I’ve apparently pissed off more than a few Democratic Party establishment types in recent weeks. Oh, it’s not my reaction to the past legislative session that’s causing consternation; most rank and file Democrats were disappointed, if not downright disgusted at the cowardly all-cuts budget, and leadership’s generally pro-business/anti-progressive agenda. Some legislators too.
No, apparently, where I’ve crossed the line, is not in criticizing the Democratic caucus, but rather in suggesting what I think is an obvious solution: specifically, that if we’re not being adequately served by our Democratic legislators, perhaps it’s kinda, sorta, maybe time to replace them.
Judging from some of the comments and emails I’ve received, the mere suggestion of primarying a Democratic incumbent in a safe Democratic district brands me as traitor, a blowhard, an idiot or some combination thereof. Yeah, the establishment hoo-hahs love me when I’m raking muck on Republicans or doing my best to squash the conservative frame on some manufactroversy or another. But attempt to be taken seriously on a policy issue or dare to dip our toes into electoral politics and… well… we lowly bloggers are scolded to know our place.
The irony is, we all know there’s a fair share of deadwood in the Seattle delegation, along with a handful legislators who simply aren’t as progressive as their constituents on a number of important issues, such as pay day lending, the homebuyers bill of rights, tax restructuring, and more. Indeed, start this conversation at nearly any political gathering, and the same names keep popping up again and again, the usual suspects of Democratic incumbents who deserve a serious, well-financed primary challenge, and who just might not survive should they face one.
So why don’t I name names, as some in the comment threads have challenged me to do? Oh God, I’m tempted, but coming from a lowly blogger like me it would only come off as a personal hit list, and do little more than earn me animosity from those legislators on it, some of whom I personally like, even if I think it past time for them to move on and give somebody else a chance at getting stuff done before Republican Rob McKenna seizes the line-item veto pen.
No, the names have to be named by you, so that everybody knows that everybody knows who the weak links in the Seattle delegation truly are. And that’s why starting today I’m launching a series of polls to enable you in our local Democratic community to name these names yourself, and help pick the Seattle legislators most in need of a primary challenge.
Our first poll, now live at the top-right corner of the home page, pits all 12 House incumbents from Seattle’s 11th, 34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd and 46th Legislative Districts against each other in an open primary. Feel free to vote for more than one; the top House vote-getters will face off against each other in a “loser takes all” general election of sorts, as will the four Seattle state Senators up for reelection in 2010.
Oh, and don’t everybody just vote for Frank out of a sense of retribution; pick the reps who you genuinely think are most out of step with their district and/or have proven themselves least capable of bringing home the bacon for Seattle and the progressive community at large. And as a tie-breaker, I’d also suggest considering which incumbents would be most vulnerable to a serious challenge, should one materialize.
There might not be much room to elect more Democrats to the Washington state legislature, but after this last session, I think we can all agree that we could certainly elect better.
Since I live in the 35th I have no problem with the concept of ousting incumbents that call themselves Democrats but fail to stay in line with Democratic principles and ideals. However, it has been my experience in attempts to defeat incumbent Sheldon in his re-election bids for both senate and the county commission that this is much easier said than done.
People are afraid of retaliation so there are very few that are willing to open their wallets and take the time to work on an opponent’s campaign. The biggest reason is that these efforts have always proved futile. He raises buckets of money from all the wrong places, as will any Seattle incumbent that draws a challenger from the left. Then they become even more beholden to organizations like BIAW. It’s a viscous circle that moves the caucus even further to the right. The end result is that the re-elected incumbent is no longer beholden to the organizations and individuals that supported their opponent, and often pretty pissed off because you know these campaigns get nasty.
So far these tactics have not worked. Neither has trying to move them with our money because the other side can always outspend us.
I think we need to throw very strong support behind the few that have been down in Olympia carrying our water to give them the political clout they need to move into positions of leadership. That and get clean elections legislation passed. Otherwise, we’re just in for more of the same.
Take out Santos. The leadership needs to get the message and Chopp, for better or for worse, isn’t going to be losing anytime soon.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
Well, a sample of naming names, starting from the top:
Frank Chopp, whose biggest fans include Tim Eyman and the BIAW’s Tom McCabe.
Judy Clibborn, who stuck a D next to her name when she first ran for a partisan seat. Because that’s the way the wind was blowing at the time.
There are plenty more – but I’ll let others weigh in.
Whoever you choose to take out, cut down on the first-person references — 17 by my count in the above file.
It’s not about you: It’s about the incumbents, what they’ve done or not done, and the voters.
