Reconsider a Dual Endorsement in the 44th Senate Race
A week ago I attended the 44th general membership meeting, where the case for endorsement was made by both Lillian Kaufer and Steve Hobbs. The end result was a sole endorsement for Lillian. I want to make a case for reconsideration of a dual endorsement.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have relationships with both candidates. Lillian is a customer of my business, and I intend to contribute monetarily to her campaign. Steve Hobbs is a fellow member of the Lake Stevens Rotary and a friend of mine. I also intend to contribute to his campaign.
I like both candidates. I feel they both would be successful candidates in the fall general election. I have issues with both of their campaigns - I don't think ether one has yet given me a sense of their strong vision for where they want to take us. To date I get more of a feeling of what they both oppose. Opposition is good, but it doesn't advance us as a people. It at best preserves the status quo, and we need more than that. We need to move forward.
So why am I asking for a reconsideration of the vote on Steve? Well, I have two issues. First is a concern over the way the membership voted on this. This is the third time I have seen a vote on endorsements, and in each case, I have seen the same thing: that evening, a whole bunch of supporters for one candidate or another show up that evening, pay their dues, and are able to vote for their candidate or position, which wins. They then disappear like smoke, only to be replaced the next vote by whoever gets their supporters to sign up that night as well.
This may be legal under our bylaws, but it just feels wrong. Shouldn't these votes be based on those people committed to the party on a long term basis? People who are willing to campaign for their position as a PCO? People who have paid their dues and attended a number of meetings? Last minute entries feels like, well, stuffing the ballot box.
The other reason I believe we should reconsider an endorsement for Mr. Hobbs. is that I honestly believe we have two capable candidates, and that the decision on who should represent us should be made in the primary, by all our voters, not by 5 dozen people in a room. I know this flies in the face of the county party leadership, who desire to have a united front behind one candidate. But I trust the voters. If we don't trust them, we place ourselves on the road to dictating the future, rather than participating in deciding our paths.
Not endorsing Mr. Hobbs sends the wrong signal. It states that we believe Lillian is the only qualified candidate. I admire Lillian for all she brings to this campaign - a fresh approach, passion, and the ability to excite the voters. But she is not the only qualified person to stand up in this debate.
This said, I have another technical question: I might have missed it at the meeting, but I never heard a report from the endorsement committee at last Thursday's meeting, stating what their position was on either candidate. Should that have been stated before the vote?
One last thing: I want both candidates endorsed, but I also want something from each candidate. I want a pledge from both candidates that they will make this a campaign of ideas, a campaign of vision. If there is anyone to be attacked, it is Dave Schmidt, for his policies and tactics. No one wins when we have two viable candidates who spend the primary shredding each other to bits. How about it, Steve? What say you, Lillian? Will you commit to this, AND will you instruct your proxies in this campaign (yes, I mean both you, the Progressive Caucus, and you, Organized Labor) to also abide by this pledge?
As always, I welcome your comments.
posted by Don Speirs @ 12:03 PM
14 Comments:
Please excuse the brevity of this response. I lack sufficient time to do it justice.
First, I don't recall hearing a report from the endorsement committee either. However, given the circumstances of the evening, I could easily have missed it. I know I felt a certain sense of urgency, wanting to get the endorsement vote done before it became necessary to vacate the building.
Next, I voted to endorse both candidates, believing it was in the best interests of the 44th to avoid another meltdown if possible. A dual endorsement, in my opinion, was the best way to achieve that goal.
That being said, an endorsement by the 44th represents a declaration of willingness to support. I don't think the vote count left much room for doubt on that point.
Any effort to "reconsider" or otherwise revisit an endorsement will by governed by the Standing Rules of the 44th, available at www.44thdems.org. Those contemplating such an action would do well to familiarize themselves with those rules. I personally believe the likelihood of achieving a different outcome is not promising.
Finally, as a member of the Progressive Caucus of Snohomish County Democrats, I take exception to the term "proxies" as applied to our group and others. While we have endorsed Lillian's campaign and will undoubtedly stand behind her in any way we can, we will not stand in for her. While we will speak in her favor, we will not speak for her. A better term might have been "supporters."
I don't believe that there was anything equivocal in the vote of the membership to provide a sole endorsement to Lillian Kaufer.
Contrary to the assertion of the original author, the meeting was not filled with strangers or one-time supporters of the Kaufer campaign. Instead, the room was filled with regular members of the 44th LD who have been involved in our district for quite awhile.
