Yeah, Bush is turning the corner all right. He's turning the corner straight into head-on traffic on a one-way street!
Larry Who?
Submitted by BinkyBoy on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 8:54am.
Well, given some of the criticism that has wandered around the Idaho liberal blog-o-sphere for the last couple years, I'm sort of surprised at this sudden attempt at a "smackdown" by Larry Grant on newwest.net
On November 13, NewWest.Net/Boise ran an article repeating the criticisms of some anonymous Boise Democrats who say I did not do enough in the last election to beat Bill Sali. They say I ran a lackluster campaign and didn’t listen to my advisers. They’re wrong, of course.
Oh! Of course they are, Larry! They are all wrong, Larry! The voters that decided not to vote for you, that decided not to encourage others to vote for you? The voters that had no clue who the hell you were? They were all WRONG! Just because you say so, right?
Let’s look at the facts. I got more votes and raised more money than any Democratic candidate for Congress in the last decade. I put 40,000 miles on my car, not counting the number of times I flew north, traveling up and down the district going to events, picnics, potlucks, parades, fairs, coffees, debates and forums. I knocked on doors with local candidates and organizers.
You know what I have for you, Larry?
(d2 note to self: must teach binky not to hotlink offsite!)
I have a cliche for you, dumbass! Lets see what you have in return.
In the last election, of course, the Republicans were trying to save their majority in Congress. They told people that they needed to vote for Bill Sali, even if they didn’t like him, because they had to save the seat for the Republican Party. That was a powerful message to some moderate Republicans and independents who might have crossed over to give me the votes a Democrat needs to win. The Republicans, of course, lost control of Congress, so it’s not an issue this time.
As for the statement of Governor Andrus, reported in the Lewiston Tribune, that I don’t deserve a second chance because “Two years ago, Larry Grant had his opportunity and didn’t make it,” I have to admit, it made me smile. After all, Frank Church lost his first race for the state legislature in 1952. Richard Stallings lost his first race for Congress against George Hansen in 1982. That same year, Larry LaRocco lost his first bid for Congress to Larry Craig. And, of course, Governor Andrus lost his first bid for governor in 1966 to Don Samuelson.
Suddenly, anonymous critics aside, I feel like I’m in very good company.
Wow, Larry, lots of blame to go around, lots of finger pointing and an amazing ability to cheerlead for your own losing campaign in 2006, but I see no ability to be self aware, nor humble. So screw you, Larry Grant. You can make all the wonderful speeches but you won't convince me you deserve to be elected. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Bill Sali may have been a better choice in 2006, that way I don't have to back a primary challenger to an incumbent in 2008.
Hey Walt Minnick, it is time for you to step up to the plate and be a real primary challenger to this stuck up fake Democrat. Do you have what it takes to challenge bad flash animation and sycophantic advisors making up the majority of a lame campaign?
»
- BinkyBoy's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Wrong tone, wrong target.
Jeez, Bink... rant much?
Ignoring the target of your ire (Grant, sometimes LaRocco)...
Full-blast ragefests against anyone for *running* a lackluster or 'wrong' campaign rub me wrong. It is much like when Tom Paine tosses insults about Richard Stallings, against prominent state dems or even the party at large. I might personally see faults, but I respect their dedication and am eager to support their improvement.
Nearly anyone that puts themselves forward for a campaign gets my respect (Note: respect offer excludes raging nutballs and scrooges with agendas). It often means learning a whole different skill set, it involves opening oneself to whithering scrutiny, and then, one day, the candidate gets to see themselves and their beliefs put to a vote. Anyone doing so in a 30%-40% climate like Dems in Idaho are always running as a longshot. It's almost a marvel anyone runs, given those inevitabilities.
