Democracy for Vancouver

35 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. What is left out in many of these situations is the local district. In many cases the county and state party officials are trying to impose their will on the grass roots of the party- the local district pco’s and officers. Part of this is that the incumbents who often don’t personally attend district and other meetings, try to impose their final say from the top down. The end result is grass root division, confusion and dissatisfaction. In the 17th we’ve had a history of lack of support for 17th resident candidates like Gary Akizuki and myself while supported candidates were “imported” from elsewhere. For example one past candidate who lives in Washougal used a rental address in my subdivision when he ran. Another claimed to live in an apartment that she hadn’t yet moved into. This has caused some very deep division in District 17 with some taking the position that winning at any price is okay and others that we need to support decent, ordinary citizen representatives from our local community.

   [Reply]

   1. Above written by Pat Campbell on September 1st, 2006 at 7:50 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

2. When is a candidate not a candidate? Well, that might be an interesting question. Let’s think about how someone could pay a filing fee and not actually be a candidate. What if someone paid that filing fee and then announced:

   • I will not be conducting any activities that are normally carried out in order to win public office.
   • I will make no effort to personally get out and meet voters.
   • I will place an arbitrary and very low limit on my fund raising.
   • I will make no public display of my candidacy in the form of signs or other advertising.
   It’s possible that most thinking people might say that person was not a candidate.

   Now, let’s ask some other questions.

   What if the local Democratic party had explained to that same person who wanted to be a candidate that it was expected that all candidates in a Democratic primary run their campaigns against the Republican opponent and not disparage the other Democrat(s). It’s a pretty simple concept, wouldn’t you say? Don’t try to tear down fellow Democrats.

   What if the chair of the local Democratic Party – a chair who has an excellent record of being a good communicator, a conciliator, a person who brings unity, a person who moves ideas and projects forward – what if that chair states that she had personally worked with a candidate for over two weeks to try to generally improve his web site and to help him bring it to a place where he would be running against a Republican opponent and not railing about his perception of the integrity of several Democrats – candidates and incumbents?

   Remember, this excellent communicator worked with this person for over two weeks before he was quoted in The Columbian article stating he wasn’t sure what content Jacob was referring to.’ That might be interpreted as disingenuous or it might be interpreted as dissembling or it might just be a lie.

   So here we have a prospective candidate who is involved in active discussions about how to make his web site better and after two weeks publicly states he didn’t understand the subject. It might occur to some voters that this person might be even more challenged by following the discussions on the floor of the Washington State House.

   Let’s look a little more closely at this prospective candidates refusal to meet with the members of the Clark County Executive Board. He states he was willing to meet with the board in an open session at a meeting of the 17th District Democrats.’ Many people don’t understand the exact relationship in our state between different organizational party units, although one would assume that a candidate for state office might. The legislative districts (LD) are not a part of the county party structure. Put simply, the Clark County Democratic Party and the 17th LD are different entities. His suggestion that the Executive Board of the County party meet at the 17th LD made as much sense as saying he would meet with them at the next meeting of the Camas School Board. While the 17th LD might have hosted a meeting, so might have the Camas School Board, but neither would have been appropriate.

   Finally, let’s examine this prospective candidates actions in light of his misunderstandings. When the County chair contacted him to discuss these misunderstandings and to suggest a meeting to clarify the issues and more importantly to give him a venue to outline his campaign ideas and actions – he not only refused to meet with the Clark County Democratic Party – he hung up on her. Twice.

   So when is a candidate not a candidate? I don’t know the answer to that for everyone. I do know that I’ll be supporting Jack Burkman.

   [Reply]

   2. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 2nd, 2006 at 10:40 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

3. Chuck is obviously relying on information from Jack Burkman supporters rather than hearing the information first hand when I addressed the 17th. These same Burkman supporters recently voted to accept the 17th’s 7/24/06 minutes detailing my announcement at the last meeting, 7pm, Monday 8/28/06. Here are the minutes regarding my announcement that they approved:
   “Pat campbell announced that he is running for public office to be our new 17th LD Representative. His Republican opponent is Rep. Jim Dunn. A discussion issued and he said he wants to run in order to give the Democrats a choice between him and Jack Burkman. Pat Campbell also stated that he would accept only small donations from individual not to exceed $25.00 per person. He also stated that he would NOT accept contributions from corporations or big business; that way he is not obligated to anyone or any special issue. Pat’s web site is: http://www.patservesus.com. He is in favor of public financed campaigns.”