Anyone who has been paying attention to this race is well aware of the negative (and frankly slanderous) statements that the Hobbes campaign has been making (or at least allowing to be said on his behalf) about Lillian. These tactics are similar to those used by Republicans to discredit another strong woman, Sen. Hillary Clinton. I am not amused and talked to many people that night who felt the same way. I believe that the vote not to endorse Steve Hobbes reflected this sentiment, as well as continuing dissatisfaction by some members based on his actions in his earlier council race against Dave Somers.
Steve Hobbes could be a good candidate - but he has a lot to learn about what it takes to bring the grassroots members of this party together to win. It means you don't unnecessarily attack other Democrats to get ahead. It means you show us your vision and inspire us to get behind you.
We have seen all of that with Lillian Kaufer - and none of it from Hobbes. I won't reconsider the vote. I urge others to do the same.
I hear so much name calling from Lillian each meeting- the positive vs negative campaign talk is such a fallacy that I have a hard time taking the rest of your post seriously. Sorry. (long timers?.... was that what the rush of dues payment was all about?)Lies seem to be acceptable in the Kaufer campaign and that has lost her my vote.
REFERENCE: "the decision on who should represent us should be made in the primary, by all our voters, not by 5 dozen people in a room."
I believe citizens should get involved in a political party, hopefully the Democratic Party and the Party of the working folks (translated the working class). I am totally against your view that the non-active citizens should decide who the Party choosesand vets to run as a candidate or the Party platform.
Part of an elected official's duty is to educate her/his fellow citizens (all be it a majority of them) on issues and at times take an very unpopular political stand on an issue(s) because it is the most rational approach to solving a problem(s) in our civil society.
I am against a re-vote on the endorsement.
Steve Hobbs is a hero who has served several years in the Army and in Iraq. He probably got a dose of depleted uranium as a result of being in Iraq. He is a hard working Democrat.
I also voted for both Lillian and Mike, and was disappointed that the dual endorsement was not adopted.
In a race where the Republican incumbent is the sure winner of their primary, I think we do best by presenting voters with a choice in the Democratic primary. This draws attention to our candidates and improves our overall chances in the general election. Also, I don’t consider a loss in the primary election to be a loss if the candidate gets name exposure, experience campaigning, and is in better position to win in another election. This, of course, assumes our candidates keep the campaign positive and save their ammunition for the general election.
I think our endorsement should be a statement that the candidate is a real Democrat, who we would be pleased to see in office. We should not take an official position on who is the best Democrat.
The endorsement is what it is. It is making a statement of what those who voted want.
If you wanted to make a motion which states that the 44th LD feel Steve Hobbs and Lillian Kaufer "are real Democrats", you had the chance at the meeting to make such a motion.
The people of the 44th LD have spoken. We should stand fast on our decision to give Lillian our sole endorsement. I am not going to change my vote.
She shared her progressive vision for a better future for all in her speech at the Snohomish County Democratic Party Convention. I've seen Lillian testify eloquently before the County Council, the Mill City Council and the Hearing Examiner in the Wal-Mart site fight. She presents ideas logically and persuasively, and has grilled the opposition's expert witnesses very effectively. Lillian's brilliant, energetic, principled and dedicated. She is someone that I like, trust and respect.
I met with Dave Schmidt when I went to Olympia last January and February and lobbied for the Fair Share Healthcare bill. He said that he was against government mandates that might interfere with free trade. (I replied that the purpose of government in a free and stable democracy is to solve problems, and that we need fair trade and a level playing field.)
Lillian has my support because she represents such a strong and clear preferred choice in opposition to Schmidt.
I have asked my son, Ray minchew, former Executive director of Democracy for Washington, if he would write up a post on blogger's etiquette for us. I will post it as soon as I get it, if I can figure out how to originate a post. In the mean time, let me go on record as opposed to anonymous posters, especially if they are going to say inflammatory things. That also goes for those with cryptic IDs whose real identities are thereby concealed.
Jackie, I wholly agree with your stance on anonymous posters. To clear up any confusion, I posted the previous comment from "Karen," and I stand by my opinions publicly.
I take issue with this following statement
[...the decision on who should represent us should be made in the primary, by all our voters, not by 5 dozen people in a room.] I know this flies in the face of the county party leadership, who desire to have a united front behind one candidate.
The Snohomish County Democrats' Executive Board has not taken any action or had any discussion of the LD endorsements. In fact there has been very little informal discussion. I really wonder what discussion the statement above is refering to?
Please see Bob Chapman, chair of the Endorsement Committee, by virtue of his position as 2nd vice-chair for the timing and rules of this committee.
