Ideally, you will have read the introductory post first — but if you’re here to “cut to the chase,” that’s fine. I mean, we’re not going to do that, but you can skip down if you want to be left confused. We’ll see you when you come back up here.
This ADEM has 24 female candidates and 20 male candidates (the actual terms are “self identified as female” and “not [that]”), which is … a lot. I know of two slates: one that seems to be more of an establishment slate (though it contains some leftish progressives) called “Orange to Blue,” which contain Loretta Sanchez and is endorsed by Katie Porter, and one with the initials UPD (I think that’s for “United Progressive Democrats”) that is promoted (though not endorsed) by the Courage Campaign, I find worthy candidates (and some less so) in both slates, so my choices will be a mix of them and some independents. You may end up wanting to read some of their statements — and you can do so at this link. (Just navigate to District 68 from the drop-down menu.)
As noted in the introductory post: the first principle that applies given the attack on the ADEM leg of the three-legged stool, discussed in the introductory post, is that if someone can easily get an appointment from a PLEO (party leader or elected official), and if that won’t compromise their positions, then that’s the leg of stool where they belong — not this one. Here, they’re edging out someone likely tied to the electoral grassroots, which is what the party needs. There, they’re just going to enjoy the convention and vote as their candidate’s Chief of Staff directs. That’s not what we need on the DSCC (Democratic State Central Committee — the governing board of the state party.)
Men:
Avinder Chawla, Doug Elliot, Eugene Fields, Felipe Macias, Grant Henninger, Jeff David, Joe McLaughlin, Ken Warfield, Lee Fink (EB), Mani Kang, Michael Lekawa, Mike Stern, Nicolas Pedreira, Patrick Fuscoe, Paul Lucas, Ryan Friesen, Stephen Banta, Steve Newman, Victor Garcia, and William Derr.
The first question is: is there anyone here who is really NOT from the grassroots, but really belongs as an appointee of a PLEO? There’s one suspect in this group, Obama Administration lawyer Lee Fink, but he is running for E-Board, for which the most straightforward track is to be elected as an ADEM. So I don’t disqualify him based on the high likelihood that he could be appointed by a PLEO if he did not prevail in this race. (To state my interest: Fink and I have worked together on a case, but aside from giving me respect for his intellect I don’t think that affects me.) (Is he an ally, a skeptic, or a foe, in the drive to make electeds more responsive to grassroots activists? I honestly don’t know — let’s ask him!)
Fink is on the Porter-endorsed slate; I think he’s an obvious choice — particularly because of his interest and expertise in voter protection, which will be an issue as Republicans try to claw back Democratic gains in 2020.
Other males on Porter’s slate are Chawla, Henninger, Kang, Lekawa, and Pedreira. Mani Kang has been a DPOC activist for many years and is knowledgeable and reform-minded; he’s the other obvious male choice from this slate.
Henninger is a moderate pro-business type. He’s the only one in this group who I think is far closer to the electeds than the grassroots, and I see also no change that he could not find an out-of-district PLEO appointment. I fully expect to see him in DSCC regardless, which is fine, but it ought to be on the electeds’ leg of the stool. Correa would be one of many a likely appointees. (Porter would, I think, look elsewhere; Henninger doesn’t seem like a Warren type.) So he’s off of the list.
The UPD slate’s male choices are Elliot, Fields, McLaughlin, Warfield, and Fuscoe. They all have good stories to tell. In choosing the cream of this crop, I’d go with Doug Elliot (who has been a consistently involved and incisive online commenter) and Joe McLaughlin, of whom I was unaware before reading his statement, but who made a powerful impression of knowing his stuff.
Those independent of slates are Macias, David, Stern, Friesen, Banta, Newman, Derr, and Lucas. Yes, CDP needs some Paul Lucases in its midst, and Lucas happens to be one. The others seem nice, but not automatic picks.
So where does that leave us?
