Washblog

Can't?  

Surely, if you intend to donate and/or phonebank and/or work for any other candidate (or even for MW), the word to use is won't.

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
Blogging at Peace Tree Farm

by N in Seattle on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:17:29 PM PST

---

In the 36th, PCOs carry the literature of candidates endorsed by the district's membership. Thus, if Sen. Cantwell receives the endorsement of the membership, PCOs are to carry her literature. However, I've heard of PCOs refusing to carry the literature of endorsed candidates. In that case, they are to inform the Political Chair, so that she can inform the candidate's campaign (should the campaign want to assign someone to doorbell the precinct).

Personally, I always deliver the literature of endorsed candidates when I doorbell because I believe it's what I signed up for when I became a PCO.

That said, Sen. Cantwell's endorsement is by no means ensured in the Thundering 36th. She will have to earn it, as all other candidates. It's possible neither the senator nor Mark Wilson will receive an endorsement in the primary. It's even possible that the senator won't receive an endorsement in the general. "No endorsement" is just the kind of statement the 36th might make to express its displeasure with the senator's positions on a number of issues.

On the other hand, I think the senator could earn the 36th's endorsement with minimal effort. But sometimes candidates don't even want to make minimal effort, as in the case of Greg Nickels. I have a suspicion that Sen. Cantwell isn't terribly worried about the 36th's endorsement. What do you need PCOs for when you can run fifteen million dollars worth of TV ads?

by Aristophanes on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:44:15 AM PST

---

I think my PCO office is open.  I will run!

by Belltowner on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:03:28 AM PST

---

I don't understand my duties to include a responsibility to doorbell for every single endorsed candidate.

My common-sense reading of the phrase "doorbelling for endorsed candidates" does not include an obligatin of doorbelling for every candidate. If there were such an obligation, then the documentation could have easily included the words, "each and every". It does not.

I much prefer Maria Cantwell over Mike McGavick, also. However, ethically, I have a real problem actively endorsing her through carrying literature, giving money, etc. It is clear that most of us here are wrestling with ethical issues in relation to Sen. Cantwell -- and that each of us has a slightly different take. It does present a very difficult ethical question for people. So, of course, there will be differences in how we handle it. In my opinion, Sen. Cantwell's cluelessness about the national emergency we are in is a tragedy. How do you deal with a tragedy? It is difficult. So we should all try to be understanding of each other as we try to deal with something that is not easy.

This is a Democrat with great power in a time of national crisis -- who has does not appear to have used that power to help guide us through the danger we face. She has had a responsibility to be part of the opposition to a morally corrupt administration at a time of national crisis -- and she is failing this responsibility.

I will probably vote for her. I won't endorse her.

If this means I have to resign as a PCO (and I don't think that in my district), fine. Then other candidates won't get the benefit of my work.

by noemie maxwell on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:17:44 PM PST

---

I will be out in my precinct and others doorbelling for the candidates endorsed by the 26th LD. Those candidates will undoubtedly include both of our state legislators, Derek Kilmer and Pat Lantz; it is crucial that we retain both of them. Lois McMahan is trying to get Derek's seat again and we need to stop her.

I will not be doorbelling or carrying literature for candidates not endorsed by the 26th. I suspect that these non-endorsed candidates will include both Maria Cantwell and Congressman Norm Dicks. Dicks' safe seat will stay safe. We didn't endorse or doorbell for him in 2004, and given how many resolutions we pass condemning him for his pro-Republican votes, we probably won't be endorsing him this year either. Patty Murray got our endorsement, and our legwork; Cantwell, with her pro-war and pro-cloture stance, has almost certainly lost the confidence and therefore the endorsement of the 26th LD Democrats.

I will personally vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who it is. Call me a Yellow Dog Democrat in my voting preferences (meaning I'd vote for a yellow dog if it ran on the Democratic ticket); you'd be correct. But I'm not going to focus on GOTV for a candidate that the 26th doesn't endorse. We have enough to do with getting our LD representatives re-elected; we're a swing district with a lot of swing precincts, mine among them, and Derek Kilmer in particular will get as much work and energy out of me as I can muster. We have to get him re-elected and Keep Lois Out.

This doesn't mean I support McGavick; I don't! But if Cantwell wants my legwork, she's got to earn it, and she hasn't. She just threw away the reproductive rights of my adopted daughter, my stepdaughter, and my nieces.

