Wikipedia has a very different definition: “A political party is an organization that seeks to attain political power within a government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns.”
The common thread of these two definitions is the idea of a party being an organization with a cause. Indeed, the Mass. Democratic Party is a distinct entity, with a party headquarters, hired staff, and elected representatives throughout the state.
In this context, I have difficulty understanding the conflicts I alluded to earlier. If the Party is, indeed, an organization rather than just an ideology, then why shouldn’t that organization get to choose who its members and activists are or which candidates get to wear the party label in a statewide election? And, if the party doesn’t have that influence, then ultimately, what is its purpose? What does the party do, exactly, if its officials and activists don’t help choose the candidates or preserve the “brand” of the party? Doesn’t “Democrat” just become a meaningless label in that case? Or, to put it another way, isn’t a party supposed to be partisan, by definition?
If anything, I think the Democratic Party has struggled in recent years exactly because it has not exerted enough control. When people talk about splintering, they’re really talking about a party that does not have a clear message and that does not work together to unify behind its candidates. Opening the doors to any candidate who can collect signatures and allowing those who publicly oppose a party candidate to determine the direction of the party perpetuate the problem.
I think the MDP did the right thing in stripping credentials of Democrats who haven’t stayed on-message, and I’m glad that on June 3, I’ll have the opportunity to help shape the party’s primary ballot.
Max, I understand your reasoning and I understand why Deval Patrick’s supporters are the one’s leading the crusade. It’s obvious that DP’s supporters recognize that Deval’s only chance to win is forced and blind allegiance to the liberal orthodoxy. And you are correct in your suggestion that an organization can invite or disinvite members as it sees fit, however shortsighted that may be.
<
p>
However, I think the MDP’s actions are wrongheaded for the following reasons. First, litmus tests and strong-armed tactics never produce a sustainable and prosperous organization. Second, politics is truly the art of dealing with what is in front of you. In the cases of Mayor Howard and DA Blodgett the interests of their constituents trumped the Party politics. Senator Tisea is hardly Tom DeLay. He is a pretty progressive poltician and he delivers for his constituents who also Howard and Boldgett’s constituents. Other than party designation there was no reason that Democrats shouldn’t love Richard Tisea. Thirdly, this is another example of the MDP (I might also suggest Deval Patrick’s crusaders who brought the complaints) ignoring the obvious fact that for the last twenty years the moderate/unenrolled voters have determined the winner of the gubenatorial election.
<
p>
As a party, we continue to allow the nutty left decide who is worthy of the Democraic Party designation and who isn’t and this is why we continue to lose elections and members. Examples like this reveal us to be a Party that is so insecure in our platform that we are afraid to tolerate diversity of opinion.
<
p>
BTW…we allow convicted felons to particpate in the convention process (Senator Wilkerson c’mon down!), but we disallow two of the Party’s up and coming talents. Delicious. Good job Patrick campaign.
The Deval Patrick campaign has publicly stated that it will not challenge delegates. The actions of local people does not equate to a policy on the part of the campaign. I’m guessing that if there are Deval Patrick delegates who have publicy supported a Republican, you will see them disqualified as well. I don’t know of any, but I’m sure that local Gabrieli and Reilly supporters would be only too happy to identify a few. I think that would blow any and all “nutty left” conspiracy theories out of the water.
<
p>
It never ceases to amaze me when a Dem (or a DINO maybe) uses Republican frames. This is why I fully support the rule. It’s a good way to enforce the message of the party and not have it tainted and altered by those who share none of the party’s values.
Yeah, it is just a coincidence that all these moonbats who filed the challenges are from the Deval Cult.
Undeserved, and completely freaking stupid statement.
<
p>
What does this mean, exactly? You may very well be on the right [npi] track, but your meaning isn’t clear; “liberal orthodoxy” is a bit of an oxymoron. But if you mean that Deval will win by appealing to the liberal/Democratic values of the electorate, then I think you are correct. Your allusion to “forced allegiance (whatever that is)” reminds me of Jim Hightower’s imagery of Democrats trying to work together. He said that’s like trying to keep a bunch of frogs in a wheelbarrow.
<
p>
Max and lolo have it right. Your rant is not advancing the discussion, imho.
<
p>
As to the liberal orthodoxy:
“…I understand why Deval Patrick’s supporters are the one’s leading the crusade.”
