The Montgomery County Democratic Party this evening, at its Central Committee Meeting, in separate unanimous actions agreed to endorse all of the primary candidates recommended by its Selection Committee. It was reported that at the Selection Committee Endorsement Meeting there were 47 members who voted on the endorsements.
The Central Committee was acting on recommendations from the Executive Committee. The issue of the timing of endorsements had been discussed at the last Executive and the last Central Committee meeting in October and a motion to delay endorsement had been defeated at that meeting. This issue of delaying endorsements was raised again at this evening’s Executive Committee and, again, by a large margin the Executive Committee defeated a motion to delay. The deadline for candidates to file is January 4.
The MCDP voted to endorse the following candidates as Democratic candidates for the following offices: 36th Ohio House District, Chuck Norton; 37th OHD no endorsement; 38th OHD, Susan Lemish; 39th OHD, Clayton Luckie; 40th OHD, Roland Windburn; 6th Ohio Senate District, John Doll. In addition, the party endorsed John Froelich for judge (I didn’t catch the court). The MCDP made no endorsement for anyone to fill the Office of Coroner.
Most interestingly, the Selection Committee made no endorsement for either the 3rd U.S. House District or the 8th U.S. House District — the two House of Representative Districts in Montgomery County. At the Central Committee Meeting, MCDP chairperson, Mark Owens, indicated that Jane Mitakides had recently expressed an interest in becoming the Democratic Party’s candidate for the 3rd U.S. House District. He invited Ms Mitakides to the platform and she spoke, I thought, convincingly and well. But the Central Committee, by vote, determined to keep the primary candidate selection process open and chose not to endorse anyone for the 3rd U.S. House District — until after the January 4th deadline to file.
After the October meeting, I made this post: The Mission of the Democratic Party Should Be to Empower Democracy to Work
Earlier in October, I made this post: “The Big Questions Facing Our Democracy Are Too Important To Allow Political Parties to Decide”
I stood up and made a motion to endorse Ms. Mitakides from the floor- since the party had already made all the choices in the back room already. Mark Owens said it had to be made by someone from the “Central Committee” and so I asked for a motion. It was made and seconded- there was a voice vote, which Ownes immediately called a nay- without a roll call vote. Apparently, even though Mitakides has been vetted, and everyone has known a challenger should be in place, the party seems to think that in this case, it’s up to the voters to decide and that a primary is the answer.
Why is it not the case for the “competent” candidate that wanted to run for the 40th- a district that is mostly democratic? Why can’t the voters be trusted?
As long as we’re going to have a horse race against Mike Turner- we may as well have a real field.
I’m running.
You read it here first.
Pingback: How spineless Dems “in power” can rationalize supporting my campaign at Esrati for Congress
A week or so ago, I was looking at Jane Mitakides website to see if there were any upcoming events where she was scheduled to appear. None were listed, so I emailed her through the “contact” area on her website and I asked if there would be any opportunities to hear her speak or debate the other candidates before the primary. I never got a response.
Then I found out (through David Esrati’s website) about a candidate forum that was being held yesterday at Shroyer Road Baptist Church. Most of the people in attendance were either candidates or campaign workers. I was one of a handful of voters who showed up to hear what they had to say.
Jane Mitakides arrived late, sat apart from everyone else, and asked only one question of the other candidates (and that was in self-defense). She made a rather lame presentation focusing on her “endorsed” status, then left as soon as she could without really thanking the organizers or staying a few minutes to talk with the people who were there.
Her attitude seemed to be that she doesn’t need to work very hard to
win the primary. Maybe she thinks that she’s already bought and paid for a victory with the big loan that she made to her campaign. But after hearing her speak, and given her track record, I don’t think she has what it takes to beat Mike Turner. She can spend all the money she wants and it won’t make a bit of difference.
If she really embraced liberal social values, she could have found a much better way to use the money she’s loaned herself for her campaign. But at least some of the pizza that was leftover after the forum went to a homeless shelter, so I guess that $50,000 won’t be a TOTAL loss.
One wonders why yesterday’s event wasn’t publicized on her website. The only reason I can think of is that she knew a big turnout would have cost her some votes. Both Esrati and Sanders made some good points, but Mitakides spoke in platitudes and put way too much emphasis on being the anointed one.
Well, I’ve got news for Jane: voters aren’t stupid, and critical thinkers aren’t overly impressed with endorsements, especially half-hearted, “better late than never” ones like hers.
She actually implied that it was her “turn” to win simply because she lost last time! But by that logic, either Esrati or Sanders should win. They’ve both lost more elections than she has. They’re also both more sincere and more accessible.
But of the three, only Esrati has anything substantial to offer, and I firmly believe that he is the only one who can give Mike Turner a run for his freshly laundered money in the fall. A vote for Jane Mitakides in Tuesday’s primary is a vote for Mike Turner in November.