When is a candidate not a candidate?
Be sure to check your primary ballot carefully that goes out in the mail today. It seems there are people running in the Democratic Primary that are not even listed on the local Democratic Party website.
Specifically missing are Hong Tran, candidate for U.S. Senator and Pat Campbell, candidate for WA State Representative, District 17, Position 1.
According to the Columbian article below, it appears that if the party officials do not approve of the way you run your campaign, then you are excluded from normal Party activities and listings. So much for the Democrats being the party of inclusion.
Guess the Dems are taking lessons from the Reps on keeping everyone on the same page. No contrary views need apply.
Guess this post could be considered “caustic” so does that mean this site should remove its link to Bluedonkeys.com? What do you think? Your comments welcome.
County Demos back away from candidate
Thursday, August 31, 2006
By KATHIE DURBIN , Columbian staff writer
AdvertisementRelations have chilled between 17th Legislative District candidate Pat Campbell and the Clark County Democratic Party leadership.
Campbell’s name is missing from the 2006 slate of candidates listed on the party’s Web site. Also missing is a link to Campbell’s campaign Web site.
Campbell says the party’s executive board is ignoring him because he decided to take on Jack Burkman in the September primary and criticized other Democrats on his Web site. Burkman has the endorsement of the state Democratic Party and support from most of the county’s business, labor and political leaders. Even some members of the county party’s executive board have given money to Burkman’s campaign.
“They’ve already committed to the other candidate in the primary, and they don’t like the way I run my campaign,” Campbell said Wednesday after he became aware that his name was absent from the party’s site.
Clark County Democratic Chairwoman Patrice Jacob accused Campbell of running “guerrilla attacks” against Burkman that could hurt the party’s chances to defeat Republican state Rep. Jim Dunn in the fall.
She said that when she approached Campbell about the contents of his Web site, he refused at first to remove what she considered disparaging comments about Burkman and Rep. Deb Wallace.
“Up until this morning, he had some slanted things on his Web site that we did not feel were appropriate to be linked to,” Jacob said Wednesday. “I worked with him for two weeks to get him to run against the Republican in this contest. The reason we have primaries is so Democrats can tell who will run better against the Republican. It’s not so much to be attacking other Democrats.”
Campbell said he wasn’t sure what content Jacob was referring to. “She demanded that I take off all links to Jack Burkman. I haven’t done that.”
Jacob said Campbell refused an invitation to meet with the executive board to discuss his criticisms of other Democrats.
Campbell said he was willing to meet with the board in an open session at a meeting of the 17th District Democrats. “I said it needed to be done in the open. I refused to meet with them in secret,” he said.
Asked about the matter, Burkman said, “My understanding is the executive board was actively working with Pat because his site was so caustic. They wanted to address those concerns. There was an ongoing discussion. And I’m not privy to that, so I don’t know. My expectation is the issues would be solved and he would be posted. I think he should be posted when the issues are resolved.”
Jacob said she also has problems with the way Campbell has chosen to run his campaign.
“He got up at a 17th District meeting last month and said he wasn’t going to work at the campaign,” Jacob said. “He wasn’t going to doorbell, he wasn’t going to raise money. He’s doing a guerrilla campaign. He sends inflammatory e-mails. He’s relying on the press to do his campaigning for him.”
“They feel that I should run my campaign in the traditional manner of getting large contributions, doing mailers and buying expensive advertisements,” Campbell retorted. “I wasn’t going to do it that way. I’ve tried to do it without special-interest money. That doesn’t mean I’m not a Democrat.”
Campbell isn’t the only Democratic primary candidate who is embroiled in a dispute with party officials as primary ballots begin arriving in Washington mailboxes this week.
Hong Tran, a Seattle public interest attorney who is running against U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell in the Democratic primary, is demanding full access to the state Democratic Party voter database. Tran, who has criticized Cantwell for support of the Iraq war, said in a Wednesday press release that State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz is preventing her from providing voters with information about her campaign.
Tran said Pelz won’t allow her to distribute campaign material at Democratic Party offices or events, and when she asked for full access to the voter database, she was offered information covering only about 150 of more than 5,000 precincts in the state.
“Pelz and the party leadership want to choose who wins the primary election,” Tran said. “So they don’t want voters to know about my campaign.”
State party spokesman Kelly Steele said Pelz had agreed to give Tran’s campaign 40,000 names from its database, which he said is twice the number she will be able to contact.
Because Tran has raised only $18,000, her campaign does not have the capacity to reach all the state’s voters, Steele said.
For that reason, he said, “We aren’t going to hand over a proprietary database worth five figures to her. Her failure to reach the voters is not because the state party isn’t giving her 3 million mailing labels.”
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fd5f3742-438e-4a15-9d2a-ccc0b04d26d1)
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.
[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.
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.
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
Good final comment Chuck. Maybe you’ve learned something while I was traveling. Maybe the poll was a fluke after all…
[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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
So that we are all on the same page, here is a definition of “hate group”.
From: Wikipedia
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.
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.
You can go ahead and post using your given name. I think we’ve all figured out who you are.
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…