Council 94, DFA endorse Segal
One of the wild cards in the CD1 race is whether David Segal’s support among labor and progressive activists can tip the conventional wisdom favoring perceived frontrunner David Cicilline.
Segal, adding to his previous plaudits from the AFT and SEIU, has picked up endorsements from AFSCME’s Council 94 (the largest state workers’ union)and Democracy for America. He also gained the imprimatur of SEIU’s state council, encompassing five union locals – some of whose membership overlaps with the previous SEIU endorsement, according to campaign manager Rachel Miller.
Council 94 president Michael Downey said this in a news release:
“While other candidates requested our support, no other candidate had a record to match David’s efforts on the behalf of working families. We plan to support David Segal in the upcoming Primary Election, because we know that he will work hard every day for the constituents in Congressional District 1.”
Council 94 represents over 10,000 active and retired state, municipal, and private sector employees.
Miller says Democracy for America has more than one million members in the US. She adds:
The more people are paying attention the more theyre turning away from the front runner and coming on board, because David Segal is the one who has honestly fought for local families and people are tired of the same old politics where people with say anything to get elected. David Segal is the real thing.
I think that what we are seeing here is that the “PROGRESSIVE” Label and a job where you don’t have the kinds of responsibilities of an executive position (i.e. mayor, governor or even A.G.) can do a lot for you these days. I don’t think this is a bad thing other than that it tends to favour “agenda candidates” who may or may not lack in a) experience b) effectiveness (ability to stand out and organize in difficult circumstances) and c) independent mindedness. In American Politics, I think that these are qualities that get you very far. I think David Segal has been in the types of positions that have favoured “agenda politics” (city council and state leg.). In each situation, you represent one vote amongst many, an advocate for one position against many and thus what you say or do is less “make or break” than in a mayoral, presidential or gubernatorial position. So I say Kudos to Segal for harping on those issues in the big pond but I have very much doubt that he would survive as a bigger fish due to his lack of experience, his inability to divorce himself from an agenda (look at who does fundraising for him… I know a lot is done by national progressive organizations) and the fact that he has not shown the type of effectiveness that is required to be a great congressperson. If he had, more people would have known about him before the election. Tip O’Neill and others like him are a testament to what it is to be a great congressperson and to me these types of people do not in any way resemble the young state rep. from the East Side. On a more practical level I also think that he is incapable of garnering support, friends and recognition from the Blackstone valley or from the East Bay.
While the progressive agenda should, in my opinion, play an important role in congress, its advocates should always put the unique and particular needs of their states before a national agenda and be dynamic enough to turn heads, mobilize support and be leaders. While he has unfortunately been mislabelled by some as a “center-of-the-road, “special interests” or “deep pocketed” candidate, I am certain that our “perceived frontrunner” has garnered the majority of the financial and personal support he has because he has a lot of those qualities. David Cicilline is a practical, results-driven progressive and while I have heard what Segal has to say and liked it, I am utterly convinced that Cicilline has the same ethics and the same liberal principles but with a much greater ability to lead, a greater tenacity and a greater sense of what it is to unite people. I think that, in this election, we should (as always) not let ourselves be mislead by labelling but should rather research each candidate thoroughly and envision a congress with each of the candidates in it, doing the jobs that a congressperson does. Then we should ask ourselves who would be the most effective advocate, the most effective voice for our state amongst the hundreds of loud, ineffective and destructive voices that currently inhabit the house and only then should we make our decision.
I also feel that, having listened to this radio station very often and having recently been reading this blog, there is an unwarranted amount of publicity and subtle approval given to Segal and not enough fair and equal room given for other voices (there are four candidates in this race). Recently, I heard something on the WRNI talking about an allegation that Segal had made about Cicilline and they had no response from Cicilline’s campaign… I am completely and utterly certain that WRNI had an obligation to wait a reasonable and ample amount of time before airing this allegation (which was not much later rebutted by Cicilline’s campaign) and I am quite sure that they did not follow this protocol. This to me, added to the amount of press that Segal (who polled last in a faulty but not at all irrelevant poll) should warrant and has warranted from other TV, print and radio agencies seems to prove my point. Just for another example, I could very easily imagine the first sentence of this post (“One of the wild cards in the CD1 race is whether David Segal’s support among labor and progressive activists can tip the conventional wisdom favoring perceived frontrunner David Cicilline”) on Segal’s website.
