Washblog

I don't think so. Don't you mean the WA Democratic Senate Campaign Committee?

And it's bullshit, bullshit to the core, to say "tired of 'the party' telling us who our candidates should be."

That's the kind of shit that dlaw and Murphy try to spread around here. They are "the party," too -- the whining wing of it.

Get a few things straight. You are "the party." Debi Golden is "the party." The 32 members of the 48th District Democrats who voted for your resolution are the party.

If you can muster the muscle to get Debi a win in the primary, then you continue to be "the party," and you determine  who "the party's" candidate against Esser will be.

Ross Hunter is one guy. He is not "the party" any more than the 32 of you are. You are fortunate to have him. I know that he had been working for some time to get Tom to switch parties, because he has said so repeatedly.

Don't treat Tom like he's the enemy. Get all sides together and insist, insist, I say, that the primary be clean, that there be a pledge of mutual support in November, and that the two primary candidates work together to unseat Esser.

A contested primary should bring Democratic voters out of the woodwork that you never knew were there, and should fill the ranks of the 48th District Democrats. If this does not happen, you are not doing your jobs. Give Ben all the help you can.

If Tom wins the primary, you will have to work to get him elected. Tom is not Tim Sheldon. Don't ditch him because he is not "progressive" enough for you. We want to be in a position where the Rats are so weak and so marginalized that the Primary is the real election.

That is possible even in the 48th. Turning this District solidly Democratic by beating Esser (and don't forget the race for Tom's House seat) will be a knife in the heart of the right wing in this state. And the tool that you have to shape your District's future is the vote you took last night, and Debi Golden's continued candidacy.

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

by ivan on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:10:36 AM PST

---

Andrew, technically what you said is incorrect.  Your motion as first proposed did not pass - it was amendmended by me (wholeheartedly agreed to by you) shortening it to "Debi should make her own choices about her campaign's future" or something to that extent, is what passed.  Your original motion felt like a "non-endorsement endorsement" in tone if not the exact words, and if forced to make a vote on that I can say that the results would have been much closer.

And I know for a fact that a lot of people who are leaning towards Rodney and/or are undecided at this very early stage either voted for the resolution or didn't vote up or down on it specifically out of respect for letting Debi make her own decision on her career, which she by all means has earned the right to do.  A yes vote on the motion doesn't in any way demonstrate a person's eventual support in the primary, should it come to that.

by sean baratt on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 11:48:02 AM PST

---

Hi Andrew-

Very timely.  I just read about Rodney Tom's switch today.  Never heard of him or Debi Golden before today.  So I really have no opinion (and I'm in the 46 LD) on either of them.

But I can comment via analogy.  I think every primary should be a contest.  Every candidate is legit.  I totally support Mark Wilson's run at Cantwell.  It's his right and perogative.

I don't buy the spoiler arguments for one second.  I also support Aaron Dixon's candidacy.  Make no mistake, I'm pissed at Cantwell yet will definitely vote for her.  But I don't have to like it.  

So, for me, it comes down to a few issues:  I don't want my vote taken for granted.  I don't want any party or backroom deals taking away my choices.  We all have an internal algorithm for our own realpolitick (or whatever the word is), all equally legit.  And if people don't like spoilers (e.g. Nader), then they should stop supporting the duopoly and work to open up the ballot as well as ensure more fair elections (e.g. IRV, proportional rep, public financing, fairness doctrine, etc.).

In conclusion, I hope Debi Golden and Rodney Tom have a great contest, address the issues, and then support the winner.  If that happens, we all win.

Cheers, Jason

by zappini on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:26:44 PM PST

---

just kidding.

Ivan, you hurt my feeling, can I have a hug?

I'd agree with you except your version of the Dem party doesn't exist.

The grassroots exists to phonebank / knock on doors to clean up databases get money to keep the cantwells in power to lose, OR, sometimes to drum up votes.

Your comment goes in voice from the grassroots activist who is going to change this party of run-from-the-top / too-much-deadwood-at-the-top all by yourself, to the good foot soldier who is going to dig whatever ditch the deadwood-at-the-top is gonna tell ya to dig.

People are nitpicking Andrew's comments to prove what the definition of is is, and in doing so they are missing the bigger picture -

TOO many grassroots people get involved and get turned off cuz they got sick of being burned, used and abused by little secretive cliques, or big cliques - few or none of the cliques really representing much good about much of anything, other than persuing the best interests of the clique.

People don't come together after the primary cuz the crappy things that get done to each other battling over resources and access and information -

done cuz too many of the the party big wigs, through neglect or design or a mix of both, allow these dysfunctional systems to grow, fester, and rot.

I have commented on how I think grassroots outta work, btw, cuz if things were more open there would be a lot more involvement on a lot larger scale by a much larger subset of the population.

Can we hug and make up you big teddy bear ? ;)

murphy

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

I have shot mine arrow o'er the house,
And hurt my brother.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 04:08:56 PM PST

---

Andrew - I enjoy listening to your NPI podcasts, and believe you've made a number of salient points about this particular issue in your posting, but I have to correct a few characterizations you've made in your post that are misleading at the least.

First of all if Rodney Tom endorsed Luke Esser (once apon a time), that's certainly not a great thing, but he obviously doesn't endorse him now since he is opposing him in this race.

Secondly, as pointed out later in the meeting (perhaps you had left by that time), Rodney Tom voted for all 12 of the bills that the 48th Dems had endorsed that passed during the last session.

The motion you put forth passed with a considerable number of abstentions - including my own.  I believe there were double the abstentions than votes against it, and I think 14 was the number of abstentions.  The hottest debate was not to reject your motion, but to ask you to withdraw it so there would be no vote.  The point being that people didn't want it on record, one way or another, how the 48th Dems felt about this, and that anyone has the right to run - they don't need a motion that affirms that right.

As for Hunter and Tom using the meeting to kick off Tom's campaign, while that was an accusation put forth (by Golden's husband), I think it is an unfair statement.  After all Hunter attends these meetings and speaks all the time.  Tom was naturally introducing himself after joining our team.  Ross Hunter was merely late arriving and had wanted to introduce Tom and welcome him.  Circumstances were indeed unusual, but I didn't think either was campaigning just because they were there and speaking.

I understand how Debi Golden must feel about this, but I think your motion wasn't the best way to show her she has our support.

BTW, do you live in the 48th?  Is it really appropriate for non-48th district residents to be making motions of the kind you made at a 48th Dems meeting?  Even if it isn't it would have been more genuine if it came from someone within the district.

On The Road To 2008: Countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

by Daniel K on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 11:11:08 AM PST

---

Ivan makes much of this "muscle" calling people people "whiners" because they want to make the most of what muscle they do have.

Donors, of course, never figure into his "muscle" equation, although clearly they are the only "muscle" Party insiders and consultants will tell you matters at all.

The philosophy seems to be that, because they don't have this "muscle", the grassroots should make it as easy as possible for the party to take them for granted. So please note, the moment you feel ignored by the party don't "whine" just get somebody to hand you a shovel. And never read that book "Animal Farm" - especially the bit with the Horse.

Just keep digging.

Or, have a great primary fight!

by dlaw on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 02:25:39 PM PST

---

...in early February of this year in front of around a dozen witnesses at an Eastside DFA Meetup.  

"I will support Maria against McGavick," he said.

Doesn't sound equivocating to me.

by palamedes on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:01:38 PM PST

---

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/264427_gcenter27.html?source=rss

by Particle Man on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:07:03 AM PST

---