The pressures at the local level are less, but so is the support: it almost seems to be a truism that local candidates feel abandoned by the state party: several winners and losers at lower levels (city/county) have commented that they got just enough smoke blown up their skirts to convince them they should run, and then felt short-changed when promised support never materializes. No local marshalling of even a few hours help by volunteers, no simple advice on costs or budgets or effective campaign tactics, no demographic research or issue survey results. Just the deafening roar of crickets. Meanwhile, supporters tend to flock to high level campaigns, stripping the cheap/easy training-ground races of donations AND volunteers.
That big preamble aside, Grant and LaRocco and so many others make a commitment against Idaho's rock-hard red-state demographics, and rather than trash-talking them for their lack of success or perceived strategic missteps, I personally choose between support and silence.
But hey, what do I know. I most certainly wasn't in the room when the crux conversations happened between the people you're mad at, and don't know what made their decisions. I see WHY Grant/Andrus/Minnick generates attention, but lose interest when everyone dives into acrimony and speculation. Seeking meaning therein is dwelling on the campaign instead of on the policies of the candidates. It's horse-race rather than issues-- which ill serves the republic.
With a campaign I agree with, I try to offer advice and support. I also try to figure things like tactic and strategy and relationships and schedule and budget and recruitment and donor-calls out, because frankly I don't know what the hell I'm doing much of the time.
Wingnuts? A poorly run one is a blessing for our side. Effective ones get my dander up. Ranting here serves a nice release.
There's just one case of campaigns that piss me off not covered: ideologically-damaging ones. Campaigns that co-opt and tarnish a 'brand' I respect. A progressive shouldn't be gung-ho about unfettered free-trade: we want global trade in a framework that serves social justice and helps *PEOPLE* in other countries, for example. That's my problem for the DLC in a nutshell: it's corporate interests lobbying beneath a 'progressive values' paintjob.
One last thought on using the internet to form communities of interest: Whether it is a forum or a blog or a mailing list to tie together a knitting circle, the net helps people organize: We're free to push a pet issue into the idea marketplace by picking a candidate and creating our own satellite campaign (community, message, fundraising, GOTV, etc). If you disagree with specific tactics or would like to focus on a pet issue, just *HOLD FORTH* in a way that tries to get traction using a tactic you think might work. You get a limited sense of a full campaign's reward/failure: it's easier than running your own campaign (and cheaper!) and your ass is only on the line for the success or failure of your own efforts.
Anyone can rant.
Winnable
Grant lost a winnable campaign and then decides that he did "good enough" and blames "anonymous" Boise Democrats for saying he ran a lackluster campaign. Many people pointed out that his campaign didn't energize enough people, that he could have done some very simple things differently to have gotten more name recognition and that he didn't challenge Sali on so many issues, but he ignores all of those (with names) and complains like a little bitch about "anonymous" Democrats. That is the tactic of a chickenshit that wants to blame others, that will sit back and run the exact same campaign, get the same number of votes and then say "I got a lot of votes!" and never accept that they lost because of their own decisions.
I'm listening.
Hey, Binky, just want you to know that I'm out here listening.
Just so you will know, I responded to the NewWest article because it had some new criticisms of my campaign. The original Popkey article, for example, didn't use the word lackluster and didn't say anything about my not returning phone calls.
Popkey's main complaint seemed to be that I did not tell Republicans what they wanted to hear. The AGC, for example, wanted me to disavow raising the minimum wage and espouse Right to Work. Do you think I should have abandoned what I believe is right in order to try to get their vote?
As for advice, I may have been a first-time candidate, but I have been around campaigns for a long time. I was LaRocco's treasurer, I was Stalling's finance chairman and I was on Walt Minnick's finance committee. I have been involved in everything from legislative races to school bonds. My point here is that when I became a candidate I did not check my brains at the door. When you run for office you get lots of advice, some good, some bad. As the candidate you have to make decisions. Sometimes people disagree with those decisions. It goes with the territory.
I stepped up to the plate last time because it was an open seat and I simply could not let it go wanting. A number of people, including some of those now complaining, told me I was wasting my time because Shiela Sorensen would no doubt be the Republican candidate.
