Democratic Party tries to block non-Democrats

|
(66)

Once again, the San Francisco Democratic Party is considering ousting local Democratic clubs that endorse non-Democrats in nonpartisan races. It's crazy, and it goes back to the Matt Gonzalez era, and I don't understand why somebody keeps bringing it up. But there it is.

The local party operation, run by the Democratic County Central Committee, has to rewrite parts of its bylaws this year anyway, thanks to changes in state election law. (For one thing, terms on the DCCC will now run four years, not two, and elections will coincide only with presidential primaries.)

And among the proposed changes is an item to ban chartered Democratic clubs from endorsing, say, a candidate for San Francisco supervisor or school board who isn't a registered Democrat.

Now: It's always been pretty clear that if you're a part of the Democratic Party, and your club has official party sanction, you shouldn't be endorsing Republicans (or even Greens) over Democrats. So Dem clubs have to support Dems for president, Congress, etc. (Of course, with our top-two primaries it's possible, if highly unlikely, that a race for state Assembly could now feature a pair of candidates neither of whom is a Democrat, which would make things sticky. And under the proposed bylaws, a Democratic Club could still chose one of them.)

But never mind that -- the real issue is local government. Local races, by state law, are nonpartisan, and there ahve been plenty of progressive candidates who weren't registered Dems. In fact, this all goes back to the anger the establishment ginned up after Matt Gonzalez, a Green, very nearly toppled Gavin Newsom for mayor -- with the support of a lot of progressive Democrats. The Harvey Milk Club went with Gonzalez and some Newsomite tried to make an issue of the Club's charter.

Jane Kim was a Green when she was first elected to the School Board. Ross Mirkarimi was elected supervisor as a Green. And while the Green Party is in something of a state of disarray right now, it could make a comeback. And perhaps more important, the fastest-growing group of voters is decline-to-state -- and it's pretty likely that we'll see someone who isn't a member of any party run for office in the next few years.

There's a reason the state Constitution made local races nonpartisan -- and there's no reason Democrats can't endorse the candidates they think are the best in those races, without regard to party affiliation. The Milk Club, not surprisingly, is strongly against this, and so am I. It comes up Dec. 23; let's shoot it back down.

 

Comments

I believe Al Gore would have won the 2000 election, and we would not have had an Iraq War, if Ralph Nader had not run that year.

Posted by Troll the XIV on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 5:25 pm

Get real,the Greens had nothing to do with it. Gore couldn't even carry his own state in Tennessee. That should tell you something.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 1:33 pm

Gore would have won Florida (and hence the election) if it weren't for that 3% the Greenies won there.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 11:14 am

that the Dem's had a weak candidate. Gore was weak.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 11:38 am

This one is particularly popular because of its dual appeal.

Both reactionaries *and* their right wing Democrat allies just flip for this one: the latter group would like the blame shifted elsewhere and the Right seeks ever more distance from the reality of rigged electronic voting machines, bogus butterfly ballots, election day dirty tricks, high-dollar Repug "astroturf" challenging recount, and systemic targetted vote stealing against the poor and minorities due to the way voting machines were handled -- and most importantly, and *damningly*, voter caging.

Yes indeed this belongs on the top ten list.

So far, we have (unless I've lost count):

Presidents always move to the center
Progressive ideas are not popular
"Purity progressives" can't compromise
Nader lost the election for Gore

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 11:47 am

and attempting to divide the brothers and sisters of the progressive movement. Go away troll mole - everyone knows exactly what you are.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 1:24 pm

... but I did forget to include big lie #3 in the previous listing -- "All politicians are the same."

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 1:36 pm

because you claim the other party is telling a "lie", any more than calling people "trolls" when they disagree with you makes a compelling case.

Rather, it just makes it look like you cannot refute anyone, and so resort to ad hominem categorizations.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 1:49 pm

I know what you mean and the best alternative is to tell the truth. In this way for sure you can attract many people! At least that is my opinion!

Posted by Stuart on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 3:58 am

the far left could be as ridiculous as Lilli is.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 1:52 pm

supply you with a steady stream of discomfiture-arousing retorts.

Thanks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 3:24 pm

guess that tells us everything we need to know about the paucity of your positions. Your attempts to discredit the progressive movements are as lame as they are transparent.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 5:33 pm

and other than the hopelessly self-destructive and irrelevant Greens, there are no other parties except for the GOP and the libertarians.

