Saturday, July 08, 2006

He's A Nicer Guy Than Me.

David Holt is a nicer guy than me. Here's the proof.

I considered running for Executive Committee last year. Of course, I was in the middle of a move at the time, and I didn't get my address settled until it was too late to throw my hat in the ring.

At the time, I thought it was regrettable; Now I've seen the light. I dodged a bullet.

I hear and read things about what goes on at the Executive Committee meetings, and I simply wonder... Are some of these people insane? I don't just mean that in loose terms. I'm talking clinically cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

I'm a Democrat. That doesn't change. I wouldn't say that my support for our candidates is unequivocal, but my support for ideals are. If a candidate doesn't live up to those ideals, then I find them as useless as tits on a bull.

That's where the problem seems to arise. To hear one wing of the party talk about it, I have to express my support for any arsehead that manages to wrangle a nomination in this party.

To hear the other side tell it, the party should support the best candidate in any race, regardless of which side of the partisan divide they happen to stand on.

Neither side is all right, and neither side is all wrong. On this much, I see eye to eye with David. We've got a handful of genuine buffoons that have managed to pull off primary victories this year. The mere thought of these people having the (D) next to their name is enough to get me downing Pepto like it's Guiness.

On the other hand... How are we supposed to ever be able to recruit a better class of candidates when we eat our own by endorsing Republicans?

There's not an easy answer for that. Not as an official member of the party's executive committee.

But I, bleeding heart liberal that I am, do not have that problem. I don't have to choke back my bile and say that I support Reginald French for sheriff. I dislike him and Luttrell immensely. I want to support John Harvey, but he's got one policy that's a dealbreaker for me. So at this point, I'm prepared to leave that one blank.

I have no such inclination when it comes to the County Commission race. The Republican in our district is much more true to the ideals of the Democratic Party than Henri Brooks is. So I plan to vote for Novella Smith-Arnold.

And this is where the tragedy truly arises. You could follow the example set by the "my party, right or wrong" people and support someone that undermines liberal ideals. Or you can buck the trend, check the box with the (R) next to it, and have a liberal. It would be a difficult c hoice for a party to make--- But I labored longer and harder over what to have for lunch today than I have to for this one. Go Novella.

But I digress. Back to the "David is nicer than me" part.

One of the best things that ever happened to me was screwing up my chance to get on the executive committee. Honest to God, I hear about what goes on in these meetings, and I wonder who would even want to be a part of that. And more importantly, why they would want to be a part of that.

I'm sure David gets exasperated. Who wouldn't? But the thing is... He hangs in there. He doesn't do it because it's a picnic. There's no pay involved, so we can rule that out. Being a member of ExComm isn't the kind of thing that gets you groupies, so we can forget about that.

He's there because if the sane people drop out, the nutjobs win.

When I was considering running, I heard a lot about people who dropped out because they "didn't get their way". I heard variations on the phrase "They take their marbles and go home" from every faction about every other faction.

I'm developing an alternate theory. I think they're dropping out because the other members of the committee are driving them nucking futs.

I like Del Gill. I think he's a hell of a nice guy, and I think the party would be much stronger if people would listen to him more often. Quite often, he's as right as rain.

The problem is that as much as I like him, if he stood up and objected six times every time I tried to get up and speak, I would put a motion on the floor to toss him out the window. And as abrasive as he can be, I'm pretty sure the motion would carry. If there was any objection, it would likely be that we're not on high enough a floor.

But at the end of the day, I respect him a lot more than I respect some of the others. Let's put that in perspective--- Even one of the best feet that can be put forward is enough to send me into a homicidal rage.

It doesn't end there. The majority of the Executive Committee are bright people in their own right. But when you have two factions going after each other, and a third faction that manages to accidentally tip the scales toward one any time there's a conflict, and you've got something that people don't really feel like being in the middle of.

More power to the people like David that show up and fight the good fight. I simply do not have the time or patience to deal with it all.


Vote Ethics said...

EC has positive and negative. Positive is the influence, being on the inside, and it helps those who want to eventually run for office get the contacts needed to raise money, volunteers, etc.

Negative is that these committees seems to draw the cooks from both side of the isle. I have hear this complaint from both sides of the isle. As an EC member you are also obligated to back your nominee (or at least not back the opponent) no matter how big an idiot they may be.

In your case of Novella, if you were on the EC ant let that out, you would probably be voted off.

Freedonian said...

EC has positive and negative. Positive is the influence, being on the inside, and it helps those who want to eventually run for office get the contacts needed to raise money, volunteers, etc.

That's one way to do it, sure. I'm working on getting to the same place, but I'll get there by working individual campaigns.

In your case of Novella, if you were on the EC ant let that out, you would probably be voted off.

Nah, probably not. Didn't the Richard Fields fiasco teach us anything? I mean, here was an EC member that was handling the legal work for the Republican challenger pro bono, and the committee couldn't get its poop in a group to kick him out. Following that precedent, I'm guessing that I could've endorsed her, worn her t-shirt to the X-Comm meeting, and carried her piggyback from campaign stop to campaign stop without having to worry too much.

Vote Ethics said...

In my opinion, doing your job is one thing. Activly campaigning is another. You may however still be correct.

Freedonian said...

Doing your job IS one thing--- But Fields wasn't eorking for Roland in a professional capacity. He was doing pro bono work. Attorneys only work pro bono when it's a cause they believe in. In Richard Fields' case, what he believed in was beating down a Democratic candidate. She's certainly not one of my favorites--- I've written about her before. Doing pro bono legal work for the other side is one step further than I think should ever have been allowed. If kicking Fields out had come to a vote, it would've failed, and that's a disgrace. The Chism faction of the party spiked that process (After all, anything that hurts a Ford helps them), and the "new" faction, whatever you wish to call it, inadvertently ends up serving Chism more often than not. It's not that they're willing--- It's that they're neophytes that are constantly being outmanuevered by an experienced political operator.

There are many that still manage to stand on their own, and I would certainly rank our friend David among them. But there are a lot of people out there reading this, thinking "He's not talking about me". Odds are, yes I am.

If you're on X-Comm, you doubtless remember the struggle for the chair last year. Everyone got pissed off at David Upton for coming off too heavyhanded during the campaign. But you know what? Every shitty thing he told us was going to happen has come to pass.