2008 Dem platform: lite on the LGBT, hold the mayo

Should we really be surprised?

The Democratic Party has made it very clear: we are to support them with unquestioning obedience while they have absolutely no obligation towards us. Because, hey, who else are we going to vote for? The Republicans?

How I wish there was a national party that actually supported GLBT rights. I'm tired of my only choice being between those who would beat me to death, and those who would beat me almost to death.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:00:28 AM CDT

beat us almost to death

or maybe just watch while it happens.  

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:42:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is a national party that supports us

It's called the Green Party.  Here's a snipped from the draft 2008 party platform:

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In keeping with the Green Key Values of diversity, social justice and feminism, we support full legal and political equality for all persons, regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

1.  The Green Party affirms the rights of all individuals to freely choose intimate partners, regardless of their sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

2.  We support the recognition of equal rights of persons gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to housing, jobs, civil marriage, medical benefits, child custody, and in all areas of life provided to all other citizens.

3.  We support the inclusion of language in state and federal anti-discrimination law that ensures the rights of intersex individuals and prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, characteristics, and expression. We are opposed to intersex genital mutilation.

4.  We support the right of all persons to self-determination with regard to gender identity and sex. We therefore support the right of intersex and transgender individuals to be free from coercion and involuntary assignment of gender or sex. We support access to medical and surgical treatment for assignment or reassignment of gender or sex, based on informed consent.

5.  We support legislation against all forms of hate crimes, including those directed against people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender, and intersex.

They might note have a chance in hell of winning the presidency in 2008, but they are a national party, and they do support us. (And it's not as though they are totally irrelevant; they do have representatives in local offices.  Matt Gonzales (running this year for VP with Nader) damn near won the mayoral election against Gavin Newsom a few years ago.)

Maybe if a few more of us would actually cast our votes away from the Democratic party and toward people who really support us, the Democrats would start taking us seriously again.

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:33:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The problem is...

Few things turn Democratic activists into mindless, frothing-at-the-mouth attack bots faster than mention of the Green Party. At the very least, you are in for 20 minutes of an incoherent rant, usually at the top of the voice, about how Green Party "traitors" handed the election to George W Bush twice, and how if Bush is ever brought up on war crime charges, Nader should be charged as an accomplice.

Trying to point out the massive voter frauds perpetrated by the GOP in both 2000 and 2004, and the admission by the Democratic National Committee that Nader had no effect in comparison, ususally only escalates the screaming as they try to keep from hearing inconventient facts.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:48:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right on TechBear

I've heard that defensive crap so many times, too.  The story never changes.  The Dem cheerleaders turn 8 shades of red at Nader but they sure go weak at the knees when it comes to addressing the numerous flaws of it's main opponent:  John McCain.  

Imagine what might happen if the Dems directed their arguments toward the man that could actually win the election instead of the man that speaks to the concerns of the base of their own party.

The sycophants want to be Rovian toward the marginalized and disgruntled members of their own party more than they want to fight the Republicans for justice (in a wide array of issues).

Just because the loyalists are willing to overlook their own flaws in logic with fierce and shrill whining at Nader doesn't  convince me to be silent and compliant.  

It hasn't stopped Nader either.    

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The problem is...

in the US where we have a "DIRECTLY" elected executive (albeit thur the questionable electoral college), a third party such as the Green Party cannot influence national progressive policy because the two main parties don't need to form "coalitions" with other parties (which happens in parlimentary  democracies where the Prime Minister is elected by the legislature rather than the "people") to gain power...A political party in the US needs a +1 majority to win, thereby insuring a third party can't gain a foot hold.  Is there one Green Party member in Congress at all?

Even here in California, I don't think there is even 1 Green Party member in the Legislature.
+

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:46:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, I think 3rd parties can have an "influence"...

... even if it isn't of the form of the D's and R's forming coalitions with them.  One obvious way is that the 3rd party campaigns add other voices to the debate, making more voters more aware of the issues that neither the D's nor R's are talking about.  That, in turn, makes those issues much harder for the D's and R's to continue ignoring.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no Green members of Congress, and no Green members in any state's legislature.  There are a few mayors and several town council members, school board members, and so on.  Getting Gonzales elected as the mayor of SF would have been a big coup for them (and one they very narrowly failed to pull off).

