Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Humboldt Democrats violate their own Bylaws to remove Lifelong Democrat Ciarabellini!

Lifelong Democrat and current Eureka 4th Ward Councilmember Melinda Ciarabellini was removed tonight from the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC) as an “Associate” member in violation of their own bylaws that state, “2.11 Resignation and Removal: This Committee also may remove a regular MEMBER (Regular and not Associate), except an Ex Officio Member, for the following grounds: • (d) Publicly advocating that voters should not vote for the Democratic endorsee for any office, or giving support or avowing preference for a candidate of another party or unaffiliated candidate who is opposing a candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party.

The vote was 12 yes, 9 no and 1 abstention. A vote to table the vote for removal until clarification of bylaws failed 10-10. Obviously Humboldt Democrats didn’t overall agree on this action. (I pointed out that the HCDCC Bylaws should supercede an new resolution.) Lots of discussion.

Melinda endorsed her longtime friend John Fullerton over Lisa Ollivier for Eureka City School Board.


Charlie Bean said...

What's wrong with the local Dems? do they not believe individuals should think for themselves?

Good Job, Melinda, follow your own thought process and not the Party line!

Fred Mangels said...

And this in a non- partisan race even.

Barbara Leonard said...

Ahh, the circular firing squad at work again. Both parties have them. Brady is a lifelong Democrat, will she be next? Guess lock step thinking is the requirement in both parties these days. Unfortunately,the voters are kinda independent thinkers.

samoasoftball said...

Barbara: They bullied Marian to resign. Like they have bullied others in the past. But the HCDCC are hypocrites. They ex officios are allowed to participate on the Central committee and endorse whichever party candidate they want........and they have! Greens and Republicans and they aren't even questioned! And they are full blown members, unlike Melinda.

John Fullerton said...

I am proud that Melinda endorsed me in my race for the Eureka School Board.

Any school board position is all about the children and has nothing at all to do with partisan issues.

The Democrat Central Committee leaders must be sad bitter partisans to do something this wrong. Shame on them.

liberal jon said...

"Bullied" nice Richard.

I don't hear any of you complaining when Chet Albin of Tea Party and Conservative and Sarah Palin "likes" registers within two years as a Democrat. Clearly this isn't the case here, but it's in the same discussion.

Fred Mangels said...

So, Richard: Who introduced the motion to remove her?

Anonymous said...

It's my understanding that when a organization violates their By -laws and they are a non - profit it is possible the Secretary of State could pull or revoke the non- Profit Status of that organization.

samoasoftball said...

Philis Seawright. Jon. What does Chet have to do with this? I don't get the connection. And yes, Marian was "bullied" off this committee. Not the first or last.

Anonymous said...

Anon now that is something worth checking into...

liberal jon said...

Richard. That's a great question. I can't answer it in 140 characters or less. I'm sure you are not interested in the answer because it goes against the narrative that you have made your bread and butter for how many years? 10? probably much longer.
What connects them and John Chiv's post on Firpo getting a cold reception is everyone wants to either be a Democrat or not be a Republican. Add to the mix the "partisan" fear mongers. Those are the ingredients for what we call "politics" in Humboldt. What's missing is the policy.

Again, to explain that would take chapters, and you wouldn't be interested in reading it. But let me try for a Cliff's Notes version.

Let's talk about Melinda and Marian. You said in the meeting Wednesday night that if the bylaws were clear, you would be happy to vote on removing Melinda. The bylaws are not clear, we are fixing that. What would have been your vote if it was clear an Associate had the same responsibilities as a Member?

To be honest Richard, none of this matters to me. What matters to me is what we as Democrats are fighting for. What are the voters voting for when they see the "D"? Is it loyalty to friends? That's a great trait don't get me wrong and I'm pro-loyalty, but that isn't what the public votes for when they see a D. Is it "liking" conservatives - no, that one is clear. Is is smart growth? Actually, yes, that is one of the things they are voting for as defined by the California Democratic Party.

Politics is about policy and Melinda and Marian have consistently voted conservatively on policy.

Now, can we remove them from the HCDCC for that? Absolutely not. We allow people to define themselves as far as party affiliation, and often, they have been Democrats for years. But that is neither here nor there in what the Committee was voting on last night.

What we (the Members) were voting on was of the requests we have of Members is, if the HCDCC endorses someone, please do not publicly support their opponent. Marian and Melinda did this.(This was not clear in the by-laws, I grant you that and we are fixing that).