   This is the first I’ve heard that the 17th District is not related to the CCDCC. Certainly the CCDCC and the state party seem to have a disconnect with the 17th pco’s. As far as Patrice Jacobs and most others on the CDCC Executive Board; they have already endorsed Jack Burkman. Do you think I am going to let those who endorce and campaign for Burkman tell me how to run my campaign? Do you think I would have a closed meeting with these folks who in violation of the CCDCC rules have made endorsements prior to the primary? My suggesting an open meeting was a stretch for me to put it plainly. The Executive Board put themselves in the same ethical dilema that others have done during this campaign. These are the ethics of modern big business whether they are union busting of siphoning off value from worker 401K plans. From my years in corrections, I know that just because a person is well thought of, has an education, and speaks intelligently it doesn’t mean they are not guilty. The problem is that someone sold our party to the highest bidder and now they want to evict some of us from the building.

   [Reply]

   3. Above written by Pat Campbell on September 2nd, 2006 at 11:17 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

4. First, Pat, I attended the meeting of the 17th LD to which you refer. I attend the majority of those meetings because I am interested in moving Clark County forward. I personally heard your statements and I am not relying on anyones interpretation other than my own.

   I am also conversant with the CCDCC bylaws and there are no violations whatsoever regarding endorsements.

   It is unfortunate you are not more aware of the Democratic Party structure or the bylaws of the various groups to which you claim membership. Maybe if you were, your previous attempts at running for office might have been more successful.

   Frankly, Pat, your lack of political acumen is staggering.

   [Reply]

   4. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

5. Jim Dunn won the 2004 primary with little money, a lot of signs, and no door belling. His opponent had party support,money, and signs.

   I won the 2004 primary with a lot of door belling (14k homes/ 9k apartments), many signs, and a fraction of the money of my opponent had. My opponent had full party support.

   If you look up the percentages in the County Elections election statistics history section, you will see I did quite well compared to other county Democrats.

   In 2004 it was the same situation as now in many ways. A lot of hubris, sabre rattling, and demeaning of my campaign. The loosing candidate was urged to pay $1,600 for a recount. She still lost, but she caused my campaign to loose momentum. She NEVER conceeded the race to this day. The support I got was from Bill Fromhold. He did his best to see that there were at least some finances for the general election.

   I am not saying my campaign techniques are proven. I am making use of the internet and free media. People have been contacting me frequently and I have been responding to them. I’ve had more intelligent conversations using these methods than in past campaigns. Part of this is due to writing out my positions trying to avoid platitudes and generalities. This seems to generate a lot of good conversation. As I learn from citizens, I reflect this on my positions page.

   Is it such and unmentionable sin to try new techniques which could lead to more people being able to run for public service? Does the party need to disfellowship folks who challenge the traditional? The more twisting and anger I hear, the more I am convinced I have a fair shot at winning the primary this year. If I do, I won’t be caught in the situation of loosing momentum waiting for party support again.

   [Reply]

   5. Above written by Pat Campbell on September 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

6. Chuck Washburn was in fact at the meeting in question (my mistake). At the meeting several people took what I said and spun it into the bullet points Chuck enumerates above. In fact I have been accomplishing three points he mentions traditionally, via the internet, or using a combination approach. As far as the money bullet point, I think I explained it in several venues. It was definitely not an “arbitrary” decision. Too much money IS a problem in politics as proven by the events in the 17th. Chuck is a resident of the 18th District. He lives with Patrice Jacobs in Lacamas Shores which has gated access to Lacamas Lake where once a beautiful forest flourished…

   [Reply]

   6. Above written by Pat Campbell on September 3rd, 2006 at 9:33 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

7. It’s interesting that you note that several people’ had the same interpretation of your statements that I came away with. Hmmm. . . maybe you’re not communicating exactly what you mean to, Pat. Seems among the people I’ve spoken with those interpretations are pretty universal – even among The Columbian editorial board. Communications skills are pretty important for someone who’s running for elected office to represent the people, wouldn’t you say?

   It’s also interesting that you’ve removed all the links from your web site to this little dialogue we’re having here on Democracy for Vancouver. That sort of flies in the face of your support of the Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG) and their plea for open and public communications.

   Also, you mentioned that you had signed that pledge on WCOG and you mentioned that Jim Moeller signed it, too. Whoops! You seemed to have missed the fact that that darned Jack Burkman signed it.

   Pat, I keep hearing you talk about using new techniques in your campaign. Here’s today’s civics lesson - dirty politics, lying, spinning, baseless innuendos and personal attacks aren’t new campaign techniques. Republicans have been using them for a long time. Is it a coincidence that you voted that side of the ticket for a lot of years, Pat?

   Well pardner, you sure got me on a couple of things, though. I do live in Lacamas Shores. And, if you meant to say that I live with Patrice Jacob, that’s also correct – except, of course, your misspellings. And the point you’re trying to make would be . . . ?

   [Reply]

   7. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 3rd, 2006 at 11:01 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

8. Great. Then Jack’s name will soon be posted as having signed on? …soon?

   [Reply]

   8. Above written by Pat Campbell on September 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

9. It’s been on the list every time I’ve looked the past couple of days. Wait just a minute.

   Okay, I’m back. Yep, his name’s still there. Jack Burkman, 17th Legislative District, heartily endorsed by our local paper and many community leaders.

