Tuesday, December 19th, 2006...11:04 am
Breaking News: Waid to Run
Jump to Comments
The latest out of Central Avenue is that David Waid has informed folks that he plans to run for re-election for chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.
25 Comments
December 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Can it properly be called “re-election” since he was appointed, not elected, in the first place?
Any word on his chances?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
David Waid was elected by the full state committee back in the Spring. Often, a vice chair can act as a temporary party chair, but full time chairs must be elected.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
This is a stab to most progressives with in the state committee. He promised AzDPC he would not seek re-election in January, if we backed him last spring. There was a lot of concern about him holding two major roles within the party. I remember him in a closed meeting look many of us right in the face and say just that. Another fine example of the party saying one thing, and doing another, hope he knows he just burnt his olive branch with the progressives. I honestly didn’t expect him to keep the promise, but many progressives blindly accepted this promise.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Bryan, would you consider Randy Camacho? Raul Grijalva is backing him.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Most definitely, I am already looking at him. Great Candidate!
December 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’m not sure yet.
I do think that Waid did a good job this year, leading the state party to a pickup of two U.S. House seats and six legislative seats. At the same time, Bryan’s comment is disheartening (though I was not there so I don’t know exactly what was said and would want to know what Waid’s take on it was.)
On the other hand, I’ve always been impressed with Randy Camacho, through his two runs for Congress, as a guy who works hard and doesn’t quit.
So to be honest, I’m one of those fence-sitters on this one. I’m loathe to fire a guy who was successful, but I’ve always liked Randy Camacho.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I haven’t heard from him recently, but Tucson’s Mark Osterloh of Clean Elections and Health Care Arizona fame had also been talking about running. Jeff Latas decided not to run for chair, but to run for a vice chair slot. He and Randy both campaigned before the caucus in December.
Randy seemed nice enough, and we down here in Tucson don’t know him at all (I had never heard of him and neither had anyone I talked to). In his talk he mostly told about elected officals who support him and did not seem to have the vision for building the party from the grassroots up that we were hoping for.
The rumor down here in Tucson is that David Waid would run and then give the spot to Fred Duval who can’t run because he isn’t a PC.
David did promise he would not run again, both in a private meeting in his office with AZDPC leadership, and in a public caucus meeting with over 100 people. We were meeting with him because there was a great deal of anger amongst the rank and file that the ED and SC jobs were being merged. He said he only wanted to stay through the campaign, because Janet had asked him not to bring in new leadershp in the middle of the campaign, and he absolutely would promise not to run in January. He talked about having small children at home and definitely wanting out at the end of the campoaign.
If we are going to pay a state chair David’s kind of salary, we ought to let it be known welll before having this election - and the interest in the job might pick up considerably.There are a lot of well qualified people who can’t afford to take the job.
He did a great job as ED, it is true, but he told me earlier this month he wants to open a private political consulting business, if he were to leave the ED post. I think it would be a conflict of interest to do start that business while running the Democratic party.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
One correction Gerry: waid is not going to be a paid Chair apparently. He would take the position as chair as an interim until Duvall or someone else takes over, but an ED would still be hired and that position would be hired. Word from 2910 N Central Ave is that waid is taking a paying position in the private sector and would be like Pederson, a volunteer chair.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
I love Randy as much as anyone but Randy is a push-over. I’m sorry, he’s too nice for politics.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:57 am
As far as I’m concerned there is no race for Chair, David Wade is a shoe-in. Few people know that Mr. Wade was brought in by his New York college buddy Noah Kroloff, who is Janet’s right hand man.
The real question is, will the E.D. make the same 100k salary that Wade made?
December 20th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Waid did promise not to run, and in private talks he has stated his desire to return to New York. I suppose he could ‘promise’ to complete his term if elected, but based on past experience …. (get the K-Y ready)
Waid’s leadership was less than ‘the perfect storm’ it’s being promoted as by supplicants. Renzi could have been knocked out with a little effort and response to the Renzi/RNC propaganda lies aired. Six legislative seats is hardly a triumph with Janet rolling up 65% of the vote - no coattails whatsoever. Coordinated campaign was dismal, as usual, quite evident for anyone visiting 2910 after elections, much down ballot material not distributed remained afterwards. 2910 has been at best marginally functional - staff is a mess.
Nice honest guys finish last? What’s up with Randy being a push-over? What’s that based on: his teaching career? He ran two campaigns for Congress without a sliver of Party help, hardly the basis for a push-over determination.