I agree that this illustrates the difficulty in gaining a foothold.  Ralph Nader (running as an independent this year, not as a Green) has been running in the middle single digit range in national polling, which indicates that if representation in Congress was, well, representative that 3rd parties would have several tens of members of Congress.  That there aren't - well, aside from Not-Republican-in-name-only Lieberman - indicates a problem in our political system.

I wonder how much of that is due to raw fear of the other side driving people to vote for the enemy of their enemy, even when he or she is not their friend?  How much of it can be traced back to deliberate structuring of the system to make it difficult for 3rd party candidates to run for state and national offices?  And how much is just the effect of 3rd party candidates not having a majority in any district, even when they have appreciable minorities in many districts?

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:40:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed

And here I was, so happy because a friend had just shared her recent wedding photos, and came over here to find... the DNC continuing not to support LGBTs.

GAH! Why is this so f*cking HARD for them?

Starting to remember why I was a proud Independant for my entire adult life until this past winter... my only hope is that true change CAN start with grassroots support, one person or group at a time, for a day when ALL stand shoulder-to-shoulder with full, open and committed support...

BTW, congrats to my very dear friend Teac and her wife!!! Raising a cuppa coffee but the sentiment and best wishes are here for you both to have a long and joyful life together...salut!!

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:57:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hard cop, soft cop. We're in the pen no matter who we like.

 We lose everytime we vote Democratic or Republican.

The keys are to vote against them or sit it out like most people do and instead put all our energies into building powerful movements to end the war, fight for a better standard of living and harshly fine and jail bigots.

The Republicans and Democrats pay attention to mass movements, but they just laugh at those who vote agianst their own interests.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:09:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow what progress!

They'll actually stand up for our rights as long as the polls show overwhelming support for it...

They're sounding like my parents. They'll love me and support me, but refused to talk to my aunt when my cousin came out, and she started telling him he had AIDS just because he came out.

Can we get a viable third option?

watashi no yomeiri wa doko desu ka

---

by: belfrieboi @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:13:59 AM CDT

What makes it viable?

A third option becomes viable when it is popular and when it offers alternatives that are not addressed by the first two.

If people don't start supporting 3rd parties, they won't become viable.  It doesn't happen over night and it isn't something that everyone ELSE has to do before you (or we) start taking the option seriously.

Viability begins with each one of us.

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:46:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree, but the deck is staked against 3rd party candidates

Election rules, made by the Democrats and Republicans in state governments, can make it really tough for 3rd party candidates to qualify to be on the ballot.  Presidential candidate debates are largely controlled by the Presidential Debate Comission, which sets its bar high enough to exclude 3rd party candidates.  Etc. See Nader's rants for details.

If you look at the ways that both parties are alike, this makes a lot of sense.  Both the Corporate / Christianofascist party and the Corporate-lite / Psuedoleftist party have a vested interest in keeping 3rd party candidates out of the discussion, namely that the public might hear things that their corporate donors don't want the public to hear.

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:40:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is the problem

And the solution is to stop supporting the parties that perpetuate those anti-democratic principles.

Working within the Democratic Party will not result in making them receptive to the development of a 3rd or 4th party.  

Developing a 3rd and 4th party will make them work to hold on to their diminishing base.  Instead of appealing to the right wing hawk bigot crowd, the Democrats might actually have to listen to those of us that don't believe in compromising principle in order to win an election.

I agree with you pgraydon...you state the rationale for rejecting the 2 party system.

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:31:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No.

Thus far, there have been zero third parties that have had any significant appeal or interest for me.

Not One.

Athird party will become viable when they start actually working on a more coherent policy set than "we gotta save nature" or "we gotta toss the other's out of office" or "no taxes" (and there are third parties that run on allof those things and more).

Where's the Queer Party?

Had the Christianist forces we are fighting tried to do a third party instead of taking over an existing one, then there would be no problem here.

You want to have a viable party?  Get active, get involved, and stay there, all the time, within the party you choose to take over.

I won't take the notion of any political party seriously any longer.  I will, now and anon, vote the way I always have.

For the person I feel best represents my interests, regardless of party affiliation.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 18:51:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Read RNC Platform First!

Always read the Republican platform before reading the Democratic platform -- the comparison reminds you that, though the Democrats are far behind where we want them to be, they're still light years ahead of where the Republicans are and will remain.

---

by: S1 @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:30:28 AM CDT

Indeed, the Dems look good only by comparison n/t

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:34:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's a way low bar

Leadership is meaningful and a platform, in part is to be aspirational, not simply pragmatic. It's about declaring the values of a party. You see that throughout the document on other matters.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:08:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How so, S1?