Avinder Chawla, Doug Elliot, Eugene Fields, Felipe Macias, Grant Henninger, Jeff David, Joe McLaughlin, Ken Warfield, Lee Fink (EB), Mani Kang, Michael Lekawa, Mike Stern, Nicolas Pedreira, Patrick Fuscoe, Paul Lucas, Ryan Friesen, Stephen Banta, Steve Newman, Victor Garcia, and William Derr.
From the 14 in plain-face type, we get to pick two. Hmm. Not easy.
I’ll tell you what: I’ll do half of the work for you. The seven of these who impressed me most, based on their statements, are Chawla, Fields, Warfield, Leskawa, Stern, Pedreira, and Macias. That’s three O2B, two UPD, and two independents. (I made my picks blind to their status) You should certainly consider the other seven if you’re disposed, but if you want the field narrowed down, there you go.
From his self-description, I think that Pedreira seems like a good candidate for appointment by Rep. Porter (or a negotiated outside appointment arranged by Porter.) I do have two that I think I’d pick, but I’d prefer to leave it up to you to read those statements and make up your own mind based on what you value. You can also leave one slot blank in case Henninger is elected (not unlikely.)
So here’s where I end up:
- Doug Elliot, Joe McLaughlin, Lee Fink, Mani Kang, Paul Lucas
and one or two from:
- Avinder Chawla, Eugene Fields, Ken Warfield, Felipe Macias, and Nicolas Pedreira.
None of the others really frightened me, though. It’s a good batch!
Women:
Ashleigh Aitken, Branda Lin, Bridget McConaughy, Danielle Serbin, Deborah Wilson-Ozima, Diana Guerini Bolt, Gina Onweiler, Jane Hartley, Karen Cohn, Kris Erickson, Loretta Sanchez, Louise Adler, Marissa Waldman, Melanie Weir, Naz Hamid, Patty Yoo, Rachel So, Ronni Stewart, Sadaf Agha,, Samantha Simon (EB), Sherri Loveland (EB), Tammy Kim, Tina Arias Miller, Vicky Schulte
First order of business — is there anyone who should be tossed out to the PLEO pile? I see four possibilities: Loretta, Aitken, Adler, and Loveland.
Loretta should drop out of the race — and she should do so immediately before she screws up her candidacy for Supervisor. You probably could not find a more obvious PLEO appointee than Loretta Sanchez: not only did she give Kamala Harris a run for her money in the Senate race, but her sister is still a powerful Member of Congress, who could appoint her outright or arrange for her appointment by anyone right up to Gavin Newsom or DiFi. (OK, maybe not Nancy Pelosi!) The only outcome of her running for ADEM is to take away one spot that would otherwise go to one of the activists you see in that list above! How does that help her win her Supervisorial race? It’s just a mind-bogglingly stupid insult to the party’s grassroots — and it’s exactly the sort of dunderheaded striving to please to boys in power that make me worry that she is going to be a disaster in office. And I want her to win! So, please — save Loretta from herself and don’t vote her in as an ADEM.
Sherry Loveland should stay in the race anyway, given that she’s running for E-Board, but she’s on this list because the contacts she’s made as Chair of the National Women’s Political Caucus means that she would get consideration all over the place. Or maybe I’m overestimating her fame. Either way, she stays.
For those who don’t know, Louise Adler is the widow of longtime Democratic heavy hitter Howard Adler. If she wants to be on the DSCC she could almost certainly receive a PLEO appointment — and honestly, I wish she would. I get the sense that she’s more progressive than her former husband, the co-founder of the Democratic Foundation with Richard O’Neil and a couple of others, so this is not about her taking pride in her work on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The problem is that she’d make it onto the DSCC anyway and the woman whom she will edge out of a delegate position will likely be a good activist with strong ties to the grassroots — and taking that woman’s spot is both unnecessary and a shame. On a personal basis, I don’t like having to endorse against someone of the stature and character of Louise Adler, as I’ll have to do here, because she is an impressive activist and deserves better than that. But the grassroots leg of the stool is under attack, and anyone who has an alternative route to the DSCC should take it. (If you didn’t read the introduction, this is where you realize that you should’ve!)
