Demz strike at PD

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Should we care

Poll ended at Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:25 pm

yes
11
41%
no
16
59%
 
Total votes: 27

madozone
Forum Addict
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:07 pm

Postby madozone » Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:21 pm

Donald wrote:No, the law doesn't require you to be Independent, but it does require you to run without party identification or nomination.

That is interesting. Where is the line between nomination and endorsement? As far as support goes, they seem to mean the same thing, so the difference appears to be semantics.

Lascow
Forum Addict
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 6:47 pm
Contact:

Postby Lascow » Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:32 pm

madozone wrote: Because winning is more important than helping the best candidate

Dems and Republicans both know all about that don't they???

madozone wrote:Why are you picking on Andy? I've been far more vocal in this thread than he has.

Hmmmm... :roll:

madozone
Forum Addict
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:07 pm

Postby madozone » Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:44 pm

Lascow wrote:
madozone wrote: Because winning is more important than helping the best candidate

Dems and Republicans both know all about that don't they???

I never said anything about the Democrats or the Republicans being innocent and pure. Parties are in it to win so that they can advance their agendas. I don't see PD as being any different despite rhetoric implying otherwise.

gozer
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 1:35 pm
Location: everywhere
Contact:

Postby gozer » Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:50 pm

The executive board of the Democratic Party has unanimously adopted a policy that would prohibit any of its endorsed candidates from being endorsed by or belonging to another party,

they already did this in 1994 after tim bruer, a member of the republican party* tried, with the help of wayne bigelow, to get the endorsement of the democrats.

i.d.p.f. forons and dem board members who can't remember this should give up their positions and leave us alone.


----
* i have the floppy and printout from the member ledger in the relevant period -- fuck u very much mr bruer

zulch
Forum Addict
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:39 am
Contact:

Re: Demz strike at PD

Postby zulch » Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:45 pm

Stu Levitan wrote:Local Democrats are striking back against perceived slights from Progressive Dane.


Boil it all down and it's not that the PD's don't have any common sense, it's that they seem to want a free ride and mooch off the tit of the Democrats when they run out of party money.

I'm sure the Dem lists have been bootlegged and duped on CDs and hard drives all through the Isthmus by the PDs, so let's just let there be an airing out and see what is going on as 2006 comes up.

Maybe the PD leadership will have grown up by then. Then they can talk to the adults.

Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am
Contact:

Postby Brenda Konkel » Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:05 pm

You know, i've had enough of this crap . . . who cares?

I'm a PDer/Green who was a Dem(endorsed in 2001), am not any more, don't need them, cuz they have nothing to offer and were a headache to work with - they took longer to decide to support something than the city council! Locally, they don't do anything and I wasn't "pure" enough for them. Many kudos to those higher up who I continue to support (Pocan, Baldwin, Miller, Berceau, Feingold), we're lucky to have you. But . . . any local candidate who is relying on the Dem list to raise money or their "elections support" better start knocking on some doors and getting in-district support. Money doesn't win local elections, voter contact, face-to-face does. Haven't we all learned that yet?

I hope they pass their silly policy. Go ahead, alienate a bunch of members needlessly and make several elected officials "choose sides" and then what?

The Dems will have less elected officials and less members but it won't matter, because they don't do anything to support their local elected officials during the year and a half between elections, which is what really matters. What's the point of helping elect someone if you don't support them and help them pass local initiatives once in office?

Too many keystrokes have been wasted on this topic, can we talk about something that matters? This is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time and energy.

Donald
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2662
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:53 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Postby Donald » Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:21 pm

Here's the problem with Brenda's assessment, and why I think PD and the Dems should just get out of what are supposed to be nonpartisan elections: it all hinges on issues other than the needs of the constituents in the district. First concern is money to run. Second concern is supporting elected officials' inititiatives. Third concern is who gets credit/blame. It's just this sort of arrogant and corrupt thinking that led to the demand for Non-partisan Voting back in the 1910s.

zulch
Forum Addict
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:39 am
Contact:

Postby zulch » Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:11 am

Brenda Konkel wrote:I'm a PDer/Green who was a Dem(endorsed in 2001), am not any more, don't need them...

