It’s time for all of you who support Democrats, but are not registered as Democrats, to think of changing your party registration.
There are many good reasons to register as a Democrat. Registering as a Democrat makes a statement about your beliefs. Addtionally, it allows you to take part in the governance of the Democratic Party. The reason to register NOW is that it will allow you to take part in the caucuses in February and possibly to be a delegate to the Democratic Convention. Under the Party Charter, if you are a registered Democrat as of the last day of December, you are eligible to take part in your local caucus to elect delegates to the Convention.
Many BMG readers took part in caucuses for the first time in February of 2006 or 2007. Others might have done so, but didn’t know the importance of being a registered Democrat prior to the December 31 deadline.
Here is some information on the upcoming convention:
The 2008 Preliminary Call to Convention. The Massachusetts Democratic Party, in fulfillment of the ‘Charter of the Democratic Party of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’, hereby calls a Convention for the purpose of endorsing statewide candidates and amending the Party Charter. Said Convention will be held at the Paul E. Tsongas Arena, Lowell on Saturday, June 7, 2008.
For full details see the Preliminary Call to Convention for all the details.
It’s easy to change your registration. Just go to your city or town hall during business hours and fill out a very easy form.
For those of you who are already Democrats and take part in the process, encourage your friends to register as Democrats. The number of delegates allocated to your community for the State Convention, is based, in part, on the number of registered Democrats.
On a very technical note, seventeen year olds who will be 18 on or before the day of the next election in their communities, can register to vote now. So even if you are 17, you can become a registered Democrat.
So don’t just blog blue, register blue.
Given the performance of our national and state leaders, they clearly do not represent my progressive interests. I have been consistently disappointed in the way the national leadership has caved in to the Bush agenda or been cowed by them. And as for the state leadership, they seem to be more interested in maintaining their own power than working together to help the people of Massachusetts.
<
p>The Democratic party simply does not represent me and I have no faith that it will do so in the near future. I will continue my status as “unenrolled”. I hope my statement of non-support will have more impact than me just being one more poor schlub signing on to the party because there’s nowhere else for a progressive to go. And I certainly refuse to give the party a dime of my money.
<
p>Exactly the opposite.
<
p>You make absolutely NO statement by NOT enrolling with a party. You make absolutely no statement by withholding money.
<
p>Your lack of action is not a substitute for action, although there are many people out there like you who think that you are having an effect by doing nothing. No candidate is going to court your vote because you have decided not participate in the party system. They will spend their time courting enrolled voters who, btw, tend to turn out to vote with more regularity. By failing to let them know you exist by identifying yourself with a party, you render your vote too expensive to pursue and too difficult to retain. Your desire to remain unenrolled says one of two things to a campaign from either party: either you have no core beliefs and are disengaged or you are a purity voter. Since it appears you are the latter, you are even more problematic because you seem to hold your worldview in such high esteem that you refuse to work with others of similar but not identical views. As a result, you are at the bottom of the list as a priority; you have effectively rendered yourself impotent and irrelevant.
<
p>In essence, instead of making a “statement,” you actually become what is known as an unwanted voter in campaign parlance, too difficult and expense to court. I doubt that’s what you have in mind, but let us know how that goes for you.
besides joining a party as corrupt and ineffective as the Democratic Party. How is that “strange reasoning”? I find it strange that many progressives see blindly following the Democratic party as the only way to go.
<
p>I’m neither without core beliefs or a “purity voter”. I’m certainly willing to compromise, but let’s be honest here. The Democrats in Congress have gone so far beyond compromise – it’s called “selling out” or “capitulation” or “cowering in fear of losing their jobs”.
<
p>I don’t care to be “courted” by the party, because they’re not interested in what I think, only in what I am willing to contribute. I suppose you’re right in that the statement I’m making is probably ineffective, but at least I’m not stating that I support an organization that is complicit in leading this country down the wrong path.