My question to you would be, if the bylaws were more clear, would you have voted to remove Melinda? If so, would that have made you a bully?

If not, where will we ever draw the line between who or what is a Democrat? Chet Albin is now a Democrat. Are we to start defining Democrats by the months or years registered? Of course not.

Richard, the problems we face are much more profound than what you are addressing here. The problem we have is our HumCo political system has collapsed on us. We have only one effective Party in HumCo (and that is NOT a good thing). Matthew O. has admitted this to me on a practical concern as we are the only one with an effective ground game, but more importantly, people like Virginia who are social moderates feel they have been excluded from the Republican Party by their wingers. What this means is a "D" or lack of publicized "R" will earn you at least 5 and probably 10 to 15 points in an election.

So people with different policy ideas on the most important and significant issues, like, say, the "Planning and Building" Department (which was the one issue Virginia mentioned during her campaign announcement) are all found in our one teeny, weeny political organization.

This in effect short circuits political discussion, which in effect short circuits any chance of effective policy discussion in our adversarial political system.

It's a problem, and that's my short version of trying to explain why Melinda and Chet belong in the same discussion.

samoasoftball said...

Jon: That is your "short" version? You exhaust me.

Anonymous said...

If the bylaws admittedly weren't clear, then it was obviously ethically wrong to oust someone for supposedly violating those admittedly unclear bylaws. What they should have done was clarified the bylaws, and enforced them in the future.

But obviously ethics and fair play didn't enter into the equation for those on the "winning" side of this purge. Nowadays HCDCC seems to be dominated by a little clique of power-mad mini-Napoleons throwing their weight around in the one little playpen where they have some influence, and making sure no one remains who doesn't conform 100% to their precious group-think.

They seem bound and determined to transform the HCDCC from being the local leadership of a broad-based party, to being the local leadership of a narrow little faction. And it seems to be working, so I guess "congratulations" are in order.

liberal jon said...

So anon, let's say we did that, wouldn't we still be bullies?

There was no confusion here, if there was, a good faith attempt might have been made to talk to others in the Committee. No this is the same old story playing out again, it's just a question of how long can it continue before people figure out the game.

Who really deserves the congratulations anon? The HCDCC or elected officials Richard Marks and Supervisor Bass? Previous winners of this include Marks' supported conservative Supervisor Rex Bohn, Council Member Newman and Supervisor Sundberg. They are the real winners which is exactly the point.

And btw, supporting those with conservative policies is absolutely fine and right. All I'm saying is the HCDCC should not be working to promote un big "D" Democratic values. Again, say what you will about all the other issues. The issue that matters right now is land use policy. Supervisor Bass knows it, Supervisor Sundberg knows it and all their financial contributors know it too.

Richard is on board too, seemingly because Matthew and Virginia are great people (where I don't disagree), long-term friends, and gee - no one really cares about the GPU so who cares if a current strategy is to go beyond the current "B" plan options and go back to 1984 era "C" and "D" plan alternatives.

It really doesn't matter, no one cares.

Anonymous said...

"So anon, let's say we did that, wouldn't we still be bullies?"

Yes, but at least you'd be bullies who followed the rules you claim to hold dear.

Ljon @ T1: "The bylaws are not clear, we are fixing that."

Ljon @ T2: "There was no confusion here"

You can't even keep your own arguments straight. Not an uncommon problem among the intellectually dishonest who argue backwards from their desired result, rather than forward from principle.

liberal jon said...

Anon - that's a good argument. Sincerely. I really wish I knew who you were so I could flesh it out, the anon business drives me nuts.

Obviously I don't think I'm being dishonest, but we seem to agree on the necessity of maintaining the endorsement policy, if we disagree on the the way it was handled.

Let's move forward...

What are the principles we are moving forward from? Where are we going? Because I think we need to distinguish the factions of the Democratic Party.

Don't you agree that it is healthier for our County to have two working parties instead of one party rule?

What are the principles, I think you bring up a great and important point.

I'll start. I think one is to live in a sustainable manner. I'd like to protect agriculture and timberland for the long term. And yes, I'm trying to work backward on how we get there.

Does that make me intellectually dishonest?

I'd like to know what your fundamental principles are that guide the Democratic Party forward. And where does it take us?

Kneelander said...

Richard: do you believe someone like Chet Albin is sincere in his decision to register Democrat?

Anonymous said...

Or John is possibly a sore loser?

Anonymous said...


You are intellectually dishonest by framing who is or is not a democrat around the GPU process.

Dems do not march in lockstep with one another.