The Dems will have less elected officials and less members but it won't matter, because they don't do anything to support their local elected officials during the year and a half between elections, which is what really matters.


Despite what you may think, it does take money and connections to get the work out. Waving pamphlets or flyering State Street won't do it.

I thought the point of all this is that PD wants to have the keys to the Dems lists and resources to fit their needs and then bitch when they don't realize that they are acting like moochers and opportunists and get caught red-handed running opposing candidates.

You can't have it both ways. Sometimes it's common sense that has to shake up groups like PD.

Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am
Contact:

Postby Brenda Konkel » Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:31 am

Donnie Boy - you grossly misinterpret what I was saying. My post was in response to the accusation that PD sucks of the tit of the democratic party and we just want their list. That couldn't be further from the truth.

As for if parties should be involved in local non-partisan races, they are just one piece of the equation. Belonging to a politicial party/being endorsed by a political party is a choice that shouldn't exclude one from seeking office. I can tell you when I was out circulating my nomination papers, people who I didn't know asked me what party I belonged to before they signed my papers. In addition to having endorsements by political parties, candidates seek many other endorsements, including those of neighborhood leaders. Believe me, my neighborhoods would not support me if they did not think that I represented them well. Believe it or not, we can be more than one dimentional in our representation, in fact, we are required to do so. We need to represent our districts while looking out for the needs of the city as a whole. Political parties that support their elected officials are very helpful in keeping us in touch with our neighbors and neighborhoods. When we are at work all day and in meetings every night, that support is important. A good example of this is that PD helps elected officials organize listening session for people in our districts - Beth Gross and I recently had one that was very informative and helpful and we plan to do them quarterly.

Zulch - As far as I know, PD doesn't have a position on the Dem party policy. And we won't before the 12th. I don't think that we care what the Dems do. However, some of our members, those with dual membership care. Frankly, I don't know why people have dual memberships - either you think third parties should exist or you don't. Having said that, I was one of those dual membership folks for years. But I made my choice, I hope this new Dem policy makes others do the same. That's just my opinion. Even tho I'm co-chair of Progressive Dane and on the Steering Committe - I'm not speaking for the party when I say I don't care what the Dems do. Us individuals in PD are allowed to have our own opinions after all!

madozone
Forum Addict
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:07 pm

Postby madozone » Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:28 am

Brenda Konkel wrote:I wasn't "pure" enough for them

I am ignorant of the historical context of this statement, and confused since a "pure" Democrat is as rare as a solitary quark, which is to say almost impossible in nature. Could you enlighten me as to what happened?

Brenda Konkel wrote:they don't do anything to support their local elected officials during the year and a half between elections, which is what really matters. What's the point of helping elect someone if you don't support them and help them pass local initiatives once in office?

This is a valid point. FWIW, I hope that what you speak of will change. I don't believe a national party can exist for long without proactive local parties as its base.

Brenda Konkel wrote:Too many keystrokes have been wasted on this topic, can we talk about something that matters? This is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time and energy.

I don't appreciate you implying that my disagreeing with things that Michael and others have said is a waste of time and energy. I've learned a few things and about a few people this last week through this discussion. It was hardly a waste for me.

I do believe that given what happened in November with Kerry's loss and the way the Democratic party has handled itself in the last couple of decades, this kind of discussion needs to happen. The Democrats are clarifying, for others and themselves, who they are. I don't know how the January 12 vote will go, but I hope it will mean that my party starts to find itself again and be proactive on the local level rather than reactive to the national level. The county Democratic parties are the basic quanta of the national party, everything should start and end with them.

Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am
Contact:

Postby Brenda Konkel » Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:22 am

Well, even in 2001, the excuse to not endorse me by some, was that I was a member of Progressive Dane. I ended up with the dual endorsement with the person who survived the primary . . . Rex. I didn't get any resources from the Democratic Party as far as volunteers or assistance running a campaign. I can't recall, but I don't even think they wrote me a check. Rex, because he worked in the capital, got a ton of dems supporting him, but they didn't live in the district. I concentrated on talking to people and knocking on doors and won with 55% of the vote. It was the final straw for me and I didn't renew my membership.

