Monday, April 10, 2006

Dems Explain Endorsements

Chris Beresford, Vice- Chair of the local Democrats, explains a little about their candidate endorsements in the Eureka Reporter today. I like the way he refers to "erroneous statements" being made, rather than "lies", as is sometimes done.

Interesting to know what their policies are. I'd be even more interested in what the behind the scenes reasons are for their endorsements. For instance; Just exactly why have they endorsed Gallegos over Dikeman, and Neely over Marks?

I suppose the Neely endorsement is, as I mentioned before, pragmatism vs. partisanship; Not only is Neely pretty left leaning, she has the advantage of incumbency, so she's their best bet. And, after all, this 4th District race is all about the Ballon Tract, so they need to go for their best bet.

But Gallegos over Dikeman? I'd like to know the behind the scenes talk that led to that one.

33 Comments:

At 9:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The HCDCC has declined to endorse Richard Marks but could not and has not endorsed Bonnie Neely. Only Democrats can receive such endorsements. Also, no endorsement has yet been made in the race for District Attorney. Additionally, Chris Beresford is a female. How about getting YOUR facts straight? It might help the credibility of your blog.

 
At 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Gallegos endorsement is prettey much a done deal. At least that what Riggs has said. The subcommittee that recommended it is compromised by persons who are actively campaigning for Gallegos and voted before the meeting to endorse him. Hopefully, the more intelligent remaining members will stop this. When it comes down to it if 2/3 of the committee members vote this stupidly concocted power grab through it is going divide the party. Dikeman is infinitely qualified and the HCDCC should stay out of it and let the People decide based upon the issues that come out over the next 8 weeks. This is not what the dems should be wanting in the next round of elections.

What I am staggered by is that the dems haven't even held a forum or a debate for the two candidates and they are both democrats. Hek, the republicans are holding one for both candidates so they can discuss the issues. The question begs the answer why Patrick Riggs doesn't want his boy Paul and Dikeman to go at it on the issues.

 
At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If that staggers you, what do you think about Dikeman's approach? He either did not read the by-laws of the democratic party prior to slinging criticism of the process, or he did read them and is, ahem - misrepresenting the truth. Not the kind of lawyer I want representing the people. Pity he couldn't be straight, because I hear he is a good prosecutor.

 
At 10:38 AM, Blogger Fred said...

9:06 wrote: "How about getting YOUR facts straight?"

So you're saying the Democrats can't endorse a non- Democrat in a non- partisan race? This snippet from the ER article didn't actually say that, but, perhaps they didn't want to sound like they're bringing partisanship to a non- partisan race:

"The state party by-laws specifically extend the authority to make endorsements in “local nonpartisan offices” as “the exclusive responsibility of the relevant Democratic Central Committee.”

I stand corrected, I guess, in the DA race endorsements although he's the obvious favorite, as 10:19 suggests.

As far as a Neely endorsement, I suppose I got that impression since all the bigwigs; Chesbro, Berg and the rest, have endorsed her. Probably not the same as a CCC endorsement, but close enough, and only the bylaws prevented that.

Obviously a little hostility from you in bringing up that Beresford is a female. That's an honest mistake anyone could make with a name like Chris.

If I hadn't already known Pat Riggs was a male, I might have made the same mistake with him.

I made the same mistake for years with a libertarian named Pat Wright. I thought Pat was a female for years until he ran for Lt. Governor and I discovered SHE was a HE.