The Republicans and Democrats have only cosmetic differences. They are not light years apart; they're accomplices in the repression of GLBT folk and trashing our agenda.

Are the Democrats against the war or do they plan on staying and killing a few hundred thousand more Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghanis and Iranians? And a couple of thousand more working class GIs? Thats what Obamas 18 more months plus a year or two means. How does that differ from the Republicans?

Are they for taxing the rich whatever it takes to pay for social programs or not? Are they for socialized medicine? Are they for a minimum wage of $25.00 an hour? Are they going to repeal union busting bills like NAFTA? How does that differ from the Republicans?

Are they for harsh penalties for thugs and the religious, business and political hate speakers who empower them? Did any Democrat politician, even one, call for the indictment and prosecution of Jimmy Swaggart when he said "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." How does that differ from the Republicans?

If you need something a bit better than the twin parties clones then be smart. Vote against the ClintonClone Obama and the BushClone McCain. Or just sit it out. Instead of giving money or energy to a pair of worthless frauds invest in movements' for real social change, like the antiwar movement. We'll be demonstrating against the war in St. Paul and Denver. Join us.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:37:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aw, c'mon

Do any of you actually believe we'd be better off with Republicans running things?

You don't have to praise Democrats for being the timid weasels they are, but don't work against them if that means electing gay-bashing, poor-trashing, war-mongering, environment-destroying Republicans.

---

by: S1 @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 13:12:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you actually believe the Democrats will actually do anything different?

Democrats have been running Congress for almost two years now. Very little has changed from when the Republicans held power; of what has changed, there has been nothing of substance. Congress still writes blank checks for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, still refuses to take action against the overt criminality of the Administration, still refuses to do its Constitutional duty of keeping executive power in check.

What evidence do you have that things will be different if Obama wins? Do you have anything other than baseless optimism or blind faith?  

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 14:38:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nah, you c'mon.

electing gay-bashing, poor-trashing, war-mongering, environment-destroying Republicans.

gay bashing - DOMA was written by Republicans but most Congressional Democrats voted for it and Bill Clinton bought time on southern religious radio stations like Falwell's to boast that he signed it to protect the sanctity of marriage. (I believe this was a bit before Monica got cum stains all over her blue party dress.)

The democrats wrote, voted for and signed DADT, a law that codified bigotry and harassment into Federal Law. Now they  want to repeal it only because the need cannon fodder, not for any other reason.

It was Congressional Democrats who gutted ENDA and dropped it and the hate crimes bill. The Republicans were thrilled just to go along for the ride.

poor-trashing - Bill Clinton decimated welfare, rammed NAFTA through Congress working with Republicans and did nothing to end exporting jobs. He signed every bill that came before him to cut taxes for the rich and deregulate corporate predators and polluters. He orchestrated the embargo of food and medicine to Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of children.

If you something a bit better than the twin parties then be smart. Vote against the ClintonClone Obama and the BushClone McCain. Or just sit it out. Instead of giving money or energy to a pair of worthless frauds invest it in movements' for real social change, like the antiwar movement or UnitedENDA.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 14:40:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pam, since you're going to Denver would you do us a favor and let us know how the Democrats stand on the following?

I'm asking because before any of us supports a party we ought to insist that they support a list of reasonable steps to end the war, exert a modicum of damage control over the collapsing economy and take real steps to harshly punish bigots.  

1. They should be for permanent, immediate and total withdrawal of all US military, espionage and mercenary units from the Middle East to US home bases.

2. They should be willing to cut the US purse stings that pay for the apartheid system used against Palestinians.

3. They should be for socialized medicine paid by extremely high taxes on the rich and taking away the profits and assets of insurance companies and HMOs plus the dividends paid by pharmaceutical companies.

4. They should be adamantly against tax breaks, tax cuts and wasting taxpayer dollars on superstitious cults promoted by Santorum, Clinton, Bush/Rove, and Obama - the fraud of 'faith' based charities. They should be for punishing cult leaders whose hate speech advocates or empowers anti-GLBT violence.

5.They should be willing to go all out for an inclusive ENDA that would make it easy to win big judgments from discriminatory employers. Even if that means splitting their party and expelling sellouts like Barney Frank.

6.They should be for an inclusive housing bill that would make it easy to win big judgments from discriminatory lenders and landlords for ourselves and others.  