<
p>
It was one supporter, not the whole group, and the campaign is not supporting the effort.
<
p>
“…litmus tests and strong-armed tactics never produce a sustainable and prosperous organization.”
<
p>
The Republicans of the last couple decades, the Kennedy/Johnson era Democrats, the Tip O’Neill Democrats… all of these groups have used such tactics, and they’ve been a lot more effective at winning than the Democrats have been recently.
<
p>
“In the cases of Mayor Howard and DA Blodgett the interests of their constituents trumped the Party politics.”
<
p>
That’s their prerogative. But they don’t then get to say that they’re representing the interests of the Party.
<
p>
“…the obvious fact that for the last twenty years the moderate/unenrolled voters have determined the winner of the gubenatorial [sic] election.”
<
p>
This is analysis, not fact. I plan an entire post on “the moderate myth” for another day. For now, though, let’s just look at some recent moderate Dems and how they’ve fared: Shannon O’Brien, Al Gore, John Kerry…
<
p>
“…we continue to allow the nutty left decide who is worthy of the Democraic Party designation…”
<
p>
On the contrary, I’d say it’s usually the more liberal elements of the party fighting for inclusiveness and openness.
<
p>
“…we allow convicted felons to particpate in the convention process (Senator Wilkerson c’mon down!)…”
<
p>
As far as I’m aware, Sen. Wilkerson has a misdemeanor on her record and is not a felon. In any case, felons who have served their time should be given an opportunity to redeem themselves.
“It was one supporter”
<
p>
Actually, if you read the article carefully, it was three supporters.
<
p>
1) Alison Socha of Melrose challenged Mayor Robert J. Dolan of Melrose, Mayor Richard C. Howard of Malden and state Representative Christopher G. Fallon of Malden.
<
p>
2) Julie Curtis challenged Essex District Attorney Jonathan W. Blodgett.
<
p>
3) The article strongly implies (but doesn’t actually say) that Don Lehman, chairman of the Melrose Democratic City Committee challenged Gloucester’s mayor, John Bell.
Loved this comment:
<
p>
“”In the cases of Mayor Howard and DA Blodgett the interests of their constituents trumped the Party politics.”
<
p>
That’s their prerogative. But they don’t then get to say that they’re representing the interests of the Party.’
<
p>
Newsflash for Max…until this party’s interests start intersecting with the interests of our constituents we will continue to lose the corner office. Perhaps there would be more support from these guys if the party stopped sending out underfunded, unproven candidates on a suicide mission and then expect these mayors to support them…when so much local aid is at stake.
<
p>
This disconnect between that which is important and practical and that which is wildly idealistic and unrealistic is why we lose. We need to start being the adults at the table so that the voters will trust us once again with the corner office.
Hmmm, I wonder how these individual voters received the information that these ex-oficios had supported a Republican in the past? I’d venture a wild guess and say the Patrick campaign may have supplied them the information and know-how of how to challenege the delegates…What a coincidence that none are Patrick supporters? This is all too coincidental..
Well, it isn’t to hard to figure out. When Republicans seek Democratic Mayors for support and get that support, it is publicized in the press and by the campaign. Watch the newspapers. It is hardly a hidden secret. Also contributing money is a dead give away. If the contribution is over $50.00 it must be reported to the office of campaign and political finance.
<
p>
So here’s the facts: These rules have been in effect for a while. Financially supporting a republican is not something an active democrat should be doing. Join the republican party if you want to support it. That is if you are interested in participating in Democratic Conventions.
<
p>
So the bottom line: A word to the wise: local democrats have LONG memories. Make your choice: Participate as a full fledged democrat in conventions OR publically support Republicans for public office. You can’t have it both ways.
I am supporting Patrick. I am also very aware of the circumstances in the DA Blodgett and Mayor Bell cases, because they happened in my back yard and were thoroughly discussed in the press and at city committee meetings. No one from the Patrick campaign had to put anyone up to filing these complaints. They were filed by Democrats who are FED UP with elected officials who call themselves Democrats then support Republican candidates and policies.
Good points Max, they are certainly thought provoking. I have a few quesitons. First, you assert that the Dem party might be wise to assert MORE control. So I ask, if the party is an “organization” as you suggest shouldn’t the party have a required checklist and if you do not support the items on the checklist you can be excommunicated from the party? That is certainly exerted control over the activists.
