Leo Bachi Eyombo
Why does Charles County District 2 have so many running- and most would not file while Edith was using that office. Only when she changed her filing to President did they file to run. What gives?
I figured Recession and someone(s) is looking for “easy” income as a Commissioner? Or throw enough Dems up in the primary and someone might be able to stack up against Rick Campbell in the general?
I tell you a bunch of us cant figure out why it is so appealing- until Edith stepped aside- if they thought it needed their input; why wait for Edith to step aside? I do have to say- Johnny is the only Dem. who declared long long before.
Good point. So what you’re alluding to is who would have Edith’s back with enough clout to hold others at bay until she decides to not run for her old seat? That sounds like something out of a John Grisham novel, but here in CC it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to question who’s tinkering behind closed doors.
Good point. So what you’re alluding to is who would have Edith’s back with enough clout to hold others at bay until she decides to not run for her old seat? That sounds like something out of a John Grisham novel, but here in CC it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to question who’s tinkering behind closed doors.
For the record, since it’s been alluded to here a few times, the Democratic Central Committee meetings are open to the public and all of our business is conducted therein. Come see democracy in action. No conspiracies, I promise. See for yourself.
Next meeting is first Tuesday in July at 7pm at the American Legion.
Thanks for replying Lee. It is just curious the number out- not that I"m complaining. But did they think she was doing a great job and so didnt feel a need to run? And only when she wasnt running did they find that they should try it?
Inquiring minds just want to know motivation- its the psychologist in me.
since it’s been alluded to here a few times, the Democratic Central Committee meetings are open to the public and all of our business is conducted therein.
While the DCC meetings may be open to the public, what incumbents choose to do on their own behind closed doors is a whole different matter. I’m alluding to stuff like that MurrayMac&Jameson; slate using Billups as a pawn to try and block Peter Murphy. Was that openly discussed at a public DCC meeting for approval by the DCC before being sprung on the public? And, if so, why would the DCC ever agree knowing full well that another Democratic candidate could well be locked out (thank goodness, voters came through)? Especially a candidate who doesn’t march to the tune of “WE NEED A CCC and WE NEED IT NOW AT ALL COSTS.” Would it really be a stretch of the imagination to think that “some” would want Patterson over Kelly as Patterson is more easily controlled?
I know this sounds like a mongo conspiracy theory, but, hey, this is politics and in politics nothing surprises!
There are always “deals”, “arrangements” and/or “quid pro quo discussions” between politicians. Right or wrong, there is a strong will for self-preservation as a politician. When one chooses “politics” as a career, there tends to be a lot riding on remaining in office. I understand that. The voters have to do their best to seek out the candidates that can think for themselves, that have no alliances with other politicians, and then support them through the villanous vitriol that will surely come from the others. Peter Murphy is a good example of this. I don’t always agree with his perspective but I respect his integrity (at least so far…I have no reason to doubt his ethic).
since it’s been alluded to here a few times, the Democratic Central Committee meetings are open to the public and all of our business is conducted therein.
While the DCC meetings may be open to the public, what incumbents choose to do on their own behind closed doors is a whole different matter. I’m alluding to stuff like that MurrayMac&Jameson; slate using Billups as a pawn to try and block Peter Murphy. Was that openly discussed at a public DCC meeting for approval by the DCC before being sprung on the public? And, if so, why would the DCC ever agree knowing full well that another Democratic candidate could well be locked out (thank goodness, voters came through)? Especially a candidate who doesn’t march to the tune of “WE NEED A CCC and WE NEED IT NOW AT ALL COSTS.” Would it really be a stretch of the imagination to think that “some” would want Patterson over Kelly as Patterson is more easily controlled?
I know this sounds like a mongo conspiracy theory, but, hey, this is politics and in politics nothing surprises!
Believe it or not (and this may come as a shock to you), the elected officials do not confer with, confide in or ask the support of the CCDCC as a body in most cases. Nor are we privy to the majority of their discussions.
Our job is to support Democratic Candidates. In an Utopian society, that would mean that we would also help identify, mentor and prepare democrats to win seats and we would collaborate with Democratic leadership - the incumbents, the state and local activists. Sometimes, it works like that and other times we are just as surprised as the rest of you are. At least I am.
My contention is that nothing will ever change until there is mass outrage. Until then, interest and involvement in the process - at any stage - is limited. I implore you to get involved. The more, the better. Really. I could personally use some support.
I feel the same about what it should be like: “Our job is to support Democratic Candidates. In an Utopian society, that would mean that we would also help identify, mentor and prepare democrats to win seats and we would collaborate with Democratic leadership - the incumbents, the state and local activists. Sometimes, it works like that and other times we are just as surprised as the rest of you are. At least I am.”
But in my case it was another party. At least we know its the same. And no - nothing will change until members of the party get involved and see and hear what goes on- then they may be surprised at how their party is represented.
Believe it or not (and this may come as a shock to you), the elected officials do not confer with, confide in or ask the support of the CCDCC as a body in most cases. Nor are we privy to the majority of their discussions.
Lee, I apologize to you for my constant alludings. This does come as a somewhat shock to me that elected officials choose to ignore and otherwise diss their very own Central Committee. Seems elected officials forget who got them there in the first place. That’s a bummer.
Believe it or not (and this may come as a shock to you), the elected officials do not confer with, confide in or ask the support of the CCDCC as a body in most cases. Nor are we privy to the majority of their discussions.
Lee, I apologize to you for my constant alludings. This does come as a somewhat shock to me that elected officials choose to ignore and otherwise diss their very own Central Committee. Seems elected officials forget who got them there in the first place. That’s a bummer.
Not to put too fine a point on it, please don’t interpret my words to mean that any of them “diss” us. What I meant was that there are not pow-wows where the committee and the elected officials confer or strategize or otherwise look for ways to collaborate on behalf of the greater good.
Since many of the committee members are long-standing party activists who have undoubtedly contributed greatly over decades, then it might be safe to assume that indivdually they may be asked for counsel or support.
I’d like the see the Central Committee become a much more influential organization; one that our elected Democrats and candidates alike can depend upon to provide leadership, guidance and support, as well as elbow grease.
... This does come as a somewhat shock to me that elected officials choose to ignore and otherwise diss their very own Central Committee. Seems elected officials forget who got them there in the first place. That’s a bummer.
I doubt if anybody who has attended a couple of Central Committee meetings would be shocked that they are ignored by elected officials. With several exceptions, they are reflective of the Alvin Greene political syndrome whereby a woefully uninformed, disinterested, and disengaged electorate votes for candidates in the order they are listed on the ballot since they don’t know anything about the candidates. The handful of people that regularly post on this site are, of course, a refreshing exception.
What I meant was that there are not pow-wows where the committee and the elected officials confer or strategize or otherwise look for ways to collaborate on behalf of the greater good.
I wouldn’t expect a pow-wow, but I would expect elected leaders to run certain items past the very committee who got them elected. That could be part of the reason so many start off their political career (and for many that’s exactly what it is) with somewhat good intentions, but then get sucked into a disconnect with their constituents. Wouldn’t it be wiser to consult with the Central Committee who should have more of a finger on the pulse of voters? Would it be a stretch of the imagination to think elected officials should feel obligated to consult with the DCC or the RCC for that matter on certain issues?
Would it be a stretch of the imagination to think elected officials should feel obligated to consult with the DCC or the RCC for that matter on certain issues?