 
At 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree. dont the by law say:


1.2 Purposes: The purposes of This Committee are:
(a) To encourage and promote public interest and participation in political
activity;
(b) To use all means to assure public understanding of the principles and issues
involved in national, state, and local elections;
(c) To support actively Democratic candidates for elective office; and
(d) To urge citizens to register and vote Democratic.

and

1.4 Policy of Fair and Open Access and Procedures: This Committee is committed to
the California Democratic Party’s general policies of publicizing its activities in
advance, of conducting public meetings that are open to all Democrats, of helping
all interested persons know how they may participate in the activities of the party,
and of promoting the broadest levels of registration, representation, membership,
and participation by all Democrats regardless of race, color, creed, national origin,
sex, age, religion, ethnic identity, sexual orientation, disability, or economic status.

and

3.6(c) The Secretary shall take minutes of This Committee and the Executive Board
andand shall be responsible for sending to every member notice of each regular
meeting together with an agenda and the minutes of the previous meetings of This
Committee and the Executive Board. Such notice, agenda, and minutes shall be
sent at least ten (10) days prior to the next regular meeting or one (1) day following
the meeting of the Executive Board, whichever is later. The Secretary may also send
these materials to other appropriate persons or entities. Subject to the direction of
This Committee, the Secretary shall be responsible for This Committee’s
correspondence, the preparation of official committee resolutions and reports, the
transmission of such materials to appropriate persons and entities, and the keeping
of committee records. The Secretary shall send the notice prescribed by Sections
2.11, 3.4, 5.3, 6.2 (b), or 6.4 (a) of these Bylaws, except that upon the Secretary’s
inability, unwillingness, or failure to act, any Member may send the Notice prescribed
by Sections 3.4, 5.3, 6.2 (b), or 6.4 (a), and any Member designated by the
Executive Board may send the Notice prescribed by Section 2.11.

It simply is a fact that the endorsement procedure in nonpartisan is not used a lot and it seems that there are many other provisions in the by-laws which have been ignored here.

Frankly - this just doesn't smell like "Fair and Open Access and Procedures."

I am praying that cooler heads will prevail on this and that the real issues get to be discusses.

What is also really troubling is that if this slides through then any other dem will risk being ousted if they choose to listen to the issues and support Dikeman. For example:

2.11 Resignation and Removal: A member may resign upon tendering a written
notice of resignation to the Chair or Secretary or upon any notice to This
Committee’s satisfaction that the member no longer meets the eligibility
requirements of Section 2.2 above. This Committee also may remove a regular
member, except an Ex Officio Member, for the following grounds:

(d) Publicly advocating that voters should not vote for the Democratic nominee for
any office, or giving support or avowing preference for a candidate of another
party or unaffiliated candidate who is opposing a candidate nominated by the
Democratic Party. However, this provision shall not apply when This Committee
itself or the California Democratic Party has disavowed a democratic candidate or
nominee whose views are inimical to the basic principles and tenets of the
Democratic Party. (EC §7215).


I would like to think that the more reasonable members of that committee would like to avoid what looks to be an awful PR problem. One can only hope!

 
At 10:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If my judgement is correct, no amount of outside mud-slinging will keep this particular central committee from voting it's conscience. The goup consists of New Deal Democrats, Old-fashioned liberals and Mike Thompson moderates. Hardly a progressive conspiracy, though the group includes people who call themselves progressives (in the sense that government can help all of us make progress). Progressive is a word like Fascist with many meanings. After all, Teddy Rooseveldt, one of the most warlike imperialists (as well as environmentalists) to ever land in the White House. Back to work...

 
At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But I still wonder why no forum or no debates by the dems for candidates for their own party? And why did Patrick say his subcommittee had decided before the meeting took place?

Democratic principals are about fairness, openess and I hope that the topic of discussion goes back to the issues instead of why the central committee is even considering this.

Beresfords article does good in defending their position regarding endorsements. Too bad it didn't discuss the issue of endorsing one dem over the other before the issues are even totally discussed. To me this is bigger. No matter what the HCDCC does, I will vote my conscience on election day - after hearing everything from both candidates.

For instance - I want to know why there is no domestic violence program left in our county. Why no sexual assault program - why victim witness was almost lost - why child abuse has been gutted. This stuff matters to me as a liberal voter.

I want to know from each of the candidates why Gallegos can't get experience or keep experience in the office. I don't want to hear about non-issues to the job like anyone's position on Measure T. To me that is a red herring.