It seems to me that you are more of a Green than a Democrat, so using your logic, I should be calling YOU out for that, calling YOU a problematic Democrat, because for me, unions and protecting our jobs from overseas underpaid competition is more of a compelling issue for Dems as opposed to the GPU process (which you don't even understand).

samoasoftball said...

10:44pm I would have to say no. I like Chet and his enthusiasm as a City Councilman, but I do question his decision to register as a Democrat. But then again, who am I to judge?

I just want to be clear that I think HCDCC "Associate" members should not be held to the same accountability as elected "Members". And I feel ex-officios such as Wes Chesbro, Noreen Evans should abide by the same rules as regular members. But they don't. Pretty much cost a few Democrats elections. Mike Pigg being the last for Northern Humboldt Union High School District. (Wes endorsed Green Party Dana Silvernale)

Joe Blow said...

One has to admire the commentary on this blog thread for what it is. Anyone watching, reading or listening to the national news, constantly hears about how worthless the government is because of all the acrimony causing gridlock. Well, here is a good example for WHY?

The whole system of government from National, to State, to County, to city, to the meaningless institutions like the “HCDCC” are infested with these kinds of infantile, dishonest, corrupt and totally lawless individuals masquerading as legitimate representatives. Personally, I'd be a bit concerned over this kind of a situation: “2:02 PM liberal jon said...
Anon - that's a good argument. Sincerely. I really wish I knew who you were so I could flesh it out, the anon business drives me nuts.” As revealed by the essence of this thread, there is more going on here than a simple political debate. This is nothing more than a prelude to what's happening in Syria.

I just watched this same morally debased lawless justification for corrupting law play out, almost verbatim on Democracy Now this morning. Notice jon's NOT offended at the fact a “law” was clearly violated to justify their end objective. He's really offended at the fact you (Richard Marks) had the temerity to point out his hypocrisy and that of his fellow Democrats, just like the guy on Democracy Now. But, then you get this comment: “10:21 AM - samoasoftball said...” and you see why the Rule of Law is ultimately meaningless.

liberal jon said...


OK, now I see, you just disagree, and to disagree you prove your point by calling me intellectually dishonest.

The GPU is an incredibly complex onion to unwrap. I am doing my due diligence as a concerned citizen. Whoever came up with the idea of a set of Guiding Principles was a genius. This is where I think the public can get involved.

No, clausing out of meaning "protecting natural resources for the long term" and "protecting agriculture and timberland for the long term" is not Democratic. And yes, it's unfortunate, but some unions and I will disagree - NOT ALL!

We can't protect jobs if that job was to cut-down, process or ship unsustainably. This is where we as Democrats should be having a discussion. We are not. We are working with REX BOHN to re-right the Guiding Principles, something that had to be done with only two Supervisors (and who knows whom else) because otherwise, as I understand the Brown Act, it would have been a violation.

As I watch this process, I'm thinking that was a strategy to negate much of the past, what 8,10 years of duly elected Supervisors.

They won complaining about the lack of public participation, they added Guiding Principles nominally to increase the public participation, but it is quite clear the only "public" they had in mind was their campaign contributors. Literally, I'm not making a rhetorical point. Look at the 5 to 10 GPU heads (other than me) at a meeting and you will find many or most of them on Ryan's and Virginia's 460. You'll also find Commissioners Ulansey and former Commissioner Disiere.

We are being governed as you would expect from a one Party system. If we are going to make this work, we are going to have to have an open, honest conversation about what we are doing and why.

liberal jon said...

Just for the record, when Bob Service was running for Chair, he wrote this when I asked him where he stood on the GPU process. I think this is so valuable as it points out the State position on this. These are big "D" Cally Democratic principles....

Thanks for your questions.

With regard to the General Principles: I see no problem with the GPs that
have guided the process for the last 14 years. Therefore I see no reason to
rewrite them. That said, what I am interested in is the final product. As
you know from our conversation, I am opposed to any General Plan Update
that encourages sprawl, either urban or rural. You may quote me on that. This
stand reflects the mainstream opinion of the California Democratic Party.
The Preamble to the 2012 Platform commits the CDP to "Build smart,
sustainable, safe, equitable, environmentally sound, aesthetically pleasing, and
caring communities." Further, the Energy and Environment plank puts the CDP on
record as promoting "...thoughtful land use planning to combat suburban
sprawl ..." and the Sustainable Communities plank reads (in part), "California
Democrats...promote smart growth..." and says "California Democrats will:
Reward local governments and regions for completing voluntary, sub-regional
comprehensive planning processes that stem the tide of urban and suburban
sprawl..." Furthermore, in 2007, the CDP adopted Resolution SAC07.09, Local
Planning to End Global Warming, the "therefore" clause of which reads,
"Therefore be it resolved, that the California Democratic Party supports sustainable
smart growth and energy-efficient land-use planning through ordinances,
legislation, and General Plans as a means for local communities to combat global
warming." I might add that I was a member of the State Executive Board and
the Environmental Caucus at the time this was passed and voted for it both
in caucus and general session. I recall no opposition being expressed to
the resolution. You might want to follow this up by going to
-activist resources- platform and resolutions, respectively.