Finally, let’s consider Ashleigh Aitken. Should she stand aside? Nope — she is, quite literally, too good for that. By “too good,” I mean that she’s taking positions on Anaheim matters that could pose a problem for whoever appointed her. If appointing her would be an act of courage, then there’s certainly a possibility that it wouldn’t happen at all. I find it incredible to imagine that this narrowly defeated Mayoral candidate with ties to Orange County Democratic political royalty might seriously be better off being answerable to the people, rather than held on a leash by an appointee, but watching the insanity taking place in Anaheim it certainly seems to be a possibility. So, yes, she should run — and whoever she edges out can take solace that they lost to a caring reformer.
So this revision of the list will not be a surprise:
Ashleigh Aitken, Branda Lin, Bridget McConaughy, Danielle Serbin, Deborah Wilson-Ozima, Diana Guerini Bolt, Gina Onweiler, Jane Hartley, Karen Cohn, Kris Erickson, Loretta Sanchez, Louise Adler, Marissa Waldman, Melanie Weir, Naz Hamid, Patty Yoo, Rachel So, Ronni Stewart, Sadaf Agha,, Samantha Simon (EB), Sherri Loveland (EB), Tammy Kim, Tina Arias Miller, Vicky Schulte
Five spots left; 19 names to choose from. Oy.
Let’s separate them by slate:
- The establishment-ish O2B candidates, besides Aitken and Sanchez, are: Serbin, Cohn, Waldman, Erickson, and Schulte.
- The grassrootsy UDP candidates, besides Loveland, are: Hamid, Kim, Yoo, Onweiller, Weir, and … Adler?! (OK, maybe so, but still: confusing. I still think that she should seek a PLEO appointment.)
- The independents are: Lin, So, Bolt, Hartley, Agha, Stewart, Miller, McConaughy, Wilson-Ozima.
I didn’t know anything about them other than the four placed in or out above, plus Serbin and Hamid. But I read their statements, blind to what slate they were in, and here are the ones that impressed me the most:
- FROM O2B: Karen Cohn, Melissa Waldman, Vicki Schulte
- FROM UDP: Naz Hamid, Patty Yoo, Tammi Kim
- INDEPENDENT: Bridget McConaughy
So choose five from that list! (I think that Naz Hamid should be one of them, so I filled her name in for you: now it’s choosing four of six.)
Again, this equal outcome was totally blind to slate! McConaughy was the one on the bubble, so she’s the one who can be replaced. I presume that it will be harder for her to win as an independent anyway, but: she sounds impressive. So did many of the ones I didn’t choose; again, no horror shows in the group, but some further from the grassroots.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
MEN:
- Doug Elliot, Joe McLaughlin, Lee Fink, Mani Kang, Paul Lucas
and one or two (depending on whether you want to allow for a Henninger win) from:
- Avinder Chawla, Eugene Fields, Ken Warfield, Felipe Macias, and Nicolas Pedreira.
WOMEN:
- Ashleigh Aitken, Sherri Loveland, Naz Hamid
- Two to four (depending on whether you want to make room for Loretta and Louise Adler likely winning) of the following six:
- FROM O2B: Karen Cohn, Melissa Waldman, Vicki Schulte
- FROM UDP: Patty Yoo, Tammi Kim
- INDEPENDENT: Bridget McConaughy
Like I said: you’re probably going to want to read some candidate statements!
E-BOARD: Lee Fink and Sherri Loveland both have good claims to the position. Let’s see if we can lure them here to discuss their hopes and plans.
RESULTS
No vote totals is bad. No indication of who won the two alternate spots is worse.