7.They should back a bill imposing harsh federal sentences on organizations, cults and individuals convicted of hate crimes and one that defines hate crimes to include harassment, violence and hate speech directed against the GLBT communities as well as others.

8.They should be willing to propose and fight for a constitutional guarantee of a minimum wage of $25.00 an hour with full benefits, both adjusted semi-annually to fully account for inflation.

9. They should agree to propose a federal law cutting the normal work week to 32 hours without loss of pay or benefits and with time and a half after 32 hours, and double time after eight hours in any day or 40 hours in any week.

10.They should be for the repeal of all FTA's - the NorthAmericanFTA, the KoreaFTA, the PeruFTA, and the CentralAmericanF TA. The FTA are anti-union, they impoverish working people and make the rich richer and they're environmental disasters.  

11.They should be for twenty days of paid vacation for all workers in addition plus paid federal holidays plus paid sick leave if prescribed by a doctor, including a year of paid maternity leave.

12.They should propose a federal law to protect workers who lose, or have lost their jobs because of outsourcing or efforts to control pollution. Those workers should be guaranteed reeducation and receive full income and benefits until they take a new job. In the case of those who lost their jobs to corporate outsourcing the costs of reeducation and living benefits should be paid for by a 100% tax on the dividends paid to corporate stockholders.  In the case of jobs lost to anti-pollution effort the full cost of reeducation and full income and benefits should be paid by a 100% tax on the dividends paid to stockholders of all polluting corporations.

13.They should enact laws that protect immigrant/imported workers at the same level as native workers.

Bill Clinton ran his presidential campaign on the slogan "It's the economy, stupid."  He was wrong as usual, because he was a right wing fraud much like Obama and McCain. It's the stupid way the economy is organized by the rich and the parties they own, the Democrats and Republicans.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:36:20 AM CDT

I suspect your number 3 may not get anywhere...

...given the entrenched fiscal interest of the insurance companies, unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to explicitly state that health care is a right.  There'll be snowskiing in all the circles of Hell (not just the ninth one) first.

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:07:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is the goal of the platform?

Is the goal to have the most progressive goals that each faction within the party wants?  Or is the goal to provide a comprehensive statement to the nation (including, obviously, independents) of what the Democratic Party will in actuality work for?  The answer determines the content.  

This is the first time that the DNC or the presidential campaign even solicited input from the grassroots on the platform.  Whether or not they intended to use the input as specific items or only as general guidelines, I have no idea.  But for the first time they solicited input.

How much input did they get?  That's pretty difficult to gauge.  Our local Stonewall Dems chapter did hold a platform meeting to provide input on LGBT issues.  The interest level in the meeting was pretty typical, the usual committeds, but we did get one new person.  The lack of interest or commitment of the LGBT folks in my community to actually do the work that needs to be done to move us forward continues to frustrate me.  I mention that because of the people who will comment on this - how many took the time to organize or attend a platform meeting?

When we drafted our submission, we went at it with the perspective of providing something that the platform committee and delegates could agree on without entering into a huge, divisive debate.  We've had enough division in this campaign, and it's time to unite.  With that in mind, I didn't want to specifically mention marriage equality (even though, of course, that is my desired end result) or civil unions or domestic partnerships.  In my mind, specifically mentioning ANY of those will just open it up to debate that will never end civilly.  There is too great of a divide throughout the country and our party.  Therefore, we proposed the following:
We support equal legal recognition of committed relationships to include all government rights and programs
The actual wording of the 2004 platform follows:
We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.

It appears that they have watered down even what was in the 2004 platform.  That's disappointing, to say the least.

Moving backwards is not an option.

---

by: OH les @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:37:13 AM CDT

The purpose of the platform is to be campaign rhetoric, nothing more

How I know this for a fact:

I was a delegate to the Washington State Democratic Convention in 1998. Since winter, I and a number of other Democrats helped bring a plank resolution to the convention floor indicating the party's support and endorsement of equal marriage (this was in the aftermath of President Clinton signing DOMA and Vice President Gore pimping it around the country as something we should be proud of.) If passed at the convention, the resolution would be added as a plank in the state party platform.

At the convention, there was some very vocal opposition to the resolution, particularly from a number of DINO legislators from the central and eastern Washington. After about half an hour of heated debate and even a few brief screaming matches, one of the chief supporters of the resolution addressed the delegates. She told us that the platform was primarily a public-relations tool. Elected Democrats were not required to support any plank or position expressed in the platform and were free, as always, to ignore any or every part of it and vote as directed by their conscience, their personal beliefs and their constituents. The unspoken message, which I heard quite clearly, was that the whole platform process -- the work I and many others had put in over the last half year -- was a pointless sham.

