Whoops. Rodney Tom supporters were likely buoyed by the list of endorsements his campaign emailed out last week when he announced his candidacy for Dave Reichert’s congressional seat in WA-08, but that list seems to be shrinking day by day. First King County Democratic Chair Susan Sheary denied she had endorsed Tom, and now 48th LD Chair Doug Hightower tells me he too should not have been included on the list.
I talked to Hightower today to get his take on the primary race between Tom and Darcy Burner, and he told me that he was “neutral,” and didn’t know how his name got on the endorsement list. Hightower insisted it was “too early” for party officials like him to take sides.
Consultant John Wyble graciously offered to “take the fall” for the erroneous email announcing Tom’s “run for Congresss [sic],” and I suppose it is only a minor embarrassment for both Tom and his campaign. Still, a candidate running mostly on the strength of his five years of experience in the state legislature should probably have enough campaign experience to know that it’s not such a good idea to claim endorsements until, um, you know… you actually have them.
King County Democratic Party Chairwoman Susan Sheary attended his campaign-kickoff announcement, and Tom — erroneously — claimed her endorsement, too.
He said later that support for him is obvious “when you’ve got the King County Democratic chair behind you,” and added, “She is fully behind me.”
Not so, Sheary said: “I have not endorsed anyone and will not. I was there only as a party leader because he had invited me. But I will stay neutral in the (primary) race.”
By the way, I’ve been talking to political insiders, pundits, wags and other members of the courtier class, trying to get a gauge on the conventional wisdom surrounding the Burner/Tom primary, and Hightower’s take was pretty much in line with the consensus: it’s good for the Democrats and a bad, bad sign for Reichert. Two term incumbents are usually unbeatable, yet Democrats are champing at the bit to take him on — compare that to Jennifer Dunn, who basically ran unopposed for much of her career.
And while Burner may not have wanted a primary opponent, almost everybody I’ve spoken with believes the challenge will be good for her… you know, with the possible exception of those few deluded folks who actually think Burner might lose.
David, who takes endorsements seriously anyway?
Party chairs do not normally personally endorse in primaries anyway, or most elections for that matter, and never officially, since it conflicts with their orgs’ endorsement function. The deal with Suzie was probably a simple misunderstanding of his with her and this practice (Tom rarely got the endorsement of the R orgs, much less their leaders, esp. in 2004). Hightower is a brand-new chair who did not understand this approach, he is only 6 months into the job. He is obviously now backpedaling.
The players remember early endorsement screw ups. This is an early lesson Tom will surely not repeat again.
The primary race is good for the party and bad for the Sheriff. Both will be beating up on him and growing their name ID through the primary campaign.
Whomever wins will be better off (unless it gets dirty) and the Sheriff will be damaged.
I thought is was odd to see Doug standing next to Rodney Tom when he announced his candidacy. Since the 48th hasn’t endorsed a candidate, it was out of place for him to portray any kind of backing by literally being behind Tom at that moment.
Daniel K. @ 4:
Doug knows what his job is better than you do. Rodney Tom is a Democrat. Doug is the Democratic Party chair of Rodney Tom’s District. What kind of message would you expect it to send if he hadn’t been there?
Goldy,
Most candidates would have the common sense to exercise their right to vote prior to running for public office, but Darcy didn’t.
Most candidates have some achievements and involvement in the community to showcase their skills and put forward as examples of their leadership, but Darcy didn’t.
Those candidates who don’t vote, or have community involvement are looooooooooooooooooooooooooosers, Just like Darcy. She is a dim wit, dull bulb, and hard on the eyes. Darcy….an less graceful, uglier, Hiedi Behrens Benedict.
Ivan – I’m not saying that Doug shouldn’t have been there, but he wasn’t just there, he was by Rodney Tom’s side. If that doesn’t look like an endorsement I don’t know what does.
[Deleted — Darryl]
I don’t care who wins the Democrat primary in this race. But I will have a bit of smug satisfaction in fall 2008 when all of you Darcy fans have to eat sh*t and campaign for a formerly nominal Republican turned nominal Democrat who supports photo ID at the polls, opposes the death tax and supports charter schools. tee-hee.