<
p>
Second, and I don’t think this is entirely out of the realm of possibility here in Mass, what if the Republican is truly better on the issues than the Dem? Are you saying the fealty to party trumps loyalty to principle? If I had to choose between a pro-choice, pro-civil liberties, fiscal moderate Republican against an anti-choice, Patriot Act loving, tax cutting, defense department bloating Dem (read most Southern Dems) I would pick the Republican. I support my principles before my Party but the hope is, and the reason I try to be active in my party is so that the Party reflects my principles. I am a Democrat because I believe in certain values, I do not believe in certain values because I am a Democrat.
<
p>
If at a nominating convention a delegate can be shown to have created a pattern of supporting Republicans then I agree their credentials should be pulled unless they have a very damn good reason. This is after all the process by which the Dem Party picks a standard bearer and I don’t think the Republicans should be allowed to influence our pick. That said if these Reilly delegates plus the other two can show that their was some reasonable justification for supporting a Republican then I see no reason to keep them from the floor because they follow principle over Party. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe my views make me a “bad” Democrat.
Andy in the case of these particular delegates whose credentials are being pulled it was not a matter of Democrats supporting a wonderful Republican over an evil fake Democrat. It was Democrats supporting a real Republican over an excellent real Democrat. I know both of the candidates they had to choose from. They have no reasonable justification for supporting the Republican.
If they had two good choices and still went with the Republican then screw them. There does have to come a point, and as I said this is especially so when we are talking about nominating Dems, in which being a member of the Party must mean something. Sort of like the Somerville BoA up here. No excuse for endorsing a Republican when there were good Dems (I may have my facts a little screwed up there so I am sure someone will correct me).
There is nothing a priori wrong with a Democratic delegate supporting a non-Democrat in an election. There are several plausibly acceptable scenarios, some of which people have already raised: a Green Party candidate running against Finneran, Weld vs Silber, or any case in which the Democratic nominee has been convicted of a serious crime, for starters.
<
p>
So who decides whether a delegate’s support for a non-Democratic candidate is acceptable? Good news. We already have a process that should determine that: all the delegates at the convention (except the add-ons) are elected by registered Democrats — either at the caucuses or to their position in the Democratic party. If a delegate’s support of a particular candidate is a problem, it should be raised at the caucuses (or in the case of an ex officio, before the primary), not after the fact.
<
p>
Perhaps the caucuses don’t provide the opportunity to air the issue of who-supported-who in the past. If that’s the case, let’s change the caucuses, because the decision of what constitutes acceptable support for a non-Democrat is not a power we should vest with the party leadership.
Actually, more than 1/3 of the delegate slots for the convention are not elected. Ex-officio delegates are neither add-ons nor elected at caucus. They’re town or ward committee chairs, state committee members, elected legislators, and so on.
<
p>
I believe all of the delegates who were barred for supporting Republicans are ex-officio delegates. I don’t know if the rule barring those who have recently supported Republicans from being delegates applies to elected delegates. If it does, then I think it’s a bad rule, but I suspect that it does not. Barring ex-officio delegates on these grounds seems to make perfect sense.
I wrote:
all the delegates at the convention (except the add-ons) are elected by registered Democrats — either at the caucuses or to their position in the Democratic party
<
p>
I think that makes clear the broad sense in which I used the term “elected”. Aren’t town or ward committee chairs elected to those positions? And “elected legislators” are most certainly “elected” — just not at the caucuses. If an ex-officio delegate’s support for non-Democrats is unacceptable, I think that should be sorted out in the election to that office. If candidate C has a history of supporting unacceptable non-Democrats, C might very well lose the primary (or State/City/Ward committee election) because of it. My point is that the decision as to what’s “acceptable” should be judged by rank-and-file registered Democrats in the delegate’s district, not by the party leadership. I might make an exception for the ex officio spot given to mayors, because they don’t have to win a Democratic primary to attain their office.
<
p>
According to the Preliminary Call to the Convention, the rule barring support for non-Democrats applies to all delegates, including those elected at the caucuses.
Ward chairs, etc., aren’t elected to be delegates to the convention. But when it comes specifically to party officers such as ward and town chairs and state committee members, it’s a clear requirement of the job they’re seeking to fill, that they support Democrats and not candidates of other parties. These are party offices and they’re support to be partisan. So, there are rules in place for removing ward chairs and Democratic State Committee members who endorse the non-Democratic opponents of Democrats.