The resolution passed and the plank was duly added, where it has remained ever since, looking nice but either ignored or openly assaulted by the state's elected Democrats. I cannot imagine that the national platform is any different.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:22:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep. it's all PR. Just look at the 1968 Democratic

Platform here ; http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Remember what FDR said, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." Have you written/called a congress-critter today? 8.25, 6.21

---

by: Jacques @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:14:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is nice to know...

...that they support our issues without actually acknowledging our existence. Emancipation without the slavery. ALL of my campaign money is staying locally this year.

---

by: chandler in lasvegas @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:39:39 AM CDT

That's it, chandler

The LGBT community is the minority group that dare not be addressed directly.  

To acknowledge us directly would be too problematic.  Instead the Democrats hide behind rhetoric and manage to convince the LGBT followers to read between the lines and accept the fact that it would be just too daring to acknowledge us openly.

They say:  "The gays will know what we mean...and they will tell each other to support the Party no matter what...we can make them do the work for us without ever having to do a damn thing for them ourselves"

And it works!

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:40:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

desecrate sacred spaces? huh?

this part relly got me scratching my head

We will pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, because hate crimes desecrate sacred spaces and belittle all good people.

WTF?  Hate crimes don't just "belittle good people", they terrorize entire communities of people, both good and bad.  And wtf does "sacred spaces" mean, and what is religious terminology doing here?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:48:56 AM CDT

H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

Link

Introduced in the House on March 20, 2007
Passed by the House 237 to 180 on May 3, 2007
Introduced in the Senate on May 7, 2007

Summary written by Project Vote Smart (Link):

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that amends the federal definition of a hate crime to include gender identity and sexual orientation.

Official Title of Legislation:

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Highlights:

- Allows the Attorney General to provide assistance for the criminal investigation of crimes that are considered a felony and are motivated by prejudice based on the perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim (Sec 3)

- Requires that anyone who commits a crime due to actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability can be sentenced to no more than 10 years, unless kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill is involved (Sec 6)

It is in no way specific to religious buildings or sites. The choice of phrasing in the platform is a deliberate slap against GLBT issues and blatant pandering to the "Oh, how Christians are persecuted in this country!!" fanatical fringe.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Doesn't it also take in the UU Church in Tenneessee?

With this wording, they can pander to the fundie Christians(IMO a wasted effort, since I suspect many won't vote for a Democrat, but they keep trying) and the liberals in one phrase.

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:11:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yup

As I said elsewhere, this platform promises everything to everyone but commits to nothing.  

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:17:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know the Platform folks get all hot and bothered

But it isn't EVER fulfilled, and it gives Repigs talking points to show every "san francisco liberal excess" to diminish our candidates.

Sometimes less is more, pick a candidate you trust, and shut up until AFTER the election. THEN we hold them accountable.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM CDT

A couple of questions

(And I do mean this as a question, not as an attack.)

How can you hold a candidate accountable after an election for something that was never promised?  And if you have shut up during the campaign, why would a candidate promise to do what you want?

I'm not sure that the strategy of voting for people we think are likely to do the right thing whilst keeping quiet about it so as not to sink their chances is likely to be helpful.  If nothing else, the newly-elected trustworthy person would face the choice of either betraying the unspoken, unpromised trust or being accused of trying to sneak a liberal agenda in through the back door.  If the threat of being tarred as a liberal because of a party's platform is too much for a person, why would the threat of being tarred as a liberal because of one's actions once elected not be?

What makes you think that the silence strategy is likely to produce more political effect than a straight up show of political force during elections in the form of challenging candidates to promise the right thing and then watching them post-election to make sure that they do?

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:55:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Check the platforms when we elected Bill Clinton

We STILL got thrown under the bus, so what did the platform do for us?

You either trust the candidate or you don't, platforms don't change a thing.

I'd be a much stronger proponent of having more delegates who are LGBT, than concerns about the Platform, then the candidate has to speak to our concerns.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

promises

"How can you hold a candidate accountable after an election for something that was never promised?  And if you have shut up during the campaign, why would a candidate promise to do what you want?"

you can't, how do you hold them accountable for something they promised?(before re-election?)  

