Democratic Underground
A recent decision by Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy to exercise more control over the local slating process is creating an underground of inter-party resentment that could grow into a major battle based on racial lines.
As I told you before, Treacy is creating rules that would ban anyone from running against the slate from being slated for six years and he would also ban any elected official from supporting a candidate who was not slated.
Now I’m all for political parties running their organizations as they see fit, after all, they are not democracies. However Treacy’s decisions are creating a backlash that has a racial twinge to it. Treacy was supposed to address the IDAAC, the Indiana Democratic African-American Caucus, this past Saturday and explain his actions, but he never showed. However House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Crawford was there and was outraged when he found out about the new rule.
Things have also gotten so bad that a number of Black Democrats are privately griping that the move is designed to keep non-status quo Blacks from running in the Marion County Democratic Party. And many of them are threatening to take it out on candidates in the 2010 and 2011 elections.
What is also complicating matters is whether 7th District Congressman Andre Carson will support Melina Kennedy or an African-American for Mayor in 2011. Once again, while the establishment Black Democrats are rallying around Kennedy, there is growing sentiment in the Black community that if Carson doesn’t support a Black candidate there could be repercussions for him in a future election as well.
Now there is plenty of time for Democrats to get their act together and unite for 2010 and 2011, however it doesn’t help matters when your county chairman potentially alienates 45% of your base.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:27 am
The Democrats need to expel the old school Jessie Jackson crowd and promote new people who have clear qualifications and platforms for the positions without regard to race if they hope to gain any progress.
Obama won, not because he was black, but because he was smart articulate, and qualified for the job.
Bring on the new blood, the old guard of Crawford and Bauer will not reign forever.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:42 am
While can not see justification for a party over controlling candidates. A problem with slating is that it does eliminate difference of opinion but of course that is likely the reason for putting it in place to begin with. See major problem in race based candidates at any level. Just hope that someday we might get to point of evaluating a person based on their philosophy, work ethic, and ability to get something done.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
First of all, the African-American community, and even all of Center Township, is NOT 45% of the “base.” Not even close. And over a third of the A/A community doesn't live in Center anymore, so a lot of old sterotypes and assumptions are out the window.
They're a valued part of the big tent, but in strict numbers, probably closer to 20%. Your use of the larger number tells me exactly who is griping to you–and they've been pulling the Kruschev “pound on the table” stuff for years. It used to work. It won't any more.
Now, don't get me wrong–as a Dem, I value the Center and A/A coalitions. I never consider them to be “automatic,” however. They voted for Goldsmith, for instance, but that was in the days we didn't field seriously-funded opponents.
Nobody's vote should be considered automatic by either party. I hope those days are gone.
I don't pretend to speak for Andre, but I respect his power and his influence. And we all know that there is a regular poster here who does interface with that office on a daily–make that hourly–basis.
As for the 2011 mayoral race–if Andre does choose to get involved, that chosen candidate will win. Regardless of race.
In an odd way, I think Andre may be the transitional force that needs to be reckoned with. The county chair is not going to push Andre around. Andre doesn't impress me as the kind of person who will endorse based solely on race. I didn't support Andre initially, but I now have tremendous respect for his ability and his power base–he knows you can't flex that base too often on silly issues. So, I think he'll choose his battles. Who knows if this will be one of them?
Regardless what Bill Crawford demands. Those days are g-o-n-e.
I don't know that there's a lick of difference between Andre and other A/A officeholders/party leaders on these issues.
How about it, Wilson? Does that about sum it up?
October 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Local parties seem to do that now, agman. They evaluate a potential candidate based on adherence to the party's philosophy, work ethic, and willingness to follow the herd in voting.
If you want something closer to what I think you mean, you'd better find a new party.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
So Carson, because he is AA, should support an AA candidate for Mayor, regardless of whether or not they're to best qualified? Things sure are blurry with regards to race any more with a party(Marion Cty. Democrats) supposedly so tolerant of all people.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I see two things here: Empire building among the entrenched leadership, and the implied racial element.
