Hardball vs Irrelevance
An interesting read over at HoustonDemocrats.com by Murvin Auzenne. It's not uncommon in activist circles to consider the outcome of any minor election to be worth far more than it really is. Naturally, I think Murvin's had too much of the Maxey kool-aid in his wrap-up. But what I find particularly lacking is anything substantive that represents what "reforms" Glen Maxey would have made were he elected State Party Chair.
It goes hand in hand with what you can hear in Glen's convention speech, which stated that the party was relevant for reasons involving the party's stance on a number of issues. Last I checked, my views on the importance of education, health care, and the environment do not depend on a) Glen Maxey being the state party chair or b) any living person holding that office. The relevance of the party is the strength of the ideas it represents - not the individual holding office. When I claim the office of TDP Chair and, for that matter, pretty much the entire TDP operation can be replaced with a Call Notes subscription, I know of no single Democrat who thinks for a minute that their views on such issues are any less represented.
In reading Murvin's take, however, I'm struck by how much Maxey's reforms (as viewed from Murvin's distance) look a whole lot like just another crony looking to replace someone else's lackeys with his own. That's not reform. That's cronyism by any other name. Yet there sure were a lot of true believers in the seats at the convention who took "the message of change" instead of anything really resembling change.
Believe me, I don't offer all of that to just flail away at the figurative dead body of the Maxey campaign. There are several reasons that I think Glen deserves a high degree of respect. I don't intend to take that away from Glen. But I do think that those genuine reformers of the world deserve someone who actually offers a true message of change - not just a change on the nameplates. If anyone wants to start THAT "discussion." by all means, get going with it.
UPDATE: One more bit of irony from the convetion. Karl-T feels just "sick" over Valinda Hathcox not getting prime speaking time at the convention. Hmmm. Maybe that should be taken up with the guy who saw to it that we devoted half of Saturday to vote in a State Party Chair. Seriously, do they just NOT see the irony here? Candidates were told upfront that the speaking duties would be cut off specifically at 1pm in order to get to the vote for State Party Chair. 1pm sharp. I think if either of the candidates for chair wanted to see to it that folks like Valinda got to address the crowd before the 4 hour vote of irrelevance took place, they could have easily made a motion to do so. For that matter, Karl-T could have made a motion from the floor. How sick is that situation now, I wonder?
Categories
Politics-20068 Comments
Very well said. The primary arguments for Maxey were 1) he's an outsider who will reform things, and 2) he's been around a long time and has a lot of experience.
How did the Maxey supporters fail to notice that these two attributes completely contradicted each other? That one could be true, but not both? That once one of them falls, we are left with a guy not very different from Richie?
True that. Plus Maxey was a longtime consultant to the TDP during the years when they were losing every statewide office and both houses of the legislature. Not his fault by any means but another example of why his "outsider" message didn't catch on.
Glen never consulted for the party- didn't develop any message or strategy or that kind of stuff. He was a contract vendor that was paid by project and was responsible for building the very first version of the voter file back in the day. He hasn't been paid by the party in years.
to Dale (and why are we rehashing this after the fact)- how about the marriage of knowing the old and all those people, plus being the leader of the new movement. Would do more for unity than you think.
K-T,
Utterly amazing how contorted your argument gets when it comes to someone taking payment for services to a campaign. I'm curious if you'd be so forthcoming to enlighten us as to the position Maxey had promised you if he were to have won the race for TDP chair. Maybe you're finally prepared to have an intelligent discussion on conflict of interest and blogger ethics.
Um, believe it or not Greg, Glen and I never talked about any position. I'm a student and I'm a student clear through December. I wouldn't have the time to work for the TDP. Glen's campaign manager? He's a law clerk now, would have been if Glen had won or not. You can talk to anyone on Glen's campaign and they will tell you that I (and most every one of them) wasn't doing this for some 'position' but because they just wanted to get Glen Maxey elected.
I have never taken payment for services to any campaign until the post I made about an hour ago on my site (for the cooridated campaign in our county). Which is more than can be said for you.
Regardless of whether you and Glen actually discussed it, it was a point of conversation from several at the convention ... and apparently based on words you had offered to them. And still, it's a bit confusing how you can claim that you'd not have time to work at TDP (just in case something came up, I presume) and yet you do "have the time" to engage in your current role with the coordinated campaign. How is being a student such a debilitating factor from working at TDP compared to the current situation?
As for the sanctimony ... it's old. The hypocrisy ... it reeks. You dismiss Maxey of taking over $70,000 from TDP while still holding a grudge against my taking an incredibly miniscule fraction of that for work done on Chris' exploratory committee.
Anyways, here's to hoping that the coordinated campaign work at least has you off your anti-Chris views between now and E-day.
Um, because working for the TDP is a full time job and the 750 a mo for the coordinated is for technical work which fits into what I do anyways?
This griping over the convention is so old. Everyone has moved on except you it seems. Glen certainly has and is busy working again to get people elected. Literally, he was 2 short days after the convention (which by the way, I'm sorry was *such* an interruption for you).
Anti-Chris views? Geeze you don't move on. The primary was over in *March*.
"fits into what I do anyways"
How about as opposed to what "I do anyways," then? I just find it amazing how you delineate your own political piousness with that rationale yet have accused me of worse despite doing work that fits into what I do anyways.
Sorry, K-T ... letting you off the hook for your own personal attacks isn't moving on. It's forgetting something too central to the way you personalize arguments against others unnecessarily (as evidenced by your comments here, no less). Funny how when someone doesn't just let you win an argument, they "don't move on." But when you initiate the personalized accusations ... nothing! There's a deep flaw in that sort of logic. You're young and I hope you learn to move on from operating that way.