   While we’re talking about updated web sites, how’s yours coming along?

   [Reply]

   9. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 3rd, 2006 at 12:44 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

10. Here are a couple posts from a progressive listserve on the topic of party support for candidates in primary settings. It appears the Washington State Democratic Party is virtually alone in its support of one candidate over another in a contested primary situation. IMO we need to move the primary way back and abolish this activity immediately in the interest of allowing the people rather than the party to choose the candidate.

    One friend suggested we start a petition to the state Central Committee to change the by-laws to prohibit this kind of participation. I agree that a petition or resolution is what’s called for (and am working on a draft resolution). Our state party should not be wasting resources trying to dictate or intuit the primary winner. We should insist that they save the resources until the final candidate is determined by election.

    Heaven knows there are plenty of other uncontested races where the state efforts could have been profitably focused after the filing deadline passed and before the general election. How about some plain old Party building, too? There could have been more efforts on issues, which would have helped ALL Democratic candidates.

    Dwight is in an untenable position that, to be fair, was apparently started by his predecessor. Dwight says the state party began working for Cantwell’s re-election two years ago and has spent nearly $1 million toward that end.

    This must never be allowed to happen again. WA should join the ranks of our neighbors and say hands off for the coordinated campaign and the state party in general until contested primaries are settled in the polls. If it’s felt that some kind of campaigning must happen because of our late primary, then the resources and efforts should be equally allocated among ALL candidates for the seat. Period. Anything else seriously undermines the process of democracy. It allows a few powerful people to SELECT candidates before the voters have a chance to express their wishes.

    This has all been a waste of resources on a relatively unpopular candidate, and has led to serious intra-party contention that never needed to happen. Someone somewhere along the way in past years overstepped their bounds and the Central Committee didn’t take appropriate and timely action. At least, that’s my opinion. So here we are. What are we going to do?

    Follow up post:
    It’s really not happening in other states. An active coordinated campaign is a public thing. Either they’re campaigning for a contested candidate or they are not. One of the activists I spoke with has been a campaign manager for federal elections in about half a dozen states and a national field organizer for a presidential campaign. He has Howard Dean’s home phone number.

    Another friend I spoke with has been a state party activist (including being on the state executive board) for many years, and is now a legislative candidate. She has also done campaign organizing. Both of them were very clear that in all the states they had worked in, none allowed coordinated campaign activity on a contested primary. It’s a strict hands-off policy. Some of the states they mentioned (I don’t remember them all, but could get a list): MA, AZ, and UT.

    Besides our current state policy not having originated with Dwight, it may have preceded Paul, too. I don’t know. (When I said “started with his predecessor” I meant just this current Cantwell support, not the primary election policy itself.) At this point, I don’t think it’s of major importance to find out where it started. It’s more important to get it stopped.”

    [Reply]

    10. Above written by bushtool on September 3rd, 2006 at 3:19 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

11. Now just hold on minute there, John. I thought this was the bash-the-Clark-County-Democrats thread. Now you’ve gone and made it the bash-state-Dems-and-Dwight-Pelz-and-all-his-predecessors-with-anonymous-postings thread.

    I think Dwight and the state party deserve their own thread. There’s no way we can contain all this Democrat bashing in just one list. There’s just too much to go around. Especially if you want to start using anonymous quotes.

    I have to limit the time I spend working on this, because I’m actively working to keep and get Democrats elected to public office. But, I will admit, I’m still curious about why where I live has anything to do with getting anyone elected to public office.

    [Reply]

    11. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 3rd, 2006 at 4:26 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

12. Chuck, look at the title of the post. You and Pat have had a great discussion about the Clark County Dems & 17th LD Dems, but the overall post is about how the Democratic Party deals with Primary races.

    It’s an ongoing debate. And one that is needed.

    [Reply]

    12. Above written by Chad Lupkes on September 3rd, 2006 at 6:53 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

13. Chad, look at the text under the title. There’s nothing in there about the state party. Period. It’s bushtool taking a very clear swipe at the Clark County Democratic party in the name of Pat Campbell. He refers to the Clark County Democratic web site and he refers to The Columbian. Those are both Clark County entities. That may be why you are not aware of them in King County.

    John started the discussion about Clark County. If he wants to expand it, that’s of course his prerogative. And, if he wants to do so by using anonymous quotes, that also is his prerogative. I don’t consider posting a lot of cut-and-paste text from anonymous sources a legitimate part of an ongoing debate.’ And, I’m not sure I agree with your contention that a debate is actually needed and if it is, I’m pretty sure now is not the time to be doing it. Now is the time to be working to elect Democrats and keep them in office.

