Dem Party of Wisconsin Silences Dean Dems

We had our regular monthly Dean group meeting in Madison Wisconsin last night, and when the Dem party found out we were going to vote to endorse the non-establishment candidate for party chair they packed our meeting to stop our vote.

Much to their regret there was a newspaper reporter there, and the story got out in a big way. Check it out:

"Dems swing party chair vote by crashing grass-roots meeting"
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=35206&ntpid=8

You can also read rather heated discussion from both sides on our Yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DemocracyforWisconsin/

I just wanted to get some feedback and see if this sort of thing is happening in other states as well. Wisconsin once had a reputation for clean politics, but that was a long time ago...

...between the Dane County Democratic party, and Progressive Dane (a coalition of Democrats and Greens)? It was one of the 'dividing lines' in the recent Madison city elections (given the overall lack of Republicans, I guess).

I'm wondering if this is aside from that, or a part of that (as in the people involved, etc...). I mostly only hear about the Progressive Dane side of things, so I haven't heard much about what's been going on inside the local Democratic party. :shrug:

IIRC, the wards in Madison sometimes known as the 'People's Republic' (The UW + downtown + Near East Side) were the only ones that Dean won outright in the WI primary.

because I'm on the board of the Dane Dems. But this has nothing to do with the Dem/PD split. Strictly Dem party stuff.

Can't tell the players anymore unless you have a program!

It seems to me he'd want to know, considering he blogs on both mydd.com and Kos.

As a Wisconsinite and a Dem party member, I have to say that I'm quite disappointed in the party chair candidate's invasion of a non-party meeting.

But your headline claiming it was a Dem party action is misleading. The party itself must remain neutral in all Dem party elections, inside and out where more than one Dem candidate is involved. I cannot imagine it was an action endorsed by the party itself and to imply such without proof is improper. The party chair can act on her own behalf in support of her own election without her actions being construed as authorized on behalf of the party.

In the end, I'd like to think this will backfire on Mr. Wineke, Ms. Honold and their crew. Yet it appears if their purpose was in part to divide the DFA group, they've apparently achieved it.

Perhaps one way to avoid this when making endorsements as a group is to invite all the candidates involved to speak to the members. That way, no one can crash a meeting and gain an unfair advantage in the process.

... if you ask them. Doesn't mean anything. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin, as is the case with most state parties, is effectively controlled by one or a few powerful politicians. In WI right now it's pretty much run by Gov. Doyle.

Doyle wants to consolidate his power, so he put forward his own candidate for chair, Joe Wineke. Wineke is a past legislator, and has been a lobbyist for several years. His greatest strength is his loyalty, and he will completely focus the party on Doyle's '06 reelection run.

Doyle has also recently purged the Dem party staff, and a bunch of them will be leaving soon. Should Wineke win, Doyle will own the Dem Party of WI lock, stock, and barrel.

And there really isn't any division within DFW on all this. What you're seeing on our Yahoo group is a bunch of Wineke trolls who joined within the past few days. Many of them are political staffers in the Governors office (so much for the party not being involved). But since our philosophy is to have a free and open debate, we let them do their thing.

Gov. Doyle is a Dem but he doesn't run the Dem party. And, yes, that is officially but it also must be in form. The Dem party isn't Doyle's machine. I know 7000+ members who would have a huge problem with even the appearance of Doyle being in charge.

And, while Doyle may have encouraged Wineke to run for the chair position, that doesn't mean the Dem party had anything to do with the appearance of several Wineke supporters at a DFA meeting. To flatly state or even imply otherwise without evidence is libelous.

You see, being a Dem and behaving badly is different than the Dem party behaving badly. To mix them up and assume they are the same is no different than the pukes extrapolating to the party the bad acts of one Dem.

It's bad form and I ask you to refrain from such broad-brush assumptions.

On edit: I would add that Doyle purged no one from the DPW offices. He can't. As I said earlier, the DPW isn't Doyle's machine. The DPW is governed by an executive board elected by the membership. If you've paid any attention at any of the past several elections, you would have noticed that for every election season, several employees are added to the DPW. At the conclusion, many leave for bigger and better jobs with campaigns or other Dem Party offices. Some are let go to conserve finances. It has nothing to do with Doyle, or even "cleansing".

Are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass? :wtf:

...with what they really are. Two very different things in politics.

7000+ DPW members would indeed have a huge problem with even the appearance of Doyle being in charge, if they could see it. Doyle's a pretty smart guy, and he knows he's not well liked in the party. Which is why he's very careful to keep his control hidden.

His power comes from the loyalty of enough of the Ad Committee to override opposition, and that loyalty is achieved through the use of an assortment of rewards, perks, and threats.