By name (OJB-endorsed candidates in bold)
MALE:
- Lee Fink (Also E-Board)
- Mani Kang
- Mike Stern
- Nicolas Pedreira (“2 0f 5” group)
- Michael Lekawa
- Avinder Chawla (“2 0f 5” group)
- Grant Henninger
FEMALE:
- Loretta Sanchez
- Ashleigh Aitken
- Kris Erickson
- Vicky Schulte (from “2-4 of 6” group)
- Danielle Serbin
- Marissa Waldman (from “2-4 of 6” group)
- Karen Cohn (from “2-4 of 6” group)
So: 3 we wanted and 4 we could accept. Sadly, our second-best result of the day.
I am glad to know I live in “The Patriot” district. So let me answer the invitation.
I have been active in this Party since I was 12 years old. In 1988, my father ran for this same state Assembly seat, and he lost 75-24, and that was a good showing in those days. I took the day off from school to make GOTV calls out of DPOC HQ (which in those days was Frank Barbaro’s Law Office in Santa Ana), and during that time, calls came in reporting that in the adjoining Assembly District, the Republicans had hired uniformed security guards to stand outside (and inside) Hispanic precincts in Santa Ana and Garden Grove holding up signs saying “Non-Citizens Can’t Vote.” This was not hidden–the Republican Party admitted they did it. And it worked–we lost that seat (now mostly Tom Daly’s seat) by 741 votes.
Two years later, Tom Umberg, the AUSA who investigated that issue, won that Assembly race. But I have been knocking on doors in races since that time, as well as working professionally in politics from time to time, including a statewide race in 2002, the Obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012, the 2010 midterms, and the Hillary 2016 campaign. In addition, I have worked on protecting voting rights, even as a 16-year-old kid during the 1992 campaign I was dispatched to help a volunteer who was registering voters in front of KMart in Orange where the store was trying to shoo him away. I organized a group of 20+ law students during the Florida 2000 recount who contributed substantial research and briefing on one of the lesser known recount litigation. And most of my professional work in campaigns has been on voter protection.
I came home to Orange County after my position as Deputy General Counsel at USDA ended with President Obama’s term and spent many hours working on getting Democrats elected to represent my hometown for the first time ever. And we did it because we had an Obama-quality field operation. But, one of our great vulnerabilities is that we did not have an Obama-quality voter protection program. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (the other DSCC) had a national program in Battleground Senate Seats, led by a friend and something of a protege of mine (she has surpassed me). The DCCC did not have a program, and the CDP has a program that is stuck in 1992 with basically just a hotline, not an affirmative outreach, educational, pro-active program engaged with elected officials and prepared for the long count. We need that. We will be targets again in 2020, and we have more seats to add this time (in the legislature and in local races). So my primary goal in being in the Executive Board is to get the party to understand the importance of that program, and implement (at least in swing areas like OC) a type of program that is up to the challenge. Fortunately, I have the experience in doing this in critical battleground states, and contacts with others who have done the same thing, to put us on the right track.
There are many other things that E-Board does. Given my experience in campaigns–whether as a mere volunteer like I was when I was 12, as a professional staffer in numerous campaigns, or as a volunteer leader like in 2018 where I trained hundreds of canvassers out of the Tustin Field Office), I have created and made more effective campaigns, and can help do that for the Party. Given my experience actually implementing the policy once we did, I also bring an insight to the E-Board on what it will take to make a reality out of the policies we seek–from both a political and a practical implementation standpoint–whether it is affordable housing (which we did tons of in Rural America at USDA), expanding the safety net (things like SNAP, which we handled at USDA), or Medicare For All. And I am doing it in the same place where I grew up and started 30+ years ago.
Finally, I want to point out that I disagree with the premise of these endorsements. I suppose if I asked I probably COULD get an appointment, but I don’t want to get an appointment. As you note, appointed members have to answer to–and serve at the pleasure of–the appointing authority. I have been elected as an ADEM eight different times since I turned 18 (I went to 6 conventions before as an observer or volunteer, but couldn’t vote) because I want to make the party more effective and exercise my independent judgment based on that experience. That goes for people like Loretta Sanchez and Ashleigh Aitken, and others too. Most of the time, people who could get appointments could do so because of the hard work they have already put in. Excluding great ADEM candidates because of that is wrong-headed.