I guess the real question is why the local dems aren't trying to educate their constituents with actual information as opposed to wasting time over this. And this is not the only race that they are looking at endorsing one dem over the other.

I say stop the silly infighting and start talking about the issues.

 
At 1:51 PM, Blogger Fred said...

12:50 writes," I still wonder why no forum or no debates by the dems for candidates for their own party?"

An interesting question, indeed, as the Republicans are hosting a forum for both candidates this Thursday. More info in the Times- Standard article below:

http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_3693239

 
At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do I get the feeling that the Republicans will welcome Dikeman as one of their own...

 
At 2:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why do I get the feeling that the Republicans will welcome Dikeman as one of their own..."

Because he is strongly backed by Arkley. The Republican vote will follow the ER endorsements down the line.

 
At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt it is an Arkley thing although many want to make it so.

Two dems running against each other here not Arkely.

I'd like to see the issues addressed instead of just letting the argument degenerate to one of Arkely - he is a non issue to me. I resent things always being twisted into its "Arkely" this or that- its annoying and misses the point.

I'll repeat the only pertinent question:

I am staggered that my own party hasn't even held a forum or a debate for the two candidates and they are both democrats.

I am troubled that this is a divisive issue.

I am concerned that if the matter is not left to the voters (as opposed to the committee) that this will ultimately hurt my party and this community.


Let the candidates talk about the issues. This is only starting to take place.

 
At 3:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Let the candidates talk about the issues. This is only starting to take place."

Of course. Public Forums are essential, no doubt.


This doesn't have much to do with Arkley other than the vote those who follow his endorsement, which includes the vast majority of Republicans in Humboldt.

 
At 4:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:25 how is asking the party not to endorse "stinging criticism? This I don't get at all. I also don't get why all the contempt for a life long good democrat who has worked for this community for over 25 years. I am a democrat and I don't like the way this is spinning. Please stop it. The issues that have been raised are too important.

 
At 4:52 PM, Blogger Fred said...

3:18 says:

"This doesn't have much to do with Arkley other than the vote those who follow his endorsement, which includes the vast majority of Republicans in Humboldt".

So... you're dismissing this candidate forum, and defending the Democrats, of course, because the Republicans are sponsoring the candidate forum. So,this is some conspiracy?

I'll have to say, the lefties are REALLY losing it one this one, as I see it.

More shameless behavior, from the Left, as I see it. I've seen a bit of shameless behavior from the Republicans, as well. But, this defense of Gallegos, the Democrats, and the rest, pales in comparison with this local issue.

 
At 4:57 PM, Blogger Fred said...

10:25 wrote: I also don't get why all the contempt for a life long good democrat who has worked for this community for over 25 years. I am a democrat and I don't like the way this is spinning. Please stop it. The issues that have been raised are too important."

Seems to me, 10:25, it's time for you to join the growing number of people that register "Decline To State".- Fred

 
At 5:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Fred I am 4:20 not 10:25. I was just responding to 10:25.

I am just about there Fred. My sense of right and wrong is getting too offended by this.

 
At 5:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess it's just a prediction, but I still assume the majority of Republicans will vote Dikeman regardless of what they would ever learn in the Forum. I think the forum would be much more benefitial to the Dems who are undecided. Republicans are decided. Period.

 
At 6:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The HCDCC has heard speeches from both candidates and has had written material submitted by Mr. Dikeman. HCDCC members have even paid to attend Dikeman fund-raisers to meet and discuss the issues with Mr. Dikeman and his supporters. Both candidates are highly public figures running in a very high-profile race. Most of us know plenty about these candidates. You people should be complaining about Bush/Arkley etc., not about those patriots who are trying to support good government by volunteering to serve on the central committee. Most activists believe they are doing the best they can for our country, regardless of party. It really is too bad Dikeman has probably blown his opportunity with his own party. Well, I've wasted enough time for tonight. God Bless America -- Another good democrat.

