I ran across an ad for a State Representative candidate the other day in my local newspaper's
online edition. I noticed right away that there was no party affiliation listed in the ad, just a nice picture, a few words and a link to his web site. His name is
Charles Thomas (R) and he is running for a seat in the General Assembly representing North Carolina's 116th District.
I decided to ask if my suspicions were true, that he has been hiding the fact that he is a Republican, and began email exchanges with Thomas and his Democratic opponent, Douglas Jones. It turns out that both candidates for NC 116 were sticking to the same formula. DO NOT reveal party affiliation on your web site. I was shocked. So I did a little research on the subject and found that these two candidates seem to be shopping the 20+% or so of voters identified as unaffiliated in their district. It turns out there are more. My research was based on a simple metric - could you identify the candidate's affiliation on their home page? More below the fold...
To me it seems that instead of denying your party affiliation, you would want to proudly wave your flag for all those unaffiliated voters to see. That, it seems, is not always the case. I think in this day and time it should be. You can see the research results at the bottom of this diary, and links to candidates (plus extended email exchanges with Thomas and his Dem. opponent Doug Jones) over on
my blog.
The Salvo
Me to Thomas (R): I've looked through the website and cannot find a party affiliation. These days that usually means the candidate is a Republican. Is this true?
The reply
Thomas (R) to Me: I am indeed a Republican and I am not intentionally attempting to hide that fact (I was chairman of the party for 2 years). However, I do want people to judge me based upon my platform first and party second.
My reply
Me to Thomas (R): ...I find it disturbing, especially considering your previous role in the party, that you aren't proud enough of that party to display the affiliation for all to see. I don't find any Democratic candidates that are not proud of their party, except maybe Joe Leiberman. You replied that you wanted people to look at your record and ideas first. This idea, that you might see as both noble and refreshing, is unfortunately naive and seemingly dishonest.
I vote a straight ticket usually. I do have an open mind however and am always looking for a reason to examine an individual candidate's qualifications, vision and motivation for seeking office. I admire your dedication to our region, our state and our country and I wish you and your family the very best. What I want to know is how ideologically bound you are to the President and his agenda and to the words of Mr. Cheney, Ann Coulter and their ilk. emphasis mine
I knew at this point that I wanted to blog this and that I should round out the picture by including the Democratic State Rep candidate from NC 116, Doug Jones (D). I went to the Jones web site only to find that he also did not mention party affiliation anywhere on his site. Boom. I felt like a total schmuck for accusing the Republican candidate Charles Thomas (R) of hiding his Republican affiliation just because it was Republican, only to find out that the Democratic candidate, Doug Jones was guilty of the same omission. I had cut off my own argument's legs through foolish supposition. Battered from my own non-researched words, I wrote the following to the Jones (D) campaign's Political Director, Bryan Freeborn.
Me to Freeborn: I can't find a party affiliation listed for Doug on the web site. I think this is a mistake. In fact, following an impulse, I wrote Charles Thomas Friday after seeing an ad for him in the Cit-Times. I had gone to his site because the ad didn't mention affiliation. Lo and behold, there was no party affiliation mentioned anywhere on the site. I asked him about this and I was told he wanted people to see his platform first, and his party second. I found that to be disingenuous and told him so. [...] In my admittedly snarky way I made the statement that he must not be proud of his party enough to display the affiliation. Now [...] I find that your campaign is doing the same thing. What gives? Is this SOP for State House seats? Like Party doesn't matter? I'm confused, but am admittedly rather new to focusing on state politics. I would appreciate some guidance here.
I received a prompt reply from Bryan, and that was followed by a very nice and educational response from Doug Jones (D) -
Jones (D) to Me: In local races like this one, Party affiliation does seem to matter less than it would in a bigger race - say for US House or Senate. And it can even be a distraction in a district like this one where 27% of the voters are unaffiliated, and where significant shares of the Ds and Rs split tickets. My goal is to communicate with voters, and to the extent that Party affiliation (either D or R) can automatically turn off many voters, it becomes necessary to down-play partisanship generally. [...] I really enjoy talking to folks on their door steps about their concerns, and I am glad that the conversation does not simply end with "so, what's your party?" [snip]
I followed with this reply.
Me to Jones (D): [...] What I find puzzling is not that you place affiliation down on your list of attributes, but that your web site doesn't mention it at all. I find this disturbing for several reasons. Here are some thoughts.
1. Be proud of your party. It is days like these that we need more separation of identity, not less. Sure, let the voters judge you on your merits and your ideas first. But at least give them a base from which to start. I for one, would find voting for a Republican repugnant unless the candidate was simply a whole lot better than the alternative. I have indeed done this on occasion.