The racial element is the result of the empire building by current leadership. It's not the problem – it's a symptom of the problem, based upon racial division that already exists. The problem is empire building.
The interesting thing is that this will likely force a lot of people to abandon the party. I'm certain that Treacy recognizes this upfront, therefore, I'm certain that a party split is among his objectives. The ever-present question in politics and policy when something happens that doesn't appear to make sense is always “cui bono?”
Who stands to benefit from this?
October 13th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
It's damn difficult to “break the slate” in the Democratic Party. The occasional winner is assimilated but the loser in slate-breaking is shunned for needlessly raising a ruckus. It's usually the end of a serious political hopes. Treacy's alleged new rule seems excessive — the current practical political consequences seem enough.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:56 am
That's the most sane political answer I've ever seen you post, Wilson. Practical and true.
I can't remember the last candidate who broke the slate….might it have been a judicial candidate?
October 14th, 2009 at 4:24 am
I know I am being unrealistic in today's political climate but sure wish for parties and individuals with allowance for flexible positions. That is, less total poliarization. A party should have guiding principles/philosophies because that is why a party should exist. And members of that party who have chosen to affliate with it should be of like mind—but with any philosophy there are variations, there are differences of magnitude, of best practices to proceed, etc.. This lock step mentality does not serve either the party or the governed people well. Watching the legislative activities (state or national) is scary at best. Granted I am only a moderate, I am from a small county, I am a precint chair, etc…. but if the party leader came to me and told me how to vote on an issue (general election, primary, where I hold office or position) we would part company real fast and others would know of the situation real quick. Discuss and seek to convince while using their leadership position is okay but dictate–never. I am disappointed in my state legislators of both parties because of very point.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Erik Dickerson broke the slate in 2006. Jose Evans broke the slate in 2007. And I think there was a judicial candidate in 2008.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:14 am
I beleive in slating, Agman. It usually works well. It gives real power to the precinct committeepersons and allows them to work directly with potential candidates.
Democrats had abandoned the process, and I was part of brining it back. It worked real well for a long time. There were some hurt feelings, but I generally trust the instincts of precinct people. They typically know the landscape very well, and they can ferret out the best candidates.
Here's where it goes astray:
If the county chair stuffs the ballot box with “stiffs” in an attempt to influence an election.
If one group or caucus determines they've been unduly overlooked.
If the party has a hard time getting a quorum together.
And I'm sure the bright readers here can find more examples of slating fall-out.
As for other candidates brekaing the slate, Abdul:
Eric Dickerson is a Republican. Their slating is their battle. He was a trian wreck waiting to happen anyway. Nice guy when you're talking to, but a wretched path of experiences that were bound to implode.
Jose Evans didn't really buck the slate, per sey. He had backing from a lot of ward chairs and others.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Smart, yes. Articulate, yes. Every problem in the whole world and every little nuance of life is now regulated, mandated, taxed or otherwise strangled by government … NOBODY is qualified. A basic understanding of economics goes a long way though and Obama did not have that and has basically surrounded himself and taken actions based on only one (flawed) school of economic thought. So, WISE … also a no.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:10 am
TA–I would still differ on the slating idea and just how in touch the leaders are is always subject to question. Often they spend too much time talking among themselves. As stated maybe from a small county and a precinct chair but will never attempt to dictate how anyone should vote on anything–discuss yes but never want to be in a position to dictate. Slating may have its merits but it is also saying that voters are unable to determine their own vote.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Well, Agman, you may be right–but I don't think so. Do you know the true purpose of the primary elections? They're in place to determine each party's nominees.
Each party elects precinct committeepersons, who in turn elect county leadership, to run their party.
If you want to go back to parties selecting their nominees in convention formats, I'm all for that. But until we do, slating ferrets out the nutjobs. Sometimes slating produces bad results. But not often.