Bottom line: I'm proud of my campaign staff and what we accomplished. Did I run a perfect campaign? Of course not. But we did raise more money and get more votes than anyone in a decade in a district that went 68% for Bush in 2004. Did we win last time? No. But, my critics aside, having been on the road for two-and-half years already, I am in the best position to win this time.
Thoughts on your campaign
Let me disclaim that I'm from East Idaho, so I don't consider myself even remotely in the loop on Boise and/or 1st district campaigns and people. Having said that, some quick questions or thoughts:
Retail politics: I hear from various directions that 'Retail' politics (one-on-one, 'Hi, I'm running for congress' stuff) might be one of your weaker skills. At 'Camp Wellstone', we were *DRILLED* with lectures on the importance of this, handed some 'turnabout' advice to unlearn several stereotypes of asking for support, and then coached through exercises to start building the skills... you might want to either attend Wellstone or spend some time with a pro at the Retail game (Jim Hansen and Larry LaRocco both come to mind, IMHO).
Straight and simple: You're smart. It shows, which is good. But focus on plain language -- sometimes, smart people spend so much time equivocating or concentrating on nuance that they end up sounding like Kerry or Gore in their respective presidential runs. K.I.S.S. Concentrate on message fitting the K.I.S.S. principle. Nail Sali with all the ways he's been bad for everyday Idahoans.
Realizing you had great internet advice and did a good job with your online stuff last year, I'd still say that online isn't pivotal in Idaho (Julie and McJoan'll hopefully not hunt me down and hurt me for saying this). Use it, but don't expect it to change much. More importantly, use MountainGoatReport this time around, even if just indirectly and for oppo research. As Idaho's Napoleon would say, Mountain Goat's got *SKILLS*.
Wedges: Nationally, the Republicans are coming apart at the seams. War, religion, immigration, border security, science, an impending recession, fiscal irresponsibility, corruption, illegal wiretaps, cronyism, Katrina-- the list is downright endless. Locally, some of those issues carry weight, too. Additionally, the Republican political establishment in Idaho is under some pretty extreme stress unique to our region. Water conflict is between farms, cities and power (used to be IACI and Farmers against conservationists). There's ample ammunition to confront corruption and dishonesty in the party. There are some utter wingnuts to confront (and relentlessly tie Sali to the rest of them... he should be deemed the king of fools like Thayn and Loertscher, several nutjobs from Nampa/Caldwell, and Hardy-Barrett). Your barnstorming should involve all these issues, plus good-paying jobs, revisiting NAFTA in the name of Social Justice and stopping the flow of good jobs out of Idaho, smart growth rather than unfettered development, better attention and representation to working-class rural Idahoans, trade protections (again, using social justice standards as a way to prevent the exodus of good-paying jobs *AND* the influx of tainted produce, toxic toys and other unprotected, untested imports). If tasty wedge issues aren't in Congressional purview, concentrate your message on your potential as a congressman to draw these issues to the table.
When someone asks you to disavow Right to Work, don't let the issue drop quietly: go on the attack and show stats on how "manufacturing job" paychecks are down dramatically *THANKS TO RIGHT TO WORK*. Talk about pension protection and reform. Show how farm jobs are suffering. Jump from there over to immigration crackdowns and how they're devastating farm labor supplies (sound bipartisan by pointing out your stance's similarity to Larry Craig's here, if appropriate). Talk about the erosion of the middle class. You don't have to appear surrounded by union workers if that's a move that'll alienate too many knee-jerk conservatives, but *FIND* someone to embrace, even if it is an at-will firm that treats employees with greater respect than required, and sees a retention advantage due to their policies. It'll be dangerous to tiptoe thru conservative wedge issues (talk about a minefield), but definitely engage where you can on Republican wedge issues.
You're local, you're pro-business, you're sane, you're not inarticulate, you've still got 11+ months to build grassroots support (assuming the primary goes your way), and you're running against *HIM*. And, unlike last time, you've got inertia and supporters and name recognition accumulated.