<
p>
Note that most DSC members are not elected by the voters – there are 20 year members, there are members elected by the town committees, etc.
<
p>
Howard Dean used to openly support some Democrats in primaries over others, when he ran Democracy for America. Now he doesn’t, even if he may have strong opinions. Even if his brother and his former organization are supporting Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and I suspect he very much favors Lamont as well, he’s staying out of it. Why? Because he took a job: Chair of the DNC. Yes, he was elected to it (by DNC members). But not taking a public position on Democratic primaries is part of the job, and he knew it when he sought the job. (and obviously, not endorsing any opponents of the Democratic nominee, is also part of the job)
I agree that party officers should be partisan. What I would say is that there should be a process — and I believe there is one — to remove party officers when their allegiance to the party is called into question. This process should be open and democratic; that is, the Democrats the officer is expected to represent should decide whether the officer should be removed. And the process should give the officer a chance to defend his or her actions.
<
p>
But allowing someone to serve as a party officer but not as a delegate strikes me as inconsistent. Either the person is an adequate party officer and they deserve a delegate vote, or the person is not.
I’m a progressive elected delegate (committed to Deval Patrick, Andrea Silbert, and John Bonifaz) and I support the Mass Dems kicking out delegates who endorsed Republicans. But progressives should be clear about the implications of this policy — they WILL use it against us, for endorsing Greens.
<
p>
The reason I support this new policy is because it removes a long-standing hypocrisy in the Mass Dems — they have always been willing to threaten this rule against progressives who support Greens, but have not been willing to threaten it against centrists who support Republicans. I myself have been threatened with removal of my party credentials — once because the local paper mistakenly listed me as a Green party member, and more often because I publicly sympathize with Green candidates. The Mass Dems are extremely efficient at bashing progressives — so it’s a improvement in policy if they equally bash centrists.
<
p>
I’m ok with the party canceling delegate credentials as long as there are clear rules about it. The posts on this thread are often incorrect about the rules. Donating to a candidate is NOT publicly supporting that candidate. Voting for a candidate is NOT publicly supporting that candidate. It’s only if you make a public endorsement about the candidate — that means you get quoted, by name, in a press piece saying “I endorse candidate X”, or you sign a public document saying you’re an endorser, or you make a speech at a public event. That’s a clear line, and I think a reasonable one.
<
p>
There’s also a time limit. Secretary Galvin bashes John Bonifaz at every event he attends, by saying that Bonifaz supported Ralph Nader in 2000. Galvin cannot challenge Bonifaz’ credentials, however, because the time limit is 4 years (as stated in the party charter, article 3, section I, excerpted below). I don’t believe Bonifaz publicly endorsed Nader in any case — so Galvin is just bashing, not attempting to challenge credentials.
<
p>
There’s also a clause that lets you off the hook if you claim “deeply held beliefs” are the reason you supported the candidate of an opposing party (article 3, section VII). That clause really was intended to avoid forcing Democrats to support pro-life Democratic nominees or anti-gay-marriage nominees — you can apply your own personal “litmus test”. That means there is no party “litmus test”, as Reilly’s mouthpiece claimed. I will most certainly cite that clause if I’m ever challenged, because I can demonstrate pretty clearly that I have acted upon “deeply held beliefs” lots of times when confronting the Mass Dems.
<
p>
The bottom line is that I can DONATE to Greens, I can VOTE for Greens, and I can PUBLICIZE Greens running for office –I can say here that Jill Stein is running for Secretary of State against Galvin, and you should read her website at http://www.JillStein.org — but that’s not the same as publicly endorsing her — and neither is donating to her campaign nor voting for her, because those are private acts. As long as I don’t ENDORSE Greens I can be assured my convention credentials will not be challenged.
<
p>
Any progressive considering publicly endorsing Jill Stein (or other Greens) should be clear that they do so at the cost of becoming ineligible for the next two years’ state conventions. And that’s good if the same rule applies to centrists who publicly endorse Republicans.
<
p>
— Jesse Gordon, elected delegate from ward 10 Cambridge.
<
p>
Party Charter article 3 section I
“…no party resources shall be used to support a Democratic nominee who publicly endorsed or supported a Republican or other major party candidate in any one of the last two most recent biennial elections.”
<
p>
Party Charter article 3 section VII
“A member for whom a long and deeply held belief would be violated by support of the nominee shall not be removed under this section.”
