Jamie Pedersen’s Dirty Punch
On Sunday I went to the U-District Street Fair, where I was approached by four of Jamie Pedersen’s volunteers. Pedersen is one of the six candidates running in the 43rd District to fill Ed Murray’s seat in the Washington State House of Representatives. From my post on Sunday:
We hadn’t taken three steps on the Ave before we had what looked like a petition on a clipboard thrust at us. The young volunteer, looking so very earnest, asked us if we supported marriage equality…. She was asking us to hand our names, mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers over to Jamie Pedersen… We had the same clipboards thrust at us four more times by Pedersen volunteers, each making the same appeal—”Do you support marriage equality?”—as we made our way up the Ave. Hm. Interesting—and dishonest.When I asked one of Pedersen’s volunteers if any of Jamie’s opponents were against marriage equality, she said she didn’t know for sure—”but probably not,” she added. When I asked why she was out there trying to create the impression that the other candidates in the race were opponents of marriage equality, she said, “To get your attention!” Well, it worked.
And in my post on Sunday, I had a couple of questions for Pedersen:
Uh, Jamie? Don’t you think that’s dishonest? Don’t all the candidates running to fill Murray’s seat—Stephanie Pure, Dick Kelley, Lynne Dodson, Bill Sherman, et all—support marriage equality?
Before we get to Pedersen’s answers (and a surprise phone call from a national gay VIP), let’s hear from some of the other candidates in the 43rd District race, all of whom—surprise!—support marriage equality for same-sex couples:
Dick Kelley: “I am completely in favor of equal marriage rights for everyone. In early 2004 when it was not commonly being proposed as active proposal, we were just trying to block Bush’s constitutional amendment. I used my column in the 43rd district newspaper to write in favor of equal marriage rights and sponsored a platform planks in both 43rd and state party meetings. I don’t believe in compromising on things that are basic human rights. The sort of thing you have to go to the wall for.”
Bill Sherman: “I support full marriage equality.”
Lynn Dodson: “I support full marriage equality for same sex couples. I would push for full marriage equality [if the Washington State Supreme Court punts to the issue to the legislature]. Civil Unions are a half way step. It’s not equality. It’s a second tier.”
Stephanie Pure: “I am fully supporitive of marriage equality, and I am unequivocal on that. If elected I would take the lead on fighting for that.”
And before we get to Pedersen’s answers, let’s hear from a reader: In the comments thread attached to my original post Alex came to Pedersen’s defense…
Jamie Pedersen may very well be a weasel (though i'm not convinced of that), but at least he is bringing the issue up. A lot of Democrats may personally be for marriage equality, but not that many will outwardly talk about it....
I'm for talking about the issues—marriage equality and others. But I'm against one Dem candidate attempting to misrepresent, by innuendo, the positions of a half a dozen other Dem candidates. Pedersen is not the only candidate in the 43rd who supports marriage equality. By instructing his volunteers to tell people that they should support him if they support marriage equality, Pedersen implies that supporting any of the other candidates in this race is as good as not supporting marriage equality. That's dishonest. It is, as I said on Sunday, a weasel move.
And that was clearly the Pedersen campaign's intent: Again, I was approached by four different volunteers, all using the exact same come-on. Support marriage equality? Support Pedersen.
Okay, here's Jamie's response...
I read your post on The Stranger's Slog this morning and wanted to respond.First, all of the volunteers were in t-shirts that said "Elect Jamie Pedersen." I think it was obvious to people who stopped that the volunteers were involved with my campaign.
Second, as with most of the issues in a race in the 43rd, the question is rarely about whether someone supports or opposes a particular position. Instead, it is about priorities. Each of the six candidates has different reasons for running. And each has highlighted priorities to work on if elected. I have been working on marriage equality for over 10 years now. It is the most important reason I am running for the legislature and if I am elected, working to achieve (or protect) marriage equality would be among my highest priorities.
For that reason, I think it's not unfair to suggest that if winning marriage equality is a high priority for someone, that they should consider supporting me.
Jamie
First: Yes, it was obvious who your volunteers were working for—but that doesn't negate my point, Jamie, it helps to make my point. Folks working for you were running around attempting to create the impression that, of all the folks running in this race, you are the only candidate who supports marriage equality. When someone tells you, "If you're for marriage equality, you have to support Jamie!”, as one of your volunteers told me, that communicates, loudly and clearly, that the other men and women in the race don't support marriage equality. It doesn't imply that the other candidates don't support marriage equality as much or as passionately as you do, Jamie, but that they don't support marriage equality at all.
Second: Your work on marriage equality is appreciated. But your volunteers were not telling people that of all the pro-marriage-equality candidates running in 43rd, Jamie Pedersen is, like, the pro-marriage-equality-ist. Your volunteers' rehearsed pitch wasn't about backing the candidate who would prioritize marriage equality once he got to Olympia, but backing the candidate who would support marriage equality when he got to Olympia. Period. Since all the candidates in your race support marriage equality, your volunteers were creating—your volunteers were encouraged to create, they were coached to create—a false impression about the other candidates in the race, all of whom seem to have identical positions on marriage equality.
It was a cheap shot, Jamie, and more than a tad dishonest—and I'm not the only one who felt the pitch misrepresented your opponents' positions on marriage equality. Don't believe me? Ask your opponents how they feel about your pitch. I suggest you start with Lynn Dodson, who felt it necessary to send out a press release on Monday morning clarifying her position on marriage equality. (Hey, she's for it! Who knew?)
While I feel it the pitch you or your campaign managers encouraged your volunteers to make was deceitful, Jamie, I don't feel it was outside the bounds of rough-and-tumble political discourse. But you got called on it, and you shouldn't be a whinny ass baby about being called on it.
Which brings us to a strange phone call I got yesterday morning. My cell phone rang while I was checking out the male models milling around the Macy's shoot at Online Coffee Company, and guess who was on the line? Why, a big gay muckety-muck, a gay VIP, a national leader of the GLBT movement. And why was he calling? To reassure me that Jamie Pedersen is an ethical guy who would never, ever tell a lie.
I happen to be fond of this particular GLBT leader—he's effective, I respect him, and we're on friendly terms—but his call was from left fucking field. (I'm leaving his name out of this post at his request; he called on his own behalf and not on behalf of the organization he heads.) I mean, like, wow! I write a short Slog post about a local homo candidate and two days later national GLBT leaders are calling to spank me? Of course your buddy denied he called to spank me ("You should be so lucky,” he said), Jamie, he stated he was only calling to vouch for you and to make sure there was no ill will between us.
For the record, there is no ill will between us—and there won't be, Jamie, provided that your volunteers stop misrepresenting, by implication and innuendo, your opponents positions on marriage equality—and provided you stop acting like butter wouldn't melt in your butt, Pedersen. Man up and admit that you threw a dirty punch, got called on it, and refrain from throwing the same dirty punch in the future. Oh, you can still throw dirty punches—hell, we're looking forward to them—but you're going to need to throw less obvious, less easily blocked dirty punches if you want voters to regard you as a smart and savvy politician. And if you're called on any other low blows or cheap shots, you might not want to call in big national guns to defend you—not unless you really want folks to think you're a whinny ass baby.
And finally the bright side. Jamie Pedersen's dirty punch did, as the Alex points out, bring the marriage equality issue up. In response all the other candidates running in the 43rd were compelled to forcefully state their positions on marriage equality. Whoever winds up winning, each candidate has now committed to making marriage equality a priority. And I can guess we can thank Pedersen for that.
Dan...way to make a MOUNTAIN out of a molehill.