Now, if your first name just wasn't LARRY. My 2nd-biggest gripe with Hillary Clinton running is that generations of future citizens will look up from their history studies to go: "Uh... Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton... What was up with THAT?!". Likewise, having Larry the Wide Stance, Larry the Senatorial Democrat and Larry the Congressional Democrat all in the same race is absurd. I mean, couldn't we find a couple Georges or another Bill to run for election and really confuse things?
Thanks for visiting 43sb, too.
Thank you.
Plenty to work with in your comments. Much of it was already on my radar but I like the way you laid it out. Constructive and worth re-reading and digesting.
I am familiar with Wellstone. Didn't get to the training but got the book and have done Camp Democracy on the local level and the AFSCME/New House PAC training in Chicago. I got better as the campaign went on. Most of the criticism on retail politics was about where to do it. Some people thought I should spend more time in Boise, even though most of it is not in my district.
With all the thought you have given this, can I assume you'll be running for Congress in the 2nd CD?
Yeah, d2
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!"
OHHELLNO!
Me... elective office... not an option. My idol is Bill Hall, not Bill Clinton.
As for Faustus, what's with the French!? A mishmash of incomprehensible slurs and lazy discarding of word-endings superimposed on a nation of lexical fanaticism. What a paradox. Best I can tell, the capital city of Idaho would be pronounced "BWAH!"
On second thought, maybe I've misunderestimated the French. Boise's got a habit of conflating Idaho and Boise into meaning the same thing. Bwah, indeed.
Back to the L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace! quote. Googled it up, found Audacity, and am off on flights of thought about how I'm sure I would remember that from 'Patton', so they must have dumbed the show down to his saying it in English.
Patton
The Patton character also incorrectly attributed the quote to Friedrich der Große, a German. It's actually a French Revolution slogan.
I still like it, though. I think it sums up my outlook well.
Appalling language
The original language of your Commentary at Newwest.net was disgusting and a slap in the face to those that have offered blunt and truthful opinions on your 2006 campaign. You seem to want to brush them off, ignore them and move on with a similar campaign in 2008 when it is plainly evident that the GOP will not allow you a single new vote by using maneuvers such as today's announcement of Sali's appointment to the "High-Tech Study Group" or whatever it was called.
Have you ever tried being humble? Have you tried admitting that the defeat in 2006 might have been the result of a poor showing in Southwest Idaho? You continue to tell people how great your campaign was but you show no capability to make the changes that will be necessary to winning in 2008.
I took extreme offense at your comments, as you can plainly see. I don't care if it was your first or your tenth campaign, I don't care about how you "raise(d) more money and get more votes than anyone in a decade in a district that went 68% for Bush in 2004". You still lost, and you continue to make excuses rather than apparent changes.
You state with certainty that you are "in the best position to win this time", yet your name recognition as well as issue recognition appears to be staying low. While a long campaign can create issues of burnout for voters, there are ways to campaign without actually campaigning. Stop speaking to the devoted left that will vote for any D and start working on finding ways to get recognized by the average Idahoan voter, because until you do the political challenges you will face in this primary with Walt Minnick will be greater than you seem to be capable of imagining.
I don't think you'll accomplish it, though. Until you can make the necessary changes to your staff you'll continue to spend money on your lackluster campaign with even less results than you had last time.
By the way, nitpicking about the terminology used by your critics is just pathetic. It isn't going to gain you votes, it isn't going to un-convince anyone that you lost for whatever reason they want to claim. Your defenses aren't convincing, they just seem knee-jerk reactionary. For instance, I said nothing about the AGC, I only used Popkey's commentary as a stepping point for those that had criticisms that weren't "anonymous". As for the AGC's stance on Right-To-Work, you still had a lot of wiggle room to frame the whole issue in a way that would help the fence-sitting independent voter understand it without alienating the more conservative leaning block.