<
p>
With all due respect, I think you may be one of the few people interpreting financial support as a “non public act”.
<
p>
I see no way around it. The “public record” is clear. If you want to donate money and avoid the “public record” then write one check for $49.99. Then yes you have avoided the “public record”.
<
p>
The Office of Campaign and Political Finance otherwise is going to expect that all contributions “over $50.00” be publically reported on their finance forms.
<
p>
Why do I say $49.99? even though it must be over $50.00 to be reported? Because many times you will see campaigns go beyond the requirement an report those $50.00 contributers.
<
p>
In fact financially supporting an opponent to the Democratic nominee is many times considered worse than an endorsement in certain circles.
<
p>
Most everyone considers campaign finance “public records” and therefore the appearance on those reports a “public act” and one of “public support”.
I support the MDP rule. I was a member of the Democratic State Committee when we discussed and adopted the rule, and it was my memory of how some party officials and party-supported elected officials sold out Scott Harschbarger and supported shrill, silly, divisive Paul Cellucci in the general election. And, the rest is history. Bad history.
<
p>
At the Democratic State Committee we grappled with the whole idea of what the rights and responsibilities of party members should be. One of the rights (if elected) is to be part of the group of insiders (5,000 or so) at the convention who makes decisions on behalf of others. Or to be an elected member of the state committee. Or to work at the Town Committee level to support and promote the candidate of your choice. But, certainly, one of the biggest responsibilities is to support the party candidate that emerges from that process, whether s/he is the candidate you originally supported, or not.
<
p>
This is just group process and decision-making 101. I lead a consortium of health and human services providers planning and advocating for changes to the local safety net. And, when we as a group make a decision or take a position — after full, fair, and equal participation — we expect all members of the group to go along with the group decision. It’s a commitment that group members make to each other.
<
p>
I see no difference in expecting party members to support the party’s nominee in the general election. Each and every member of the party had the same full, fair, and equal right to promote a particular candidate. But, if the process produces another candidate, then as party member, you need to support the process and your fellow group members.
I have lots of thoughts on this, but I think my biggest problem is the Democratic Party needs to end its obsession with fighting the last campaign. Would it really be such a horrible thins to try to win a general election here in Massachusetts?
<
p>
And I agree with the post about selective enforcement. How were these five picked? It seems strange that four out of five are Reilly supporters. (And please let’s not pretend this was a few committed local activists tryin to do the right thing.) I don’t recall anyone complaining when Senator Kennedy was helping Ralph Martin. And did anyone really raise a fuss when many Dems supported Weld the first time around? And are we going after the wink-and-nod supporters of Republicans?
<
p>
Loyalty to the party is definitely an issue, but barring popularly elected Dems is not the way to get a nominee that can win the general election.
“(And please let’s not pretend this was a few committed local activists tryin to do the right thing.)”
<
p>
Do you have evidence otherwise?
The same rule was in effect four years ago and used against elected delegates who supported my candidate for Governor. Those objections came from people who were justifiably angry that these delegates supported Republican candidates in the recent past. It’s the rule. It’s perfectly clear. If you want to be a delegate to the Convention, don’t publicly endorse a non-Democrat in a race against a Democrat.
<
p>
There is no rule that, because you are a Democratic Mayor, you have to take a public stand in support of a non-Democrat. Most Republicans would just appreciate your not actively supporting the Democrat. Endorsing the other party candidate – Green, Republican, Prohibition, or whatever – is just rubbing salt in the wound, and it is entirely appropriate to say such people shouldn’t be delegates to our Convention.
<
p>
And what about the Mayor who is supporting Kerry Healey? Why is that Mayor even interested in going to the Convention? Is it to support Tom Reilly, the weakest candidate in the field, to make Kerry Healey’s job easier if Reilly is the Democratic nominee? Come on. Be real. I can’t believe people are arguing about this.
…Not long ago, the GOP State Committee demanded – and got – resignations from State Committee members who had endorsed Democrats. One was a long-time personal friend, but they were tossed anyway.
<
p>
IMHO, state committee members are a lot less visible than elected officials of either party.
What about all the self-satisfied Democrats who looked down on Silber in 1990 and voted for Weld?
Its not who you vote for in the privacy of the voting booth that would disqualify you from being a delegate, it is who you Publically Support and donate money to.