Goldy, great idea! In addition to the poll, and in an effort to make this more fun and educational, which is kind of how you run things here at HA Seattle, you could also have these representatives be on a fictional sporting team…let’s call them the Seattle Incumbents. Let’s also say that HA Seattle readers are known collectively as the General Manager of the Seattle Incumbents, and our job is to put the best team on the field day in and day out and try the win the game. This last legislative session brought some decent bills up for discussion but did the Seattle Incumbents step up to plate and hit a home run? Did they advance the runner or did they at the very least hustle? I think this is what you are getting at Goldy by having the poll as it appears you and some of your readers agree, the Seattle Incumbents didn’t do what it takes to win the game and in some cases it appears our team was trying to lose the game. As part GM of the Seattle Incumbents, I just don’t think we’re a good team. To have a good team you need a good leader or team captain and our team captain is not a good Democrat or leader, he has to go. We need a replacement for Frank Chopp.
WA State has a largely undeserved reputation for being a progressive stronghold.
For most people, it’s more than enough mental effort to figure out how the system works, let alone how to fix it. That’s why it is so aggravating for a duncible like Mr. Cynical to carry on about how worldly he is and what he knows of the way the world works.
It’s taken him a lifetime to achieve what other people had at the age of 14.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
@5 Calling out someone else for first-person is hilarious, considering the self-focused column Connelly recently published complaining about how much Erica Barnett hates on him, why Andrew Villeneuve’s “outfit” should be more generously bankrolled, and (again) about the time he made tea for Bill Ayers:
http://www.seattlepi.com/conne.....oel29.html
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
In the 1st district, candidates are unopposed as in no other candidate on the ballot. It’s pathetic. Developer/builder interests are very active in Snohomish County.
“Hates on him” — Bad grammar is the signature of a backbiting, bitter crank. Anonymity is a signal that the crank is also a coward.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
Although every district gets to choose its representatives (and that’s as it should be), there are 49 districts in the state, 62 or so elected Democrats — out of a total group of 98. No SINGLE legislator is responsible or able to deliver the goods, Goldy, and targeting one or six isn’t going to solve the problem.
The success/failure of the entire body is a function of the GROUP (the caucus as a whole). Any group — whether its a caucus or a basketball team or a nonprofit group trying to provide some social service — has to have the ability to (1) come together and articulate an agenda, (2) hold itself accountable for it success/failure at delivering that agenda. I absolutely agree that we fell short of the mark this year … the House’s overall work product was not particularly cohesive. But targeting any individual legislator and saying, “oh, toss ’em overboard,” on that basis is a bit too facile.
I don’t know the answer here; I’m still mulling over what is an incredibly complicated group dynamic in a very large group. But keep on poking at it, for sure. That’s better than silence or doing nothing.
Rep Deb Eddy
Some new players and a better coach are in order.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
Well, well well. First the dems are condemned (ha, ha) for being ball less, then the condemmnor refuses to name names, depriving us of his superior knowledge based on …paying attention for a few years.
Very spineless Mr. Goldy. Sorry. But you obviously have opinions. Too scared to share?
And Rep. Eddy, I don’t know you. But you are there. Why don’t YOU give us your suggestion for a key short list of an agenda around which to unite?
Not sure of what to do?
Then excuse me, you’re not doing your job.
It’s sickened to continually hear bold calls for bold leadership, followed the next year by bold calls for bold leadership, followed the next year by bold calls for bold leadership.
It’s totally spineless to sit there and condemn the way things are and not even have a hint as to a solution, exept for your bold calls, for bold leadership……
to be undertaken by others.
Heh, very nice!
@joel – um, pot kettle black?
[Deleted — off topic, see HA Comment Policy]
Geez – two deletions/editorial actions. Whew. Somebody must’ve been ‘way off topic.
I am NOT in charge here — too junior, as the sluggish seniority system in the legislature goes. But IMHO, any Democratic agenda needs to be pretty specific, identifying positive actions that show support of working people (AND the business community) supports sustainability/the environment, provides prudent investment in infrastructure and education (all levels), the sum total of which should be to give average Washingtonians and their families a higher quality of life and more opportunity for advancement. The whole idea is that our tax dollars are investments; we should be able to identify the return on that investment — whether it’s a collectively healthier and better educated population or a better transportation system.
The real issue is, for Goldy’s purposes: how do you hold individual legislators responsible for the failure of the GROUP? Incumbency in this country is reputed to be higher than Soviet Russia. We all think the government is doing a lousy job, but seem to love our individual legislators or congressmen.
The collective responsiblity used to be through the parties, but as they have become more polarized, it’s harder to see how that really works, except in the extreme.
/deb
Deb Eddy @ 20,
“Geez – two deletions/editorial actions. Whew. Somebody must’ve been ‘way off topic.”
Only deletions. When we have posts on substantive topics, off-topic posts may be deleted according to the HA Comment Policy. The comments I deleted were, indeed, way off topic.
We provide plenty of open threads where anything goes….