There are also good people not running for ADEM who would be great DSCC members but do not want to run for office. They are often the back-bone. And, because of the function of how the ADEMs work post-McCain-Feingold changes, it is a campaign undertaking. (This is a longer discussion, but voting in the ADEM elections used to be limited to a group of the actual grass-roots volunteers, not just any random Democrat who shows up, so that they represented the workhorses of the Party). A lot of the people who make our Party work do not want to campaign. I have talked to them, and tried to get a few of them to run, and they don’t want to. I hope to help them get appointed if I am elected. And as someone who is happy to undertake the campaign part of the process, I prefer to run to make appointed positions available for them. After all, the party can’t be populated only with candidates.
I also want to dispel the notion that seems to be out there that ADEM delegates who are endorsed by an elected official “owe” something to that official. There is simply nothing to be gained by being an ADEM delegate, and a not inconsiderable sum of money spent. The only value is knowing that you are contributing to the Party, and thereby the country. Having left practice at one of the oldest and most prestigious law firms in the state to spend 9 years working on the Obama campaigns and administration (including being shutdown and not paid for 16 days in 2013), I know the sacrifice of public service. If anyone is running for ADEM to get something out of this, they should be disqualified from consideration–and moreover, they are going to be vastly and hilariously disappointed because there simply is nothing to “gain” from it. Only County Central Committee members have it worse in terms of the obligations and thanklessness. No one is getting anything out of an ADEM position, and no one “owes” an elected official for that.
If you are in AD 68, I hope you come and vote for me, and the entire Orange-to-Blue Slate.
Interesting. Could you expand on: “The only value is knowing that you are contributing to the Party, and thereby the country.”?
How may a Correa/Daly delegate contribute in a different manner than a critic of these officials, who are perceived by many as “lite republicans”?
Lee is in a different district – the 68th. I don’t know if he’ll defend the Daly-Correa “Progressive Leadership” slate in the 69th.
Thanks for coming here and commenting, Lee!
To start with an aside: “The Patriot” refers to the shape of the district, which looks somewhat like a profile view of a strong-jawed man in a tricorn hat. (It could be far worse for you: AD-73 is “Boo Boo Bear,” after the Hanna-Barbara cartoon sidekick.) These photos are called “constellations” because they serve the same purpose as astronomical constellations: to provide a mnemonic to aid people with visualizing what were (when they were presented in 2011) new and unfamiliarly shaped districts, substantial departures from what existed before the redistricting commission.
I think that your comment should leave readers with little doubt why (1) endorse you for ADEM regardless of whether you could get an appointment, (2) I more or less co-endorse you with Sherry Loveland, for whom I have enormous respect and would have expected to endorse unequivocally in your absence, for the single E-Board position and (3) my only reservation for you on E-Board, where I think you’d quickly become a leading figure due to force of argument, regards the balance of your devotion to the political establishment versus the grassroots. (Frankly, if all political establishment figures had your orientation and skills I’d be less concerned about this year’s onslaught by electeds to prevent a recurrence of the (mostly) Berniecrat grassroots onslaught of 2017, which for all I know you may not know is occurring.) So let me turn to your well-considered arguments, not taken in order.
My perspective comes largely from my being involved at a mid-level (which became higher at the convention) in the 2017 Kimberly Ellis campaign against Eric Bauman for Chair — whose problems from my perspective were not simply that he was a sexual harasser but that he was a sadistic bully, a remorseless political thug, and far too self-serving to be a fiduciary. (Your perspective of him may differ, and more’s the pity if so.) It also comes from my involvement with others from the Progressive Caucus in preparation for this year’s ADEMs, and with being a (unusually informal) legal advisor to people who have kept getting stymied, in violation of party rules, by the political establishment. (Relatively little about the present push against the grass roots is “against the rules”; it’s simply against the party’s tradition, mores, and the stated purpose of the “three-legged stool.”. (Emma Jenson’s description of it came directly from a party publication.)