<
p>
The answer I want to know is not who voted for Weld vs. Silber in November, but who voted for Silber in the primary. Ack! I’ll probably have nightmares tonight just thinking about it! 🙂
Why didn’t I think of this?
<
p>
What good, solid liberal would publicly support Silber? You gotta support the guy just because he was nominally a Democrat?
<
p>
Awful. You can’t make people go publicly testify against their consciences. It’s just wrong.
Charley, there’s a “deeply held belief” clause in the rule that allows for exceptions to be made. No one has to check their consciences at the door when they join the party (though far too many do).
<
p>
I think the rule is kind of silly and, more importantly ripe for abuse, but at the same time do we want people who’ve endorsed Healey deciding who our nominee is going to be?
… and a member of Somerville’s Ward 2 Democratic Committee. Technically, wearing a Weld button could have gotten me kicked out of the committee … except that just about every other committee member felt the same way I did after Silber won the primary. In fact, I think we actually passed a resolution withholding support from Silber.
<
p>
Weld is not even the first Republican vote I cast for governor — I also supported Frank Hatch against Ed King back in 1978. As did many other liberals.
<
p>
Getting back to Somerville, we recently had a special election for state senate. The Democratic primary had four candidates — Pat Jehlen (who won), Joe Mackey (also quite progressive), and two candidates I could never have voted for in the general election, Michael Callahan and Paul Casey. Had either of the latter two won the primary, I would have enthusiastically supported the Republican, Bill White — someone who always gets lots of votes from lefties in elections for the Board of Alderman.
<
p>
Based on this experience, I oppose the party’s rule.
I really do appreciate the arguments made in favor of this rule. It should mean something to be a Democrat. But as a matter of principle I can’t get behind rules and regulations designed to tell me what to think, how to vote, or whom to support. It’s kind of insulting.
<
p>
One of the problems with this rule is that it assumes the party, or party candidates, will always be consistent in terms of public policy, when it really doesn’t work that way. For instance, it seems to me that the more “local” the politics (i.e., town or even state level), the less the labels “Democrat” and “Republican” even mean. What does it meant to support a Republican for mayor of your town if your either Democratic candidate, or incumbent, is awful? Probably not very much. A pot hole is a pot hole, and I really don’t care whether he supported privitizing social security. (BTW, Does this rule apply to city/town candidates? I couldn’t find that in the article.)
<
p>
The other real problem I have is the same problem I have with any rule or regulation designed to curb expression in one form or another – and that’s the chilling effect it has on any discussion of policy that would otherwise be open and productive. To my mind, the less I get to criticize the party, or its policies, or to speak truth to power, the less responsive the party is going to be to my concerns. And if the party knows that all I can do is bark at it, then they have no incentive to really listen. But if I get to use the power of my vote or endorsement? I think that changes things a bit.
<
p>
And the natural disincentive I have for supporting Republican candidates doesn’t come from the rule book, but from my standing in my community as a loyal Democrat. People want to know how I’ll vote. The more Republicans I support, the less my fellow Democrats will trust me. I don’t need the all knowing MDP playing the heavy.
The Weld/Silber example that’s come up here also came up on the latest Saint Kermit podcast when talking about the issue, and Tony Lorenzen (the 2002 Green-Rainbow LG candidate) said he voted for Weld in 1990, joking that he hopes he won’t get kicked out of the Green-Rainbows.
<
p>
As someone who was in middle school at the time and only vaguely remembers the Weld/Kerry race, this election cycle and this blog have got me to really look back at the 1990 election and John Silber and finally really understand why we’ve had Republicans in power this whole time.
The alternative, however would have been even more unappealing: a Massachusetts Democratic Party with John Silber as its titular leader, from 1990 to 1994 or 1998 or even 2002.
oh yeah, absolutely…
With so much at stake, why would the MDP risk offending two successful vote getters AND ALL OF THEIR SUPPORTERS? We haven’t won the corner office in more than 15 years and somehow, we’ve got people in this party who think we have votes to burn?
<
p>
Please. Idealism is a wonderful thing, but being practical wins elections. Sending unfunded, unknown and unproven candidates up against a sitting incumbent with millions of dollars is a suicide mission, and it’s fundamentally unfair to expect an incumbent mayor to support it. Not with local aid at risk for their communities.
<
p>
Time to grow up, people. Why not ask these guys why they didn’t support the nominee? Perhaps the fault really isn’t theirs.