Huh…now that progressives are getting ticked off about the draft platform (PDF), it appears the Party is listening to our reaction. And they are reacting in the old-fashioned way…they’re avoiding the problem.
While the draft platform, direct from the party bosses, is still on the Massachusetts Democratic Party servers for the time being (save it while you can!), links to it are off the page. They are were up there for a while, but no longer. The old place on the front page — gone. The convention page — gone. Just plumb gone.
[Update: The draft has not been completely deleted, just well-hidden. It was linked clearly from both pages, and now is buried on page 25 of the 2009 Delegate Guide (PDF), linked from the front page. If you can guess which link to click and wade through a couple dozen pages, you can find it.
There is no way to get to this document from the Convention Page. So it’s still sorta there…if you know where to look.]
Have you called or emailed them to find out why?
If it’s still down in 24 hours, I will. If it’s a mistake, I’m happy to issue mea cuplas. However, there’s already been enough funny business through this whole thing. At least, there should be an understanding that the party is being watched closely on this one.
As per my update, I’ll compromise by calling this a conspiracy of incompetence?
Here is the link to it, by the way: http://qontheshore.blogspot.co…
<
p>I could not tell the Republican and Democratic Planks apart – I guess there is a difference between “good intentions” and a concrete call to action after all, huh?
<
p>Their good intentions sound just like ours. It is what the two parties actually are willing to DO that differs…or should.
I only got one wrong.
<
p>That said, Sabutai’s blog is worth a visit. It surprises me there is so little activity in the comments.
i got 4 out of 7. does that mean i need more bmg, or less?
Sab’s not right about everything, but he’s got this platform issue down pat. It was an offensive process, creating a document that was the antithesis of the actual meetings held everywhere around the state — and now that the American Cheese is at risk, the people who (really) created it are at their last gasps trying to put the fix in, instead of actually trying to fix it. I can’t say I’m horrified, but I am disappointed.
In opening up the process, rank and file Democrats were empowered and rendered hopeful.
<
p>In apparently 100% ignoring ALL the input from the rank and file, the process looks like a SHAM – and because so many of us were involved in the process [drum roll HERE] – we are ALL paying attention and many of us feel ripped off.
<
p>The draft platform appears to ignore all of the input and when I took Sabutai’s quiz I got it wrong 4 out of 7 because what is in the Democratic tic party’s draft state platform is basically pablumized teething biscuit level stuff.
<
p>Not good at all. Opening the process and energizing the base WAS good – but then ignoring all that work and all that input was….the wrong way to treat the hard working folk who put on all those hearing and put their sweat and hearts on the line.
Seriously. Why open up the process then ignore all the input if the rank and file are held in any respect at all?
It’s because the rank and file said the wrong things?
I assume this will mean reverting to the current platform. I don’t see a way to revise and draft a new one in the next two weeks. This will send a message that the convention does not exist simply to rubber-stamp the leadership. (Otherwise, why have a convention?) There is discussion time on the floor, but people need to be at the microphone ready to speak so the chair does not declare that there is no discussion. Someone should also be prepared to get to the microphone and call a division of the house and insist on a roll call if the voice vote sounds close, because the chair is likely to declare it passed unless the nays are so obvious and overwhelming. Also, I’d love to hear from platform committee members on their rationale and I know some are BMGers. The silence from that side in this discussion has been deafening!
A lot of interest groups are pressing ahead with amendments, and I have this nightmare that delegates focused on a single issue will vote yea or no based on that issue. If one or two amendments make it onto the platform, that would be enough to give the machine what it wants.
David? David? Bueller?
Is there anything stopping the party from redrafting a proposal between now and the convention?
<
p>Couldn’t we sign a big, giant BMG and activist petition to redo the platform before the convention? There are online petition sites which would make this an easy effort. It would have to be quick, but it is doable.
Of course, unlike you and I they may be traveling this weekend…but then again, maybe not…or with the notebooks and Blackberries and minis…maybe time and distance have become less of a barrier to “discussion” and response.
It’s the doability of actually carrying out the wishes of the petition in such a short time that I question. Sometimes, with apologies to Nancy Reagan, you have to just say no. At my church’s General Synod a couple of years ago the delegates actually shot down a routine nomination slate which is usually rubber-stamped because the concern was raised about it not being representative. Trying to amend the slate on the floor and nominate different people to address these concerns would have been tedious and a parliamentary nightmare. By rejecting the slate outright it forced the nominating committee to start from scratch and resubmit to the Executive Council (which acts as the General Synod between biennial sessions). I believe this will make the DSC people think twice before they submit this kind of platform again.
Vote the platform down. Let the previous one remain in effect for now.
<
p>I’ve never been particularly concerned with party platforms, but given the lack of imagination and general dearth of ideas in our state legislature (the leadership in particular), we need all the ideas we can get. This platform is also such a joke that it could serve as an embarassment later on.
<
p>In defense of David’s reticence: he was part of a committee; in most cases, committees should speak as a whole; we can argue about whether or not the platform is one of those cases, but as an elected representative to the party, he has a responsibility to it before party members at large. By creating a party structure, we shift the chain of accountability; all of the DSC is ultimately responsible to us, but not when we demand it.
<
p>It’s questionable whether David should be involved in discussing the platform and committee business on BMG. If the topic comes up on here, that’s all well and good; however, some might view it as an abuse of power since no other committee member controls what comes close to a party organ.
<
p>We’ll get our say at the convention.
…I believe that individual committee members SHOULD speak out, explain their thinking, etc. I’ve been in a situation where I played go-along-to-get-along and acquiesed to the idea that a committee I was on speak as one and later regreted not speaking out when the committee was going a direction I didn’t like. David’s position on the Platform Committee and as a BMG editor make him perfect to guide this discussion in this forum, IMO.
saying acquiesce to the committee, just respect the process. Even then, I’m only speculating. I don’t know the details at all.
<
p>Needless to say, someone screwed up big time.