The exception to this whole discussion is our insane method of electing judges. When the legislature added a couple of courts a few years ago, guess who got to choose the extra 4 ballot candidates? The two county chairs. And one of those chairs had a wife wanting to be a judge (she won). Whenever we have judges on the fall ballot, only one candidate loses. (If there are 15 courts, there will be 8 GOP and 8 Dem candidates).
There have been some real travesties in this ole-boy system. The judges refuse to contribute to the county parties, citing judicial independence, except for the slating fees, which are usually 10-15% of their annual salaries ($122,000 a year I believe is current salary). Do that math. The parties love that system.
And the judges of both parties always host judicial receptions, whoring around among lawyers who appear in their courts, for their “campaign fund.”
All that money doesn't necessarily buy quality. Marion County Courts have become, in some opinions, a dumping ground for bad lawyers. Some excellent judges, to be sure, but more than a few bad ones.
And the above observation was bipartisan–neither party owns the patent on bad judges.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:59 am
I think Ed has the right idea. He's the Chairman, he was elected by the party. I say get out of his way and let him lead. Andre Carson isn't the Party Chairman, Andre needs to refrain from interfering.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Obama may be smart and articulate (with a teleprompter), but he is far from qualified. But, at the risk of being called a racist (since that word is so readily thrown around these days), President ACORN would not have been elected if he was white. In fact, he wouldn't have even been nominated. McCain was an extremely weak candidate, but would have destroyed a white opponent with Obama's qualifications.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
First, Ed Treacy was never “supposed” to speak at the IDAAC. I dont know where you got that information. Secondly, the proposed changes in slating must be approved by the Marion County Democratic Committee. Three of the four members are African American. Some of the changes I like and some I dont. I am sure that a reasonable list of changes will emerge. I am tired of some unethical politicians using the slating process to get elected and then turn around and abuse it and work to support a candidate to break it. If it is so evil then an ethical politician would not get involved in it in the first place. Greg Bowes is an example of it now. He used the slate to get elected to the council and as county assessor. He immediately turns around and works against the slate for another candidate. I wonder if he will use the evil slating process for his prosecutor run or run against the slate. It doesn't matter as he is toast either way!!!! Precinct Committeepersons work hard [most of them] and dont respect politicians who poke their fingers in their eyes.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
I said “black” a couple of weeks ago and was accused of making a racial comment so I am not going to say anything on this subject.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I lot of problems in Indiana would go away if we 1) Brought back the Founder's (of America) basic idea that there be a property requirement-a qualification, for anyone who wished to vote. If you didn't have enough property then you were not able to vote. 2) Bring back the Poll Tax. Although it was never a stable source of revenue it could be sufficient to fund desirable electoral practices. 3) Bring back literacy requirements. The founders of democracy in Athens would have no problem with any of these nor did Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, and any number of Founders. It is apparent to me that the Convention system produced better men for office and Indiana would be better served were Senators elected under the old system.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Pascal is such a wimp! Why not really go back to the good old days of our Founding Fathers and permit slavery and just count Abdul as 3/5th of a person?
October 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Aren't we expected to be literate, to drive a car? It could be argued that literacy (coupled with critical thought) can be a shield against misinformation (manipulation, etc.). Steinbeck?
If “ignorance of the law is no excuse” (yes we're overwhelmed with flaws posed as laws), how is ignorance of our most fundamental law, the Constitution, “excusable?”
October 14th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Ed was not scheduled to attend the meeting. He was sent a letter asking him to attend. He replied that he would not attend – you should ask your source why he would no attend and for a copy of his response. I'm sure your source did not give you any of their baggage into why they are on the outside looking in.
What is happening with the organization is hurt feelings and revenage by two people. They hate Ed and would do anything to make him look bad, even make the IDAAC look bad. It is not about Andre Carson, although that is what they've said. They are not trying to help black people get elected. They are Greg Bowes supporters and by the way, I really like Greg, but these two people are bringing him down.
