State Rep. Chris Hurst (?-31) has started identifying himself on his campaign website as an “Independent Democrat,” which I suppose as far as bullshit, swing-district, campaign rhetoric goes, isn’t so remarkable. (Cowardly, disloyal and whiny, yes… but remarkable, no). But word is he’s planning to take his pouting subterfuge to the next level by identifying himself on the ballot as “Prefers Independent Democrat Party”… and he’s reportedly urging several colleagues he presumes to be equally cowardly, disloyal and whiny, to join him in pissing on their own caucus.
Yeah, well, that sorta transparent gamesmanship may be acceptable from the lying bastards in the Prefers Grand Old Party Party, but if Hurst and his cohorts want to deny the Democrats, then I say turnabout is fair play. Any candidate who refuses to identify himself as a Democrat to voters simply can’t be trusted to uphold Democratic values and unity, and thus should be denied any party support during the election. Furthermore, should Hurst or others follow through with their petty little game, I wouldn’t mind seeing them stripped of their caucus rank and committee chairmanships.
After all, it would be unfair to voters to allow Hurst to run as an “Independent,” yet serve as a Democrat.
Playing games like this with the ballot is both a disservice to voters and an insult to the rest of the caucus, so if Hurst and others are so disgusted with their fellow Democrats that they can’t bear to identify themselves as one, then I suggest they man up and start their own party.
UDPATE [Lee]: Hurst also happens to be the biggest roadblock to getting even basic drug law reform passed through the House. If being an “independent Democrat” means putting law enforcement union special interests over fiscally responsible and morally sound progressive policy, then it might be worthwhile for the voters of the 31st District to send someone else to Olympia.
While I’d prefer everyone use the correct and consistent label on the ballot, it’s important to remember that it was liberals who began splitting up the caucus creating the Blue-Green coalition. Moderates responded with the “Roadkill Caucus” but obviously that’s not the sort of thing you put on your campaign literature. So Independent Democrat is fine by me.
And if you think disloyalty is bullshit, that’s fine too…. just make sure you ask Republicans what it feels like to be in the minority in the Legislature first. I’m saying this because if you demand loyalty from swing-district Democrats that’s exactly where Democrats will find themselves.
By the way, Google put a Charlie Crist ad on this post. Just thought it was funny given the context. :)
Derek @1,
I don’t expect the Democratic caucus to maintain the same sort of party unity the Republicans demand, and I have no problem with Dems voicing differing opinions, or dividing themselves up into various sub-caucuses. What I have a problem with is Democrats refusing to identify themselves as such to voters.
Just because our dumb-ass top-two ballot allows candidates to lie about their party affiliation, doesn’t mean we should tolerate it when candidates choose to do so. I was critical of Dino Rossi and his deceptive “Prefers GOP Party” bullshit, and reserve the right to heap the same sort of scorn on Hurst should he do the same.
WTF is an “Independent Democrat?”
If you don’t like the Democrats or the Republicans than the by all means run as a plain old Independent.
The way I see it, we have two caucus groups in the Legislature. Who happen to call themselves Democrats and Republicans, and most of whom have substantial loyalty to their party group. With a single member district system (versus proportional representation), having two dominant party groups is extremely likely. And with our “Top Two” system formally ending party nominations, people can call themselves whatever they want to get on the ballot and try to win election.
So if Chris Hurst is willing to join with the Democrats in organizing the House (or standing with them in opposition in the event the Republicans ever end up getting a majority again), then he should be accepted as a member of the Democratic caucus and given whatever he should normally get (based on seniority).
However, if committee chairs are assigned on the basis of popularity, instead of seniority, then someone other than Hurst can be chosen for a chair if he isn’t as popular with the caucus.
And it sure would be nice to put a REAL Democrat on the ballot in the 31st. If enough Democrats are pissed off with Hurst for lukewarm loyalty (and Hurst doesn’t draw enough independent leaning voters), then he can be knocked out of a runoff spot for the general election.
@3
Exactly. NO ONE is required to run as a Republican or Democrat. It’s just the political children on here that assume all life is represented by these 2 random groups. Belong to the socialist, communists, fascists, neo-nazi, one-legged-albino-Canadian party. Whatever you want. Or be truly independent. The only trick is you don’t get the “big party” money and organization support. But whatever, that’s up to these guys.
I agree, don’t be like cowardly Dino Rossi…either you’re a Republican, Democrat, or something else. You don’t “prefer GOP party”. That’s totally BS way of trying get the big party money and organization while pretending to not support them. That’s one of the main reasons I lost ANY last respect for Rossi.
@Goldy – Yeah, I think I somewhat misread your post initially. I agree that attempts to deceive voters on the ballot is wrong.
What’s even worse than Christopher Hurst’s weak semantic effort to distance himself from his own party is that he is using Republican rhetoric to criticize his colleagues as “Seattle liberals.” Whatever happened to the Democratic mantra of One Washington?! Now it’s us rural moderates against them Seattle lefties?!
Hurst and the other Roadkillers are just afraid they’ll lose their jobs. With their fingers to the political winds, they are shifting their positions rightward. Until this year, none of them gave a crap that Tim Sheldon’s liquor store privatization bill died without a hearing — for each of the past 20 years! But this year, supporting Sheldon’s effort became corporate bona fides for the Scaredy-Dems. Their party didn’t change, they did.
And this is how majorities disappear. They get more concerned about maintaining their majority, keeping their job and disproving their critics than they do about representing their party ideals and base constituencies.
Wah, wah, wah Goldy. What is your issue with Chris Hurst? Is it because he didn’t climb on the Burner Bandwagon in 2007 and told everyone about it, as he knew BETTER than you on Burner’s real prospects in the 8th?
This was Hurst in 2007:
And here’s your take:
Well, gee, Goldy, I guess I’ll take Hurst’s views on what it will take to get a Democrat elected in his district than you, given your respective prediction powers.
Lee:
Hmmmmm….I wonder which one will get Hurst elected? You want a moderate Democrat or ANY Republican? That’s your choice here. Better to get 50% of what you want or 0%?
Both of you sound like progressive versions of those stupid tea “They ain’t conservative enough!!” baggers over at SP.
Labor Goon @ 7:
That describes the cowardly leadership in the Legislature and the Governor’s Mansion more accurately. The fact that I-1077 had to be filed AT ALL proves it.
@8
Hmmmmm….I wonder which one will get Hurst elected? You want a moderate Democrat or ANY Republican?
I want a moderate Democrat. Hurst is not a moderate Democrat. He’s an extremist Democrat. Anyone who believes that marijuana decriminalization is a threat to our state is an extremist.
You were doing fine, Goldy, until the “law enforcement union” tangent. Hurst has one of the worst labor voting records in his caucus. He most assuredly isn’t doing anything to help any unions. If you want Hurst’s support for decriminalizing marijuana send some business lobbyists to go talk to him.