<
p>I don’t really care whether I’m an “unwanted” or “wanted” voter or whatever. Just for the record, I’ve never missed an election in the 20 years since I became eligible to vote, and I have contributed plenty of money to individual candidates who I think do represent me.
be futile, as I’ve had it dozens of times with people who think as you do, but here goes nonetheless:
<
p>
<
p>One Congressional session is all it takes for you to decide that participating at the party level is worthless? To the extent that we can all agree that this Congress is a disappointment, disengaging from applying pressure to DINOs everywhere is never going to accomplish anything.
<
p>And your reluctance to associate with the Democratic Party as a self-proclaimed “progressive” is prima facie evidence that you are a purity voter.
<
p>
<
p>A perfect purity voter response. So by withdrawing, you somehow see yourself as beyond reproach? Above it all? Not having contributed to “leading this country down the wrong path”? I’m sorry, but is the canned response of the purity voter, right out of the manual.
<
p>The truth is that democracy is messy business. Politics is downright dirty and messy. Nothing gets done when people stand on the sidelines and suggest they’re not going to sully their values by associating themselves with a less-than-perfect party. Do you see how juvenile that is? How spoiled and self-serving? Perhaps you don’t know this, but not a SINGLE meaningful political accomplishment was attained by people who decided that those in the trenches were’t pure enough. Not a single bloody thing.
<
p>
<
p>What? This makes no sense in the context of your original comment. You claim to be trying to accomplish something by not enrolling. Now you don’t care if politicians value your progressive values? Which is it? Seems to me now that you are perfectly content with having elected officials ignore you. How in the world is that productive or progressive?
<
p>
<
p>But your voice is nonexistent. Don’t you get that?
<
p>No, you don’t. Keep voting in anonymity. Keep giving money to individual candidates you like. You will never be a part of the solution, however, only a silent supporter of the status quo. How progressive of you.
The tone of what you wrote speaks to me of the insecurity that must exist within the party faithful. Why else would you be so defensive about this issue?
<
p>My response clearly strikes a nerve. I mean, why should you care whether a “self-serving”, “spoiled and juvenile” “purity voter” like myself joins the party? (I love that you’ve basically resorted to name-calling to try to get me into the party. Sounds like a campaign attack ad…)
<
p>Why is joining a corrupt organization like the Democratic party the only sensible way to be involved in changing the world? I’m far more involved politically than you care to know. (In fact you know nothing about me, but you believe you do, based on the labels you’ve heaped onto me.) I suppose in your eyes there’s only one true way to be a progressive. How can I argue against such orthodoxy?
<
p>Since you’ve joined up with the party, you are clearly more virtuous than I am. Good luck to you.
Anger is irrelevant. I understand your desire to drag emotions into the conversation because it levels your playing field, but I’m not biting. I simply commented on what I think is true. If you choose to inject those comments with some virtual “anger,” have at it. Clearly you don’t see how your responses are universal both on the internets and in liberal activist groups. One can be direct without being angry, you know.
<
p>
<
p>Insecurity? Armchair psych 101 aside, there is no question that this is a two-party nation and will remain thus for some time. Why would I be insecure? Do you view yourself empowered to somehow render that model defunct?
<
p>
<
p>No, you misunderstand. You are a voter I wouldn’t spend 10 seconds on in a close election. You are an unwanted voter. I’m not trying to convince you to join a party, I’m simply pointing out that your logic is deeply flawed, and, in many respects, naive and self-aggrandizing.
<
p>
<
p>No one is arguing for an orthodoxy, just pointing out historical precedent that you conveniently choose to ignore.
<
p>
<
p>Thanks for proving my point. This debate is about virtue only to those who view themselves above the fray. I never claimed virtue had anything to do with the real business of politics; you did.
OK, so you don’t agree with my position. You’ve made that quite clear. However, I fail to see how you’ve put forth any clear reasons why I should join the Democratic Party, other than I don’t have a choice.