So exactly what difference will this ever make realistically? The point of being a Dem is that you, er, are a Dem, ya dig?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 5:31 pm

Mirkarimi, the founder of the California Green Party, quickly jumped back into the Democratic fold when it became apparent that you can't climb up the political ladder here in SF unless you abide by da Machine Law.

I used to despise the Greenies for electing Bush, but they (and the Repubs) operate outside the "City family" fold, and hence merit some support for bucking the "city family/public-sector union bureaucracy" and its status quo.

Posted by Troll the XIV on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 5:32 pm

So... more than 11 months from now or is this yet another factual error Tim let slip by in a heated rush of emotion?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 5:39 pm

The Examiner's SFBG blog cannot afford a copy editor. So you'll have to abide by some errors now and then.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

January 23rd.

Posted by Common Sense SF on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 4:22 pm

It's because of shit like this that I want nothing to do with the misnamed "Democratic" party or its affiliate party, the Republican party. I abandoned the misnamed "Democratic" party years ago, shortly after they abandoned me and have been an independent since. I'm not like others who cling onto them, make excuses for them, continue to vote for them because of that phony D next to their name (i.e. "team" loyalty), and send them money no matter what they do while continuing to be part of the ever-growing problem (decay of this nation). That's the definition of a dysfunctional relationship.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 7:30 pm

Perhaps you can ask the President to beg for your return.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 7:57 pm

The point is for the Democrats to kick their left wing in the groin over and again so that they'll just STFU. The repression of Occupy was a significant data point. That is their job, what they get paid the big bucks to do.

Contrast this to how the Republicans have cultivated, incorporated and are trying to coopt the Tea Party.

People vote for Democrats running on liberal, sometimes progressive policies and they get center-right. People vote for Republicans and they get far right policies.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

Don't vote for Democrats.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 9:16 pm

That's the point, the Democrats cultivate and neutralize progressive and liberal voters with the intent to retain the duopoly lock.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 10:17 pm

it is a monopoly lock.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 10:34 pm

The democrats act more or less the same way the local progressives do and it's all so unfair?

The purpose of a party is to further the parties interests, which is following the dictates of their donors.

It's perfectly fine that the progressive establishment in the city flip flop on Olgue a couple of times. It's comical to watch the shifting alliances, if you want to get the progressive endorsement you need to toe the line. Quite simple

Why would someone expect the democratic party to operate any other way? If the progressives gained the central party of the city they would surely act the same way.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 2:59 pm

And under Obama with that faux-D next to his name, his policies overall have been to the right of those of George W. Bush, while Obama's devout believers make excuses for their "savior" ("go team go" is there sick mentality...the same people were in the streets when Bush was doing the same things). The anti-war movement is dead because there's a guy with a D behind his name in the White House. Damned Hypocrites. I read comments from people on occasion referring to Obama as "center." They're in Denial, a very common condition in the U.S. Is there something in the water? They are trying to sanitize and minimize their Obama merely because of that D behind his name. No one ever called Bush "center," and Obama is to the right of Bush and I don't think I need to go through the long list of examples of what I'm referring to under Obama: such as torture, illegal spying, drones wars, etc.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 11:22 pm

indefinite detention without trial for U.S. citizens. Never thought he would surpass Bush, but Obama wins the prize as the Orwellian president.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

Yes. Thank you for mentioning that.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

Only registered Democrats are eligible to participate in the corruption regime from below. Note that the Democrat elites have no compunctions about breaking political bread with Republican libertarian billionaires like Moritz and Conway.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 7:49 pm

Moderate Democrat elites, that is.

This is clearly retribution against the most progressive Democratic Club in the City for not endorsing moderate Democrats, plain and simple.

Posted by Common Sense SF on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 5:02 pm

"moderate Democrats" = conservatives, "plain and simple."

I thought I'd use your "plain and simple" sheeple language back at you.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 6:07 pm

Putting aside your bizarre vitriol, you have a point. But it depends on how you define conservative.

If you define conservative only as pro-monied interests, then you are correct: moderate Democrats in SF are conservative. But if you define conservative only within the framework of cultural issues (gay marriage and abortion rights, for example), then moderate Dems in SF are not conservative at all.

Is that plain and simple enough for you?

Posted by Common Sense SF on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 9:47 pm

all conservatives seek to retain and expand personal power over others.

The economic conservatives do this through their laisez faire economic agendas, the religious conservatives do it through their repressive religious dogmas.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 10:10 pm

"then moderate Dems in SF are not conservative at all."

You're in Denial. That's why we have sit-lie/Prop L (2 versions of it, the second version authored by a conservative politician who labels himself as "moderate"). That's also why we have a nudity-ban.