Without forward home-based leadership of the state party, Arizona is destine to remain the backwater perserve of DC cabalists.
Do we really want a strawman for Chair that will turnover the leadership to an unelected person that does not even share the Democratic principles of the Party in running in his own District for PC?
This chair election could well fracture the state Party.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Ugh,
azdemocrat2008- might not want to mention the fact that he’s from the east coast and that he’s responsible for Janet’s hatchet man in chief or a taller version of Mario Diaz- Noah.
Janet basically conceded the U.S Senate seat to the Republicans by refusing to help out Jim Pederson, so she’s not too popular among some progressive circles.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:54 am
How can Jeff Latas or any man run for Vice Chair if the state Chair is a man (since no women are running, it is presumed)? I thought the rules were that if one position is one gender, the next highest position has to be the opposite gender?
Waid didn’t “lead the party to the pickup…”. I can’t speak for Mitchell but he didn’t do anything spectacular for anyone else in the general. The main role is to fundraise and secondarily to help the state county parties to organize. He was marginal at best. SnowBrdr is right on.
I think the state party has done a poor job all around. We should have had a much larger Democratic turnout this cycle and the numbers were disappointing. There was a lack of an education campaign on propositions so a lot of horrible ones passed. Many candidates got little to know support and lost races they could have won. The Democrats in this state are weak.
For the progressives out there–you are dreaming if you think the established old farts in the state party give a pooh about you. Until you become really organized and large in numbers i.e. a force to contend with, you are just a slight aggravation to them…nothing more. Jeff Latas would do better to forget about the Chair or Vice Chair and focus on building that new group he heads into a powerful force. Either way he needs to prove his fundraising ability, which he hasn’t yet. He needs to prove his organizational ability, which he hasn’t yet. Jeff has given good stump speeches; now he has a chance to prove if there is any substance to him.
Waid is part of what is wrong with the party. You should never have a SC and ED in one, and he sucked at both jobs. Since your standards are so low, you probably disagree. If you ever have the advantage of living in states that are organized, you would know what I mean. Waid is about protecting and keeping the status quo. Good luck with that folks. He wants to open a private consulting firm, lol. How fitting. Maybe he can tell Jim Pederson wtf went wrong in his campaign. I could answer that and could have saved him $15 million.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Sandy in Prescott, take a reality pill. You sound like a Pederson plant. Janet did not lose the race for Pederson, he lost it. He was a crappy candidate with a shady past who ran horrible ads and didn’t target voters properly.
If you can’t win with spending $15 million and being best buds with Bill Clinton, there is seriously something wrong with you. I know a lot of Democrats who did not vote for Pederson and would not vote for him even if Jesus campaigned for him. Pederson did not respond well to the bankruptcy thing when Kyl ran the ads, because he was/is guilty as sin. The testimonial from the guy who said Pederson still owed him something like $40,000 was the most damaging to him based on what I have heard.
How can you be worth $100 million and not pay off $40K? That disgusted people. They knew this would come out if he ran. Why didn’t he pay off all his creditors and make it right with everyone in advance? Get your house in order before you run. The perception was Jim P was more corrupt than Kyl so even the Democrats that voted for him did a hold your nose thing. There you go Jimbo. I just saved you the millions in consultant fees you are paying to have the “experts” analyze what went wrong with your campaign.
Don’t blame Janet for that. Janet must be doing something right, she did get an overwhelming majority of the votes when Pederson could not even attack one of the easiest Senators to attack. Janet did not need some dead weight dragging her down.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Speaking of Janet, why is it the Democratic Party in Arizona can’t get a woman to run the show but the Republicans are a lot more open to it? Is the Democratic Party more sexist than the Republican one? Seriously, my girlfriend asks me that all the time and I don’t know the answer. It seems it has gotten worse and not better. Why aren’t we seeing any women in the race for party Chair?
Now, Mark Osterloh. Isn’t he the idiot who came up with the million dollars to vote scheme? He should have spent his money working on election fraud issues instead. Why anyone would take this flake seriously, I don’t know. Arizona voters were at least smart enough to vote down that harebrained idea.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Did I wander in to the annual Festivus airing of grievances?