If the 26th does indeed endorse Cantwell, I'll go doorbelling for her, too; I'm a good and loyal PCO. If, as I expect, it does not endorse her, then that vote of no-confidence carries a lot of weight with me. That is playing by the rules in the 26th, too; I'll have the full support of our chair in this.

by Kitsap River on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:32:26 PM PST

---

There are plenty of politicians who need and want the support of the progressive grassroots. Maria Cantwell does not want that support. Therefore, she should not expect it. Maria Cantwell and the Democratic Party leadership take the opinions of districts like the 36th to be an indication of what they should NOT do. While the Republicans build their base and win and win, the Democratic leadership believes they should ignore their base no matter how consistently they lose.

Volunteer energy is a finite resource. There are plenty of causes that can benefit from it. Again, Maria Cantwell clearly does not want the help of progressives and it is certainly not the responsibility of progressives to see that she is re-elected despite herself. Cantwell and the other Democrats who voted for cloture on the Alito nomination (as well as other crap votes) and have failed to execute their oversight responsibilities have shown poor party discipline and they need to understand that that has consequences come election time.

by dlaw on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:17:40 AM PST

---

Go ahead all you DLC'ers. Take back your party from the Deaniacs. Go back to your comfortable little world of empty LD meetings. Forget the grassroots, the netroots and your party's progressive roots and take back the White House if you can. Put those carts comfortably before the horses, count those chickens WAY before they're hatched. Believe in nothing and win! - if only in your little minds.

I dare you to try.

by dlaw on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:41:44 PM PST

---

...that candidates and party leadership can tell the grassroots time and time again to go jump in a lake and the grassroots think they still have something in common with these candidates and this party leadership.

How many more ways do they have to think of to tell progressives to go screw themselves before progressives get the idea that the Democratic party leadership does not want them?

Did the Kerry people *thank* all the progressives who worked like dogs to get him as close as he got? No, they blamed gay people for wanting to get married and alienating church-going flat-earthers.

Their argument is clear: if only progressives wouldn't insist that Dems be so different from Republicans, we could be successful like them. Yeah, see, I don't want Dems to be successful because they are like Republicans. I'm funny that way. I want them to be successful because they are different from Republicans.

Just wake up.

by dlaw on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:54:22 PM PST

---

...in his column.

It boils down to the fact that the "moderate" Democrats are undermining their party's ability to make a coherent argument - an argument that the numbers predict will win.

The assumption that the progressives are the splitters with unpopular ideas is just plain wrong.

Hence, Dean is Chairman of the party and Lieberman is a joke whose next job will be in a Republican administration.

by dlaw on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:37:54 PM PST

---

with lit for a candidate, it's too late; the endorsement is a done deal.

This is for anyone who may be reading this who is not a PCO:

• Look on your voter card and find out what precinct you're in.


• Find out who your PCO is. If you're having trouble with that, call your District Chair. (If they won't help you, post a 'blog about it, ask somebody like me who cares, but whatever you do, don't give up.)


• Go to your precinct caucus. Get the names and numbers of the other attendees.


• Talk to your PCO. This isn't simply taking part in whatever carefully orchestrated sequence of events plays out at the precinct caucus. Meet with them, at your house or their house, one on one or with a few of your other concerned neighbors. Find out what they think about the issues. Let them know what you think. Tell them you expect to be informed about how they vote on resolutions, endorsements, etc.


• Consider going to a meeting and checking up on them.

Consider running against them if they're not showing up, or if their views are completely antithetical to yours. (If you need help running a campaign, don't be afraid to ask for help.)

Enlist your friends in other precincts to do the same thing.

This PCO thanks you for your concern and interest in the democratic process.

by m3047 on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:29:20 AM PST

---

The PCOs who are elected this fall will elect the new Party leadership at the end of '06/beginning of '07 who will run the Parties during the Presidential campaigns in '08.

If you care about seeing a Democrat elected President, about real progressives being elected at all levels of government, about a Democratic Party which actually differentiates itself from the Republicans...

The time is Now to sow the seeds at the grassroots and select a PCO who reflects your views and those of your neighborhood.

by m3047 on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:35:56 AM PST

---

The price you pay for beating the Republicans is persuading people that the Republicans are wrong when those people think the Republicans are right (or don't know any better) and Republicans are popular. It is NOT electing people who suck up to the Republicans.

THAT is an attempt to AVOID paying the price.

This is such a basic concept of politics that it defies reason that Democrats cannot understand it. What do you think is the cumulative cost of failing to challenge the Republicans on even the most central points of ideology?