<
p>I have no illusions about the country moving away from a 2-party state any time soon, and I’m not so naive as to throw away my vote on a Green Party candidate. However, what do I (or, more importantly, our society) gain from joining the party in the one-party state of Massachusetts except a whole lot of junk mail asking for my money, and a whole bunch of harassing phone calls interrupting my dinner?
<
p>How, exactly, am I “self-aggrandizing”? I make no claim that my ideas are any more important or valuable than yours or anyone else’s. I’m simply stating my disgust with the current Democratic Party and explaining why I choose not to blindly join up. I respect those (like you) who have made a different choice, and I sincerely hope that you are able to change the party so it better represents me. I choose to be involved politically from without the party structure. I fail to see how that’s either self-serving or apathetic.
<
p>Armchair psychology aside, it seems I’ve touched a nerve with you; otherwise why would you give a damn what I think?
and understanding Lightiris’ point, apathy doesn’t work and doesn’t help solve the problems. I can understand not liking the actions of the party in this state (see this post for an example of bidness as usual within the MA party). Participation in the DSC is an “acquired taste”, as someone who is on the committee readily admits. It’s not for everybody. However, nobody should be precluded from participating in the political process simply because they don’t want to be part of the DSC or the party. It sounds like you have been involved with the grassroots, so good for you. However, unless progressives and grassroots people participate in the DSC and the party, their viewpoints will not be heard and change will not happen.
If “The Party” isnt there for you, than maybe it wasnt your party after all. Who’s party is it anyhow?
I gather you are a “progressive.” You make the party less progressive by declining Kate’s kind invitation. I, on the other hand, doubtless make it more “progressive” by similarly declining. So together, we net each other out.
…although I am not a progressive, I have a lot of sympanthy for opus’s point. It is quite obvious that what opus wants is that a party work for his (or her) vote. And, if they aren’t going to do so, he (or she) will not give it (the vote) up willy-nilly just because the possible nominee is a party member.
<
p>It’s been a long time since I voted for a nominee of a major party for much of anything. I’ve cast a vote to avoid a major party candidate to try to keep him or her from being elected, but that’s very different.
Join the party and become active in the party and fight to make the party the party you want it to be. It won’t happen overnight, but you can help it happen.
Along with many wonderful Christmas cards and notes full of wishes for Peace and Joy in the New Year, we received a very glossy Pro-casino union sponsored over-sized postcard and a very glossy tri-fold Pro-casino card from the Mayor of Chicopee (whose office referred inquiries to Liberty Square Group as the broker of the mailings… LSG lists the Wampanoag Tribe and IBEW 103 as clients) during the month of December, 2007. It is our understanding that these were sent to all Democratic delegates. Previous Pro-casino pre-holiday mailings were sent by Mohegan Sun operating under the auspices of Palmer casino-yes and of course, Middleboro was inundated with mailings before the sham Town Meeting in July. What is the leadership of the Democratic State Committee planning? A vote to support gambling? A vote to endorse regressive tax policy, increased bankruptcy and endorsements to fill the coffers of corporate casino magnates at the expense of working class and poor? The job creation argument holds a net positive for temporary union construction workers and a highly disputed net gain for “new” jobs. The casino bill calls for the creation of 1,000 jobs per year over a five year period. Did you catch that? The 20,000 jobs “created” are spread over five years and likely only a redistribution of the workforce.
<
p>The timing of the state committee meeting in Palmer (gee, why the sudden attraction to Palmer?) was interesting too. It’s pretty clear to this observer that the super majority of Democrats in the Commonwealth is a DINO phenomenon. The values and policies (aka action speak louder than words) are the litmus test. What are the values and policies of the DSC leadership and the voting body?
<
p>They say politics makes strange bedfellows and cliches sometimes say it all. The Governor’s wife is a partner at Ropes & Gray LLP, the only national law firm claiming membership to the American Gaming Association with multiple clients and financial interests in casino gambling. This was recently exposed over at Ryan’s Take Patrick’s Casino Connection
<
p>With due respect, many self-respecting citizens do not want to be involved with that lot.
