Home » Downtown » Currently Reading:

I Know One Candidate I Am Not Endorsing

December 19, 2006 Downtown 5 Comments

A little over a month ago I stated I was going to wait until the end of January, after campaign reports were filed, to make any endorsements for candidates in upcoming elections. While that will remain the case I did not mention anything about ruling out candidates from consideration.

After witnessing the 6th ward executive meeting from two tables away last night I can say this, there is no way in hell that I’d endorse Patrick Cacchione for alderman. He is clearly an integral part of the factional ward system I seek to destroy. This is the very system that has been holding back our city for decades. Why do we allow our city to be run this way?

Kacie Starr Triplett is young and optimistic, both good and bad qualities. The third candidate in this race is Christian Saller, someone completely removed from the ward process, a huge bonus in my view. What would be great is if Triplett and Saller both completely blew off the 6th ward democratic good-ole-boy clique — don’t even show up at the meetings. Ignore them completely. Don’t build up the importance of this petty little group. Boycott the 6th Ward Democrats! And for everyone else out there, if you are handed a sample ballot on election day just think about why those names are on that list. Is your ward “open” like the 6th or is it closed where the officiers of the tiny factional ward group determines who you should vote for?

In the end I may not make any endorsements at all, I might find reason enough to write-off every last candidate in the upcoming election. To one degree or another they all play the ward game. We’ll see what happens over the next couple of months but at the moment I can scratch one name off my list: Patrick Cacchione.

 

Currently there are "5 comments" on this Article:

  1. Marti says:

    Steve, you KNOW I understand what you are saying about the ward politics, but boycotting or snubbing a group of people when you are trying to gauge what your constituents care about is not the answer. I am personally and proactively supporting Christian Saller and I hope for his benefit and his ward’s benefit, he will listen to everyone. Knowing Christian, I suspect he will. Blowing off any group of people in the ward really just seems like it would be playing the same game you are trying to stop. No reason to go down to that level.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — I’m not suggesting any candidate ignore constituents within the ward.  I am suggesting, however, candidates not waste their time on seeking an endorsement they have no chance of getting. Yes, it would probably be bad if they didn’t make some appearance but I would love to see two of the three candidates basically say the organization is irrelvent today.  

    I have every intention of destroying the partisan ward-based politics at the local level in St. Louis.  That will not happen easily or quickly.  It will take lots of work and education, not paying games with people.]

     
  2. Chris Grant says:

    I can’t speak for other ward groups, but I don’t understand why you want to destroy the group I’m in — the 15th Ward Democrats. Here is what we do:

    We hold forums for candidates to speak. We ask them questions. Community members ask questions. Candidates answer questions.

    We then meet and debate which candidate we think is best. Anyone who lives in the ward, has attended three meetings, and has paid their dues is free to participate. Some people advocate for one candidate. Some people advocate for other candidates. Sometimes we have genuine disagreements. We debate issues like the city schools, neighborhood development, TIFs, crime, public housing, etc . . .

    We then vote on which candidate to endorse. The winner gets the group’s endorsement.

    We then agree that we will knock on doors, speak to neighbors, and distribute flyers on the candidate we endorse.

    Here’s the kicker – if the group endorses a candidate you don’t like, you still need to help that candidate. You don’t need to vote for him or her on election day, but you need to help the ward organization support him or her. This is the purpose of the group. You do not always get your way. You agree to put your feet on the street for the group’s endorsed candidate. Yes, this requires assisting (however half-heartedly) someone you may not like. If you cannot do this, then you can quit the group, or not join in the first place.

    I’m not sure why you want to destroy a community based organization which debates critical issues and is a vehicle for increased participation in local politics. I’m not saying that every ward organization is perfect. But, there is nothing wrong with the concept of the organziation itself. And, I say this having read Lana Stein’s book.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — First, I’ve had this view long before picking up Stein’s book.  Tell me how many of the 40+ democratic ward organizations in the city are so open as yours?  Yes, over 40!  And groups such as the League of Women Voters does an excellent job of registering voters and holding forums, without themselves being political.  In my non-partisan world you might have a number of 15th Ward groups that would endorse candidates but ideally I’d rather see a single group that did everything to help the democractic process except endorse.  Hold forums, ask questions, publish answers to answers from candidates, put up video from the forums, link to the candidate sites.  All that is great.  

    I’m sorry, but the idea of helping a candidate you don’t like simply because the majority of the group you paid $5 to join voted for them seems a bit silly from where I sit.  Why not just host a non-partisan forum for all interested candidates and then those who wish to work to support their person can freely do so?  Ending partisan ward-level machine politics does not mean we cannot come together to listen to candidates.  In fact, getting rid of the partisan ward organizations would likely do wonders to actually help get more candidates to file, thereby improving the democratic process.  

    It is nice that you feel you are doing something good for the community but these organizations are continuing the factional divisions in this city and keeping us a bottom tier city.] 

     
  3. Howard says:

    Dr. Stein is treasurer of the 28th Ward Democrats pac.

     
  4. 1 says:

    LOL! He got you there, Steve!

    You really come off not as the revolutionary you think you are, but as the kid who didn’t like the way the other kids who were playing the game and threatens to take his ball and go home.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Who got me where?  Oh, the fact that Dr. Stein is part of a ward organization?  As I said, I’ve had this view long before I knew of her, check the archives if you like.  

    I don’t like the game, not at all.  I have every intention of not just changing the rules of the game but the entire playing field.  So you can anonymously call me childish if you like but I have clearly and consistently stated my objections with how things are done.]  

     
  5. Michele Mallette Sherman says:

    Is Cacchione A Democrat? More like an Autocrat! Having served on the Compton Heights Board with him, I witnessed time and again his “let them eat cake” attitude. After my term on the Board was over, Cacchione was very instrumental in getting Alderman Lewis Reed to order a “gate” to enclose the entrance to our neighborhood on Grand Boulevard, so that the Western part of our neighborhood would have, in effect, been cut off from the public. This would have produced a private enclave for Cacchione and his friends. The Board initially worked in secret with Alderman Reed to do this, but eventually had to publish their actions in our newsletter. Immediately, some outraged neighbors sprang into action. A petition was circulated to all the homes in Compton Heights, and over half of the households signed against the gate project. We had signs placed in our yards asking for a vote on this matter. We had television coverage, and we were spotlighted in the Post Dispatch regarding our plight. It didn’t budge Cacchione. Even though he was not the Board president, he was it’s spokesperson. When a couple of residents asked for a meeting with Cacchione and Ald. Reed, it was more of the same. Since Cacchione had the full support of the Board, and Ald. Reed’s support, he didn’t need to justify his actions. Regardless of the majority of the neighborhood against this project, Cacchione would not even consider taking it to a vote of the membership, nor would Ald. Reed order a traffic study to see if closing a public street was warranted (alledgedly because of a high rate of speeders). Because of the pressure of the coalition against the gate, Ald. Reed finally ordered a traffic study done in the neighborhood. The results showed the speeds in the neighborhood to be comparable to “alley traffic”. Mr. Reed was forced to withdraw his support of the bill. Democracy ultimately prevailed in our neighborhood, no thanks to Cacchione’s autocratic ways. If you want someone who will serve the interests of the people, it is most assuredly not Cacchione.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe