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.