I received the very same glossy in the mail and just about fell over. Do you have any idea how widespread a mailing that was? I live far outside of Chicopee. Is it per chance targeted at DP supporters? I’m trying to figure out why I would receive a brochure from Mayor Bissonnette.
I think that mailing must have been wide wide widespread indeed. Straight into the trash can, too.
I have heard from delegates and elected officials that received the Mayor's mailing shilling for casinos that do not live in or near Chicopee….how widespread? Dunno. Anyone else care to share how far the net was cast?
How accessible are delegates addresses and telephone numbers to the casino profiteers and their lackeys? Seems like the books from the DSC are wide open, based on the mailers. Instinct tells me that the DSC leadership is moving to call a vote to support casino gambling and the mailers to delegates are part of the warm-up exercises on their part.
How are these casino campaign materials being reported with OCPF? It's not a candidate or a ballot question, but it sure as HELL is a campaign that is impacting the Commonwealth as we speak.
Ergo, the casino mailing.
<
p>So far, I am NOT convinced as to casinos as a good idea. I was born in Detroit, you see.
<
p>I was back in Detroit to visit family last summer, and as my brother likes Texas Hold’em [each to their own] the rest of us tagged along to the “Greektown Casino” in Detroit. I had remembered Greektown as a vibrant tourist area “in the old days”.
<
p>However, walk one block away from the casino, and it looked like a bombed out city after WW II. I was shocked.
<
p>I wonder what the representative to the Michigan legislature who represents the Greektown area has to say about casinos?
<
p>Really, that was not what I had expected to see at all. And I sure don’t intend to go back to Greektown or that casino. Ever.
makes sense. I was too. It would be nice if this wasn’t a political battle of glossy brochures but rather an open forum with research and information being the key methodology for determining whether casinos are worthwhile.
Detroit does look like a bombed out city. I don’t think casinos have anything to do with it. When I was there in 2000, we were strictly instructed to never walk as much as a block away from Greektown.
I went in 2001 when the Casino first opened in its first place a converted hotel. They opened there before opening the final hotel. I didn’t go for the Casino, but to a Tigers game.
<
p>I was amazed that there were boarded up skyscrapers. Talk about urban flight.
…Detroit has a “bombed out” look because of casinos. Detroit was on the downswing following the urban race riots in the late 1960s. I’m from the midwest, remember?
<
p>What was actually bombed out was Philadelphia. Mayor Goode. He bombed a house and burned down a city block. If you don’t remember the incident, do a search over the Internet.
And a lot to do with over-dependence on a declining industry, and the resulting contraction of a city.
<
p>Interesting stuff on Detroit’s urban ruin here. If you poke around on Google earth, you will find forested space, with the street grid still visible. Buildings abd neighborhoods were bulldozed, leaving streets, and nature is reasserting herself.
were visible in Detroit even 20 yrs ago on weedy old housing lots. seen them myself. casinos aren’t the cause of detroit’s demise, but the greektown neighborhood did get scarier after they arrived.
Bob,
<
p>You are confusing page views with people. The more telling statistic is “unique visitors” which is significantly lower than page views. In addition the unique visitors statistic is a skewed statistic. If Stat Counter doesn’t use cookies to track visitors daily but uses IP address, even the unique visitor number is lower than the 4000 or so it shows. If it is IP Address, I would be counted as a unique visitor twice a day. Once at home and once at work.
<
p>Patrick Ruffini, love him or hate him had a good blog posting on this when he looked further into the Daily Kos numbers. Here is his article.
<
p>
Go Ron Paul!
I am unenrolled and can’t figure out what to do:
– vote in D primaries for Kucinich in a vaint hope this will somehow move the other candidates towards progressive side;
– vote in R primaries for Paul in a vaint hope that he gets a R nomination
– vote in Green primaries – I like most of their platform, but hate most of the candidates they have save for Nader.
<
p>Most likely will vote for Kucinich, but not being a democrat in a one-party state is not easy.