Here’s another dumb rule now being enforced by the MassDems: If you’ve publicly supported a candidate from another party, you can’t be a delegate.
The state Democratic Party has yanked the credentials of five delegates to its convention in Worcester this weekend for violating a rule that prohibits delegates from publicly supporting Republicans.
The move has outraged the campaign of Thomas F. Reilly, who had the support of three of the five delegates — Mayor Robert J. Dolan of Melrose, Mayor Richard C. Howard of Malden, and Essex District Attorney Jonathan W. Blodgett.
Each of those delegates was challenged by a supporter of Deval L. Patrick.
“To deny longtime, well-respected Democrats like Mayor Dolan, Mayor Howard, and DA Blodgett a voice based on a rigid, ideological litmus test represents a dangerous backwards step for our party,” said Corey Welford, a spokesman for Reilly.
… John Walsh, campaign manager for Patrick, said the campaign had nothing to do with the challenges. Advisers for Patrick had decided not to question any delegate’s qualifications, Walsh said, concluding that “the time for us would be better placed in soliciting the support of delegates around the state.”
Corey’s basically right, but it’s not even an ideological litmus test: It’s a partisan litmus test, one which says, “The party’s not here for you; you’re here for the party.”
I know absolutely nothing about the specific individuals involved, but just hypothetically: Should a Democrat be forced to support — or be silent about — a fellow Dem who happens to be corrupt? Why not just respect folks’ freedom of conscience to a. support whom they choose, and b. identify themselves as Democrats? That’s the effect of being a genuine big-tent party, after all. And this kind of arm-twisting doesn’t serve anyone’s interests; it just looks bad.
Bob put it well in a recent comment: “The conflation of the Party, and what is good for it, and the Commonwealth, and what is in the best interests of its population, is the sine qua non of the hackocracy … “ The party will win the corner office if it is seen to be truly representative of everyone’s best interests — not that of the party institution.
UPDATE: Max disagrees.
My answer is that is what a primary is for. Challenge them. Or do what Nancy Pelosi did and call for Rep. Jefferson or someone like that to step down.
<
p>
What bothers me about the ex-officios mentioned is that when you run for office in this State as a Democrat, Democratic resources are used to help elect you. If you attend the annual Roosevelt Dinner the money raised helps fund raises. It is a slap in the face that these people would accept money and resources and then publicly support a Republican.
<
p>
Ask yourself who you admire more – Jim Jeffords or Zell Miller?
<
p>
As far as this rule goes, it is an old rule. And it doesn’t ask much:you cannot publicly support a member of another Party and still call yourself a Democrat. I can live with this rule as a Democrat. Why would you think it is so onerous?
It would be pretty hard for the party to ignore a Mayor supporting the Republican candidate for Governor in this election cycle. And if the state committee is going to enforce the rule for one, how can it ignore the others. The delegates in question will have a chance to make their case to the Party before the convention and if it is a good case, let’s hope they prevail. If doing what your conscience dictates was always popular, life would be a lot easier than it is.
I agree with the rule because it excludes DINO’s from swaying the votes and the tone of the convention. If there was no exclusion for publicly supporting members of the opposing party, the door would be left open for even more shenanigans. As someone else noted, say hello to Zell Miller without this rule.
<
p>
If the party platform is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-social justice, etc., then I damn well want voting delegates (especially ex-officios) to be on board with what the party stands for. On this issue, the rules committee got it right (and I don’t say that very often)!!!
As I noted in my full post on the topic, I think this is not a dumb rule at all. Party politics means supporting the party’s nominated candidates. I am free to support whomever I choose, but if I’m going to claim that I am a representative of the Democratic Party, I don’t get to publicly support an opponent of the party.
Well from reading the article briefly, it seemed to me that only one was maybe justified, the mayor John Bell who has endorsed Kerry Healey this year, but then I remembered not thinking it wrong in any way that I voted in the GRP nominating convention despite being a Deval supporter (though there is a small distinction in Healey being the only Republican, and in being a publicly elected party figure as mayor).
<
p>
I don’t like the way the tried to pin this on the Patrick campaign especially in light of this paragraph: (emphasis mine)
<
p>
I think the specific campaign involved was the motivation behing those three, more than trying to hurt Reilly’s campaign.
<
p>
Yeah, so I’ve voted for Greens and many Dems and even one Republican, so I don’t think there’s a problem with picking the best candidate for the job, though the large presence of conservatives Democrats-by-convenience in the state Dems is the biggest problem of having one party that dominates nearly all elections across the state.