I’m glad that we agree that “appointed members have to answer to–and serve at the pleasure of–the appointing authority” and that one value of being an ADEM is to “exercise [one’s] independent judgment based on [one’s] experience.” One area where I differ from many of my colleagues on the party’s Left Grassroots is that I am not at all interested in extirpating all people who might disagree with the grassroots from “our” leg of the stool. I value your having an *independent* and “unbossed” opinion, even when we disagree. As with someone like Garry Shay, your disagreement helps hone my thinking (and that of others willing to be honed.) Plus, you’re very talented and work hard on some thorny issues.
But, will Loretta Sanchez be stultified at all if she is appointed by her sister, or Tom Daly, or Tom Umberg? I highly doubt it. First, one doesn’t ever expect Loretta to be stultified: she’s irrepressible (which is part of what killed her Senate campaign.) Second, whoever appoints her would never retaliate her unless she “shot someone on Fifth Avenue,” as Trump put it. Third, she simply doesn’t differ from the sorts of people who support her — who who put her forth for an ill-considered campaign for Senate out of their strong dislike for Kamala Harris, which goes back at least to her 2010 Attorney General campaign (when they refused to participate in a campaign to support her against her moderate Republican opponent from LA) and I suspect many years further) because they never wanted her to be in a position to step into a role as a frontrunner for President. I’m not one of those who think that Loretta is stupid — she has shown the ability to learn and intelligently discuss policy — but (compared to, for example, her sister) she’s relatively incurious and willing to go along with what her backers want from her. So I stand by the position that she loses *nothing* by being an appointee. Grassroots activists, however, do gain something — which may even be a spot that goes to one of your female slatemates.)
Ashleigh, by contrast, is not only whip-smart, but she has shown that she really DOES think for herself — enough to that it is (incredibly) conceivable that she could not get an appointment where she’d be free to develop her own views and vote her own conscience. So she should definitely be an ADEM. (And if it weren’t for the same sort of people who back Loretta, she’d also be a Mayor right now. That she isn’t is tragic — though some Democrats clearly disagree.)
As for the people who don’t want to run but would make good DSCC members — I’m sure that this does occur, but in the main people appointed by politicians are (as a corollary to what you note above) expected not to rock the boat. I’ve been an ex officio and been lobbied hard by party figures to appoint people, so I know the sorts who get proposed by leaders — and they have generally matched my description more than yours. If I knew that we were holding open PLEO appointment spots that matched your description, I’d feel differently — must so far as I’ve seen they mostly go to people who are either photocopies of their appointees votes or politically ambitious figures who will on that accord be less likely to support grassroots interests and powerful reforms. I’m not saying to kick those people off of the DSCC; I’m saying to allow them to be counterbalanced with grassroots ADDs/.
As for whether they “owe” their electeds, it’s myopic to say that there is nothing to be gained by being an ADEM, especially one tied to an elected. One has the chance to ingratiate oneself with that elected (and, perhaps more importantly, with the staffers who will make recommendations to that elected. You never know when it will come in handy to have friends in high places, after all. And you can look at resume-plumping awards of distinction to get a sense of the sorts of inexpensive rewards that cooperative ADDs might receive. Riches? Not likely.
I heard in 2017 from *many* appointed ADDs who said that they would personally vote for Ellis over Bauman — it may be shocking, but most Democrats really *don’t* like bullies! — but who nevertheless felt obliged to (or intimidated into) following their appointee in supporting him.
Not all grassroots-based delegates may be fully inured to blandishments of PLEOs or immune to their implied or overt threats — but I certainly believe that they’re more likely to be. And I believe that the ADEM leg of the party’s stool needs plenty of people like that — because they better represent the sorts of voters that we’re trying to win over. Ultimately, the party willing to withhold endorsements over *policies* — and public sentiment generally pulls votes towards the left, just as non-union lobbying generally pulls it towards the right — may be the only way that one gets better policies. Electeds tend to want to avoid accountability and transparency, which voters want. Where do you expect we will find the delegates who will demand them?