Well, let's see - the presidency, majorities in both houses, a majority of governors and a majority of state houses. Other than those little losses it's been a great strategy.

This idea of "well first we're gonna win and then...." is a complete fantasy. It's nonsense. It's a proven failure. Exactly what more evidence do you need? Will the Republicans have to take over other countries before you realize it? Oh, wait, they already have! Twice.

How much crazier and stupider do the Republicans who win have to get before you realize that the Democrats have a bad strategy? Are you waiting for them to get a monkey wearing a Nazi uniform elected before you decide to change your tactics? What offenses must Republicans commit before Democratic politicians decide it's smart to oppose them? Will Alberto Gonzales have to perform a Mexican hat dance on copies of the Constitution? Will the Majority leader actually have to be caught accepting bids to purchase the Capitol Dome itself? Will the neo-cons have to declare war on Germany? England? Canada?

When do Dems decide they can actually stand up and beat these people?

by dlaw on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:46:03 PM PST

---

If you take a look at the required duties of a PCO, on the application it says:
-Conducting a precinct caucus in the spring of an even-numbered year
-Making recommendations for the appointment of poll workers for the precinct
-Doorbelling with campaign material for endorsed candidates prior to each primary and general election
-Get-out-the-vote activities
-Voter registration
http://www.wuxx.com/kcdems/documents/PCONoSig.html

So, if PCOs do not want to carry Cantwell's literature in their precincts, they should work hard to make sure she isn't endorsed by their LD Dems.  Basically, when a person commits to being a PCO, they also commit to doorbelling for endorsed candidates.

by Cherisse on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:14:48 AM PST

---

And I DON'T CARE who knows it.  Mike McGavick is a total assclown and there is NO WAY I'll phonebank, doorbell, or give him any support.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, on the other hand, will be getting my full support as the Democratic Party makes a push to retake the Senate, which will allow us to really investigate the hell out of Bush and company.

She's not perfect, but she's the best candidate in the race!

by Belltowner on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:30:03 AM PST

---

There are 3 things we in the state of Washington can do for our nation in 2006:

1. Re-elect Senator Cantwell.
   
2. Re-elect every current House Democrat.
   
3. Re-elect (except for Mt Sheldon) all our Democratic Legislators.

And then, we can move forward some:

1. Increase our hold on the State House and Senate.
   
2. Take the 8th CD.
   
3. Fight and maybe take the 4th CD
   
3. WOrk hard on the 5th CD

This carping about how Maria didn't vote this way or that way is just a "p..s..g in the wind" and upwind at that.

  You want some progressive government? Let's take the House and file Articles of Impeachment! Let's take the Senate and let Judge Roberts preside over convicting Mr. Bush of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

  But, above all, don't send Senator Mike or possibly worse, Mark, back to Washington next year.

by gibney on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:40:38 PM PST

---

Before everyone starts screeching and tsk-tsking on the original post, let's just take a minute to review.

Since 1980, the Democratic leadership has been threatening the base and keeping us in line by saying that if we don't toe the line (tow the line?) on a centrist strategy, we run the risk of losing the SCT.  For the past 25 years, the court and the political rhetoric around it has drifted to the right.  Despite having stalwart "liberal" Justices on the bench, the intellectual energy has been on the side of the right.

The failure of the Democrats to lead a truly disciplined filibuster on the very issue that they've been beating me up with my entire voting life was more than just another strategic retreat -- it was a betrayal.

Now, I don't blame Cantwell for this - it goes far beyond her.  But I'm not surprised at the fallout.  And I think the leadership has misjudged the base's reaction to this.

Further, I have been speaking to my independent and moderate Republican friends.  None of them are actively supporting Bush, but when they see the Democratic leadership sell out its base, they conclude that the leadership has no conviction in the political positions it has taken for the last 25 years.

Regardless of your decision on this issue, you ignore its implications at your peril.

by microveldt on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:35:29 PM PST

---

Bottom line is I wouldn't not carry the lit without a strong ratification from the people of my precinct.. But let's get some things straight about what PCOs do and do not do, and what our relationship is with the Party.

First and foremost, PCOs are the Party, never mind what wuxx says. By the bylaws of the Parties, PCOs are the people who vote on internal matters. By RCW, PCOs elect the leadership of the Parties.