2. Give your party the identity it deserves by linking other Democratic sites from your site. Only if we work together to support the kinds of initiatives that you are proposing can we expect to grow the community of ideas we are all seeking as we go into November.
3. Make your site a clearinghouse for Dems to organize around
4. Present to moderate republicans your vision and don't be ashamed to loudly denote the difference between the basic values of the parties. They are wide and deep.
5. And finally, Bryan said that there is a (D) or other identification of affiliation on your bumper stickers and I assume yard signs. If it is there, I can't imagine why it is not on your site. [snip]
As I was working through this and getting ready to reply to Jones (D), I realized that I had never actually sent my original reply to Thomas (R). It was still sitting in my draft folder. Dorf! I decided to go ahead and send it but immediately followed with this...
Me to Thomas (R): Please accept my apology. I was very wrong to assume that you were alone in hiding your party affiliation from your web site visitors. It was a dumb supposition. I looked at Doug Jones's site and guess what? No mention of the word "Democrat" over there. I complained to their campaign and received a prompt explanation that was somewhat acceptable, even though I didn't agree.
To which he promptly replied
Thomas (R) to Me: Indeed. I was going to point that out about Doug originally, however, I just didn't feel that playing a "finger pointing" game was appropriate. As time for the election nears, the party affiliation will become clear (at least on my end). I applaud you on your effort to create a blog. The intelligent free exchange of ideas is important. As for Mr. Bush, I must say that I have been disappointed in a few things - particularly his stance on illegal immigration. I do not consider myself ideologically bound by any particular party leader's beliefs. [snip] Emphasis mine
Last night as I was working on this, I found a great reference in an editorial published by the Wilson Daily that described the balance of power struggle as being between loss leaders. Will undecided voters be swayed away from Democrats because of the corruption surrounding the state Dem leadership or will they be swayed away by the Repub's addiction to the war? From the editorial:
North Carolina politicians are beginning to line up for the fall campaign, and the fulcrum for the 2006 legislative campaign may be Speaker of the House Jim Black. Although unindicted, Black looks like a lost cause after former Rep. Michael Decker pleaded guilty to fraud last week, admitting that he traded his party affiliation and his vote for $50,000 in campaign cash. His part of the bargain was to support a "particular candidate" for speaker of the House.
Given the unpopularity of the Iraq war and President Bush, Republicans anywhere on the ballot may be in for a rough ride in 2006.
If Republicans can shift voters' focus from President Bush to Speaker Black, they will have a chance at winning additional seats, maybe even a majority, in the General Assembly. How receptive voters are may depend on whether Black is indicted and on how things go in Iraq.
It's just amazing. We have somehow found ourselves in the position of defending democracy based on what's less repugnant. Well guess what? This war and everything attached, including the corruption that drives it, are a whole lot more repugnant than than the controversy over inter-party corruption that drives nothing more than quests for power in North Carolina state governance. I for one, think it is time for Democratic state candidates to step up to the plate and display where they are coming from. "Healthcare, lower taxes and a strong commitment to schools" just doesn't cut it any more.
After reading the editorial, I called the newspaper because I couldn't find the on-line editorial to link to and had a great conversation with Hal Tarleon, Wilson Daily's Opinion Editor. He told me that his paper published a piece this year that showed an increase of voters who identify themselves as unaffiliated. In a brief email exchange he told me that unaffiliated voters are on the rise in NC, comprising almost 12 percent of all registered voters. New rules allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in either party primary has contributed. Meanwhile, the number of registered Democrat and Republican voters has declined during the exponential rise in unaffiliateds since 1990.
To affiliate or not, that is the question. To the candidates running for State Representative in NC 116, the answer is not. So what about the others? I found my research to be revealing in a troubling way. A larger percentage of Republicans with web sites, running for State Representative, were proud to list their party.
* Of the 31 Democratic candidates with web sites, only 16% displayed party affiliation.
* Of the 13 Republican candidates with web sites, 61% displayed party affiliation.
And on top of that, the quality of the Republican web sites was generally much better than the quality of the Democratic sites. Very disappointing.
I think Democrats are missing a golden opportunity here. They should change their policy and proudly announce that they are Democrats. And they should get better websites! Thanks for following me on this convoluted journey. If I've learned anything from this little project, it is that pride in Democratic Party identity and thus its principles is sorely missing from the community of candidates that are running for office on November 7th in the great state of North Carolina.