capitalism. You are naive.

Jack Print


Capitalism spurs competition which lowers prices and spurs innovation. In the case of China, it's true that they have flooded our markets and made it difficult for American companies to compete. But that's not because of a flaw with capitalism itself, but rather because China is a Communist government which has declared war on the US and we aren't fighting back. That's a failure of leadership, not of Capitalism. Any country that fails to respond to warfare will ultimately be defeated.

China chests by selling products at a loss to put American companies out of business. China has not only committed economic warfare, but also cyber warfare, and the US cannot afford to sit back and just take it anymore - not that I expect Biden to do anything to forestall China. But you have proved my point. If businesses in China weren't owned/controlled by the government (communism), but were owned and controlled by the individual owner or company (capitalism), those businesses would keep their prices as low as possible but would never sell at a loss.

You claim capitalism failed because another country declared war on the US, which is a pretty short-sighted viewpoint.

Jack Print

Progressives have a habit of telling other people what they think and feel. I'll leave it to you to tell us what you think or feel about any given topic. But you must refrain from telling me or anyone else what WE think. MY thoughts are in MY head, not YOURS, so how is it you think you know them better than I do?

True capitalists such as myself believe in a market where anyone can sell their wares or services, and one succeeds by having a better product, superior service, or a unique idea.

Note there was nothing about slave labor or consumers being forced to buy. That's YOUR vision of capitalism, not mine, and not what most capitalists want.

Wayne D.

Lee. You are nothing but a laughingstock, even within your own party. Don't believe me, ask them to be honest with you. I know two personally who wish you would just disappear.


Never underestimate the ignorance of the average American voter. Lee could wi with enough money from Soros, the Chinese Communist Party and the Russians. In fact, if Swalwell’s girlfriend sneaks back into the country from China, Lee might get his horn honked too.

PWC resident since '69

So true, the sheep do what the master says!

John Dutko

Nobody underestimated you.


I think he needs to resign from his delegate position now in order to run. He needs all his attention on this race since he won’t make it past first debate.

PWC resident since '69

If he wants to fundraise he must resign according to Va law, but when do Dems obey laws?



Lynne June

@JimWeaver[beam] Boomer Sooner!

Lawson is clueless

He resembles Opie Taylor on Mayberry RFD, The only difference is Lee is not All American!

John Dutko

Nah, more like an unemployed Notre Dame mascot.

Lynne June

Bean, I take umbrage to that comment. Our Notre Dame mascot is cute!

Jimi Weaver

Two words for you Citizen52

Roll Tide !!!

John Dutko


Lawson is clueless

Boy the Democrats have some losers. He can join Guzman,Foy,Ayala in their losing ways!

David B

Uh, I think we have endured enough Democrat oppression recently. Time to try the other.party.

Jack Print

Carter is not qualified to be Governor. Nor is he qualified to hold his current position as Delegate. Carter has the maturity of a 13 year old trying to act like a tough guy to impress his peers. He picked a fight with a police officer, and then, puffed up with self-importance, shouted at the cop, "Do you know who I am?" Then followed up with a threat to cut the police budget. This is middle-school behavior. Fellow Democrats in the House of Delegates have no respect for him, and Virginia doesn't need an adolescent Governor.

To Carter's way of thinking, the "fundamental change" he wants is to ditch every economic and societal norm in favor of something altogether different. He describes a world in which people are free of all responsibilities. Papa (government) will take care of you all of your life. Sound good? Some people, like Carter, love the idea of permanent childhood with none of the responsibilities of adulthood. That may, understandably, appeal to many people, but what happens when Papa runs out of money?. Once Papa Government pays for everyone to live life free of all responsibilities, Papa's pockets are soon empty of every last penny. The answer? Tax the rich. But there aren't enough wealthy people to cover it all, so Papa turns to you for money so that he can, in turn, give to someone who prefers permanent childhood.

We are not talking about caring for those unable to care for themselves, or giving a hand up as needed. Those are reasonable requests. Instead we are talking about those who want their every need and desire fulfilled - as long as someone else pays for it. Just like the child who is cared for by parents. But eventually, the child is supposed to grow up and support himself. Carter got stuck somewhere between childhood and becoming a self-sufficient adult. And he wants to make sure it stays that way by restructuring society so that he and others can perpetually depend on Papa's generosity, and never have to fend for themselves..