Let me tell you how I became PCO. I pamphlet my precinct, and it has nothing to do with being PCO. I was asked to run. I refused. They tried to get other people to run against me; when they found out they lived in my precinct they declined. We had 14 writein votes.. with no candidate on the ballot. They tried to appoint me. I refused. (They sort of appointed somebody else.) They asked again, and I said "sure, get somebody to write a letter (hah, that'll be the day!)". Finally they decided they were serious about appointing somebody, and had somebody, so when I was walking my 'zine I doorbelled and told people that they were going to really appoint somebody; I told people who the other prospective PCO was, I told people if they had a preference, now was the time to tell the Party about it. Somebody wrote a letter. I let them appoint me PCO.

The lesson: They don't have the reach. (We have maybe 5 dues-paying Dems here.)

You want to bloviate about replacing somebody because they won't do the job? My point exactly! PCOs have it too easy; lobbying them shouldn't be the Party insiders' best-kept secret.

Next lesson: One of Murphy's Laws of Combat: When the enemy's in range... so are you! If there are any interest groups out there reading this who want to know how to lobby PCOs (Republican or Democrat, I don't care and it doesn't matter), I'll be glad to explain it to you.

Not phone banking, cleaning up the so-called voter DB (hang that thought on the wire for a moment), not pimping my neighbors for money.. Let me tell you about my precinct. We vote overwhelmingly Dem. We distrust both political parties. We don't like people coming to our doors and asking us for money. We don't agree on a lot of things, but I think it's safe to say that until something better comes along we prefer what the Dems offer for the most part.

There are five voting blocs in the 36th District by my reckoning. Not surprisingly, they are geographically defined: not a lesson many folks like to hear. Although there is some correlation on a national who-they-voted-for-for-president scale, what really differentiates them is local issues. I can tell you that although we voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, I would be very surprised if the number of voters who did so who were happy with the choice is as high as it was in areas where he didn't get as much of the vote.

The lesson: Not all Democrats are the same, and they differ for different reasons. This is why I have opposed reducing the supermajority required for certain endorsements, because I don't want to see any one bloc dominating, and forcing PCOs elsewhere into a position where performing their customary duties would lack verisimilitude with their constituencies.

Politics has its cohort of insinuating, negative-going bottom feeders. They show up not surprisingly as blogoturtles, always trying to get on top of the heap, closest to the clickstream heatlamp.

Reality is we have PCOs who don't doorbell, who don't carry lit for one candidate or another because they can't "stomach" the candidate. Rhetorically, I ask: Is this indigestion an acute symptom of indigestible fare, or the result of a chronic diet of garbage?

We have a voter database which is administered by a private company and I can't find a single person who I trust who can tell me they've seen the contract and inform me what the privacy safeguards might be.

We go through the exercise of District and County plaform conventions, only to run out of time and rubber stamp most of it. Rhetorically I ask: is the reason the Dems are so strong on civil rights and weak on transportation because "c" comes before "t"?

Our elected Democratic officeholders circulate a petition to raise the sales tax, while on the floor is the plank which says that sales tax is bad.

Ron Sims comes onto the floor in the Bellevue Community College gymnasium with cheerleaders with pompoms! God help me, I voted for him anyway.

I'm not going to make my precinct vote more Democrat, the only way to go is down. I've had my political correctness challenged, and golly gee I'm still here.

Here's the lesson: "Representative Democracy" isn't about representing what someone in Washington DC or Olympia says the Democratic Party is to the folks in my precinct, it is representing my precinct, with as much nuance as possible, to the Party.

We are the Party.

Fred Morris, PCO SEA 36-1295

by m3047 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:29:16 AM PST

---

So there's a disturbing line of reasoning in thise threads that goes like this:

"If you are for Maria Cantwell, you are against the grassroots."

This is utter horseshit and is no better than Bush saying "If you're not with us, you're with the terorists."

by asshat2001 on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:38:03 PM PST

---

Looks like this precinct needs a new PCO.

by archerhouse on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:30:56 PM PST

---

name names and precinct numbers of everyone that takes you up on this (including yourself).  I will recruit democrats that actually care about winning elections to run against you and knock your lazy complaining ass out of office.

by asshat2001 on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:41:08 PM PST

---

Washblog is like "Surrender Central" in the war on Republicanism.  Lots of people ready to just wave a white flag and elect a Republican to the senate from WA.  Is thig blog like 50-50 Democrats/Greens or something?