Aaron, between the On Politics blog and our radio reports, WRNI has offered considerable coverage of all four Democratic candidates in the CD1 race. A set of individual feature-length profiles of these candidates is set to air in the near future. Because I am profiling two of those four candidates (the other two profiles are being done by other members of the WRNI staff), I’ve had more exposure to the Cicilline and Segal campaigns.
You raise a baseless issue involving a lack of response from the Cicilline campaign. If you have a problem with this, you should take it up with the Cicilline campaign, because it was very slow to respond to a request for comment. The story (covered on this blog and our air on August 13) involved Segal’s criticism of Cicilline over the First Source jobs program, which was implemented following a suit against the city. The campaign took about five hours to respond (almost three hours after a campaign spokesman said he’d have a response in a bit, and after the close of business) to my request for comment. The response was posted on this blog and relayed to our news desk. The Cicilline campaign was certainly capable of responding more rapidly.
Your charge of “subtle approval” for Segal’s campaign is also without merit. Was there “subtle approval” for Cicilline’s campaign when we reported on his noteworthy endorsements? The observation that Segal’s labor/progressive support is a wild card in a race against the frontrunner is informed and unremarkable.
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. I must remind you that I am stating my side of the issue, how it looks from my point of view and the points of views of people with whom I have brought this up. If you believe that you are completely not taking sides and you believe that this is an important stance to take as a journalist, I applaud you. Just remember that there are people out there to whom this looks differently. Were I in your shoes I would not have aired the Segal allegation (even given what you just told me) and I know others who agree with me. This is, however, a matter of your discretion and like I said I respect that you are committed to being unbiased. I would simply remind you that to some, this looks biased…whether that is due to our own biases or yours is certainly up for debate. Thank you again for your response. Finally, I posted another comment though it unfortunately looks like it has been moderated and I wonder why…when it contained only my own deeply considered, non-inflammatory opinions.
Thanks for the response, Aaron.
I’m not really sure about which other comment you’re referring. It looks like you might have tried posting your initial comment more than once. We welcome civil, thoughtful comments from listeners/blog readers, and do not restrain publication to due to critical comment.
Here was my original comment which, when I view it, says that it is still ‘awaiting moderation’:
I think that what we are seeing here is that the “PROGRESSIVE” Label and a job where you don’t have the kinds of responsibilities of an executive position (i.e. mayor, governor or even A.G.) can do a lot for you these days. I don’t think this is a bad thing other than that it tends to favour “agenda candidates” who may or may not lack in a) experience b) effectiveness (ability to stand out and organize in difficult circumstances) and c) independent mindedness. In American Politics, I think that these are qualities that get you very far. I think David Segal has been in the types of positions that have favoured “agenda politics” (city council and state leg.). In each situation, you represent one vote amongst many, an advocate for one position against many and thus what you say or do is less “make or break” than in a mayoral, presidential or gubernatorial position. So I say Kudos to Segal for harping on those issues in the big pond but I have very much doubt that he would survive as a bigger fish due to his lack of experience, his inability to divorce himself from an agenda (look at who does fundraising for him… I know a lot is done by national progressive organizations) and the fact that he has not shown the type of effectiveness that is required to be a great congressperson. If he had, more people would have known about him before the election. Tip O’Neill and others like him are a testament to what it is to be a great congressperson and to me these types of people do not in any way resemble the young state rep. from the East Side. On a more practical level I also think that he is incapable of garnering support, friends and recognition from the Blackstone valley or from the East Bay.
While the progressive agenda should, in my opinion, play an important role in congress, its advocates should always put the unique and particular needs of their states before a national agenda and be dynamic enough to turn heads, mobilize support and be leaders. While he has unfortunately been mislabelled by some as a “center-of-the-road, “special interests” or “deep pocketed” candidate, I am certain that our “perceived frontrunner” has garnered the majority of the financial and personal support he has because he has a lot of those qualities. David Cicilline is a practical, results-driven progressive and while I have heard what Segal has to say and liked it, I am utterly convinced that Cicilline has the same ethics and the same liberal principles but with a much greater ability to lead, a greater tenacity and a greater sense of what it is to unite people. I think that, in this election, we should (as always) not let ourselves be mislead by labelling but should rather research each candidate thoroughly and envision a congress with each of the candidates in it, doing the jobs that a congressperson does. Then we should ask ourselves who would be the most effective advocate, the most effective voice for our state amongst the hundreds of loud, ineffective and destructive voices that currently inhabit the house and only then should we make our decision.