    [Reply]

    13. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 3rd, 2006 at 7:33 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

14. With all respect, Chuck, we are working to elect Democrats in 2006. And, in my opinion, if we ignore 2007 and 2008, any gains that we make in 2006 will be wasted. We have to put energy into defining what a Democrat is before we can expect anyone to support our party. And that’s what a Primary contest is all about, defining the party positions and challenging every candidate to give the best articulation of the values and principles of the party. Whoever can do that, and build the infrastructure to carry them to victory, deserves that victory.

    And the comments he quotes are not anonymous. They come from Nancy Ging, the chair of the 2nd Congressional District Progressive Caucus, as posted on the state PDCW mailing list. The 3rd has a mailing list as well, if you’re interested.

    [Reply]

    14. Above written by Chad Lupkes on September 3rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

15. Chad. First, your respect is noted. Thank you.

    I’ve carefully reviewed my comments and positions and I couldn’t find any place where you might have misinterpreted anything I have said as being a statement or belief that we should ignore electing Democrats in 2007 or 2008. I didn’t say it and I don’t believe it. To be very clear, as I have previously stated, I am of a very firm opinion that we should all be working to elect Democrats – in 2006 and for many years into the future.

    You describe the primary election as defining the party positions.’ I don’t believe that is a commonly held or even a correct description of the primary. I think if you do some research, you might find that a more generally held understanding is that the primary is to select the person who the majority of party supporters want to see running against the candidate from the opposing party.

    I haven’t been to the King County functions, but here in Clark County where I live, we use the precinct caucus and county convention mechanisms to provide input to the party platform, which in turn defines the party positions.

    Chad, when I read and hear statements such as defining what a Democrat is’ and defining the party positions’ from someone who is ostensibly a Democrat, in my mind it always brings their understanding into question. I associate those kinds of statement with Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Ann Coulter and others of that ilk. They are repetitions of conservative talking points – ‘fractured party’, ‘trying to be all things to all people’, ‘don’t know what they really believe.’ The vast majority of Democrats I know and with whom I communicate regularly don’t ask those questions. And, I don’t think they are, as a group, any more wise, well-read, educated, or thoughtful than most other Democrats. However, like almost all Democrats, they do know what a Democrat is and what the Democratic Party stands for. I think the whole question is designed to perpetuate a conservative myth which is being repeated by a conservative-controlled media and a few misguided Democrats.

    Most Democrats just leave those queries to the talk show hosts. Then they go out and spend their time working to elect Democrats.

    If, in fact, the actions that are currently taking place in our local 17th Legislative District were truly a discussion of any type, I would support it. It is not a discussion. I have attended the meetings and I am aware of some history of the developments in the 17th. (Since they happen to meet not too many blocks from my home here in Clark County.) This is not a discussion. What is happening is a very tiny minority of disgruntled members didn’t get their way in railroading the direction of the LD and the county quite a while ago and they have been throwing tantrums about it since then.

    Despite the rhetoric, It doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, open communications, building unity, or defining Democrats, and it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with electing the best Democrats to office. A very small group of misguided individuals have attempted to make a case that because they didn’t get their way, the ‘people’ are being ignored. That is not at all what is happening. The only ‘people’ who are being ignored are the ones who appear to be actively working to derail the election of Democrats.

    Finally, Chad, with all respect –
    If we have to wait until ideological purity is achieved, we’ll be waiting for Godot. I don’t know about you, but I ain’t got the time.’

    Now that sentence doesn’t have any attribution. It’s in quotes which means it is supposedly an exact representation of what someone else said. But, because there is no indication of who said it, we refer to that as an anonymous quote. When there is a reference to text or spoken word and an indication it was said or written by someone else, but with no reference to who said or wrote it – that makes it anonymous. It doesn’t really matter if a few other people know who said or wrote it; you have to give it attribution to keep it from being anonymous.

    By the way, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. receives credit for that previous statement. Now, it’s not anonymous any more.

    And to complete the lesson:
    It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.’
    Mark Twain

    That, Chad, is not an anonymous quote because it is attributed to the person who is originally believed to have penned it, Mark Twain.

    Chad, thanks for your continuing interest of our activities here in Clark County.

    [Reply]

    15. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 4th, 2006 at 9:30 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

16. As much fun as this has been - I really do need to devote a little more time to getting great Democrats such as Jack Burkman, Deb Wallace, Steve Stuart, MarCine Miles, Brian Baird and Maria Cantwell elected and re-elected. Since we seem to have moved pretty far afield of our original discussion of who was or was not on the bluedonkeys.com web site, I’m not sure I can devote as much time to this discussion.

    One final note – there was another person noted by the Columbian article and bushtool as being absent from the BlueDonkeys.com web site. That was Hong Tran. No one has asked why she wasn’t there. Also, no one has mentioned the absence from BlueDonkeys.com of Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson, Mike the Mover, or Mohammad H. Said – all sporting a (D) by their names. Isn’t anyone curious about why Ms. Tran and none of the others have a link on BlueDonkeys.com? Since I asked the question, you might suspect that I have the answer.