Jackie and Karen,
Some of us have our opinion and do not wish to debate it, in meetings or over email, with members who feel they are entitled to be verbally aggressivee with other active members for disagreeing with isolate point of view. It has really turned me off as of recent. We should be on the same team and remember what we are there for- and that does not invlove always agreeing with one another.
Anonymous posts in response to certain of our members seem to be the only way for me to avoid a barrage of unwelcome, unnessisarily harsh communications if we don’t agree with those particular members. It is too bad, and not very democratic, I agree. Your thoughts are welcome if you have ideas on how our district may learn to disagree without making people feel that they will have to field combative responses or dedicate time to argue points of view that aren’t up for debate (like behavior we witness in meetings we are all at...).
The approach of some members who support Lillian, combined with her actions themselves, do not behoove a State Senator in my one vote capacity of an opinion. Like you, I am entitled to one vote in an election that happens outside our meeting, and I believe that I do that anonymously as well.
Mostly this is to anonymous.
I thought I would fill you in on another perspective. The past year that I have been involved with the 44th - I attend about 95% of the meetings - I have observed repeatedly quite the opposite and here is why I support Lillian 100% and will not support Steve Hoibbs.
Lillian in the past year I have observed her has displayed constant passion for our causes, dedication to our platform, and never ending energy to volunteer at our many events. She has impressed me with her articulateness, her straightforwardness, her willingness to speak to power, and her knowledge about the issues. She is present 95% of the time, and she is always, always deeply involved and volunteering to work on whatever is going on.
I have also had the opportunity to observe Mr. Hobbs during this same period of time and the difference is amazing. I have never seen him speak out to ask questions of our guests, I have not observed any knowledge of the issues, I have not seem any display of dedication to anything but his own campaign, and I have never seen him volunteer for anything. Indeed, all he seems to do is show up, say “I’m Steve Hobbs” and ask us to vote for him. The difference is day and night.
I want a candidate with integrity and a track record, and, aside for his laudable service in the military, I have not seen any such thing from Mr. Hobbs. Lillian Kaufer has displayed both integrity and a laudable track record, and I have no doubt that we would be much better served by having her represent our issues in Congress.
Linda Meyer
Secretary
44th LD Democrats
Mostly this is to anonymous.
I thought I would fill you in on another perspective. The past year I have been involved with the 44th - I attend about 95% of the meetings - I have observed repeatedly quite the opposite and here is why I support Lillian 100% and will not support Steve Hoibbs.
Lillian in the past year I have observed her has displayed constant passion for our causes, dedication to our platform, and never ending energy to volunteer at our many events. She has impressed me with her articulateness, her straightforwardness, her willingness to speak to power, and her knowledge about the issues. She is present 95% of the time, and she is always, always deeply involved and volunteering to work on whatever is going on.
I have also had the opportunity to observe Mr. Hobbs during this same period of time and the difference is amazing. I have never seen him speak out to ask questions of our guests, I have not observed any knowledge of the issues, I have not seem any display of dedication to anything but his own campaign, and I have never seen him volunteer for anything. Indeed, all he seems to do is show up, say “I’m Steve Hobbs” and ask us to vote for him. The difference is day and night.
I want a candidate with integrity and a track record, and, aside for his laudable service in the military, I have not seen any such thing from Mr. Hobbs. Lillian Kaufer has displayed both integrity and a laudable track record, and I have no doubt that we would be much better served by having her represent our issues in Congress.
Linda Meyer
Secretary
44th LD Democrats
Many of the people that Mr. Speirs complained about had been coming for many of the meetings prior to that and did not just show up to cast their votes for anyone.
And, no, Ms. Kaufer did not pack the meeting with people to vote for her, which is exactly what Mr. Hobbs did last year. I know this for a fact because I was one who was invited to become a pco and to vote for him. She did call people to remind them to come, but refused to ask them to vote for her, advising instead that they come and vote for whomever they felt would best represent them. I see that as a stand full of integrity. You seem to complain on one hand that she packed the meeting, and yet proof that she did not is that when she called you she did not ask you to vote for her. And then you report that Mr. Hobbs did. Doesn’t that bother you? So it seems to me that it was Mr. Hobbs, not Ms. Kaufer, that attempted to pack the room. (Of course, asking people to come vote for you may not be considered a bad thing.) People voted for Ms. Kaufer because, as I, they too have been impressed with the energy, commitment, integrity and intelligence that she brings to the table.
And despite Mr. Speirs’ complaint that she has not made known what she stands for, Ms. Kaufer has broadcast her platform often in our meetings. I encourage Mr. Speirs and everyone else to take the time to go to her website- www.lillianforsenate.com - to see what she wants to accomplish.
Linda Meyer
Post a Comment
<< Home