John Dutko

Interesting read. However, it is all deflection.

This past year has proven that adults can act like children when presented with a simple task (wear a mask) that will benefit not only themselves but the greater community. The idea of "personal responsibility" goes out the window when selfishness and an absurd sense of entitlement because they may become a little bit inconvenienced.

Papa cut the taxes for the rich with the 2017 tax cuts. They have not paid for themselves. Trickle down economics has never worked nor will it work, and do you know why? Greed.

The national deficit went up 8.1 trillion since 2016. And it can be attributed to someone who is no stranger to debt.

PWC resident since '69

Why should I wear a mask? I am not sick, why should I say yesm massa to Gov blackface when he tells me to go home at 12

F you idiot

John Dutko

I could be nice and say it is good for the community and to do your part, but after 9 months of this, a person with your room temperature IQ cant get their head around concepts of social empathy.

Pog Mo Thoin you entitled warm toilet seat.

Jack Print

Interesting that you argue masks when I was talking about capitalism vs socialism. Your change of topic reveals a great deal about you. So does your comment about the 2017 tax cuts. Yes, the rich got a tax break, but so did the middle class. And since the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes, it seems only fair that if there's going to be a tax cuts, they received some benefit along with the rest of us. As for the debt, the vast majority of it was because governors forced businesses to close due to covid,, which caused people to lose their jobs and businesses to either go bankrupt or suffer severe losses. The bulk of that debt was to compensate employees and small businesses. There's more to covid than issuing orders to wear masks.

You view your fellow Americans as greedy, and selfish. That's a shame. I find the vast majority of Americans to be hard working, freedom-living people who are willing to work their tails off for a fair paycheck. They don't want to be told that they can't go to work, then have Congress debate for half a year whether or not to give them a hand. They also don't want a socialist government that will take half their paycheck and turn around to give it to someone who's not making an effort. They also don't want to have the country looking like Venezuela in a few short years.

John Dutko

Why is it always Venezuela? Why not Norway?

Thanks for responding.

The point I was getting to was that people, in general, are self-serving and greedy. And there needs to be laws written down to address that greed, unless you want a group of people to take advantage of another group of people.

So, when you have a group of wealthy people who take their money, hoard it, send it to tax-havens, it does not get reinvested into American interests. Since the 1950s, the tax rate for the rich has plummeted and investment into American infrastructure and society has dwindled.

Hard-working does not mean well-paid. If that were the case, garbagemen would be up there with all of the hazardous material they have to endure as well as the back-breaking labor they undertake.

The mask issue is relevant here since people cannot follow simple directives and think all about themselves. China is back up and running and it is in great part due to the people listening to the government, rather than an individualistic "me-me-me" mentality which we have been stuck in since April. Last I checked, China is socialist, and they are set to surpass the US economically and militarily in the next 10 years.

People are dumb. They will skirt the rules. That is why people were told not to go to work. Now, we could have said, F-it and let the virus spread even faster, the ICUs get overloaded, businesses dry up anyway, and collapse the consumer-based economy. It is shameful that there are people who dont give a damn about nothing but themselves, because we couldve halted all this.

The biggest recipients of welfare are the rich. And they dont have to lift a damn finger to get money or dupe you into believing its the poor that mooch off the government's teat. Those same rich guys almost saw the curtain fall when everyone stopped spending money on their products and services.

Jack Print

It's Venezuela, not Norway, because contrary to popular belief, the Scandinavian countries aren't socialist. They are capitalist with a generous social welfare program. But for an example of true socialism, think Venezuela, Cuba, the former USSR, along with China which is Communist/socialist that takes advantage of capitalism in other countries for their survival.

You talk about too little infrastructure spending, and seem to think that the reason is that taxes on the wealthy are too low - and specifically talk about 1950s tax rates. "Progressivism" has brought about huge societal changes since 1950, resulting in a major shift in resources from things such as infrastructure. But when you dramatically increase welfare, the money must come from somewhere.

In 1950, almost every household included a married couple with children in the home (or now grown and in their own home). Single parents were in the single digits. Since then, we have become a nation with a large percentage (34% in 2013) of single-parent households. The high divorce rate and the decreasing marriage rates have created a situation in which we have an astoundingly high rate of single parent households.

