Clik here to view.
Reprinted from OpEdNews.com
There's a special election taking place soon in Bensalem PA that reflects, in my opinion, in a microcosm, how the the Democratic Leadership acts at many levels within the Democratic party.
I attended a meeting of the local Democratic party for Bensalem, PA, in Bucks County, the ninth largest city in Pennsylvania, last night, and real fireworks went off. As is the custom, candidates running for different offices talked briefly to the elected officials, committee people and active Democrats who showed up, which last night was a major, standing room only turnout.
There's a special election coming up in March to fill a vacancy for a state House seat made vacant by Gene DiGirolamo, who was installed as Bucks County commissioner on January 6th.
This is significant because the seat represents Bensalem Township, where there is a significant, about 5,000 person Democratic Majority. Even with that Majority, the Republicans have usually won there, with a far better turnout than Democrats.
The race, after a relatively successful Fall 2019 election, is significant, because it could bring PA Democrats closer to taking back control of the PA state House of Representatives. That means there is statewide interest in the outcome, even national interest.
Last night a plumber union leader introduced one candidate-- Howie-- I can't remember . his last name. He had been a committeeman in Philly and had worked on a local politician's campaign over ten years ago. He's lived in Bensalem for four years but none of the members of the Bensalem Democrats knew him. He gave a brief talk, telling about his life as a plumber and committeeman.
Then Rachel Fingles, an elected member of the school board spoke and regular participant in the Bensalem Democrats spoke as a candidate. Stating that she was speaking, in the spirit of transparency, she revealed some serious liabilities as a candidate. She's divorced with kids, lives at home with her parents, which she said helped her with child care while she worked, and her parents, with paying bills. She reported that she'd gone bankrupt after her divorce, and that in a few months she would be over her bankruptcy period.
Rachel had spoken, over the past six months, with many of the committee people in the District, and had made it known that she wanted to run for the slot at least eight months ago.
This is where it gets interesting, and what set off the Fireworks
Then another elected member of the Bensalem Democrats spoke, saying that she had to address some issues which had been left unspoken.
She reported that it was very likely that the county leadership committee might not accept Rachel as the elected candidate, if the committee people elected her. They might reject her and install Howie the plumber as the candidate. Why? Because the plumbers union was offering $50,000 to support Howie's candidacy, and purportedly, the "money people" in Bucks County wouldn't support Rachel.
Being a firm believer in bottom-up politics and democracy I got up and said this was bullshit. Some people said that the leaders knew better and that it was going to cost $600,000 or more for this election. I asked both candidates why they were running. Rachel gave detailed answers, citing issues that are important to her and the members of the Bensalem Democrats. Howie said he wanted to support workers and unions-- and clearly had not thought about it. It was clear, through the discussion, that the County leaders had found Howie in the last week, as their choice to run against Rachel.
I was not alone in standing up against the idea of the county leadership vetoing a vote by the elected representatives of the people in the district. Some people agreed with me. Some felt that Rachel's liabilities would be attacked with TV ads and used against her. I replied that the Republicans would use attack ads against Howie too. Some said that Rachel couldn't run if she didn't have money people behind her. I pointed out that if she wins, the whole state and even people around the country will get behind her, that the no money threat was an idle one.
The Democratic committee people of Bensalem meet next week to vote on a candidate who will replace Gene DiGirolamo until next year. And there will also be a primary election later this year, at the same time as the regular primary elections are held. But next week is the deciding week for the interim replacement election. Committee people will have decide between Rachel and Howie. Rachel is well known and liked in the District. She's already campaigned and won as a member of the school board and she a very smart, savvy attorney... but she does have her baggage.
Howie is a plumber and a former committee man. He has no experience running for office and has not been involved in local politics. None of the committee people know him. Will they work to get out the vote for him like they have done for Rachel? And to be clear, not everyone in Bensalem likes Rachel.
There was discussion that this discussion was divisive and bad for the party. That's usually the message that is given, at the national level, by people advocating for the candidate the party leadership has chosen.
That's pretty much the story going into the committee person election next week.
There are a few questions and issues:
Will the veiled threats from the Bucks County party leadership to withhold campaign money from Rachel and the $50,000 plumber's union offer for funding be effective in securing Howie's candidacy?
If Rachel is elected by the committee people in spite of the threats, will the Bucks County leadership reject the will of the elected representatives of the people of Bensalem and appoint Howie to be the candidate? That would be a very ugly outcome, since most people at the meeting last night were pretty certain that Howie would be likely to lose, because the Republicans will most likely be offering KC Tomlinson, the daughter of a former popular elected official, Tommy Tomlinson, as their candidate.
There is another possibility. There are a few other Bensalem elected Democrats who could also run in the election next week. They've, so far declined to do so, for different reasons. My guess is they would both be more acceptable to the Bucks County leadership and would actually be stronger candidates in the special election.
Here's some more context.
In the last congressional election, for the US House, the leadership pushed for endorsement of philanthropist Scott Wallace, of the Wallace Global Foundation. They argued that he was a solid progressive, which he was, and that he had the money to self fund his candidacy. And he did, spending about $2 million on the primary and $12 or $13 million on the general election. But he lost to Brian Fitzpatrick because of attack ads based on his foundation funding Democracy Now, which had given airtime to Mumia Abu-Jamal, a convicted cop-killer, who progressives have said was unjustly convicted.
I had argued, including penning an article in the local daily newspaper, against endorsing Wallace. I believed that a top-down endorsement would invalidate a real primary, since a predominance of Democratic voters would go with the party's endorsement, rather than allowing a bottom-up primary where the candidates won based on their actual strengths or liabilities. I believe that the female, former military candidate could have won the primary AND the general election. But the county party leadership push for endorsement circumvented that. Again, they had been enamored by the money.
Now Bensalem faces a similar situation. What do you think the committee people should do?
I used "microcosm" in the title of this article because I believe that Democratic leaders, at all levels within the party have the hubris to believe that they know better than the bottom-up wisdom of the people. We saw it in PA with the selection, in 2016 of Katie McGintie to run for the US Senate against Pat Toomey. The leadership chose her because she was willing to kiss their butts, while Joe Sestak refused to agree to their unreasonable terms. And of course, she was crushed. If Joe Sestak had run, he may have, with his far stronger history as a candidate in the state, been able to close the difference not only for himself but also for the presidential race.
Now we have Cheri Bustos decreeing that any person or organization who helps a candidate run against an incumbent will be blackballed. This is another form of top-down anti-democratic control from the Democratic party leadership.
When it comes to money, candidates like Bernie Sanders, OAC, Elizabeth Warren and others have proven that it is possible to raise money from small dollar donors. I believe that if Rachel Fingels wins, that even if some big dollar donors refuse to back her, there will be money that comes in for her, that a statewide and national campaign to help her will bring in the money. The real issue is about getting out Democratic voters. They are in the majority in Bensalem. Big donors will not get out the vote. People do that. And when the top-down leadership stymies the will of the people, the people who do the legwork will be discouraged and a lot less likely to get out and do the necessary GOTV work.
We'll find out soon enough. I hope that the leadership learned a lesson, but I doubt it. The Republicans will benefit.