"If you don't know by now whether you're serious as a candidate, you're never going to know," Mr. Burns [sic] said yesterday. (P-G, Timothy McNulty)What if you're serious as a candidate, but not interested in the endorsement?
For those of you just joining us, Jim Burn is the Democratic representative for County Council District 3. He enjoys the further distinction of presently being Chairman of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee.
We caught up with Mr. Burn shortly before the public hearing on an Allegheny County anti-discrimination ordinance. Jim was among those lawmakers who had co-sponsored the legislation. He remained on board as the proposal aroused opposition, even though others withdrew their sponsorship.
I asked whether he thought if those who withdrew sponsorship are still going to vote yes. Burn said that was his impression.
I jotted down some hasty notes:
"I think that equal protection is a fundamental right. I think the intent of this ordinance is to encourage that."
"I think there are specific provisions in this ordinance that are causing concerns among some specific groups."
The impression with which Burn left us was one of the current legislation being overlanguaged -- a word we once learned in relation to the first draft of a city billboard moratorium.
Overlanguaged? Is that fancy talk for dropping gender expression from the ordinance? Cause that's a serious problem. At least it should be for most gay men and lesbians who are often discriminated against because of how they "express" themselves vis a vis their clothing, hair, makeup choices. In other words, a lot of gay people express our gender in ways that do not conform to mainstream societal expectations. That is precisely why those discriminators assume we are gay -- because of lesbian hair.
ReplyDeleteThis is a scare tactic. The claims of frivolous lawsuits are, well, frivolous and unproven. Capitulating to these fearmongerers would mean abandonding half of the community.
Unthinkable. This isn't the HRC.
No capitulation.
I have no idea what specific language it is that is being edited. It could be verb tenses for all I know.
ReplyDeleteAs a citizen of this nation, I am grateful for the promise of dedication to hard work, from our new president, enlisting the help of every citizen. I have hope for a brighter future.
ReplyDeleteI can then also hope, that possibly, this will carry over to my city, and the removal of the historical good "ol" boy politics. What I have realized is, that "ol" doesn't necessarily mean old as in years. Baggage is baggage and its time for a change.
On another topic, nice website Rudiak has up: one button to contribute money, one to volunteer. How netrootsy.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, every other candidate website linked on The Comet contains loads of actual information about the candidates and their positions. Not to mention pictures!
Call me old-fashioned, but I like to know what I'm donating my time and money to.
This is why I asked and still have no answer for the sale price for the nomination in the special election in city council district 2.
ReplyDeleteThe cost of entry was $0.
What was up with that?
Did the Ds have a moment of being Libertarian and now there is 'blowback' and higher fees.
I'm certain that the cost and the value are not equal. Hence, I worry as they run campaigns that are so costly -- because they'll govern in the same ways.
Isn't the endorsement process the biggest publicliy supported "pay to play" game in the local Democratic Party?
ReplyDeleteCould someone explain the purpose of the pay to play endorsement process?
The purpose? Come on you know the purpose. Those with campaign war chests, no biggie, those that don't you lose.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:08 - "Isn't the endorsement process the biggest publicliy supported "pay to play" game in the local Democratic Party?"
ReplyDeleteWait, are you talking about the entry fee, or campaign trinkets and related gratuities, or jobs contracts and services that the victorious candidate may be expected to deliver?
All I know is if the party leadership got to "endorse" candidates for the presidential primary, we'd be enjoying President Hillary Clinton right now (if we were lucky!) No one had to step in and tell us who the "Real Democrat" was in the big race between Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, Biden etc.
And more importantly, none of those candidates got to spend DNC party money tearing one another down! That's what always gets me about the ACDC. Why should party money go toward fueling a circular firing squad amongst Democrats? Is that good for the party, long-term?
ReplyDeleteI guess there may be logical answers if you ask folks more involved with the Committee...
Sue said:
ReplyDelete"Cause that's a serious problem. At least it should be for most gay men and lesbians who are often discriminated against because of how they "express" themselves vis a vis their clothing, hair, makeup choices. In other words, a lot of gay people express our gender in ways that do not conform to mainstream societal expectations. That is precisely why those discriminators assume we are gay -- because of lesbian hair."
That makes me think immediately of Hooters, and the TV show Mad Men. Do we start protecting people at a job when they refuse to conform to the dress code, social mores and the atmosphere of the business at which they work?
Hooters is an extreme and I think faulty example, but society's problem may not be as much one of "inadequate protections", but of "bigotry that is out there."
Not to go off-topic, but has anyone seen an estimate of attendance at the celebration at Mr. Small's last night?