I actually could care less if Sali wins or loses this time. The favorable climate of pro-Democrat leanings around the country and world are enough for me. Sali will continue to have little effect on the state with his ever increasing minority status. He will continue to focus on issues like the "War on Christmas" and he'll continue to be bogged down by his ever increasing persecution complex.
Cheerios or dog?
Jeez, bink. Did I miss the part where Larry killed your dog? Or did he (mumble) in your cheerios? Cuz you're on a righteous tear here and I'm just not seeing the why.
1 - For starters, you really lost me right in that last paragraph. I care if Sali wins. Heck, I bet you do, too. With a Democratic House, Idaho gains incrementally by going from Sali (batshit insane) to Otter (Conservative but easily distrac-- ooh, look, pertygurls!) to Simpson (Homer or Mike) to a moderate like Olympia Snowe (no obvious examples in Idaho) to a moderate Dem and so on. The only upside to Bill Sali's continued presence is the comic relief he provides for the news coverage of the train wreck that has been Big Gay Larry Craig's no-good, very bad year.
2 - Appalling language? Dude. Irony. Miles thick. I mean, REALLY. Can someone in Treasure Valley let me know if anyone in Boise survived because the irony is visible even over here in FarRightIDistan.
3 - Do *ME* a favor and toss a Mulligan, a token 'benefit of the doubt' to Larry Grant for following you back here (joined just recently) and saying he was listening. I won't suggest you get specific about the cause of your ire so new arrivals to this piefight (including me) will know what the hell you're talking about-- frankly, I don't care. Make nice, dammit!
4 - Walt Minnick seems like a sharp enough guy, but he's got room to improve w/r/t his own 'retail' game, from the two times I've heard him speak in the last couple years. Walt, short and frank and fine-tuned beats long and rambly.
5 - And then, talking about AGC and Right2Work: 'You still had a lot of wiggle room'... damn skippy! I absolutely agree that polish and message need some love -- across the board.
Ditto on research to find the hot-buttons for the swing voters.
Ditto on getting some of that info from grassroots Dems in swing districts *AND* with nods toward Idaho's out-of-the-way places like Bovill and Rockford and Grangeville.
Then, take the time to polish language that appeals to Idaho's moderates and swing voters; In this example, Larry needs to keep IACI or AGC from cornering him on Right2Work.
Please, Bink. Don't give me a play-by-play. While I care why you're pissed at Larry, I don't care to see it rehashed on the intertubes. I'm beggin' ya: take a step back, articulate your positions and toss some advice like you did on AGC. Stop bitchin' and start solvin'.
Ok, Fine, I give
Since I'm the only one that found Larry's whining about his critics offensive, I give up. Rather than a nice humble "I'm sorry I lost, I'm changing things around and we're looking at new strategies that will do X, Y and Z" from Larry we got a "nuh uh!" juvenile response to criticisms that will only get worse later in 2008. Enjoy your candidate, people, but don't get upset with me when I am able to say "I told you so".
In between quitting and ranting
(mutters... kicks desk) The tough job sits between quitting and ranting, bink.
Engage. Make him earn your vote. And feed him the sort of pitches you're sure he's gonna get beaned by next fall, so he's practicing as he goes. I'm not saying to quit. I'm saying you don't have to kiss his ass, but try not to kill him, either.
By 5, I can come up with a few questions for Grant. Care to do the same?
Questions for Larry Grant
Larry,
What's up with Micron? I'm sitting several hours away so the only stuff I hear goes through a bit of an echo chamber. Do you see Micron's business actions as globalization shifts, or are they following trends set by Albertsons and Washington (M-K). Will manufacturing jobs stay steady or does Boise face significant movement offshore for future manufacturing growth. What SHOULD we have done differently in terms of education, economic development bonuses, etc?