(First draft in between calls from irate readers; apologies for the prolixity.)
Vern is correct that I don’t live in the 69th AD or the 46th CD. I am lucky to (finally) be represented by Congresswoman Katie Porter, and I would take a bad Democrat over my terrible Republican State Assemblymember, Steven Choi.
But my point is that the delegates, themselves, don’t get anything out of being an ADEM. There is no money, there is no prestige. The power that exists is one (of many) to make the party better so that we can support whomever the Democratic candidates are. I focus on the part building elements because the pre-primary endorsement process has proven not to be a very effective–Dave Min, Hans Kierstad, and Kevin DeLeon could tell you about that (and going back to my third convention when I was 14 years old and John Van de Kamp won the Party endorsement over Dianne Feinstein for Governor in 1990, and promptly lost the primary, and Feinstein went on to serve 26 years and counting in the Senate). Only if we make the party strong and effective will the endorsement process itself be powerful.
So the endorsement/party building process is aimed at supporting whomever the candidates are. The extreme interpretation of this concept is the GOP with Trump.
Vern/Greg’s positions of “holding the politicians accountable/let the grassroots decide”, although sounding appealing beg the question to whose version of virtue to accept. A discussion on an agenda (including issues such as Health Care ) seems to be missing.
I hope you’ll join me, Ricardo, in appreciating Lee’s quality of arguments and willingness to come in here and mix it up with those who disagree. These are the sorts of arguments that are healthy for a party. I’m going to try to get Sherri to come in here as well.
Ricardo—There may be some luxury in being in the 46th CD and the 69th AD because those are solid seats, just like in the SF Bay Area or large parts of LA. But in my districts, and most of Orange County, just any Democrat is good, and a totally new change. Yes, at its extreme, it’s Trump, but for a variety of reasons, I don’t think we would get there. And we would stop it.
The other reason I focus on party building is this: if the party is not strong, the endorsement does not matter. Gil Cisneros and Mike Levin both won without the endorsement, and Katie Porter, Harley Rouda, and Dianne Feinstein all won despite the Party endorsing someone else. If we’re fighting over an endorsement for an endorsement where the organization doesn’t have the heft to make it count, then we’re not really holding anyone accountable.
The DCCC intervened in the case of Kierstead — at which DPOC howled — and Min’s defeat would take a long time to analyze and comprehend. I think that the importance of endorsements is evidenced by how hard candidates will fight for them — including preventing rules reforms to enhance their accountability. Tony Rendon having people bullied to make their names off of the petition to deny him an automatic endorsement as an incumbent is a great example of that from this past cycle.
Henninger is one of the hardest working candidates I’ve seen- and he is truly independent and I imagine that is why he is running and not looking to be appointed.
I, like you, may not agree with him on some points, but isn’t that why we are the “big tent” party?
I’d rather have someone with slightly different values than I have elected if he is committed and will put in the work than someone who is running and won’t do the work or is running for more questionable reasons. Grant will put in the work.
Please stop putting me in a position where I feel the need to defend people I would rather not have to.
Tiffany, did you really just tell me to stop expressing my own opinions so that I won’t inconvenience you?
If that’s the game, then please don’t defend Dan Chmielewski, when he is charged with screaming and intimidating DPOC employees for not following his illegitimate orders while in one case repeatedly slamming one fist into his other palm, as actually having a gentle disposition. (That reference, the exact wording of which I don’t recall, was more evocative than that. Anyone have a copy of that letter handy?)
At your urging, I spoke to Grant Henninger — and my sense of him as regards Anaheim is that he basically believes in trickle-down economics involving giving massive tax breaks to corporations will benefit the people of Anaheim based on studies that actually independent people consider to be specious. Is there room for that in the “big tent”? I suppose so. Is it beyond criticism? No, that would be beyond absurd.