ReplyDeleteJust curious.
Pay to Play? What's that? Never heard of it...
ReplyDeleteOOOHHHHH, you mean the County Dems are a bunch of money whores who will only back candidates with the last name (and sometimes with money)?
I get it.
Ask Jack McVay, Brenda Frasier, Patrick Dowd, etc. how classy these folks are. Just pay a "little" fee, you know, be a "team player" for the nomination process and they will consider you.
Oh yes, they will absolutely consider you and read your letters and bio you so thoughtfully mailed out to all committee members because you thought you had a chance.
And the next thing you know, the vote comes out 100-2-2 and the "little" fee you paid is used against you in the primary.
I'm just sayin'.
If it weren't for these damn COG's floating around the ether, then I'd actually believe county council was worth their weight in rock salt and anti-skid. However, as such, they will remain ineffectual and should continue with proclamations honoring girl scout troops, frolf leagues and hoagie vendors.
ReplyDelete"What if you're serious as a candidate, but not interested in the endorsement?"
ReplyDeleteYou may recall Peduto trying for the endorsement, even though no one I knew thought he had a chance in hell of getting it. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I think the rationale was that it was one thing not to expect the endorsement ... but another thing entirely to be perceived as snubbing it.
One might also take a page from Obama's 50-state strategy, and contest every bit of ground. Yes, the ground here is an especially pricey bit of real estate, and I personally wouldn't bother with it. But I can understand the rationale: You might be laying the groundwork for future change. And you never know where you might find supporters: Peduto had the backing of Ben Woods!
-- Chris Potter
"You may recall Peduto trying for the endorsement, even though no one I knew thought he had a chance in hell of getting it. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I think the rationale was that it was one thing not to expect the endorsement ... but another thing entirely to be perceived as snubbing it."
ReplyDeleteSo if the endorsement fee is paid so that one is not perceived as snubbing it, then the rationale is that even if you don't expect to get the endorsement then for the sake of the ACDC party pay it anyway?
Then if you (candidate) get a mailer you partically paid for snubbing you your perceived as a party supporter and a generious loser. Is that called democracy??
I agree with Potter that the urge not to be perceived to be "snubbing" the Committee (or specific committee people) is real and understandable.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, once you put in for the endorsement (if only to "got thru the motions"), it's way easy to get distracted by committee politics, to the detriment of um, reaching out to voters and crafting a voter-centric message.
For a county council seat that pays $9,000, the party wants almost $3,000 for consideration of an endorsement.
ReplyDeleteThat to me says there is something else going on.
When it is difficult to raise money as an underdog in this region, and equally difficult to make inroads with the party itself, many democrats feel snubbed themselves--forget about anything being perceived that way.
That is why there is a growing faction among the party. Out in neighborhoods, meeting secretly . . . you watch. As members die off, this new faction will continue to elect more and more underdogs who incresingly do not seek endorsements of the party.
And a new party establishment will begin.
Of course, society's problem is bigotry is out there. But when you are on the beat down side of that stick, you need a little help. There's a difference between someone showing public disdain for the fact that I wear men's clothing and my supervisor insisting I put on a dress. Or, as is more likely, talk to me about not being disruptive in the workplace what with my man pants and all.
ReplyDeleteI have personally been told to stop "being" (yes, that exact word) so gay because it was intimidating other people. When I asked for clarification, it was suggested that dressing in a pretty gender neutral way contributed to the perception that I was a hard core lesbian (I can only assume soft core lesbians are all the rage in that workplace).
How I dressed was perfectly appropriate for the workplace and, in fact, often more professional than other individuals who wore tee shirts and belly shirts and so forth on a regular basis. I was in complete compliance with the dress code, yet I was singled out because of how others interpreted my clothing/hair cut as an expression of who I was. And they didn't like it.
Sue - "I can only assume soft core lesbians are all the rage in that workplace."
ReplyDeleteYou would be correct, to my experience.
"I was in complete compliance with the dress code, yet I was singled out because of how others interpreted my clothing/hair cut as an expression of who I was."
Wow. Hard.
Only now I'm thinking of piercings, dyed hair, a million other things. I guess my next question is "tell me about your workplace", but I'm guessing you don't want to call anybody out.
In response to Bram's "Does anyone know the last serious candidate for something that did not seek the endorsement?"
ReplyDeletePatrick Dowd. Completely snubbed the endorsements.
Bruce Kraus and Brenda Fraiser both won despite not being endorsed, but I don't know if they sought the endorsements.
Not true. Dowd, Kraus and Frazier all filed for the endorsement and lobbied committee members.
ReplyDelete