Sad to say – I flunked. I guess good intentions like “We believe everyone should live a good life free of fear” sounds alike. Mind you, if “free of fear” means the Guantanamo Concentration Camp, waterboarding, and the “Patriot Act” for one party, and access to justice, upholding the Bill of Rights, and ending homelessness for the other party it might just matter if the Party Platform is specific…you think?
The process was open. The process was transparent. The process was inclusive.
The result?
Sure looks like business as usual.
Quite a few of us — the rank and file members who believed with all their heart that their input into the platform would be listened to, and put real time and effort and sacrifice into these hearings were treated with uniformly – with contempt.
Will that mean some newly activated Democrats, brought into activism by hope, will drop out? I don’t know. I hope not.
But there are many, many delegates now talking about voting NO on the Draft Platform because the old one – with all its warts – is better than this empty, feel good draft platform that promises nothing, contains no calls to action, and sounds just like the Republican party’s platform. Sad, really. Shameful, maybe.
But then – follow the links above and give the dissonance between the process regarding the Draft Platform and the result some thought.
After you read the Draft – – I actually DO want to hear what you think.
Unlike the deafening silence from the 40 members of the Platform Committee – I will respond.
PS: 40 members is too many for a working committee. On the other hand, if the members were carefully selected to silence dissent by playing on “loyalty”, maybe 40 members for the Platform Committee was just about right.
This draft is a disgrace and it means nothing – absolutely nothing! The drafters have made a mockery out of what was supposed to be a convention about issues.
<
p>They couldn’t even get ultra-bland right. What does the following preamble statement mean? “We respect and embrace the values of people across the spectrum of beliefs.” Evidently, the drafters of this idiocy want the Democratic Party to “respect and embrace the values” of the Taliban, al Qaeda, the Khmer Rouge, the KKK and Dick Chaney. Clearly, very little thought was given to the wording of this particular gem.
<
p>But I must admit that I support this winner – “Massachusetts Democrats are committed to protecting individual’s rights to freedom of speech, religion, press, and due process under the law.” Now that’s a powerful statement for civil rights. Wait, it sounds awfully familiar. Oh yeah, it’s from our Constitution. Well, it’s nice to know that Massachusetts Democrats don’t want to repeal the Bill of Rights. Whew!
<
p>The rules require 250 delegate signatures to make even one change, a task too difficult to succeed in making more than a few changes. That leaves delegates with two choices – reluctantly accept the draft platform basically as is thereby making a farce out of this and future issue conventions, or vote the entire draft platform down leaving a message that we are not to be taken lightly and that this should not happen again.
<
p>I, for one, will do whatever it takes to defeat this draft. I am a Democrat, and a liberal one at that. I care deeply about issues. I did not become a delegate to endorse a series of pious platitudes that have been scrubbed of all meaning.
I AM listening and I’m sorry I missed your call earlier. I’ve been spending the day on family stuff and started working on a post about this after dinner but I got sidelined watching Recount on HBO – still aggravating after all these years.
<
p> I’ll be posting in a bit and would welcome your thoughts.
<
p> By the way, your PS is a little over the top. The members of the platform committee are volunteers and people of integrity. I would never ask anyone to “silence dissent” nor would these dedicated volunteers do so if asked.
<
p>John Walsh, Chair
Massachusetts Democratic Party
…{I mean the one you thought was “over the top”]…an “old hand” saying that he thought if he opposed the platform as a whole he would ‘lose his effectiveness in the party’ and that I should consider that.
<
p>For those who have been following this issue, or who will or have been reading this thread – that comment was NOT from John Walsh, nor anyone in the “party administration” but from an “old hand” who made it clear to me that I was taking some kind of risk by speaking plainly and making my discomfort with the Draft Platform so public. The intent in cautioning me that way was definitely intended to be kindly, not threatening though it made me more concerned, not less.
<
p>What got me started, again was taking this quiz: http://qontheshore.blogspot.co… and then flunking.
<
p>If a Platform contains no calls to action, is not aspirational, does not clearly differentiate what it means to be a Democrat from what it means to be a Republican or independent AND misses making clear and ringing statements about the critical issues of our times, what use is it?
<
p>I admit that I am personally offended by the presence of a “tough on crime” statement nin this Draft Platform without any affirmation of the right to counsel, independence of the judiciary, or access to justice! This sounds more Republican than like what I thought Democrats stand for, frankly.
So I am offline for the rest of the day [sorry] as we are hosting a Memorial Day gathering at our home. Take time for YOUR family. When all is said and done, no open one will look back on their life and say, “Gee, I wish I had spent more time on politics and less with my family.”
<
p>You have your priorities straight and your willinness to dialog is appreciated!
It was interesting to find out anyone who volunteered to be on the Platform Committee WAS on it – had I known that, I would have volunteered; I thought it was by invitation only.
<
p>It does not appear that in the 60 or so members [a daunting number, to be sure – are they listed anywhere, by the way?] – there were any members of the Sixth Amendment Bar, or involved in child welfare. I guess the draft reflects the knowledge and interests of those involved in writing it.
<
p>Good intentions only go so far. I am quite sure the Platform Committee had good intentions but remain, sadly, not fond of the results and educated for next time.
<
p>As to efforts to render the 2009 Draft Platform in its final version more inspiring and relevant in some of the areas where it is silent, maybe that will lead to a more interesting and lively Convention.
<
p>As always, I was honored to be called and listened to, and reamin committed to a more economically and legally just society – to the rule of law, checks and balances, access to justice, and an independent judiciary – no matter how small the constituency for these issues may be.