As a side note, the work I had tried to do within the party was a complete failure as well. Before I was elected I attempted to get their support on two ordinances. One which would make it discrimination if a landlord refused to rent to someone solely because they recieved Section 8 (federal housing assistance payments). The other one was to say that landlords could not have a requirement that you make three times the amount of your rent in income unless they allowed you to show that you had paid a similar amount of rent in the past.

The response of the Democratic Party was to haul then Mayor Sue Bauman and then Apartment Association President Eileen Bruskewitz in to the Democratic Party meeting and have a debate. The Dems ended up supporting neither, thanks in part to now chair Wayne Bigelow.

I'm pretty sure that both items fit well within the platform. I'm also pretty sure that I had wide-ranging support from members, who signed on to efforts to have these initiatives pass. Leadership and elected offiicals however dragged their feet . . . and it is one of the reasons I ended up running for office, was able to grow the Affordable Housing Action Alliance to over 100 faithful members and became so active in Progressive Dane.

I ended up just quiting the Dems. I didn't even keep up my membership for the endorsements because - someone was right earlier on this board - it was the only time I showed up to meetings, because there was nothing else to offer in the Democratic Party locally.

I appreciate your opitimism, but I don't think the local party will change. I've been around for 15 years, and there is talk from time to time of revolution, but it never happens and I don't see the energy or commitment to create the change from within.

BTW - I didn't mean to imply that the things you have said are a waste of time, in fact, your comments here almost made me hit reply on several occassions. I believe you have added to this discussion. I just meant that people are burning resources on this, when we should be focused on elections and issues at the council. The fight for the soul fo the Democratic Party is personally, not my problem anymore, but I admire you desire to make things change and I wish you luck.

madozone
Forum Addict
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:07 pm

Postby madozone » Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:03 pm

Brenda Konkel wrote:(...) The response of the Democratic Party was to haul then Mayor Sue Bauman and then Apartment Association President Eileen Bruskewitz in to the Democratic Party meeting and have a debate. The Dems ended up supporting neither [ordinance]

Were the issues dropped because of opposition to them, or on a broader "we don't get involved in city issues" justification?

ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash
Contact:

Postby ShaneDog » Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:11 pm

madozone wrote:
Brenda Konkel wrote:(...) The response of the Democratic Party was to haul then Mayor Sue Bauman and then Apartment Association President Eileen Bruskewitz in to the Democratic Party meeting and have a debate. The Dems ended up supporting neither [ordinance]

Were the issues dropped because of opposition to them, or on a broader "we don't get involved in city issues" justification?

If the Democrats aren't going to "get involved" in city issues, why bother having a local party. The Democratic Party should have as it's main goal, to implement policies that correspond to the party platform at the City, County, State, and Federal government levels.

madozone
Forum Addict
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:07 pm

Postby madozone » Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:50 pm

ShaneDog wrote:If the Democrats aren't going to "get involved" in city issues, why bother having a local party. The Democratic Party should have as it's main goal, to implement policies that correspond to the party platform at the City, County, State, and Federal government levels.

I concur, which is why I asked Brenda about what happened three years ago.

Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am
Contact:

Postby Brenda Konkel » Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:18 pm

It would be hard to say for which reason . . . the one I remember most vividly is . . .

"We have democrats who are landlords and we need to be careful"

Which, is just silly, because there were landlords who supported the effort and we needed those landlords to step up. I would hope that the landlords in the democratic party were willing to listen to the issues and were not the ones saying that low income people cause crime.

I suspect the bigger reason was the Mayor Bauman was a democrat and she wasn't in favor of the proposal and they were protecting her because at the time she still was considered a good mayor.

I don't recall the "we don't work on local issues" line being used, but I do remember that it seemed like they weren't sure what to do with a local, concrete proposal before them.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests