George,

I’ve been greatly disappointed in the two candidates for the Democratic Party’s nomination for Congress in the 5 District. I received mailings from each of them that they perceived would be helpful to their own interests, yet the result will be to diminish the value of my party’s nomination to whoever wins it. Bern Ewert paints Al Weed as a pathetic loser. Al Weed suggests that Bern Ewert may be going to jail. Neither characterization is correct.

The question that I’ve been pondering is what to do with my disappointment. Do I let the actions cancel each other out? Do I try to decide which candidate’s statements were more egregious? Do I just sit out the caucus and let others decide?

Here’s what I’ve come up with: In order for a candidate to be eligible for consideration for my support, I’ll first have to see a public apology. Not weasel words. Not “he did it first”. Not “what I said is true”. Not, “I’m sorry if anybody took offense”. The apology that I need to hear includes “I was wrong. My actions caused damage. I shouldn’t have done it.”

Otherwise, whoever wins will assume that their mailing was helpful to their victory and they’ll be inclined to repeat their actions. The message for future candidates is that this is how you win a nomination.

If there are no apologies when my county caucus is held next week, I’ll only vote for uncommitted delegates. And, I’ll encourage those delegate to withhold their vote for any candidate who has not apologized by the time the convention is held.

Yeah, I know, I’m dust in the wind. But, maybe some other Democrats will be moved to join me.

Harry Landers (electronic mail, April 19, 2006)