Anonymous said...

Holey Schmoley, LJ!

Bob Service does NOT speak for the Democrat Party. Your fixation on the GPU is almost obscene.

Bob Service's opinion on this process does not validate your using this issue to define who is or is not a good Dem. Your smearing of a life long Dem Melinda C is just wrong.

That you cannot see this is indicative of your tunnelvision.

Your attack on Elan Firpo because she dated your former boss is also an embarrassment. Jayson Chand? Really, you have a problem with Elan, because she dated or is dating someone? Perhaps you should ask Maggies brother in law Joel Mielke who actually facebookbombed Elan's website with likes, since it was he who immediately was out contacting the likes of Ryan Burns.

Dirty tricks? Joel Mielke? Nahhhh

S. Remings said...

"Hypocrisy, unethical, bullying, shame, unaccountable, lawless..."

Are you people serious?

This has been going on for several years, who can forget Brady wearing a republican candidate's sweatshirt to HCDCC meetings? She made a mockery of the committee.

It's a democratic PARTISAN political group and a majority voted! Has there been an appeal? Legal action? Brady, Melinda and Bass are free to form their own partisan group and defend its legitimacy.

If someone doesn't like other HCDCC members endorsing Green candidates (a zero political force outside Arcata), they are free to utilize the democratic process and move to vote for their ouster! Deciding not to exercise that right doesn't diminish other's right to vote.

More to the point, the vast majority of eligible voters abstain, making it reasonable to argue that none of the elected officials are legitimate representatives and should be ashamed for acting so.

Anonymous said...

So S.Remings solution is to try and vote out the quasi greens in the local GreenOcrat central committee?

Not bloody likely. Point is, the FACT is, that Brady and Ciarabellini are LIFELONG Democrats who endorsed friends in NONPARTISAN races, and were forced out of the HCDCC,

while good dems like Wes Chesboro endorsed those of other parties and are feted.

Again you have a lunatic LJ who is out there trying to define who is or is not a Dem by what stance he or she takes on the GPU. Not on my watch.

Try going to the South,LJ, ever hear the term bluedog?

liberal jon said...

It's interesting to learn about people from the blogging/commenting process. You get a perspective on others that you can't as a reader once people start reacting to your own writings.

So. Anon (as always) 10:03.

I'd think we'd all agree that the Democrats should not be a social club. We are not Democrats b/c we like the name or we belong to the club, we are Democrats because we hold Democratic values, whatever they are.

I don't decide who is a good Democrat, WE get to define WHAT is a Democrat. We should be doing this by discussing policy, instead, Richard (and I'm quite sure we'll hear from Matthew soon if we haven't already in the anons) has used these opportunities when we do address matters of values, who are we going to endorse, etc. to try to define a Democrat by their name only. Melinda is a caps lock lifetime Democrat as if that is the by-all end all.

Lifetimes are long and 60 years ago the Democrats were a different party. The clearest way to see arguably on of the most important sea changes in the last century if not our nation's history can be seen so clearly if you look at how the Southern states voted over time. (with an app called "270 to win, you can quickly scan through all our nations elections over time while looking how each state voted, it's so instructive)
In the 1952 election the country was red and the South was blue, in 1962 it was the reverse. It took a couple of decades for the political shift to complete, but by 1980, Reagan and the Republicans captured the racial politics of the South that the Democrats finally disowned.

So, anon. You are probably saying, "see, my point LJ, you are a lunatic, this has nothing to do with Melinda Ciarabellini and the HCDCC."

You are absolutely correct, arguably about the lunatic part too :). But what I'm trying to do is bring this discussion outside the family squable of "you're not a Democrat", "no, YOU'RE not a Democrat".

