Mickey Kaus, a right-wing blogger and self-described “not going to win” candidate for the Democratic nomination to the US Senate, is throwing a temper tantrum because he’s not going to be offered a chance to speak at next weekend’s California Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles. The best coverage is from TBogg:
If Carly Carlyfiorinafornia’s Senate campaign is a twenty-car pile-up involving a tractor-trailer loaded with demon sheep, then the equally quixotic Senatorial campaign of Mickey Kaus is a fender-bender between two Ford Escorts in a Big Lots parking lot. It fails the Rubberneck test.
TBogg helpfully examines the correspondence between Kaus and CDP Executive Director Shawnda Westly about whether Kaus would be given a place in the program to speak to the delegates from the stage. Westly explained that “all four state officers” of the CDP – including Chair John Burton – agreed that Kaus’s candidacy did not meet the “viability” rules for allowing a Democratic candidate to speak.
On what basis did they reach that conclusion? Why, all they had to do was look at Kaus’s own words, as Shawnda explained to Kaus:
All four statewide officers agreed on the question of your campaign’s viability – based in part on statements that you had made to the press on that very topic – and forwarded their recommendations to the Chairman. One of the quotes was from an article you sent to us as part of your endorsement request on March 23rd.
* “I do not expect to win, and that is the difference between Franken and me.” (New York Times Magazine, March 14, 2010)
* “‘I’m not going to win, don’t worry about it,’ he told one guest, who was reluctant to sign. Others were assured that they could still vote for Boxer in the fall.” (LA Weekly, March 11, 2010)
In other words, the CDP leadership – rightly – decided that there was no reason to let someone running a vanity campaign use the party’s stage to promote himself. As an elected CDP delegate and member of the state Executive Board, I wholly endorse and support the decision of the leadership on this matter.
Especially since Kaus’s dedication to Democratic values is, well, nonexistent. He claims to be a “lifelong Democrat” but has spent his career attacking core Democratic constituencies such as labor unions and immigrants. What Kaus apparently willfully forgets is that unions and immigrants have been a core part of the party since the 1830s.
One would think that Kaus should just do the obvious thing and join the Republicans, but then that would mean he has to drop his ridiculous “I’m a Democrat embarrassed by my own party because they’re not a bunch of wingnuts like me” shtick. I for one am glad he won’t be spewing that nonsense from the stage of the CDP convention. Let’s reserve that for actual Democrats, please.
There is an old saying that those that cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Many years ago Tom Hayden ran against John Tunney an incumbent Senator in the primary. When the party refused to let him speak at several events including the State Convention, Hayden used that as part of his excuse for not endorsing Tunney. Several of his more prominent supporters went so far as to endorse his Republican opponent who won a very close race.
Whatever you think of Kaus (and I don’t really think much) many prominent Democrats including former President Clinton have sought out his advice in the past and he has been a supporter of many Democrats here in the state including Diane Feinstein. His father was a State Supreme Court Justice and his brother is a prominent San Francisco attorney.
Whatever Kaus’s stands on a range of issues, the common belief is that he is fronting for a group of people who are essentially Democrats but right wingers on the illegal immigration issue. John Burton is right that Kaus shouldn’t be able to speak to the convention (Neither should anyone else except for elected officials) but it woudl do more good than harm if he allowed a couple of empty rooms to be opened up for the candidates who were on the ballot to meet delegates and also ensured that everyone’s name appeared on the ballot that delegates were using. Frankly the controversy is giving his views more publicity than he could have gotten by speaking at the convention.
If he made some type of gesture towards letting those people have a way to make their case, it would stop the griping that already goes far beyond Mickey Kaus. There are several conspiracy buffs who think this is actually a plot to help Kamala Harris. The reason being that she apparently has some kind of shot at getting the parties endorsement and one of the people not allowed on the ballot for AG is running as a single issue candidate, but does have a background of actively volunteering on Democratic campaigns and might get a few votes that Harris needs. I dont think that’s what is happening, but it also shows the mindset that gets created when you try and limit arguments and discussions from delegates who think they are supposed to be making decisions.
Eight different presidential candidates addressed delegates in San Diego in 2007. A few of them had no more chance of winning than Kaus does. I suspect at least several of them knew that and were using the presidential run to get a podium from which they could bring up issues they thought were important. It is somewhat of a time-honored tradition. It’s certainly why I ran for CDP chair last year. I didn’t expect to win either. But there were some issues I felt hadn’t been raised in many years in the Party. My run gave me a chance to give them more prominence. Kaus deserves the same right.
As for your comment about vanity campaigns, I’m afraid I’d classify more than a few candidates under that classification–incumbents and others. And, as a delegate myself, I’m not sure what I agree about the value of incumbents speaking. Surely we have a better way to judge them. It’s called a voting record. Unless you’re short of sleep, I can’t imagine why you’d want to hear more from most of them.