By Jim Spencer
SpencerSpeaks.com
“If we know who our candidate is sooner, we can raise more money,†Waak said in an interview this week.
With that in mind, Waak said she spent time last Saturday talking to Benner about other ways to provoke a discussion of issues without trying to get on a primary ballot.
“For years, I would have said primaries are great for a discussion of the issues,†Waak said. “But when I watched what happened with Ed Perlmutter and Peggy Lamm in the 7th Congressional District and the amount of money that took, we’re much better off without primaries in 2008.â€
The Perlmutter-Lamm Congressional primary in 2006 was not only expensive; it was acrimonious with both candidates using negative attack ads to disparage the other.
Benner probably wouldn’t have the money to do that to Udall. But Waak fears his attempt to get on the primary ballot might divide her party before a general election in a critical race to maintain and extend Democratic control of the Senate.
Benner believes Democrats should embrace a single-payer health care system where tax withholding replaces health insurance premiums and a quasi-governmental agency collects the money to pay for health care. The money is then distributed to private doctors of the patient’s choice.
Udall has not endorsed such a system, which would cover every American.
Benner also wants impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain an option, a position Udall refuses to take.
Benner also has concerns about Congress’ lack of action on the American military’s use of torture and withdrawal from
Benner still hasn’t filed formally as a candidate. But said he intends to, though he knows he can’t beat Udall in a primary and may not even get the 30 percent of delegate votes needed to get on a primary ballot when the Democrats meet in a May assembly to choose candidates.
Still, the specter of a person trying to divide the party and drive Udall to the left wing in a primary gives Waak concern. Republicans are already trying to brand Udall a “
“I think Mark Benner understands he has a protest campaign,†Waak said. “We talked about other ways to protest.â€
Copyright 2007 by Jim Spencer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
7 users commented in " Dem Chair Doesn’t Want Senate Primary "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI realize that this is a reality in modern politics. But why should a candidate be in fear of “moving to the left, or moving to the right” in order to win a primary in their respective party? A candidate should have stable views based on well thought out beliefs that are not changed by the people that they are standing in front of at any given time. What we have here with Waak, although she (and others) must have good intentions, is a group of ‘back room’ people that annoint the candidate of their party. The people getting no legitimate say in the matter. I am not singling out the Democratic party here, LHKMAN, as I know this happens in both parties.
But what Jim is talking about here cannot be good for democracy.
Everything Pat Waak, Colorado Democratic Party chairperson says about protest campaigns may be right, but she still demonstrates what thinking people know about the so-called leaders of both major parties — they believe in democracy and the voice of the people as long as it’s neat and clean and doesn’t foul their own nests. A similar campaign before the Salazar-Coors main event a few years ago didn’t seem to damage the Salazar effort at all, but it did give the left-wing of the Democrats an opportunity to make their voices heard. This is a non-partisan rant; look at how hard Dick Wadhams (GOP) is working to keep Secretary of State Mike Coffman in his current office and out of a House race. Democracy is wonderful — for the other guy and as long as it doesn’t get too messy.
I agree with you, noidea, but I think what you miss is that it doesn’t do a candidate much good to have stable views and well thought-out idea — if he or she cannot make it onto the ballot for the general election.
I’m old enough to remember when the party leaders (both parties) did select their candidates in smoke-filled rooms. Arguably, they did a better job of selecting candidates who had a chance of winning and who weren’t just pandering to the so-called “base” of the party. As I recall, the last “real” national party convention where the delegates actually got to vote and see their votes mean something, was the 1976 Republican convention in Kansas City. That’s the one where Reagan led an insurgency against Ford, but lost. The heavy reliance on party primaries has given the extremes of both parties far more influence than they deserve, and has contributed to the current situation, where candidates have to play to the extremes rather than to the middle - where most voters are. I look at our current government and the way it came to power and I must agree with you: “It isn’t good for democracy.”
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
A person must stand on their beliefs. This is what is missing with the chumps that are running now…The only two real candidates are Dennis K and Ron Paul. The others are pandering…loose with their ideas and weak. The unfortunate thing is both are flawed and I would not vote for either of them… I can’t believe, in this great country of ours, that there is nobody worthy of being our leader. Not a single candidate standing, in either party, is worthy of being MY president..
Just one more thought about party chairmen (and women). They are not in those jobs to advance democracy or the public welfare. They are hired guns, paid to manage the party and to see that the party’s candidates get elected. No more, no less. A primary contest may be good for society, but it’s messy and unpopular with the kind of people who get hired to run parties.
I couldn’t agree with you more noidea!
I greatly admire both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, because they remain true to their own principles, they don’t appear to be “bought” by anyone, and they both have sense enough to know the Iraq War should end immediately. I wonder why both parties give them such short shrift in debates. I’m afraid neither could win because of certain “flaws” as you say.
I’ve wondered what would happen if an outstanding 3rd party candidate came along.
(not a Perot type and not a religious type)Would all the unaffiliated voters (excluding the Naders, etc. ) vote en masse for this independent candidate? And would digruntled Republicans AND disgruntled democrats join this block of unaffiliated voters?
Leave A Reply