Who campaigned for sit-lie (which makes the homeless and street people criminals)? Sit-lie was part of the campaign of a certain conservative politician who labels himself as a "moderate." Sit-lie won in the wealthy areas (Pacific Heights, for example) and was funded by conservatives. google it. Who came up with the nudity ban law which the conservatives also love. Again, it was a certain conservative politician who labels himself as a "moderate." I could give other examples.

Does your Denial serve you well? (Rhetorical question).

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 10:35 pm

I don't disagree with you on those points. SF is much more moderate (or shall I say, conservative) than most people realize. Which makes this stupid de-chartering proposal that much more heinous. (Talk about spiking the football in the end zone.)

Posted by Common Sense SF on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

I remain registered Dem because I don't want to leave the still substantial local party machinery entirely to people like Rob Black and Scott Weiner, and their sycophantic trolls of the sort you see here.

However, things like this, is why I refuse to contribute any money or time to the local party right now. If certain Democrats are voting for non-Democrats, the best response is to look inside your own organization, and find ways to make your own candidates and party more compelling to those voters, rather than trying to punish them. Unfortunately, whenever the so-called "moderate" faction gains control, they don't seem interested in doing the kind of work needed to make the party attractive. Instead, they seem focused on punishing people, excluding, and settling scores -things like trying to kick progressives off the committee, piling on on Ross, and punishing Democratic clubs.

I help campaigns I feel are important on an individual level, but contribute time and money to the party as long as Mary Jung's ideological faction controls it? Hell No!

Posted by Greg on Jan. 18, 2013 @ 10:50 pm

This is a interesting post considering how Olague sort of had then lost the progressive vote, then the progressive golden boy seemed to lose it and Olague was back on top of the progressive flow chart.

" Instead, they seem focused on punishing people, excluding, and settling scores"

The progressive island seems quite hard to stay on at times, any out of step action results in the boot and some serious hectoring by the old crones around the cauldron.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 1:45 am

Repetitive troll. Don't you know any other tune?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 9:55 am

The progressive demand political purity, they go into fits when someone they consider their own strays from the fold. Nothing makes a true believer more angry than apostate.

When something supposedly bad is done to them by the larger party bosses the "progressives" are victims while the larger party is a petty operation bent on revenge and conformity. When the progressives manipulate and scheme and try and enforce party doctrine it's just good business.

Greg your on-going incoherent self serving ravings crack me up. Calling me a troll doesn't make your total lack of self awareness any less comical.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 2:00 pm

Many progressives looked at me cockeyed when I told them that I was standing with Christina, as well as Julian and John until election day.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 5:59 pm

Not your dogmatists.

Bob Packwood was pro choice and a republican.

Having him lose to a pro-life republican because of visions of purity would have been wrong.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

The problem is that on most important issues--Wall Street and the wars--the Democrats enact the less batshit crazy aspects of the Republican agenda instead of anything resembling a center-left or even a centrist agenda that one would characterize as Democratic.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 9:40 pm

as a modality to express one tendency towards sexual predation -- and, of course, wanton corruption is totally out!

Hmmm... I *do* wonder, though...

What *were* in those missing pages of his diaries whose existence he first fibbingly tried to conceal from Congressional investigators, and was ultimately allowed to keep under wraps?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 10:25 pm

the GOP. Both fringe groups who must either compromize or be irrelevant.

The moderate majority don't much relate to either.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 6:33 am

"The moderate majority don't much relate to either."

Considering there is no such thing as a "moderate majority" no matter how many times you put that lie out there.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

The idea of "purity" is constantly being brought up to insinuate that Progressives aren't ever able to compromise. All Progressives ever *do* is compromise -- and that's what gets them into trouble!

This is the foundation of another lie -- a big backwards lie -- because it is the reactionary right which is prone to idiotic recalcitrance in negotiations.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 12:31 am

When progressives compromise, they get into trouble.

Best to stay on the Ideological Purity track. Even if the plane crashes as a result.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 6:55 am

big troll lie #2 that Progressive ideas are not popular among the American people.

The main reason Progressives are asked to compromise is not because of the disagreement of the American people, but because of the corporate henchmen in office doing their masters' bidding which is at odds with American values.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 9:10 am

Both progressives and real conservatives agree that government should not be run of, by and for Wall Street and the war industry but should be run of, by and for the people.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 11:09 am

though once upon a time I thought I did.

All conservatives want to be able to exercise individual personal power over others.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 11:57 am

Yes, Greg is pure. You are impure. Deal with your impurity. Wash.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 6:52 am