Jason Seagraves and the 7th District Congressional Race

[debsianben]

For those unaware, Jason Seagraves was at one point one of the leading contenders for the Democratic Congressional nomination for Congress, running a sort of Kucinichish progressive-populist anti-DLC-type campaign. (In fact, at one of the early debates, 64% of people who filled out a post-debate poll thought he had won.) For a variety of reasons, he dropped out of the Democratic primary race, joined the Green Party and got the nomination at the Green state convention, so he will be on the ballot in the fall as the Green candidate. He seems to have done a good job of taking his fairly viable volunteer and donor base with him. After switching parties and snagging the Green nomination, he got dis-invited from a debate (sponsored by "Citizens for Traditional Values") that was advertised as open to "all candidates" and originally made no mention of any requirement that candidates be participating in the Dem-Rep primary system. In all fairness, lmost all of the candidates there (eg pro-choice Republican hopeful and former Gubenatorial candidate Joe Schwarz and all the other Dem hopefuls) agreed that he should have been allowed to participate.

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing what people thought about his explanation for switching parties, from an article on his campaign web-site(the full text is at http://www.jasonseagraves.com/campaign_journal/040603.htm) Do people think his description is accurate? Does it justify his decision? Under the realistic electoral circumstances of CD 7, does it make sense to vote for the guy?

"'Why did you drop out of the Democratic race?  You could have beaten those guys!'  These comments were echoed by a pair of Republican candidates and their wives at the recent Citizens For Traditional Values congressional debate, from which, of course, I was banned.  My answer, that the Democratic Party had already chosen its candidate, and thus, gave my campaign zero support and at least some degree of opposition, did not satisfy them. 

"'You could have beaten those guys, regardless, and then it wouldn't have mattered.;  Perhaps.  But what was unspoken by these Republicans was the given that if I were the Democratic nominee, I would have been simply the latest in a succession of sacrificial lambs for GOP ascendancy.  What would be the point?  To be another Jennie Crittendon, who the Democrats gave such meager support in 2000 that my humble efforts have already surpassed hers in fundraising?  To be like Jim Berryman, who faced Nick Smith in '98, and is now so disaffected with the Democrats that he proudly wears a "Joe Schwarz" button on his lapel?  No thank you, I'd rather admit publicly, as I'm sure Crittendon and Berryman would privately, that the Democratic Party in this area is a minor party, and if I am to be the nominee of a minor party, I'd prefer to represent one that stands for something.

"The next thing I would say to these inquisitive Republicans is, 'What does the Democratic Party stand for?'  Does it stand for universal health care?  A living wage?  Broadening the scope of democracy?  No on all three counts, which up until recently, were cornerstones of its platform.  The sad truth is that the Democratic Party stands for one thing: winning elections.  In addition to being a morally bankrupt objective, the doubly sad case is that they're miserable failures at it.  So what would be the point of being the Democratic nominee?

"Rather than kissing the rings of county chairs who fancy themselves as Tony Soprano mob bosses, I would prefer to work with people who believe in what I believe in.  Not only that, I would prefer to work with people who are willing to work with me!  The support I have received from members of the state Green Party has far surpassed that of the Democrats.  Furthermore, I have received more than twice as many individual contributions via the internet than I did in my entire three months as a Democrat."

[BayCityProgressive]

1. There is a lot of

corruption in the party and there would be in the GP too if it were larger. He should try changing the party rather than leaving and joining another. All parties willhave corruption problems.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Fairly viable volunteer and donor base?

He managed to raise a grand total of $2116.

http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.exe?DoFn=H4MI07129*2004

That's not a sign of a campaign that was garnering very much support. He probably knew that he was going to lose the primary, so he switched parties rather than losing.