Holy cow! Tedski really hit a nerve.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Fedup: I guess your right, its just for me, saying “Oh vote for waid cause he brought us Janet’s top hatchet man” is not exactly an argument that wins most state committee members I would surmise or saying oh, he’s from the east coast, he must know more than the rest of us poor westerners- something many of us natives loathe more than Republicans.
I totally think a woman should be chair!!!
And your right on about that Bankruptsy ad, it was pretty damning and especially when he didn’t respond but Janet knows she could have done more, you can see it in her eyes when they were at the last public event together.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:44 am
David Waid has done a great job as state chair and we’d be lucky to have him again. Randy Camacho just doesn’t have it in him. He’s a lightweight. And Snowbrdr, the Coordinated Campaign wasn’t not “dismal”. In past years, they have been. Not this year. Their numbers don’t lie. And you should have volunteered more of your time to getting dems elected. You did nothing. I know who you are.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Um, hardly. The 2004 campaign was by far the best one i’ve seen. This years was small and tepid at best.
PS. waid is decent, but not great.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:39 pm
looks like we have trolls Tedski
look at azdemocrat2008 and justiceleague.
both joined in 2006 december.
Looks like the coordinated campaign has so little to do that they need to troll blog on rum romanism and rebellion?
oh thats right, they are still paying their field staff a month and a half after the election and they are doing nothing?
December 28th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
As the actual person who stood up and asked and received from David Waid a public promise that David would not run for re-election in January 2007, I want the record very clear.
David Waid is evidently now saying that the gist of his promise to the Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus in May 2006 was that in January 2006 he would not hold both the unpaid State Chair job and the paid/employee Executive Director job.
I myself was the person who stood up at that meeting in May 2006 and specifically asked him if he was going to seek to be re-elected in January 2006. I asked for a public promise that he not run.
The question David was asked was most definitely NOT about whether he would hold the two jobs, but whether he would run for re-electoin as State Chair. David Waid gave an unequivocal and clear promise not to seek re-election as State Chair.
I just want the record clear about what he was asked and what he said. David is personally an honest man and I can understand (since his holding the two jobs was one of the concerns about his election in May 2006 — not the only one, but a main concern expressed by many) that he has now, in his own mind, changed his promise from the actual promise he made into the promise he now wishes he had made.
Violating his promise is not enough, standing alone, to deny David Waid the State Chair, but it would be nice if (a) he admitted the strentgh and clarity of his actual promise, (b) explained why he was breaking that promise, and (c) even apologized or at least contacted the Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus before he carried through with breaking his promise.
Many progressives in Arizona are not at all surprised by the fact that David has not only ignored his promise to Arizona’s progressives, but also acted as if that promise made no difference. After all, David’s support does not in any way depend upon Arizona’s progressives.
The Powers That Be, from the Governor down through the rich contributors and the supporters of the present way the Coordinated Campaign system works, are David’s source of power in this job.
Does anyone believe that David Waid would be a credible candidate for the State Chair if the Governor and the other Powers That Be did not want David as “their man over at the Party”? Does anyone believe that David has any viable power base in the Arizona Democratic Party independent of the Governor’s wishes? Of course not.
If David Waid is elected, it will be because the Governor and the other Powers That Be want him as “their man in the Party.”
Should he be supported? To answer that question you have to ask yourself whether the Democratic Party needs someone who will do to Israel Torres and Herb Payne what was done to them in the last electon cycle.
Israel Torres was a victory that could have happened, with enough support, resources and effort.
national office — probably taking over McCain’s Senate Seat in 2008 while McCain seeks the presidency — Arizona will be left in the hands of Jan Brewer — and it could have been Israel Torres.
But the Governor and the Powers That Be are not all that uncomfortable with the likes of Jan Brewer, so they did not devote the kind of resources, attention and effort to Israel Torres’ campaign to make him the Governor’s replacement when the Governor goes to Washington!
So the question we need to ask ourselves is whether we need, in the State Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, a man who will answer to people who are not really all that uncomfortable with Jan Brewer as Governor of Arizona.
Steve McClure
December 28th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
(a) I just noticed that I cannot tell the difference between January 2006 (incorrect) and January 2007 (correct) == Oh, well, 64 years old has its effects.
Secondly, I noticed that part of my posting got lost.
I was referring near the end of my comment to the fact that evidently Janet wants to go on to higher office — during her term, so that Jan Brewer will take over as Governor when she leaves.
Please understand that I fully support Janet Napolitano taking over McCain’s seat — it would increase Democratic stability in the Senate and I think she will make a better Senator than she has a Governor.