A Democrat is someone who goes to the registrar and says I want to register as a Democrat. That's it. Melinda has done this for ever. Chet started doing this in 2012. Melinda, Chet and I are Democrats. This is not what Melinda's removal is about. The removal was about her endorsing a candidate publically who ran against a HCDCC endorsed candidate.

Remember, Melinda had a chance to argue against the HCDCC's endorsement of Ollivier, so did Virginia, et. al. Melinda hasn't been to a meeting in forever, I might have scene her once since I've been attending every meeting for about a year.

This isn't about who is a Democrat and who isn't. I'd love to have a discussion as an anon brought up about "principles" etc. on what makes us Democrats. That's why when we have these discussions I like to bring up the GPU. It's THE political issue of our time as Supervisor Bass made clear on the occasion of her announcement and it's also clear that on this cornerstone issue, she is toeing the Republican/conservative/propertyrights lobbyist/mortgage broker/libertarian line which is exactly the wrong direction we as Democrats, and much more importantly, we as a community have to go.


So this ... "Point is, the FACT is, that Brady and Ciarabellini are LIFELONG Democrats who endorsed friends in NONPARTISAN races, and were forced out of the HCDCC"

May be important to you anon, but it sounds like a high school social club issue the way you are addressing it. Which, actually, in some measurable way, it might be. Which is perhaps the saddest part of this whole thing of all.

liberal jon said...

One more thing... this..."Your attack on Elan Firpo because she dated your former boss is also an embarrassment. Jayson Chand? Really, you have a problem with Elan, because she dated or is dating someone?" just baloney.

So I'm guessing the rest is baloney too. I don't care to explore, but other's can because I'm not sure exactly what I said, but I am sure what I didn't say. I never would have "attacked" Elan, especially about her friend which is all I ever brought up.

My point was this. The LoCO article described Jaison (note spelling please) as a campaign "worker" my point was this was clearly false. I have no information past friend and I have no care about information past friend. All I cared about is understanding if this is a volunteer or formal working partnership and that it be made clear. It was addressed. Done.

Also, I have no problem in general with Elan either, just for the record. I've written about that on Rose's website watchpaul. The DA race is not something I know a lot about, so I would never, ever pretend to know enough to "attack" someone.

That Joel and his dirty tricks, tho, amiright? He should get a life, amiright? Posting all those Facebook likes on Elan's page as part of a devious plan to call his old peer Ryan Burns. Amiright?

No, I call baloney. Just as you established in the previous two sentences.

Anonymous said...

Instead of calling baloney, LJ, ask Ryan to deny it was Mielke.

I'm sure he won't confirm it, but he sure as hell won't deny it either.

S. Remings said...

Jon, you are spot-on, thanks for the historical reminder of how "democrat" has changed.

One thing that hasn't changed is the fundamental democratic principle that when you legislate to benefit the lower classes, it benefits all other classes that rest upon them. This is why your GPU example is apt. They are busy keeping regulations at bay in preparation of the 3rd housing bubble in just 40 years despite chronic shortages in affordable housing.

Once again, the HCDCC is a partisan political organization well within their rights to maintain their political ideology as they see fit.

A word of semantic advice, never use your opponent's language. The HCDCC members were DEMOCRATICALLY VOTED out....not "forced".

Anonymous said...

1. HCDCC's action is consistent with state party by-laws.

2. Electoral Politics is all about land use. Watch Chinatown again.

liberal jon said...

S. Remings. Thank you for the kind words.

What you said here is so true.

"fundamental democratic principle that when you legislate to benefit the lower classes, it benefits all other classes that rest upon them"

Is that trickle up economics? Or better yet, what about watershed economics! (TM!) A little trickle from each person "at the bottom" of the pyramid become a nice stream for the few who have chosen or have been fortunate to be streamside as the trickles and brooks and creeks and streams become a river and finds the ocean.

I think the "forced" you mentioned was in a quote I used. But you are right that words are so important to the narrative.

Joe Blow said...

Don't you just love the self-emulating hypocrisy? jon says: "The HCDCC members were DEMOCRATICALLY VOTED out....not "forced"."

Democratically voted out means the anarchist mob forced them out. Your so-called Democracy is nothing more than a vicious mob plundering and looting at will.

liberal jon said...

That was S. actually Joe.

S. Remings said...

"Plundering and looting" is exactly what the speculator industry will continue doing after the supervisor majority they purchased finish the GPU.

Anyone supporting this ugly Humboldt legacy is embracing an ideology that is incompatible with fundamental democratic principles.

2010 saw the wholesale abandonment within the republican party, registering democrat to improve their electability. They are hardly "victims of anarchist mobs" when they are democratically voted out of the group.