I find it interesting that, according to the article, all five challenges came from Patrick supporters. And a few of the comments refer to DINO’s like Zell Miller. The feeling seems to be that this rule keeps right-wingers from influencing the Democratic Party’s stands. Which makes sense.
<
p>
But I fear that this could also cut in the other direction, too. Will this bolster the attacks on John Bonifaz for signing Jill Stein’s papers? (It’s not a public endorsement, but it may may provide more rhetorical firepower to those criticizing him.) What about someone who has endorsed a Green running against a conservative Democrat? Imagine that a Green had run against Finneran; I would certainly hope that at least a few Dems would have had the courage to support him/her. But with this rule, not only would any Dems have faced Finneran’s wrath, but it sounds like they would have lost dleegate status!
<
p>
I recognize and share the desire to avoid Zell Millers. But does this system promote loyalty to party members more than loyalty to party principles?
I believe, and I will surely be corrected if I’m wrong, that the rules state something about supporting candidates in another major party. To qualify as a major party, I think I remember something about the presidential candidate requiring a 5% vote nationally? I just went to the Mass Dems website to research this, and I could only find the rules to disqualify a state committee member:
<
p>
“Public support or financial contribution to an opponent of a nominee of the Democratic Party which nominee publicly supports a majority of the platform of the Democratic Party as adopted at the most recent state and national conventions. A member for whom a long and deeply held belief would be violated by support of the nominee shall not be removed under this section;”
<
p>
As usual, the party provides only legal murkiness (which can then be interpreted as Phil Johnston wishes).
<
p>
In answer to your question, the party tends to promote loyalty to the leaders of the party rather than loyalty to the principles that ARE clearly stated in the rules and bylaws. What I find refreshing is that, so far, they’ve had to abide by their own rules. We’ll see if that remains true after the subcommittee meets. I have very little faith.
<
p>
I have to say that I don’t agree with the rule, especially as a progressive Dem who truly believes that Reilly would be a bad governor, and bad for the Democratic Party. If he gets the nomination I’ll probably vote Grace Ross or Christy Mihos for the sake of our party. (Mihos’ stance on the tolls will put money in my pocket every day, much more than the income tax rollback would give me)
<
p>
In full disclosure I’m a Patrick/Silbert/Bonifaz delegate who would vote Gabrielli/Murray/Galvin or whatever the ticket in the general if either Patrick or Gabrielli get the nomination. I’m not affiliated with any campaign. I don’t need a perfect ticket, just one that would be good for our state.
<
p>
In reading these posts I think you can insert Tom Reilly everywhere Zell Miller was mentioned, imho.
I really think the Reilly/Zell comparison is a bit over the top.
I am supporting Deval Patrick, however I will support Gabrielli Or Reilly in November if either of them win the Primary in September.
<
p>
Reilly is not the Devil. He’s lost his way in my opinion, and I don’t want him to be governor over Deval Patrick, but I’d take him a million times rather than let the Republicans win again.
<
p>
Did you learn nothing from that lie that stated that a Gore presidency would be no different than a Bush presidency? Do you still think that is true? Our nation has fallen into a pit of darkness from which it may never recover.
<
p>
Face the facts. Grace Ross is not going to be the next governor of Massachusetts. Christy Mihos is not going to be the next governor of Massachusetts. The next governor of Massachusetts is going to be either Kerry Healy or whoever the Democratic nominee is.
<
p>
If you are truly a progressive DEMOCRAT, then work really hard for Deval Patrick, but if he doesnât make it in September donât condemn our state to another 4 or 8 or more years of a Republican Governor. We need to take realistic steps to fix this state. Donât kid yourself that you wonât be to blame when Kerry Healy wins if you decide not to vote for the Democratic nominee. You can be sure that at the very least Iâll be blaming you! 🙂
Hey Migraine, your humble opinion is, IMHO, the problem facing us in November…We should all challenge your status at the convention..what good does it do us all as DEMOCRATS, if our elected delegates eventually become turncoats and don’t support our nominee…
<
p>
I think we can all agree, no matter our differences now, no matter who wins in September, it is in everyone’s best difference if the Democrat nominee wins in NOvember…
<
p>
Honestly, to even suggest that Mihos or Ross would be better for people than Reilly is laughable…
The Party has rules. If they follow their rules people complain (for example disqualifying these delegates who supported Republicans). If they don’t follow the rules people complain (for example allowing a different class of delegates sign Gabrielli papers to allow him in the convention).