The latest Drinking Liberally podcast is out, and in it Sandeep Kaushik said that the 'left wing of the Dem. party doesn't have any idea how power works because they are bourne out of the counter-culture movement.' (not actual quote)

I think there's some truth to it.

by Belltowner on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:18:31 PM PST

---

Resign as a PCO if you can't or won't support the ticket, or don't file for re-election. Supporting the ticket is your damn job. You're no better than a fundie pharmacist who won't sell the morning-after pill.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:29:25 AM PST

---

YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE GRASSROOTS.

It's all of us.  I am grassroots.  I support Cantwell.

I take offense when people like you suggest that if I'm for Cantwell then I must be against the grassroots.

That's dishonest, rovian, and not acceptable.

by asshat2001 on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:59:18 PM PST

---

Not a GREAT senator, but a good senator.

Jesus, I'd hate to be your kids ... one slight deviation from perfection and I'm disowened?

by asshat2001 on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:05:52 PM PST

---

Geez, are you gonna vote for McGavick too? This is so Green Party of you, why don't you just switch and become a PCO for them??? Reality is Maria is the Dem Senate candidate and we need to keep this seat.

by Proper PH on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 04:42:59 PM PST

---

I'm with Robert on this one.  Cantwell should NOT be rewarded for her lack of backbone.

The letter I received from her about her Alito vote indicated she had multiple and SIGNIFICANT concerns about his ability to objectively rule on women's issues, and matters of presidential power.  

Her vote to end debate betrayed her true concern - that she is up for re-election against a new Republican challenger this year.

Cantwell's vote for cloture on the Alito nomination was no mere "flub", or "single-issue" matter where there's room to allow debate regarding the values of Washinton State democrats.  This was a MAJOR BETRAYAL of the core values of the Democratic Party, the consequences of which will be felt for GENERATIONS to come.

Cantwell should not be merely chastised - she should be run out of office in favor of a candidate who can do more than buy themselves a public office - a candidate willing to demonstrate integrity and BACKBONE in presenting and representing the core values of Washington State Democrats.

I applaud Robert's call to action - his refusal to put party loyalty over core values.  As we look to support and vote for candidates, it isn't enough merely that they BE Democrats - they must be GOOD Democrats, and Cantwell has forever identified herself as an untrustworthy, cowardly politician unwilling to stand up for the values of the very people who put (and keep) her in office.

-Jeff

by jeffw66seattle on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 05:43:18 PM PST

---

that Sen. Cantwell deliberately made the decision to vote against the filibuster in order to thumb her nose at a base which has become increasingly vocal about her "I have no regrets" position on the war.

I'm also hearing she has no plans to meet with LD reps because she knows she would be walking into a hornet's nest.

I wonder if daring your base not to support you is a good campaign strategy.

by Aristophanes on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 08:21:57 PM PST

---

She votes for war and cloture
Her base is all in tears

She bought her way to Congress
We wonder what she hears

And in reply to leftists
It's ANWAR ANWAR ANWAR

I even heard her angling in the rotunda

She's always late for fundraisers

But her penitence is real

She's always late for everything

Except for every deal

I hate to have to say it but I very firmly feel

Maria's not an asset to the Senate

I like to say a word in her behalf
Maria makes me laugh

How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a cloture and pin it down?

How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibbertijibbet, a will o the wisp, a clown

Many a thing you know you'd like to tell her
Many a thing she ought to regret
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say?
How do you change her views when they're set?
Oh how do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you keep a Dem in the Senate?

When I see her I'm confused,
Out of sorts and bemused
And I never know exactly what is what

Unpredictable as weather

She's as cold as December

She's a darling, she's a demon, she's a robot

She'd outpester any pest
Drive a hornet from its nest

She can throw a whirling dervish out of whirl

She is frozen, she is rich
She is losing, she's a Grinch
She's a migraine, she's an android
She's a churl

How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a cloture and pin it down?

How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibbertijibbet, a will o the wisp, a clown

Many a thing you know you'd like to tell her
Many a thing she ought to regret
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say?
How do you change her views when they're set?
Oh how do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you keep a Dem in the Senate?

by Aristophanes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:10:17 AM PST

---

The conversation here is about Dickerson's vote to abdicate Congressional responsibility for the invasion of Iraq to Bush - and presumably, future Presidents, future wars (see:  the speeches of Al Gore on this matter).  Your apparent inability to grasp the context of the term "betrayal" as I used it in re:  Dickerson's Iraq vote and vote to end debate on Alito.

Sheesh.  Next I suppose you'll argue that Iraq isn't really a war.

-Jeff

by jeffw66seattle on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:27:45 PM PST

---