At a press conference today outside the Massachusetts State House, Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh publicly admonished State Representative Michael Rush for actively seeking the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
Chairman Walsh stated, “We as Democrats believe in the right of a woman to choose regarding abortion, and since Mr. Rush does not support us, I am rescinding our support of him.” He has instructed the Secretary of State to remove the Democratic Party nomination for State Senator of the Suffolk & Norfolk District from Michael Rush. Chairman Walsh also stated that there were other reasons for Rush’s punishment, e.g. trying to revoke the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.
After the press conference,he proceeded to Boston City Hall to direct the Boston Election Commission to stike Rush’s Democratic Party membership as well. Representative Rush could not be reached for comment.
The difference between this universe and ours? The Democratic Party in this universe does not allow Republicans to seek office claiming that they are Democrats.
Because ideological purges always benefit political parties.
<
p>The Dem primary is over; Rush won. Surely the party chair doesn’t have the authority to do something like that? Anyone?
In other words, it’s an attempt at satire.
Dear David:
<
p>I wrote this blog as a piece of fiction. Being a member of a political party in the other universe actually means something. The Chair of a political party has the authority to remove any candidate who usurps the Party Platform.
<
p>Respectfully Submitted,
Sincerely,
Wayne Wilson
Roslindale
See below.
…is refering to the alternate universe he created in which he says the chair has the authority to remove members. In the real world he does not.
http://www.massdems.org/about/…
It is said by most prominent physicists and astronomers that thousands or millions of alternate planes of reality do exist, and can be very similar to our own with slight differences. For the sake of this blog, it is truly fiction.
<
p>It is sad that some people here have the imagination of the parents of Ephram Zimblast, Jr.
<
p>We miss you Benny Hill!
<
p>Sincerely,
Wayne Wilson
Roslindale
<
p>P.S. Too bad this is NEVER enforced. Every Democratic committee member, every Democratic nominee, and every official elected as the Democratic nominee shall adhere to the national, state, and any local platform, in that order of priority, in all official statements and actions. Failure to do so shall not result in any removal or loss of rights within the Party, but may be publicized by resolutions or other appropriate action of any Party convention, conference, committee, or caucus.
I think the only thing that can get you “excommunicated” is public support for a candidate running against the nominee.
From Article Two of the charter:
…you can also just stay out of the race. The party does not require enthusiastic support for our nominee, just that you refrain from open opposition.
I didn’t realize that seeking the endorsement of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life made someone “a Republican.”
<
p>Does a Democrat seeking the endorsement of the NRA mean s/he’s “a Republican.” How about the Chamber of Commerce? What if a Republican seeks the endorsement of NARAL? The Sierra Club?
<
p>This game can go on and on, but one things for certain: demands for absolute ideological purity are pretty tiresome.
I don’t THINK a Democrat can be pro-life within the terms of the national platform, which takes precedence. Oddly, we don’t have such a hierarchy on our side, so while our national platform might make such a statement on the issue, our state platform does not – so Mass GOP is actually a little more ‘open tent’ than the Democrats.
I’m pretty sure Harry Reid, one of the top national Democrats, is pro-life.
That this is just one issue. I’ll take your word that the abortion language in both party platforms is as you say, but abortion is one of dozens of issues.
<
p>The MA GOP may be more “moderate” than the national party on the abortion issue, but it doesn’t follow that they are therefore more “moderate” overall. Too many local GOPers display the same sort of far-right economics that we see from the national Republicans.
And we aren’t ‘bound’ by the national platform the way the Democrats seem to be.
<
p>And the SUBJECT of the post was mandated conformity by Democrats on the subject of abortion – we can fight about money elsewhere. WE’RE not that authoritarian!
Not to beat a dead horse here, but you say:
<
p>
<
p>But the whole point of the original poster’s diary was to CRITICIZE the MA Democratic Party for supporting a pro-life State Senate candidate who clearly takes positions (on issues such as abortion) different than the national and state platforms.
<
p>Doesn’t this institutional Democratic support for Mike Rush go against your entire claim that the Democrats “mandate conformity on the subject of abortion”? I think I’m just missing what you are arguing here, PP.
Eating our own so close to the election? Yes I’m sure this makes us look confident to outsiders.
<
p>We truly are a party of schizms.
<
p>
It appears from various comments that you are not a Democrat.