Despite the headline status of Snake River adjudication, it seems nobody is discussing *IT* when Otter's top staff take IPCo jobs, despite there being a LOT of room for decisions to be tainted against Agriculture and Wildlife by these cozy relations Governor Otter has with Idaho Power Co? I've seen some dried-up Colorado towns thanks to water rights being bought out wholesale by Denver, and the idea of this happening to rural Idaho disturbs me.
What do you usually do for lunch?
(sorry, that last one is snark aimed at someone else. Please disregard it.)
Most of my questions have been asked, but not answered
But to reiterate:
1) Do you recognize the failure of your 2006 campaign to fully grasp the significance of the Treasure Valley and the need to do much better in that area of the district as well as some other areas of the state?
2) Do you recognize that there is an offensive tone to your campaign's reply to critics, starting with Don's comments in a previous newwest.net thread?
And some new questions:
3) Do you recognize that the true issues you will face in a day to day federal position will not relate to Idaho and how can you use that as a strong campaign issue?
4) Will you be using your opponents proselytizing in a secular house of law as a campaign issue, and if so, how will you do that without offending a major portion of the voting public?
5) Should there be a federal position on the Right-To-Work issue that will also encourage the re-unionization of American workers?
6) Given the current climate of Hispanic immigrant bashing, can you outline a plan for reducing the flow of illegal border crossings on our southern border without compromising your compassion towards all humanity?
7) How, as a federal employee, will you assist in addressing the current economic climate in regards to: a) the value of the dollar, b) outstanding debt with foreign interests, c) the collapsing housing market and d) increasing personal debt and its long term effect on American economic stability?
8) Where do you stand on the issue of impeachment for both the Vice President and the President?
9) Please state your knowledge of black box voting and its short term and long term effects on voter confidence. If there are valid concerns, can they be addressed in time for the 2008 elections?
It Goes Without Saying
That any Democrat running in CD 1 better make darn sure they win in Ada and Kootenai Counties, and stay within 10 points in Canyon County, in addition to winning what should be gimmes like Nez Perce and Shoshone.
Answers
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I do have a rather lot on my plate at this point.
Now that I am away from Micron I don't know much more, like you, than I read in the papers. I do know it has grown tremendously and I do believe Steve Appleton and his crew have done a pretty remarkable job on the whole. Mostly, they do have to respond to their markets and the cyclical nature of their market.
We should always remember, though, that business is in business not to provide jobs or community benefits, they are in business to make money. So, if you want business to do something in particular, like create jobs, stay in a location, help with education, etc., then you have to make it good business to do so.
Example. A bad idea was capping Micron's property taxes whithout getting something in return. A tax break should generally be conditioned on some quid pro quo. What should have happened is to trade the cap on property taxes for some specific behavior, i. e. creation of a number of new jobs, new expenditures on the plant, things that they had to do that would benefit Idaho in order to get the break. At least that way, if they don't stay, they don't get the benefit.
The other half of the equation was a good idea, that is, the tax breaks on research and development. I would love to see Idaho become a haven for high-tech innovation by giving tax breaks for R & D. These are high-paying, clean jobs that stimulate other growth in desireable industries. Of course, you should still make it dependant on actual job creation or other commitments.
As for the revolving door on lobbyists, legislators, and public employees, while it is a state issue and not something a congressman can do much about, I do think it shows that one party government is not good. Congress just revised its rules to make it two years before a congressman can become a lobbyist, but that did not happen until there was a change of control in Congress. It is no secret that entrenched politicians, parties and lobbyist will protect their own interests before those of the public. That's whey we need change and accountability, both in Idaho and Washington, D. C.
Cheeseburger and fries ain't bad.
Grant '06
One should remember Grant entered the race before Sali won his primary. I don't think the race was Grant's to lose as much as I think Grant was given an opportunity, but didn't accomplish his stated goal.
Even so, I've seen MUCH worse campaigns in this state than his. In truth, for all its faults Grant's 2006 campaign was probably the best Democratic campaign at the Congressional level in this state in at least a decade.
Obviously, the 2008 edition needs to be better, be it with Grant or Minnick or whoever on the ballot.