<
p>
The rules might be stupid or they might not be. But you really can’t blame people for challenging delegates within the rules who supported Republicans.
<
p>
The Republican State Senator from Wakefield may be a great guy in Your opinion (not mine though) but his Democratic opponent was very worthy of support from her fellow Democrats and should have received it. This was not a case of supporting a saintly republican over an evil democrat.
<
p>
The party could actually seek out Democrats who supported Republicans and disqualify them, but apparently they are waiting for another delegate to specifically challenge them. I know of several delegates who supported a Republican in a recent State Senate race and the party knows who they are too, but they are not disqualifying them.
<
p>
In some ways I hope Gabrielli scrapes together his 15% even though I personally think he should have followed the process and don’t want him to get it. Why? Because if he doesn’t it will make me sick to my stomach to watch the party figure out some way to create some new rule exception on the spot to get him on. Do you think they’d do the same for Bonifaz?
<
p>
I’ve had a lot of experience with the party’s rules and how they do whatever they want to do to get the outcome they want. Last year I was first on the list to speak about the charter amendments that were not passed by the delegates, but then were declared passed because the chair didn’t know what else to do. You won’t remember my statement because I was never allowed to give it. However they do it, they’ll find a way to get Gabrielli on the ballot by any means necessary.
I witnessed that debacle from the press booth last year. It was obvious from my vantage point that the vote was for discussion of the amendments. I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. Apparently, you’ve read between the lines as well and see who has been annointed. The rules are a double edged sword. If you follow them, great — as long as it benefits those who want a specific outcome. If you don’t and aren’t the candidate of choice — watch out.
<
p>
Someone suggested that I start a trend by going to the convention wearing a “Dump Phil” t-shirt. What do you think?
These people have endorsed the Republican candidate or an independant candidate. Why should they be allowed to choose who represent the Democrats on the ballot?
<
p>
That does not make any sense at all. In a situation where the Democratic voters may not have a choice because there is a non negligeable possibility that only a candidate makes it to the ballot, why should people who have already said they will not support this nominee (whoever he was) be part of the choice?
<
p>
FrenchGirlfromMA, I think that you may have left a word out or something. Could you clarify what you mean by:
<
p>
<
p>
Thanks.
I understand the need to vote for people based on the quality of the individual and not necessarily party affiliation. However, the point I want to make is that it is the purpose of the Massachusetts Democratic Party to elect Democrats to elected office in the Commonwealth.
<
p>
I see nothing wrong in the party not allowing certain individuals who have supported Republicans in the public realm via endorsement, giving donations, or through public comments to be seated at the Nominating convention for the Democratic nominees to the ballot. The practice is very negative for the party, and it violates the purpose for which the party exists. It demonstrates a lack of support of the party’s agenda and platform.
<
p>
The funny thing is that this rule has existed since I have been attending conventions in the mid 1990’s. These rules are voted upon at Democratic State Committee meetings each time there is a convention. So, why did these concerned delegates not bring these concerns forward to their elected representatives in the party?
<
p>
Is it to bring even more bad press and controversy to the very party that they claim to support?
First, that this is a longstanding and very old rule. I say this knowing this rule has been abused to kick decent Dems out by others in their town who had a grief.
<
p>
But, it’s not like this comes out of the blue.
<
p>
The reason the rule exists is that someone who is there to represent the Dems in their town/area should be someone who has upheld the party wherever possible. In other words, as a registered Dem, you have every right to hold a sign for a Republican, but a delegate, representing Dems in your town or district, is something very different.
<
p>
It is, unfortunately, a rule that is often selectively enforced. This isn’t because the party selectively enforces it, but because it’s left up to the members of that delegate’s delegation, from their town, to do the challenging. It can be prone to abuse; but nonetheless, it’s there for a reason. It can also be ignored for good reasons. (ie you know the person who endorsed/donated to a local Republican is a good Democrat generally, but there wasn’t much choice in that race, etc.)
<
p>
And this guy – “The fifth delegate whose credentials were revoked was Gloucester’s mayor, John Bell, who endorsed Republican Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey for governor, Roy said.” – he should be kick OUT of the Democratic party. It’s UNHEARD of to endorse a Republican before we EVEN HAVE A DEM PRIMARY. It’s obvious this guy is one of those people who only joined the Dem party because it’s the only game in town. What, out of THREE candidates thus far, he can’t find one to support over Healey? Kick him off the Dem ticket entirely.