These are usually single mothers (86% in 2017) who have less education and minimum wage jobs and who depend on welfare. 19 million children live with a single parent, with all but 3.32 million living with their mother. Single mothers, on average, make $35,287 in taxable income. 20% of single mothers never finish high school and 45% of single parents had a high school diploma or less. And the number of single parents is on the rise.

In 2019, 44% of single mothers struggle to pay for enough food; 27% can't afford housing; 15% have no healthcare.

It's unsurprising then that the US budget for welfare has risen significantly since 1950 when there were virtually no single-parent households. Since then, welfare has expanded each year by adding additional programs and lowering eligibility. Just one program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) more than doubled in just 8 years, rising from 3.7 million recipients in 1962 to 8.4 million recipients in 1970. Since then, not only has the number of recipients grown, but the number of programs has multiplied like rabbits.

If you are going to dramatically increase welfare spending, you must also decrease spending in other areas.

It sounds as if you favor socialism because you think the rich should pay more rather than on the totality of Socialism true costs in lives and quality of life. If so, you bought the lie that "the rich don't pay their fair share." They pay their fair share and much more. The top 1% pay 37% of federal income taxes - not the 1% that is truly their fair share. The top 5% pay 58% of all federal income tax. And that's in 2018, after the tax cuts. Before that, they paid only slightly less.

It helps to base opinions on facts. Opinions based on what's popular on social media usually have little resemblance to the truth.

John Dutko

Each "true" socialist state you listed has been deemed a dictatorship.

Venezuela was a democracy and then flirted with socialism under Chavez. Chavez then saw an opportunity (like most demagogues) to install elevate himself beyond a point of accountability. America is stull smarting since he was the one to nationalize American corporations stakes in Venezuelan oil, agriculture, telecommunications, etc.. Now that follows the Mussolini plan of fascism with the nationalization of goods, services, and industry; all within his right and purview according to Venezuelan sovereignty. Chavez was charismatic and had the support of his people (to a degree) unlike his successor, Maduro. Maduro took the reigns and bankrupted the country after the price of oil crippled the economy.

When you think of Cuba, you think of Castro. Everyone thinks of Castro. And they all think it is some backwater time-capsule ruled by bearded dudes smoking cigars.

Cuba has a new Constitution: https://www.wola.org/analysis/cubas-new-constitution-explained/

And it is a damn shame that Trump reneged on America's promise to open trade with the country and reinstitute an embargo.

But yeah, Cuba was ruled by a dictator under the guise of Communism.

The closest the USSR came to Communism was in Lenin's head. After the power struggle between him and Stalin (with the latter going on to win) Russia too veered into dictatorship and a world full of paranoia. And that continued until the fall of the USSR (though it can be argued the Putin has picked up the mantle with constitutional reforms to ensure he does not get prosecuted and be essentially a president for life).

Even China was subjected to Mao for many years in a dictator-like rule. Though they did come around after meeting with Nixon to become the worlds manufacturing plant. I guess we can turn a blind eye to them for cheap labor...

TLDR: Our ideas of what Socialism are based in misattributed propaganda.

Now some snippets regarding welfare distribution and who actually gets to take advantage of it:


In 2010, 91 percent of the benefits provided through entitlement programs went to people who were elderly (65 or older), disabled (receiving Social Security disability benefits, SSI disability benefits, or Medicare on the basis of a disability — all three programs use essentially the same disability standard, which limits eligibility to people with medically certified disabilities that leave them substantially unable to work), or members of a household in which an individual worked at least 1,000 hours during the year. As noted, the 91 percent figure is unchanged if one includes veterans’ and federal retirement programs.

This analysis defines working households as those in which someone has worked at least 1,000 hours a year. This is a conservative definition. If two household members work more than 1,000 hours between them but no single individual works at least 1,000 hours, we do not classify the unit as a working household.