    It’s because none of them asked to be linked. Yeah, that would be getting back to our original discussion about the terrible mistreatment of Pat. As it turns out, the requirements for full participation and acknowledgment as a candidate on the official Clark County Democratic Party website are not all that danged stringent. Since I am only a concerned activist and I have no official standing with the party whatsoever, my definitions shouldn’t be construed in any manner as being an official statement of the party, but merely my very own, personal understanding.

    Let’s see, what are those requirements again?

    – you should ask to be linked
    – you should be willing to meet with the party officials to discuss your campaign, if they ask
    – you should be willing to agree to conduct your campaign in such a manner that does not involve attacking other Democratic candidates or making statements that impugn the ethics or honesty of other Democratic candidates or incumbents

    Comply with those requests – get a link

    Refuse to comply – no link

    Telling the press you chose not to comply – well, that would be optional

    [Reply]

    16. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 4th, 2006 at 10:07 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

17. The citing of candidates left off the site in my post was not meant to be all inclusive. Just mentioned the ones that came to mind immediately when I saw the candidate listing.

    Glad to see Marcine Miles made the list though (guess she passed the “make nice” test or whatever is the actual criteria).

    [Reply]

    17. Above written by bushtool on September 4th, 2006 at 11:19 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

18. John, I can’t put a goto statement in my postings, ‘cuz that would be simpler. I’ll just reiterate briefly, 1. Ask, 2. Talk, 3. Don’t trash other Dems.

    Not a word in there about any requests for being nice. For pete’s sake - Heywood was listed when he was running. I have a huge respect for Mike in all kinds of way and I really like him as a person, but I’m pretty sure he prides himself on not wiggling the needle on the nice-o-meter. There are probably some that would like ‘nice’ to be a criteria, but I don’t think the idea will catch on.

    [Reply]

    18. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 4th, 2006 at 11:34 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

19. Letter to the editor in today’s Columbian:

    Politics of exclusion

    I find it curious that the Democrat’s 17th Legislative District Web site lists only one Democratic candidate for each position. It is OK to endorse specific candidates, but to act like other Democratic candidates don’t exist is not my idea of how a democratic organization should behave. If the 17th District Web site is listing only those candidates they endorse, then that should be made clear. If it purports to be representative of all Democrats, then it should list all those running for office as a Democrat.

    I like a political governing body that has balance, and if there was a Balance Party I’d probably join it. Meanwhile, I am borderline Democrat, but I do like to have a choice among those Democrats who choose to run for office in primary elections.

    This may cause me to cast a protest vote for the Republican candidate in November.

    John Cheek

    [Reply]

    19. Above written by bushtool on September 4th, 2006 at 1:10 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

20. I’ve been reading the comments of the Party and the 17th District for the past couple days and until now refrained from participating as it would appear that much has been said with history or allegations in a context I do not know about

    But I’ll slide my two cents in as it appears to me to be afar field from the object of my goal. Jim Dunn must rank up with the worst of any Representatives ever to sit in Olympia. His lack of leadership, candor and personal integrity makes Bolte and Benton look like Daniel Webster in comparison.

    Mr Cheek is leaning to vote Republican in protest to some perceived slight by the party elders in Olympia and for that I can only wince as it brings to mind the story of the miner in Montana who blew up his coal mine because it had bats in it.

    Dunn must go. I do not know how to label, or the purpose of such, in dividing Democrats. I heard a phrase a long time ago that seems to fit. “The favorite food of Democrats is Democrats.”

    Respectfully

    [Reply]

    20. Above written by Jim Martin on September 4th, 2006 at 3:35 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

21. You’ve hit the nail on the head, Mr. Martin. Thanks for your thoughtful addition to our discussion. The goal of all of the members of the 17th LD, Democrats and Republicans, should be to replace Jim Dunn. Unfortunately, we can’t likely count on too many of the Republicans to help out in our endeavors, although I’m hearing there will be some.

    Since Mr. Cheek is looking for balance, it’s hard to see that he could do better than casting his vote for Jack Burkman. Jack is certainly the candidate of balance in this race – or maybe I should say the balanced candidate.

    [Reply]

    21. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 4th, 2006 at 6:35 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

22. [quote post="73"]– you should ask to be linked
    – you should be willing to meet with the party officials to discuss your campaign, if they ask
    – you should be willing to agree to conduct your campaign in such a manner that does not involve attacking other Democratic candidates or making statements that impugn the ethics or honesty of other Democratic candidates or incumbents

    Comply with those requests – get a link[/quote]

    Per your implied request Chuck (not a “goto” link but similar), I put a quote function in the comments to make it easier for commenters to refer to other posts and parts of other posts. I also added a live preview that you can see below the “SubmitComment” button but I am not sure I like it since it does not show the actual html formatting. I may kill that enhancement. One of these days I will also add a spell checker.