I am just appalled by the notion that she is evidently quite comfortable with Jan Brewer taking over as Governor.
I believe that Israel Torres could have beaten Brewer in 2006 (done right, she was an incredibly vulnerable candidate) — and I believe the reason he did not beat her is because Janet Napolitano was not concerned that Brewer would take over when she left.
That fact alone tells me a whole lot about the Powers That Be who back David Waid for State Chair.
Another note. I notice the fact of David Waid’s private assurances and comments in closed meetings made it onto this blog, a fact that does not make me particularly happy since we did not tell David ahead of time that this would occur.
That being said, I was also present at those meetings, and their content was accurately described. In those meetings, it was quite clear that the quid pro quo for Arizona progressives not fighting David’s candidacy for State Chair in May 2006 was precisely and explicitly his promise not to seek re-election in January 2007. That was always very clear between us.
When I went up to David prior to the public part of the AZDPC meeting and asked him if he would make the public pledge not to run in January 2007 on the open floor, he specifically suggested that I ask him that question in the AZDPC meeting so that he could make a public pledge. He wanted to “assure” people that he was running for State Chair in May 2006 only to keep the momentum going in the 2006 campaign (i.e., don’t change horses in midstream, or whatever metaphor you want), and he wanted to “assure” everyone that he would not run in January 2007.
On the basis of that specific promise, given before that morning and in public in that public meeting that morning, we progressives did not make a floor fight out of David’s election to State Chair that afternoon.
That is the record. Again, I like David. I respect what he has done. I have some criticism of his performance in both jobs, but that alone is not, to my mind, enough to deny him re-election.
What is at issue in his election is whether we progressives are once again to be supine and mere supplicants, or are we going to stand up in the Party and say that we want a Party where all Democrats are heard and all are valued and all are supported.
If I were going to get involved in any upcoming fight, and if I had a battle cry (and possibly someone will tell me why this is not a good battle cry), I would say: “Remember Israel Torres!”
If and when the queen of ballot vulnerability becomes Governor, remember what the Coordinated Campaign did to Israel Torres!
Steve McClure
December 29th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I’m curious, Steve; What more could the Coordinated have done for Israel Torres?
January 10th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Point #1
“Israel Torres was a victory that could have happened, with enough support, resources and effort… ?”
I know I was on the other side of the world but even I could see that Issie [although a great candidate] was not going to pull it out. The only thing Issie had going for him was a backlash of voters against the GOP this yr, which would hardly translate to votes in the SOS slot.
There was a more realistic chance for Chris Cummiskey to win, running for an open seat and the 2002 Coordinated effort to include extensive resources put into the SOS race. Both (D) SOS Candidates had the same problem, a Janet Napolitano who drew out moderate GOP women which translated into votes for Jan Brewer, not knowing that Jan is anything but moderate and since most people dont pay attn or care about the SOS, they voted for Brewer.
Point #2
“the fact that evidently Janet wants to go on to higher office — during her term, so that Jan Brewer will take over as Governor when she leaves. Please understand that I fully support Janet Napolitano taking over McCain’s seat — it would increase Democratic stability in the Senate and I think she will make a better Senator than she has a Governor.
I am just appalled by the notion that she is evidently quite comfortable with Jan Brewer taking over as Governor.”
1st, should Senator McCain leave his Senate post - does the Governor have to appoint someone from his/her same party [similiar to state/local candidates] to take his place? If that was the case, should would not qualify for the position, thus debunking this conspiracy theory.
However if she was able to appoint herself, why in the heck would she put Arizona in that position when she could appoint someone else, making a deal with this particular individual, only serve out the term and not run for re-election - giving her an opportunity to run for an open seat.
Sceniro #1: GOP Replacement… Grant Woods, Jane Dee Hull, something along those lines
Sceniro #2: Dm Replacement… Jim Pederson, Fred Duvall, something along those lines
January 17th, 2007 at 10:53 am
JusticeLeague, obviously you know very little, and you certainly do not know me. The comment that I did nothing during the past election cycle is so far from factual to be as moronic and cartoonish as your ‘handle’.
You can try to make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear, but only a Party supplicant will believe it. The 2006 Coordinated campaign was dismal. The Governor’s impressive win was overshadowed by the lack of any coattails - a serious lack of coordination by any standards.
JusticeLeague stick with your comics, reality may be a bit of a reach.
Leave a Reply