@9 Dead people don’t pay taxes, and there is no “death tax.” Only living heirs pay taxes. Hey Stefan, can you explain to me why heirs should get a tax exemption of $2.5 million on income they did nothing to earn, when workers get only an exemption of only a few thousand dollars on the income they sweat for?
So now the talking point is that competition will be good for Darcy. Who knew?
Let’s see…..
Q: Why did Darcy lose the first time?
A: The experience issue.
Q: What does Tom have that Darcy still doesn’t have?
A: Um, oh yeah! Experience!
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a big Rodney Tom fan – but he has her beat on the issue that turned out to be her achilles heel last year.
Stefan @ 9 – You simply point out various issues with Tom that will turn Democrats off – keep it up.
Of course Republicans may try to vote as Democrats in the primary, but if they do, wouldn’t they want to select the candidate you think is least likely to be a threat to Reichert?
Oh, and who the heck says “tee-hee” anymore these days?
6 G
I live in the 8th CD. I would have loved to see Heidi beat Jennifer Dunn, but it wasn’t going to happen. Heidi never broke 40% and usually got 35% or less. And in the 2004 Democratic primary she came in 3rd in a three-way race.
Darcy Burner, on the other hand, wone her primary unopposed and in the general election came up with 48.54% to Reichert’s 51.46%. A 1.47% swing would have elected her.
Not just “not Heidi” but the smartest candidate and best campaigner we could have asked for to challenge Reichert. She showed gumption, organizing smarts, was a great speaker with the right views, and I supported her then and I support her now.
And she uses less hair spray than the Grey Fox.
12 Willis
You opinion is, I am sure, endlessly fascinating to you, but would you care to enlighten us as to any empirical basis for your contention that this was the cause of her narrow, narrow loss? Do you have, perhaps, exit polling data or some other means by which you have acquired this knowledge?
Because people less dazzled by the brilliance of what you believe might think, you know, that you just pulled it out of your ass.
11 Patrick
Why not? If rising US casualties in Iraq can be “good news for [Republicans/the president/supporters of the surge],” why can’t we claim this?
It seems to me Rodney Tom has a huge trust issue to overcome in the 8th. Not to mention a very iffy voting record on issues such as the estate tax. Darcy has never been anything less than organized, hard-charging and very, very bright. I’d rather have someone inexperienced, but a fast-learner, than someone I can only trust to play to his own political advantage and to change sides, just as the district changes from red to blue.
Rodney Tom thinks he’s a better match for the district because he’s more conservative. But the true conservatives will never vote for a turncoat. In reality, his job is to attract the 1/3 of the 8th CD voters who consider themselves independent, yet who support progressive social issues. The more they know him, the less they’ll like him.
Tom is not particularly well known outside his 48th LD and Olympia, despite growing up in Pierce County. Darcy, on the other hand, is now known throughout the district. Her campaign knocked on 100,000 doors. Obviously, the more they got to know her, the more the voters liked her. Brains, trust and credibility go a long way. Her opponents are lacking in one or another, or all three.
Rule No. 1 of political endorsements (for politicians): NEVER EVER claim the endorsement of anyone who isn’t willing to put their signature on a piece of paper.
Rule No. 2 of political endorsements(for us voters): Don’t put too much credence on lists of endorsements. They can be a helpful sort of shorthand, sometimes, but are also subject to an arcane bunch of rules, practices … e.g., organizations will endorse a “safe” incumbent over a challenger, not wishing to risk the ire of the likely winner. Endorsing organizations can have different sets of criteria, or none. Sometimes, yes, politicians claim endorsements and are corrected … as sometimes, erroneously claimed endorsements don’t get corrected.
Rather than dwelling too long on the endorsement list, find out what the candidate thinks about the issues, how he/she’d go about solving future problems …
SaraJane @16
As a criticism of Rodney Tom Sara states:
“Not to mention a very iffy voting record on issues”
Sara, at least he votes, that is a hell of a lot more than Darcy Dumbass.
Sara…
Darcy brains = too stupid to exercise her right to vote
Darcy trust = with what, the flower club cash box
Darcy Credibility = Lying about you life and your resume
Darcy is a younger, dumber, uglier, repeat of Heidi Behrens Benedict. Darcy is a loooooooooooooooooooser.