Deb,
What you don’t seem to get is that people in the Seattle metropolitan area expect their reps to speak out, stand up and fight to push the agenda to the left. Sure, you will lose some battles. Better to have fought and lost, thus putting a progressive argument in the public view so that it can become part of the broader policy debate, than to sit back and let the conservatives from the east side of the state set the agenda time and again. This is a problem on the national level as well. However, it is much easier to have an effect on the local elections. I will not be voting for any incumbents in the next election – not for school board, city council, mayor, state legislature or anything else. I’m done with the lot of you – I’m done voting against stadiums only to have the vote over turned. I’m tired of voting for new infrastructure and then watching as the city forces revote after revote until the item they don’t want finally loses. I’m tired of living with the most regressive tax structure in the US, of people being cut from basic health, of my representatives continually folding under the slightest pressure from the right while ignoring the pressure of their own constituents.
I long for some cajones in city, county and state government on my side of the aisle for once. 45 years of milquetoast faux leadership has left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Deb @14,
You’re right, no single legislator is responsible for the past session, but you have to admit, some legislators are better at their job than others. And some legislators better represent their districts than others.
Nothing wrong with a little competition.
I absolutely agree, nothing wrong with a little competition. :-)
Watching this caucus group evolve is really fascinating, though … and trying to figure out precisely what would make it more effective is a real challenge.
Worf, I DO get your disaffection with your rep, and your right to raise hell and replace him/her. My only cautionary note is — the replacement of one or two or even six individual representatives may not change the results, the dynamic for the LARGER group of 60+. Something else has to happen.
Why the hate on Mary Lou Dickerson in the poll? She has the third most votes, after Chopp and Tomiko-Santos.
Mary Lou almost single-handedly saved the GAU program this year, after the governor and many in the legislature wanted to decimate it. She said she would commit suicide in her office before she would let GAU be scrapped, and she won.
Also, while most of the legislature was content with an all-cuts budget, Mary Lou and Eric Pettigrew sponsored a temporary sales tax increase to fund health care. It included rebates for low-income people so it wouldn’t be too regressive.
My biggest fear this year was cuts to social services which would pull the rug out from our most vulnerable citizens. Mary Lou fought tooth and nail to minimize this impact.
So I don’t get the hate in the poll. Can someone tell me why Mary Lou should be primaried? Just because someone has been in Olympia for awhile doesn’t mean they’re not bold or progressive.
Deb,
Thanks for your comments. I have been saying for quite a while that we need people in the Dem caucus who have the ability to bring people together to focus on a collective agenda. Are you and others willing to help us figure out 1) who those leaders are who are capable of bringing Dems together and 2) what “sluggish seniority system” rules need to be changed and how that might occur. Online or offline.
At pretty much every Dem party gathering I’ve been to over the last 8 years or so and in the messages I used to get from the district (before I stopped going to meetings and being a PCO) the Dems have celebrated the fact that there are no challengers in primaries. Unless we have some sort of public financing of elections and/or PR/IRV style reforms this is not likely to change.
@27
“Unless we have some sort of public financing of elections and/or PR/IRV style reforms this is not likely to change.”
I think this is probably the most important and likely way to make a difference in our state system.
Many have said, and I agree, that the current Democratic caucus behaved cowardly this session and therefore it’s time to cut many of them loose.
The phrase ‘more and better democrats’ comes to mind.
But another part of this thread has been the idea that there was no real debate about important issues from a progressive point of view. This is not surprising because of our two-party system.
Instant run off voting where many ‘other’ party candidates can have a real shot and changing the primary debate as well as allowing the voters a different way to express their desires would be very good for our community.
I voted for Tomiko-Santos, because narrowing all the problems in education down to “not enough multiculturalism” isn’t going to get the problems solved.
If this was a statewide poll, I’d have gone for Alex Wood, mainly because we had a much better candidate in John Waite who couldn’t get a look because of how the 3rd LD works.
Lynn: Contact me through deb@debeddy.net anytime. Will be glad to discuss. There are more and more folks recognizing that we NEED a collective agenda (no, we do not have one), and there ARE better ways of bringing people together to accomplish actual WORK. Any assistance from Democratic ranks would be SINCERELY appreciated!!!
@30
I have to agree that there needs to be a collective agenda for:
1. Legislative Democrats representing Seattle.
2. Legislative Democrats representing King County.
3. Legislative Democrats representing Central Puget Sound (King, Pierce, Kitsap, Snohomish counties).
4. Democratic Legislative caucus as a whole.
Hopefully none of the above would conflict with each other. Also I could see other counties, regions, etc coming up with their own agenda such as the East King County legislators.
Furthermore the legislative agendas can both feed into city and county council agendas as well as form a basis for an agenda for the Democrats in our congressional delegation.
Chris: I do NOT think most issues are geographically determined, especially at the state level. A few are, but for instance, EDUCATION is critically important all over the state, regardless of address … as are aspects of transportation like FREIGHT MOBILITY and MAINTENANCE. Dems ought to pretty much share the same opinions on these sorts of issues.
It is true that energy/environmental issues may be viewed a bit differently, depending on whether your electricity is provided by PSE or by a PUD that is exempt from I-937.
We aren’t giving up in the 39th. It is an uphill battle battle but we will continue to work to get a quality Democrat or two elected to the state legislature.
Gary Sell
Chair
39th LD Democrats