Do you think the republican central committee would tolerate a "Bonnie Neely" sweatshirt to be worn to meetings by their members in 2010?

Again, these are adults voluntarily engaging in hostile political partisan groups accustomed to bitter debate and infighting, well within their rights to purge members with opposing partisan ideologies. A civilized and democratic alternative to dueling.

Would the Boy Scout leadership tolerate female members? How about half female?

Joe Blow said...

One person, one vote IS mob rule anyway you cut it.

slippery jon: 'I think the "forced" you mentioned was in a quote I used. But you are right that words are so important to the narrative.' jon used the quote for a reason, it made his point.

S. Remings said...

"One person, one vote IS mob rule anyway you cut it."

I would agree if this were witch burning, however, more recent history should have taught you that you'd have few civil rights and liberty's today if not for the organizations that ousted members with opposing ideologies.

Eric Kirk said...

Didn't they have this discussion two years ago? Seems like they keep coming to this point. As I said then, I believe that the rules are too restrictive, which is why I would never be on the central committee. But I thought they decided not to enforce the rule at the time in order to clarify the rules for everyone.

Joe Blow said...

It's still one person one vote regardless of what so-called "organizations" voters are supposed to belong to. And that is MOB RULE.

S. Remings said...

Indeed, for the first time in living memory the HCDCC has been distracted for 4 years fighting over the ideological beliefs of a few members, and the candidates these members support that depart dramatically from fundamental democratic principles.

The suggestion (above) to simply adopt the state party By-Laws might avoid this issue in the future.

The HCDCC should articulate its principles in a statement of purpose: "The Democratic idea is to legislate to make the masses prosperous so that their prosperity will find it’s way up through every class that rests upon it.”

As opposed to Bass, Owen, Brady, Ciarabellini, and probably a few others, that abide by the republican ideology: "You just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, and that prosperity will leak through on those below".

Clearly, supporting the rewriting of the GP to suit development industry sensibilities, and the elected "representatives" that are making it possible, is incompatible to serving on a democratic central committee.

While Mr. Blow and Mr. Kirk might find such principles too restrictive, it is the lack of clear (enduring) democratic principles and the chaos it attracts that keep me and a lot of others off the HCDCC.

How far would MLK have gotten if he'd allowed segregationists on his team, and how many volunteers and how much credibility would he have lost? And what would the democratic party look like today, if that happened?

"Restrictive"? You bet.

liberal jon said...

Eric - the rules are too restrictive? Believe it or not, I was not a proponent of following this action. However, the rule or bylaw was that Members cannot endorse HCDCC endorsed candidates. If we can't have that rule, I'm curious what other options are there besides the carrot strategy? I'd love to only have carrots to encourage people to join as the only means of defining what a Democrat is, but I do think we need some rules to discourage political gamesmanship.

I think this recurring problem has been about gamesmanship as much as it's been sold as resisting change brought on by the wild and crazy radicals.

But you are not alone in believing these rules are restrictive. There are others who like you are not coming at this from an intra-party partisan angle, but from a fairness and/or strategy angle. This sort of squabble only hurts the Dems and/or Democrats should not be about discipline but outreach. I think those are valid arguments and I don't disagree. I just think others are using those arguments to further their partisan (conservative) ends in what by all evidence should be strong left-leaning organization.

S. Remings said...

It's surprising to me that the HCDCC, or any organization, would have any appeal at all if it must embrace members with diametrically opposed beliefs.

This is especially important in a corrupt political environment of
extraordinarily low voter participation combined with the right-wing's ability to outspending their opponents, maintaining control of every elected and appointed office in this county! Except for Arcata.

In this context, it must be unnerving for most HCDCC members to accept a handful of right-wing democrats working to defend the status-quo,(Latin for why things are messed up).

Bob said...

Am I a Democrat if I am pro smart growth and an environmental activist who believes that illegal immigration contributes to environmental degradation due to population growth? What if I truly believe that school vouchers for poor children will give them a leg up and I believe that there should be more accountability in public schools? Does this make me a right wing zealot though I have never in my life voted for a Republican? If I believe that the bond issue should be passed and water rates increased so that we don't have a major sewer failure and so that people are more careful about their water usage am I a tax and spend liberal? You people love to try and justify your illegitimate behavior by stifling thought and the free expression therein and bathing in your self righteousness. Only members of the HCDCCC are REAL Democrats and know what that is. The rest of us are just waiting to be told what to think.