I've spoken with several people who attended the meeting and they said Bill Crawford was not outraged at the meeting and he attended a meeting earlier this year when the slating process was discussed.
Sounds like there needs to be new leadership within the IDAAC because the two people running the IDAAC need to get over the fact they don't have any power in the party and they never will. I mean who wants someone in power that sends out physcially threatening letters. I'm sure your source didn't share that letter with you.
Just like cowards, they throw the stone and hide their hands. Ask your source for all the details or find someone who can objectively give you accurate information. The lies just don't work.
By the way I've spoken with alot of Black precinct people and elected officials, they are not happy with the IDAAC leadership. It might be a racial thing, but it is only for the two Black people who is supporting the White candidate.
Abdul, before you believe what people tell you, do a background check. You might uncover a lot of good stuff in the process of getting truthful information.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Ed was not scheduled to attend the meeting. He was sent a letter asking him to attend. He replied that he would not attend – you should ask your source why he would no attend and for a copy of his response. I'm sure your source did not give you any of their baggage into why they are on the outside looking in. What is happening with the organization is hurt feelings and revenage by two people. They hate Ed and would do anything to make him look bad, even make the IDAAC look bad. It is not about Andre Carson, although that is what they've said. They are not trying to help black people get elected. They are Greg Bowes supporters and by the way, I really like Greg, but these two people are bringing him down. I've spoken with several people who attended the meeting and they said Bill Crawford was not outraged at the meeting and he attended a meeting earlier this year when the slating process was discussed. Sounds like there needs to be new leadership within the IDAAC because the two people running the IDAAC need to get over the fact they don't have any power in the party and they never will. I mean who wants someone in power that sends out physcially threatening letters. I'm sure your source didn't share that letter with you. Just like cowards, they throw the stone and hide their hands. Ask your source for all the details or find someone who can objectively give you accurate information. The lies just don't work. By the way I've spoken with alot of Black precinct people and elected officials, they are not happy with the IDAAC leadership. It might be a racial thing, but it is only for the two Black people who is supporting the White candidate. Abdul, before you believe what people tell you, do a background check. You might uncover a lot of good stuff in the process of getting truthful information.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:50 am
We don't need to go back that far Wilson. In fact we can go back to 1860 when the southern democrats argued to count slaves as 7/10 of a person when considering congressional seats.
You must be proud of your party. The party that kept AA's enslaved for three hundred years pre civil war and 90 more years post CW.
Its a shame that even today the democrats are still try to control AA's with the social programs they are pursuing.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:58 am
If todays GOP is sooo good for African-Americans, how come there are NO Black Republicans elected to either the Legislature or to Congress? How come Republicans are lucky to get even 10% of the African-American vote?
P.S. The Democratic Party didn't even exist 300 years ago but a little learning was never high on your agenda, was it now?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Poor Wilson, out there all by himself twisting history again…changing your name doesn't make one anew.
Just because the party was organized in 1792 doesn’t negate the fact that it was active for decades prior to.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Ernies ignorance is so profound that arguing history with him is like talking to a tree stump.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Wilson anytime you want to debate actual history I'm in. However please keep in mind that the twists and turns that you attempt to interject won't fly.
Speaking of trees… wasn't there a photo on the internet of you sitting under a bridge discussing life with a tree or two? Wasn't that you? or…was that a troll?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Nothing wimpy about good ideas, of which Wilson has none. If you want to cry about being only 60% of a man, I suppose that is your right. The Founders dealt with their problems the best they knew how and better than anyone else had to that point. As to the ideas that Indiana should adopt. They aren't wimpy….you pussy.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Nothing wimpy about good ideas, of which Wilson has none. If you want to cry about being only 60% of a man, I suppose that is your right. The Founders dealt with their problems the best they knew how and better than anyone else had to that point. As to the ideas that Indiana should adopt. They aren't wimpy….you pussy.