MY FELLOW DEMOCRATS – Over the past 48 hours, several of you have sent private messages, texts and phone calls to me regarding an upcoming Democratic event where 3 of the 9 City Council At-Large candidates will have the opportunity to make a formal presentation directly to a captive audience of Democrats. To answer your questions publically:
No, I had not been asked to give such a presentation, nor have I been given any such opportunity. As I oppose Mayor Henry’s brand of “economic development” and I have been outspoken about some of the shortcomings of Party leadership, I do not anticipate receiving any such liberties, any time soon.
No, I do not believe the courtesy bestowed to Henry’s three favorite At-Large candidates was given to the other five At-Large candidates. However, I do not know—for a fact---as to whether the other five At-Large candidates were also excluded from such opportunity. Many are facebook friends of mine, so you should be able to find them, contact them directly and ask them.
No, I will not be attending the event. What Party leadership is doing to me, individually, is wrong, but more importantly---what Party leadership is doing to the other At-Large candidates, collectively, is wrong. I am not attending that meeting as a show of support to my competitors, who have gotten the raw end of the deal because of Party “politics.”
No, I hold no personal ill will against the Democratic Club who is allowing their meeting to be used as a forum to give one group of candidates an advantage over another group of candidates. Sincerely, how could I?
Remember, how in 2012, many of you were told not to support me because I wasn’t a formal member of the Party. Party Leadership used my not being formally a part of the Party as the basis to deny me access to whatever resources other Democrats were allowed to have. To those that argued that I should have been given equal access to resources because, no matter what, I was a Democrat who made it through the Primary and deserved a real shot at success—you were told, “Gina couldn’t be trusted. Look who and what she chose as her campaign treasurer—a non-Democrat.”
In 2014, Party Leadership could no longer use the whole “Gina isn’t a Democrat” line and so the story changed to “we can’t support Gina because she isn’t a ‘good enough’ Democrat.” (wink, wink) There were many of you who didn’t understand why the Party would not put be on the ballot for Clerk of Court. Why let the Republican candidate go unopposed when there was a Democrat willing and able to run a competitive campaign and had the right credentials to do the job? Why continue to let Republicans control how the elections are run—to the point of allowing polling places in businesses that directly donate to the GOP? To which Party leadership had no real response other than “Gina isn’t a ‘good enough’ Democrat.” A growing number of you expressed private frustration at that decision.
In 2015, both of those incredibly weak and transparent arguments are moot. Outside of the current incumbents, I have the most Democratic credentialing on the ballot. The Democratic chair did not have to write a letter certifying that I was a Democrat in good standing like he had to do for a Mayoral candidate, an At-Large candidate, a 2nd District candidate, and a 3rd District candidate. Party leadership can no longer say that I am not a Democrat, not a ‘good enough’ Democrat (however that was “defined”), and that I shouldn’t be trusted to do what best for Democrats or for the people of our community.
All Party leadership can do at this point is to cut off communication (which they had as of November, 2014), deny me access to resources (which they had as of 2012), deny communication and access to resources to those who have publically supported me (which they had as of 2012, more severely as of 2014), begin attacks on my character in private meetings (which re-emerged as of 2014), and now, finally, deny me access to public opportunities afforded other “Democrats in good standing.”
But denying me access to public opportunities is problematic for Party leadership. If they cut off access to these public opportunities and to me alone, then it becomes crystal clear that I am being targeted for hostile treatment. (And yes, I know that Party leadership has been trying to play the whole “let’s unify behind the person who makes it through the Primary” cheerleading game—but that’s because secretly another game is being played that most people aren’t aware of.) So, the next best thing is to cut off access to these public opportunities to a majority of the field of At-Large candidates, many of whom are scrubs (i.e. Schrader) or fillers (i.e. Brown and Lobdell).
The Democratic Club hosting this public opportunity event will likely make apologies, citing time restrictions or that maybe these are the candidates that they, the Club, is endorsing. (Nevermind that such an endorsement was never put forth to the dues paying members of that Club.)
Again, no, I am not angry or upset with this Club, even though as a dues paying member I would have every right to. Instead, I’m going to continue to do what I always do—be the best I can be without the support of Party leadership.
And, again, to those who ask if I will be attending Wednesdays meeting---my answer is I choose to stand for principles over politics and as such, I will not be attending that event. I would encourage anyone else who disagrees with this brand of “politics”—that they too should not attend the meeting as a show of support for all the At-Large candidates.