 
At 7:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Touche!

I wonder how many bloggers here attend City Council and BOS meetings... at least Fred gets out there once and a while.

 
At 9:10 PM, Blogger Fred said...

2:44 wrote: "Because he [Dikeman] is strongly backed by Arkley. The Republican vote will follow the ER endorsements down the line."

That may or may not be true. Funny, how the last time around, the Arkley's backed Gallegos. No word I've heard yet as to who they're backing this time.

I'll wait until I hear some official word on that, not speculation from an Arkley hater who doesn't even have a good memory of recent history.

 
At 7:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 6:31:

If three minutes is "a speech" then I speechless.

The HCDCC shouldn't endorse in any of the nonpartisan races.

It should hold a forum for the rest of the dems so they can make an informed choice.

---Another good Democrat

 
At 8:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred:

Did you and 9:06 read the T-S which referred to Beresford as a "he" instead of a "she"?


Seems like Beresford is admitting that the HCDCC has not historically pitted one dem over the other until last fall. Isn't this the problem? This is the result of "new party leadership."

No this stinks

Bring on the forum oh my party and let us decide for ourselves.

signed,
Dem and proud until now of it!

 
At 9:09 AM, Blogger Fred said...

8:12 asks "Did you and 9:06 read the T-S which referred to Beresford as a "he" instead of a "she"?".

Actually, I hadn't noticed that although I suppose I could have subconsciously picked up on it and assumed it was some guy.

More likely is I just made the same mistake the T-S did.

 
At 2:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the dems changed their policy when Pat Riggs took over.

He thinks the HCDCC is his own private little club.

 
At 3:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HCDCC is a body of elected democrats representing the population of each supervisorial district in proportion to the percentage of registered voters in each district who are democrats. Patrick Riggs enjoys immense respect due to his hard work and dedicated, honest patriotism. The "policy" as you refer to it, goes way back before Patrick on both the state and local levels. Apparently the democratic endorsement means more than it used to, probably because the republicans under W have screwed the country up so badly. If anyone is lurking around private clubs it would tend to be republicans. The democratic party (for all its faults and foibles) remains the party of the people, for the people, and by the people. Don't be afraid of the dems - join them!

 
At 4:40 PM, Blogger Fred said...

3:51 writes: "The democratic party (for all its faults and foibles) remains the party of the people, for the people, and by the people. Don't be afraid of the dems - join them!"

Sorry, that's WAY out there. Not saying anyone should join any party, but this crap about Democrats being, for the people and by the people, is WAAY out there.

Not saying the Republicans (or the Greens) are for and by the people, either, but your suggestion is strictly a partisan plug.

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HCDCC voted last night. What was the result?

 
At 10:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They voted not to endorse Geist - a sitting County Supervisor who they could have been proud to endorse.
They voted to endorse Gallegos. The entertained a motion to ask Dikeman to step down and let gallegos run unopposd

Riggs did not recuse himself. Did Higgins?

You can see the headlines - It was Rigg-ed!

 
At 12:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What was the vote? Numbers please.

 
At 4:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After initially divided testimony from registered Democrats on whether the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee should endorse District Attorney Paul Gallegos in his bid for re-election, Central Committee members overwhelmingly voted in the affirmative.

The discussion continued well into Wednesday night, but the results were clearly conclusive: 20 members voted to endorse, while one voted against and one abstained.

 
At 11:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like the part in the article where they say they did their homework. Yeah. Not by looking at the issues. Not by really interviewing the candidates. They did their homework on whether or not they could endorse the guy they planned to endorse all along. What was the point of having both candidates attend?

And, if they were going to be consistent - why not endorse Geist, also an incumbent, and one which they can be proud of?

 
At 10:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best part is Bob Ornelas switching from Green to Dem because the HCDCC serves his purposes much better than the Greens. Ya gotta love it!

 
At 9:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home