We also do not count people receiving unemployment insurance benefits as workers, although such individuals must have amassed a significant work record to qualify for UI. If we include people receiving UI as workers — in other words, if we ask what share of entitlement benefits go to people who are elderly or disabled or receive UI, or are members of households in which an individual works at least 1,000 hours — the share rises from 91 percent to 94 percent. The percentage edges down to 92 percent if we count UI recipients but raise the “hours-of-work threshold” from 1,000 hours of work to 1,500 hours. If we define working households as those in which an individual worked at least 1,500 hours but do not count UI beneficiaries as workers, the percentage declines slightly to 88 percent.[10]

If we add in the principal discretionary programs that help people meet basic needs (low-income housing, WIC, and LIHEAP) and examine both them and the entitlement and other mandatory programs, the 91 percent figure drops to 90 percent.

This analysis uses a narrow definition of disability that misses individuals who become disabled so young that they haven’t amassed enough work history to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance or Medicare, and whose countable household income or assets are over the very low SSI eligibility limits, which are below the poverty line. If we broaden the definition to include other adults who report work-limiting disabilities in the Census survey data, the percentage of benefits going to people who are elderly or disabled or members of working households rises from 91 percent to 92 percent.

If we look only at means-tested entitlement and other mandatory programs — that is, programs limited to low-income people — the percentage of benefits going to the elderly, the disabled, or working households remains high at 83 percent, a robust percentage for programs that are limited to people with low incomes. This high percentage reflects policy changes in recent decades that have substantially restricted benefits for poor people who lack earnings (other than the elderly and disabled), while increasing assistance for low-income working families with children, especially in the form of tax credits. The 83 percent figure edges down to 82 percent if low-income housing programs, WIC, and LIHEAP are included.

More than half (53 percent) of entitlement benefits go to seniors.[11] Some 73 percent of the benefits go to people who are elderly or disabled; most of the rest goes to working households.

The data contradict beliefs that entitlements take heavily from the middle class to give to people at the bottom or that they shower benefits on the very wealthy. The middle 60 percent of the population receives close to 60 percent of the benefits. The top 5 percent of the population receives about 3 percent of the benefits.

It is a shame that single parents have to raise their children without support. It is also a shame that you make this a significant case. I mean, we could look at the correlating data that suggests that single parent household are predominately in Republican states ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/242302/percentage-of-single-mother-households-in-the-us-by-state/ ), which also falls in line with education rates and also the availability of planned parenthood sites.

In short, the IRS needs to audit the rich as they have been bilking America and exploiting class warfare.

Let me know if you would like sources for my arguments. Because it seems that you are presenting unqualified opinions.

Liz Schoechle

Very good post...Spot on...Jack!

Liz Schoechle

Trickle down works BUT you can't overspend on the budget /throw money everywhere and balance anything.. Tax cuts do allow big money to invest more and spread the wealth-by creating jobs and opportunity for others... BUT if gov. throws it out the window..... back to square 1. Virginia is wasting our tax dollars!

John Dutko


It has never worked.


The pandemic proved that, in a consumer-based economy (the US), when the middle and lower class cannot buy or consume, the upper class piss themselves.


Unfortunately this is what the democrat party wants for America. The 80 million (alleged) voters would proudly stuff ballots for this man child and there are more just waiting across the border to join in on the party.

Jack Print

@I couldn't give a bean:

"Each "true" socialist state you listed has been deemed a dictatorship." Bingo! Socialism ALWAYS leads to a communist dictatorship unless the country reverses course right away.

Curiously, you think the USSR wasn't communist (only "came close" under Lenin). Stalin wasn't a Communist? Very few people would classify Stalin as anything other than a communist. The intentions may be good from the start, but socialism soon becomes communism with a dictator at the helm. The dictaor may be elected to his first term, but when it's time to be re-elected, the ballots are counted before they're ever cast, which allows the dictator to be re-elected with an astounding percentage of the votes. That's not too difficult when only one name is permitted on the ballot.

As far as the "welfare" statistics you cited, you included Social Security and Medicare (our mandatory social welfare programs). Although most people get more from these programs than they take in, these are not "entitlements" because the people paid into the system, and receive benefits later in life in exchange for their payments into those programs. Most pay into the system for more than 40 years before receiving a dime.

By definition, an entitlement is a means-tested, program and goes only to those who are in the low to mid-range on the income scale. The only exception is for those on disability, but there is a maximum amount one can receive under both Social Security and disability. These are based on your income level (and therefore the amount you paid into the system, but someone who earned $500,000 is not eligible for any more than the person who earned $200,000.