    [Reply]

    22. Above written by admin on September 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

23. Chuck, it’s been a few days since I’ve had time to check this blog, but I’m glad I did. Time for a return lesson I think.

    ostensibly - seemingly, on the surface.

    If you meant that as directed to me, it’s a direct intended insult. Respect is a two way street.

    You said: “Now is the time to be working to elect Democrats and keep them in office.” And my answer was Duh. But you also said “I’m not sure I agree with your contention that a debate is actually needed and if it is, I’m pretty sure now is not the time to be doing it.”

    So exactly when is the right time for a debate about what the position of parties should be with regard to candidates using the Democratic label, especially candidates who have grassroots support. After the system has enabled that candidate to be crushed by an insider supported incumbent that doesn’t completely represent the values of those grassroots activists within their district?

    Your description on when a candidate is not a candidate is actually a pretty good list, and one that might need to be drafted into a set of rules. Are they? Does the party provide any training for people interested in public service? The party is great at training people to support incumbents, but not how to bring new blood into the real game, the game of governance. We either have to be rich enough to self-fund our campaign, or we have to bend our campaign plans to conform. Is this an illusion that I have due to inexperience? I’d love to believe that it is, but over the last 3 years I’ve seen it proven too many times.

    As far as what the Democratic Party stands for, and whether I am a true Democrat or not, let me say this. I fought and beat cancer in 2003. Without health insurance, I would have been up to 60K in debt thanks to that. And when I see people making minimum wage living much less healthy lives than I did, meaning their risk factors are higher than mine, I get angry. I wanted to get involved to try and fix that, and the more I dug into the details of activism, the more I realized how difficult it is to really get involved. Precinct delegates coming in for the first time rarely get elected to the LD our County level, the CD level, and good luck getting up to the National level. There are good reasons for that, but beyond that, the ability to have a voice in party operations and government operations stayed opaque to me until I ran for a 46th District At Large position.

    Am I a Democrat? Yes, as much as anyone else, because the Democratic Party is the vehicle I have chosen to use to make the changes that I see need to be made in the world that I live in. As much as T. Roosevelt was a Republican, because that was the party he was comfortable with, and he still believed in the 1912 election that the Republican party could be the vehicle of social change. He was wrong, but Eisenhower tried again in the 1950’s. As much as Howard Dean is a Democrat, I’m a Democrat. It’s infrastructure for political activism. The message comes from the people involved.

    Let me throw out another few quotes.

    “People and Planet before Corporate Profits.” - me

    “Do something; lead, follow or get out of the way.” - a poster that my grandmother used to have posted on her fridge.

    “I’m from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.” - Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean

    Those are the quotes that I pay attention to more than anything else.

    With all respect, Chuck, I am not ostensibly anything. I’m a Grassroots Progressive Democrat that is pissed off and learning what I can do to change things from the Precinct level all the way up to the United Nations. And I have an entire lifetime to continue to learn and make those changes. I’ve had a taste of making those changes, and I’m not going to quit regardless of who says or types what.

    [Reply]

    23. Above written by Chad Lupkes on September 6th, 2006 at 3:17 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

24. Chad, don’t get your drawers in a twist. I had no intention of questioning or bringing into doubt the depth or conviction of your commitment to Democrats. The word ostensible is not exclusionary. You can appear to be something and not be it and you can appear to be something and, in fact, be that something. Anyone could look at either of us, look at our voting records, look at our postings, look at our activities and say we appear to be Democrats. That means we are ostensibly Democrats - we appear to be Democrats and I have no doubt that we both are, in fact, Democrats. I was attaching no judgment or question to the degree of your Democratness.

    The point I want to be very clear on is that we need to elect more Democrats. Pat Campbell’s actions are very obviously not designed to do that. There is only one reasonable interpretation of the things he and a very small group of others in the 17th LD have done. Pat’s and others actions have been designed to attack and tear down the work of other Democrats. Not to get any Democrat elected.

    Anyone who can look at what Pat Campbell and others in the 17th are doing and claim that those actions are not done with an intent to harm Democrats is either stupid, lying or both.

    And all the continuing ballyhoo about this being the work of the real grassroots activists in the 17th is ludicrous. These are not grassroots activists. These are misanthropes intent on doing harm who are trying to wrap themselves and their methods in some kind of blessed-by-the-people shroud by calling it grassroots. It just ain’t so.

    The best course of action any of us could take would be to allow Pat’s alleged campaign to die quietly and get on with getting Jack Burkman elected.

