Reply #24: How do we fix this misperception? Will it help that some candidates the

[Czolgosz]

alleged "king maker" is backing will inevitably lose (because that is all but certain to happen and it would seem to disprove the absurd notion that anyone has the power to "make" a candidate win)? Frankly, the only power the alleged "king maker" has is to make it easier to raise money -- and good grassroots work can achieve that same fundraising effect without any help from any alleged "king maker."

I would think the Carranza radio program would put an end to the idea of "king making" rather than reinforcing that idea because -- while it's inexplicable that any self-professed Democrat would give money to Dewhurst, Abbott, Jefferson, and the rest of that corporatist bunch -- it is crazy to suggest that those contributions "made" those Republicans into the political tyrants they have become. Of course the alleged "king maker" isn't "making" kings; he's clearly trying to pick the likely winner ahead of time and get out in front to support the eventual winner. That's not "king making" -- that's simply seeking political brownie points with the candidates who are likely to win anyway. While that sort of back-the-likely-winner politics not my cup of tea, it's certainly a very well precedented strategy in electoral history.

So. Help me here. What do we do to make sure that the best candidate gets the Democratic nomination without good, long-serving Democrats being wrongly smeared by the El Defenzor/Verdades y Chismes crew (who are not Democrats from what I can tell)? How do we avoid the mess you predict?

Besides helping me come up with a plan of action to avoid the mess you predict, which local party chair should we select to steer clear of this trouble? Kelley is passionate, but not a uniter. Trevino could be a great uniter, but he doesn't excite the base the way Kelley does. What do you think?