Disability also has a perverse incentive. It's based on one's salary over the last several years they worked. Ironically, you get penalized for trying to continue working. For example, I worked full-time (plus many hours over) until I became disabled with a progressive neurological disease. Since full-time work was impossible, I switched to working 30 hours a week...then 20 hours...then 12 hours. Naturally, each cut in hours was a cut in pay. I loved my job and did NOT want to leave it, so I continued to work as many hours as I could. As my illness progressed, my hours lessened until I finally had to relent and stop working altogether. When I went on disability, the amount I received was based on the time with the reduced hours. If I had made no effort to keep working, my disability income would have been significantly higher.

A similar principle occurs with welfare. People may be able to find a good-paying job, but since that would mean they no longer received any benefits at all, they turn down the work. I know a corporate lawyer who was laid off and went on unemployment. In her state (Mass), that immediately qualified her for food stamps, housing allowance, utility assistance, and free in-state college for herself and her children and a lot of other benefits. When she was offered another job in the $300,000 range, she turned it down because she would lose all those benefits. Since she had 2 kids in college, she figured she would have less money if she worked..

These programs desperately need to be revised. I should not have been penalized for trying to continue working, and the lawyer's benefits should have stopped the instant she said "no" to a job in her chosen field. In a Capitalist country, people have the incentive to support themselves and their families. Socialism quickly removes that incentive. If the lazy guy and the hard worker all receive the same, the hard worker soon decides the effort is meaningless. You end up with a country where everyone does the bare minimum - and tries to stay out of the focus of the dictator.

Almost 100% of medical innovations come from the US. The reason is that we are not (yet) a socialist country. In the US, when a surgeon develops a new surgical tool that makes surgery faster and safer, he benefits financially from his invention. In a socialist country, the state benefits, so the surgeon has no incentive to lose sleep trying to invent a new surgical tool....or cure for a disease.....or other innovation.

However, I do agree that our views of socialism have been tainted by propaganda. The propaganda is that socialism is all about "fairness," when it's really about control. When the government can control your healthcare, your housing, your employment, and far more, they control every aspect of your life. You cant express a wayward thought that isn't in line with the state's views because what the state giveth, the state can taketh away.

John Dutko

The underlying theme in your argument is greed. Yet, you never touch on the inherent greed by the Capitalists themselves (and I am talking about the owners, the elite, and the "job creators").

Their whole goal is to make money and look out for themselves. They abuse the system for their own benefit. They maximize profit at the expense of human capital.

All of your other points are re-hashed arguments that have been heard since the 1880s, about the same time that the robber barons started having a conniption when workers realized that their labor was being undervalued and exploited.

This part did stick out to me:

"In a Capitalist country, people have the incentive to support themselves and their families. Socialism quickly removes that incentive. If the lazy guy and the hard worker all receive the same, the hard worker soon decides the effort is meaningless. You end up with a country where everyone does the bare minimum - and tries to stay out of the focus of the dictator."

That is all an illusion. We already operate under that paradigm. People are generally paid wages in an agreed upon pay band (for whatever occupation they are in). So right there, they are locked in to a certain class. Sometimes, any innovations that you come up with become owned by the company that you work for, so you are screwed by that. You rely on your job to provide access to health insurance (another middleman that makes you pay premiums to join their club, and then pay more on top of that if you get sick), so you are a slave to that occupation.

But you can express "wayward thoughts" against the govt, because it is in the Bill of Rights. Your employer, on the other hand, can drop you because you bring negative attention.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it mention a need to identify with a particular economic theory, and it shouldnt. The US needs to adapt with changing social attitudes towards wealth distribution and income inequality.


What an embarrassing country....idiots like this run & get elected to office. Shows how stupid the population is, the 'guy' hasn't been gainfully employed since he was kicked out of the USMC.

PWC resident since '69



Vote for me, and I'll rob the middle class to pay for my socialist promises to those who don't want to payoff their loans or to fully-provide for themselves.

Paul Benedict

Another Nutjob. We get to choose between crooked cronies and crazies. I guess normal people don't run for higher office.


This guy has no idea what socialism is. He will turn va into sanfransisco or new York.

John Dutko

Sooo.... economic powerhouses?


Another looser . Lol

John Dutko

Is he wearing baggy clothing?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.