    Sincerely

    [Reply]

    24. Above written by Chuck Washburn on September 7th, 2006 at 8:09 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

25. Good final comment Chuck. Maybe you’ve learned something while I was traveling. Maybe the poll was a fluke after all…

    [Reply]

    25. Above written by Pat Campbell on September 9th, 2006 at 10:27 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

26. [Comment ID #33 Will Be Quoted Here]

    Since my name got brought out into this discussion, a couple folks have alerted me to this comment and asked me to comment. First, for the sake of full disclosure, I am supporting Jack Burkman in this primary. However, no one from that campaign has asked me to comment on this. I also think Pat would consider me a friend from my support of his previous campaign. Pat did not consult me with his current campaign since he knew I had already committed to Jack very early.

    I am going to try to limit my comments to the lack of support’ I received when I ran and the state of political campaigning in general. My run was 10 years ago when frankly, the Democratic Party, both locally and from a state standpoint didn’t do a real good job of supporting local candidates. It was basically; here’s some info, go for it and good luck.’ This was not a situation unique to Clark County. To infer that the lack of support I received is due to the powers that be imposing their will on the grassroots is simply incorrect. The powers that be at the time didn’t have their act together enough to even think about doing that. They were simply grateful that someone chose to contest the seat.

    Grassroots help at that time was pretty minimal. Fortunately, we’ve gotten better, mostly because some former candidates, and I include myself, made a lot of suggestions and some noise about how if the party was serious about electing and attracting good candidates, more support was needed. We were very specific about our suggestions. For the most part, to the credit of the state powers that were in place, most of those suggestions are now part of the support and assistance available.

    Unfortunately, we are in a place where the laws of the country are such that free speech really doesn’t exist with regard to political campaigns. You really only get as much speech as you can pay for. The very unfortunate reality is that money is the only way to truly get a message out anymore. The internet and discussion groups such as this help, but really communicates largely to the already committed. To win elections you have to communicate with the uncommitted and that takes money, and that money needs to come early enough to matter. (Thank you very little U.S. Supreme Court with the ruling that restrictions on campaign money spent is the equivalent to restricting speech. It actually does the opposite, restricting speech to those with money.)

    Pat, according to my own sources, is running this campaign, at least in part, to tweak the locals with the money who really run politics in this county. Personally, Pat, I wish that if this is your primary purpose of running a quixotic campaign, that you would have directly targeted your target. I think we both know whom I am talking about. If progressives are to take back the country, as Howard Dean would like us to, we have to fix campaign financing.

    [Reply]

    26. Above written by Gary Akizuki on September 10th, 2006 at 10:19 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

27. [quote post="73"]You really only get as much speech as you can pay for.[/quote]

    Good to hear from you Gary. Good to hear you tell it like it is. I am in complete agreement with your post. It’s all about the money. But do we have the will or the power to fix campaign financing?

    It is my contention that this is the core issue that we must fix. There is really no reason to expect our representatives to represent “we, the people” until our representatives are no longer funded by “we, the special interests”.

    If you want to REALLY help make a difference, support Washington Public Campaigns (WPC), http://www.washclean.org. We can clean up this mess if we have the will.

    [Reply]

    27. Above written by bushtool on September 10th, 2006 at 10:48 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

28. Assuming I know nothing about these machinations, and assuming I long for a voice of reason….I would expect an explanation as to why any candidate, right or left, would link to the hate-language of the extremist Lifepac.

    This deeply disturbs me. Given the morally defensible position of preserving all life, Lifepac repeatedly invokes hate language, conflates positions that have no relationship, and links to hate groups, although somewhat tangentially. Lifepac represents the worst in the pro-life movement. The site is hateful and destructive.

    The only reason one would link to Lifepac is either a lack of clarity regarding the wholly understandable promotion of chosing life, OR pandering. Both positions disturb me.

    So I sit here, disturbed that the selection of candidates is top down, but equally disturbed that a candidate links to a local hate group.

    [Reply]

    28. Above written by arturo on September 20th, 2006 at 8:15 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

29. Lifepac is not a hate group. You may well disagree with some of their positions as I do. However, you and all the citizens of the 17th deserve to know how I answered their questionaire.

    I believe in being inclusive and open to other’s views and feelings. I believe in being as transparent as possible. That is why the link. So please do what you need to do to link to Lifepac and find out where I stand on some of the “culture war” issues.

    [Reply]

    29. Above written by Pat Campbell on September 20th, 2006 at 7:23 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

30. Sorry Pat, I like you, but Lifepac is a hate group. Their constant use of inflammatory language, labeling and positions regarding the equality of all American citizens is one of division and judgement. They inflame, they incite and they label as inferior. This is the definition of a hate group.

    When our reasoned and intelligent religious groups seek to posit a moral or ethical consideration, they do not do it by labeling and name calling.