The fact is that holding views such as his is popular with elected politicians and candidates who favor selling out to corporate interests. As a result, he should have no trouble finding an appointment to be a delegate from the PLEO leg of the stool, which would not require taking away a spot from an actual deserving activist. Ask Dan whether he thinks that Paul Lucas — someone who, by contrast, probably could not get a PLEO appointment to save his life — has a legitimate place in the “big tent” of the DSCC.
You do not actually “need to defend” Henninger if you ‘would rather not have to,” by the way. You simply want to defend him, seemingly any time he is criticized. Your sentence thus reduces to “please do not criticize my friend.” This is a really lousy position for an officeholder to take. Please do not put me in a position of increasing my coverage of Aliso Viejo.
Greg, did you really just threaten me with increasing coverage in my city? The city wherein I ran because there are a host of issues that should be covered? That’s an interesting threat from a journalist.
Henninger is barely a friend of mine. But he ran, as the only Dem, in a very red district- with little support from electeds. There are a lot of similarities between our races, so there is a kinship.
And yes, when I see an injustice, I actually have to defend it- that’s part of why I’m an attorney and why I ran for office. As I’ve told you before, if someone tried to kick you out of the DPOC, I’d write a letter on your behalf indicating our exchanges have always been respectful, which is what I said about Dan. I’ll always call the balls and strikes as I see them- if that makes me a bad officeholder, I’m ok with that.
I don’t know Paul Lucas, but luckily there are 7 spots. I don’t think that just because (you assume) someone could be appointed, they should refrain from running. I think those who run should be the independent thinkers we all want them to be.
When I report, instead of editorialize, it’s usually either this sort of “service post” (such as covering the local races) or investigative. Politicians, especially ones with ties to business interests, generally do not like investigative reporting. But actually I’d love to have more coverage of Aliso Viejo and that whole area, if anyone’s interested.
In Henninger’s absence, the Dem vote probably would have gone to O’Neil’s other opponent — and (depending on what happened in either of two other races) Anaheim (with more power exercised by its only re-elected Democratic incumbent) might have been in a much better place then it is now. So while it’s always better to have a Democrat run is a good principle, in some cases it actually works against Democratic interests. That was not the case in your race.
It’s nice to know that you’d write me a letter if I were ever to be kicked out of the DPOC. Now I only need a time machine.
With the power of Disney and the Building Trades behind him, I have almost no doubt that Henninger will get appointed if he isn’t elected (unless he doesn’t want such an appointment, I suppose. But why wouldn’t he?) Lucas? Never. If you want a “diversity of voices” for “independent thinkers” — and I am not prepared to concede that Henninger is one of those, there’s only one way to get it: elect Lucas and let Henninger be appointed.
“Greg, did you really just threaten me with increasing coverage in my city?”
Don’t worry.That’s just the old go-to bluff. As in “now YOU have gone and done it; now I must reveal my sources that Chris Norby is an alcoholic, and thus a possible wife beater.” It will never happen.
P.S. Bloggers are not journalists.
I’m answering you in the recently opened, with no idea that you were going to pull this, Open Thread.
This has been finally counted (562 voters!) and Lee Fink’s Orange to Blue slate won outright. All 14 of them. Not sure the vote counts yet…
That means Lee Fink E-Board…
MEN Chawla, Henninger, Fink, Lekawa, Pedreira, Stern, and Mani Kang.
WOMEN Serbin, Waldman, Loretta, Ashleigh, Erickson and Schulte.
The winners:
We preferred about half of them. I don’t know yet which men and women came in 8 and 9.
8. Naz Hamid; 9. Louise Adler
8. Victor Garcia; 9. Eugene Fields
There’s a screenshot of the top 9 with numbers.
Congrats to the elected delegates.
Congratulations to you and Naz as well. Louise too, although I still believe that she will easily be able to find a PLEO appointment if she wants one.