I'm not trying to trash Doyle here, this is just standard stuff that happens in every state. It would be historically unusual if Doyle DIDN'T control the DPW at this point in his political career.

To her credit Doyle doesn't own DPW chair Linda Honold, although Linda is smart enough to avoid open conflicts with him.

You make a very valid point that individual Dems shouldn't be confused with the party as a whole. But when the highest leadership of the Dem party is involved in something, the distinction isn't nearly as clear.

Tim Sullivan, second in command of the DPW, was actually organizing the Wineke forces at the meeting. Joe Wineke himself was there, and since he's running on a ticket with Linda Honold, there's a reasonable chance she knew what was going down. Most of the Wineke forces were a group of local College Dems who had no clue what was happening. They were just told to go to the meeting and follow orders.

Is that Dem party involvement? I'll leave that up to you to decide.

You're right that DPW staff often change around elections. They're basically chosen by the chair and serve at the her pleasure. New chair, new staff. But Doyle recently decided to preemptively replace DPW Executive Director Kim Warkentin. Probably so that he can put in his own person before the party elections in June. Doyle's staff put out the word that he expected Kim to leave, and she's currently floating her resume.

I hear that Linda actually wanted Kim to stay, but if Doyle wants her gone she's gone. When Kim leaves soon it will just be announced that she decided it was time to move on to bigger and better things. Same with several of the other DPW staffers who are on Doyle's sh*t list.

That's just the way it works.

And believe it or not, I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass. I too was once willingly ignorant of what really happens in Democratic politics. It's not pretty , and it's not nice, but if you want to play you have to learn to accept and deal with it.

when the Dem party found out we were going to vote to endorse the non-establishment candidate for party chair they packed our meeting to stop our vote.

You confused what things look like with what they really are when you made assumptions without evidence. Tim Sullivan rallied people in support of Wineke. Fine. He has the right to support anyone he wants as a member of the Democratic Party. Considering he will be out of a party job in June, I'm not surprised he's endorsed someone for chair and is actively working on his behalf. But to say it is anything more than that without evidence is ridiculous. Let's not cloud the issue. You haven't left it to anyone to decide if it's Dem party involvement - you've made the flat out assertion several times.

To imply that Doyle some how has magical powers over the Dem party merely because that is how it is done in other states without further evidence is ridiculous in the extreme. By what means does Doyle have any power? There is nothing he can hold over anyone in the party. I agree Doyle demands absolute fealty and will not tolerate "renegades" in his office and in the legislature. But he has no power within the party to do anything. He does not have the power to fire anyone. I know someone who works closely with Doyle. I won't say any more than that, but I can say with particular certainty that if this person had any inkling that something like this was going on, they'd be out the door and making a big stink to boot. I also know several people on the admin committee. Funny they never speak of such nonsense, not once, ever.

When it comes to the Linda Honold/Kim Warkentin/Doyle rumor, I again assert that heresay is not evidence. It is just heresay. Still you have evidence of nothing. In fact, common sense tells me Doyle has a lot more to lose in this situation than anyone. If what you are saying is true, it's a scandal of major proportions that will only smear him without really having any effect on the party should it become known. Doyle is a smart man with a really big ego. But I doubt he's not smart enough to see that's a line he can't afford to cross. Of course I thought the same of Clinton so I could be mistaken.

And as for being "willingly ignorant of what really happens in Democratic politics," you're making another assumption about my knowledge of affairs of power. I'm fully aware of the games that are sometimes played, I'm just not willing to make accusations without evidence and as politics are 90% perception, I can't help but take exception with someone who so willingly cast aspersions on the DPW, its Chair, Vice-Chair and Gov. Doyle in a public forum without clear and substantial evidence.

There are thousands of good people in this state trying to improve Dem politics within and without the DPW including DFA, Progressives, Greens and more. Your unproven statements only serve to divide us from our common interests and prevent progress.

It's not pretty, and it's not nice, but if you want to play you have to learn to accept and deal with it.

Just thought I'd add that Democracy for Wisconsin did have both candidates for chair speak at earlier meetings. The endorsement vote was supposed to be a bunch of fully informed people making a decision after hearing from both sides and having enough time to consider things carefully. It just didn't quite work out that way.

What are you going to do?

I've been on both sides of this issue as a longtime party activist. I suggest you have a meeting with these folks ASAP. You need to give them a come to Jesus speech and lay out exactly what you expect from them as a significant faction of their party.

And you need to ask what they want from you.

The fact that they mobilized is significant; they view you as a threat to their conrol of the party in that area.

That makes you guys PLAYERS, not victims. Start acting like it.
There are several DFA oriented websites that have as membership real world strategists, media folks, and Party Chairs who could help as well.

He is activist, intelligent, and one of the really good DFA folks in CA.