    I applaud your stance on inclusion, however I believe one is also judged by the company they keep. Does this mean that other state of Washington hate groups — like our own local militia, our Christian Identity types or the skinheads — you plan to welcome, being the inclusive guy you are?

    We frequently think we are being expansive when we embrace all kinds…but sorry Pat, this demonstrates a lack of discernment that I find quite disturbing.

    When Lifepac ceases to polarize, when Lifepac ceases to link to groups who have the agenda of harming a whole class of law-abiding Washingtonians, and when Lifepac decides that the death penalty and death on the battlefield are as indefensible as abortion, then I will consider that they have begun to build a reasoned position. For now they reamin exactly what they are: a local hate group.

    You didn’t just answer their questionnaire, you added a link to their political outrage.

    [Reply]

    30. Above written by arturo on September 20th, 2006 at 8:59 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

31. So that we are all on the same page, here is a definition of “hate group”.

    From: Wikipedia

    A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or other sector of society, or that supports and publishes assertions and argumentation characteric of hate groups without necessarily explicitly advocating such hate or violence that otherwise characterize hate groups. The term “hate group” is not used by these groups themselves, but rather by those who oppose them, and sometimes by sociologists or historians who study them. Many groups described this way disagree with the term as misconstruing their motives or goals.

    Hate groups usually assert that the targets of their attacks are harmful to society, malicious, less fit to be members of society, or are operating some hidden cabal. The evidence hate groups present for these assertions is usually poorly corroborated, and is often based explicitly on the hate group’s negative beliefs about the social groups to which the target is or is imagined to belong (e.g. groups based on race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.).

    Although their evidence is usually inaccurate, sub-standard and widely rejected by society, the hate group continues to propagate assertions, myths, narratives and rumours, playing upon fear, xenophobia, blame or jealousy, with the aim of harming the individuals and groups they target, and inciting others to distrust or hate them also. The ultimate aim of a hate group is commonly the delegitimization, elimination, and exclusion of groups, or the harm, deportation, or death of individuals. Hate groups often use their victims as scapegoats to blame for discontent in society.

    [Reply]

    31. Above written by bushtool on September 20th, 2006 at 10:34 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

32. arturo,

    The group itself may be polar opposite of our values, but they are still a political organization representing thousands of people. Did you actually read the questionnaire that Pat filled out? I just did, and I want to say that I’m damn proud to have Pat as a candidate for the Democratic Party. LifePac claims that Pat’s answers were “Mixed Positions”. I strongly disagree. Pat’s positions were solidly pro-family, pro-life (to our perspective of the word, not the anti-choice perspective) and pro-choice. He spoke from the heart and from his experiences, both in life and in work. That he was willing to directly answer their questions and challenge their assumptions with the truth is something to be proud of, not attacked.

    And LifePac agrees. Even though his positions were obviously not what they wanted to hear, they gave him a recommendation. Not an endorsement, which is for people like Jim Dunn who follow their views regardless of the damage that such single sided attitudes would do to society.

    I also have no objection to having a link to their website on Pat’s. It’s better to know what we are up against and be ready for it rather than keep blinders on about the fact that these groups represent voters and citizens that we need to attempt outreach efforts to instead of declaring them full of hate and not worth our time. Every citizen, every person, regardless of background and regardless of ideology, deserves a chance to engage and be engaged in honest and open conversations about the issues that we face and how we will solve the problems that our society has.

    [Reply]

    32. Above written by Chad Lupkes on September 21st, 2006 at 6:11 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

33. We may differ on this Chad, though many share your position. I believe lending credence to a hate group legitimizes their message. While there is a point to be made in being a voice of reason — such as Pat has done — requesting a change in language and posture before you participate may be in order. “I would love to fill out your questionaire, but frankly the language on your site makes me loathe to participate. I am also troubled by your linkage to bigoted groups…”

    It matters not one whit how many people are members. Membership numbers do not make an organization legitimate. How many people do you think are in Al Queda? If members do not demand a change in the language and hateful content of this site, they are complicant in its drive in the direction of hate. I am well familiar with this site, and its history, including its links to intolerant groups throughout the state.

    I would applaud a site dedicated to preserving life - cradle to grave - but Lifepac has always been full of hate and polarizing language. I would also applaud a political site who can appeal to the best in people, not the worst as Lifepac does.

    Until Lifepac changes its language I will always challenge it as a viable vehicle for positive social change.

    [Reply]

    33. Above written by arturo on September 21st, 2006 at 7:52 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

34. You can go ahead and post using your given name. I think we’ve all figured out who you are.

    [Reply]

    34. Above written by Pat Campbell on September 21st, 2006 at 10:27 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

35. No Pat, you are wrong. I am no one you know. I have only marginally been involved in politics, ie I vote. I have done a fair amount of research onto local hate groups religious bigotry though…

    [Reply]

    35. Above written by arturo on September 21st, 2006 at 8:12 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).