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Holding them accountable at re-election time is powerful

It's hard to hold someone accountable for something that they haven't promised.  But voters can and do hold politicians accountable for specific broken promises at re-election time.  If you don't believe me, just mention the words "read my lips, no new taxes" in front of GHWB.

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:19:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I stated BEFORE re-election

Tempers calm in a few years, and some of the worst transgressions fade in 4 years. There are exceptions, like if Obama put a Scalia on the court, no amount of time would fix that.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 13:33:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know you did

And I pointed out that you can hold politicians accountable at re-election time for things they have explicitly promised.  You have yet to tell me how I can hold a politician accountable for something unpromised at any time.

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 14:19:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Platform isn't a promise from or with any individual candidate

Candidates can pick and choose what they support, or don't support in the Platform.
The REAL promises come in LGBT fundraisers, and LGBT debates.

If you haven't heard what a candidate supports before the Convention..it ain't gonna be promised.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 19:49:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

unfortunately the opposite isn't true

Candidates can get smeared by their Republican opponents for what is in the platform, whether the candidate supports that plank or not.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 19:54:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If ANOTHER repig wins

What good is perfectly PC worded Dem platform. We'd be wiping our collective asses on it another 8 years.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:35:05 AM CDT

delegate

btw. I've been an openly gay State delegate and fought through dozens of elections for Platform issues, and got as hot and bothered as anyone here, I've gotten older, and find much of it didn't really matter.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:39:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

About as good as if a Democrat wins.

If you're right about Clintons betrayals, and you are, and if many of us are right about his clone, Obama, and we are, then it hardly makes any difference at all.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Incredibly disappointing

especially considering that it is written by my governor, she of whom sexual orientation should never be discussed.

Not surprising, just incredibly disappointing

---

by: tiponeill @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:45:20 AM CDT

JUST surviving to see the end of Cheney's reign of terror

is enough for me, ANY G*D DAMN thing would be BETTER.
so platforms don't blow up my dress, in comparrison.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:17:05 PM CDT

Maybe a oneline platform would grab attention

Throw out all the rest and say,

"Our candidates will uphold the Constitution and treat every American as EQUAL"

that would assuage any fears of left leaning Republicans, and Independents...and should be enuf for any Democrat.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM CDT

Cheney will attend RNC convention

They might as well have Larry Craig blow McSame on stage, especially in Minneapolis/St Paul, it will bring out hundreds of thousands of protestors....YAY!!!!!

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 13:02:12 PM CDT

what did you expect?

The nonliberal (Left/moderate/centrist) half of the Party won the primary tie on tiebreakers.  The "winning" agenda is a short term agenda mostly about careers within the Party, economic fixes, and managing the final stages and end of the Bush agenda.

It simply is not the Democratic long term agenda of dealing with longstanding Constitutional and social issues, et cetera.  That was what Clinton's campaign, despite appearances, represented.

---

by: amidthefallingsnow @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 13:54:57 PM CDT

A big, stinking pile of cut-off noses

is the likely result, judging by the commenters who wish to spite their whiny, spoiled LGBT faces by insisting that the Democratic Party platform, and every last one of its standard bearers, live up to some mythical ideal of ideological purity and love and peace to everyone, especially the little children.

Give me a break!

This animosity towards the national Democratic Party is pitiful and does not help advance the cause of justice and equality.

Cut-off noses-- and no ENDA, no consideration of transgender community concerns, no DADT repeal, possible backsliding on Supreme Court personnel and policies towards same-sex intimacy and domestic and adoptive relationships, but hey!--you are all free from any fault or blame. If I were a right winger fundamentalist, I'd be laughing my ass off.

Go ahead! Please make my day, vote Green! Vote McCain! Or just sit home and mope about how miserable things are and how downtrodden those rotten Demopublicans are keeping poor little us. Chortle at how superior you are to those who would (gasp!) compromise, settle for incremental progress, or get their hands messy with political reality.

---

by: mitch wood @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 14:37:23 PM CDT

Ignoring fundamental human rights somehow DOES advance the cause of justice and equality?

Sorry, but I will take justice and equality over blindly toe-ing the party line, always.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 14:40:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can you show me where I said ...

that fundamental human rights should be ignored?

that any party line deserves blind acceptance?

You say you'll take justice and equality, but as with ENDA, damning the barely good as the enemy of the perfect left us with neither.

Thanks a lot for that winning strategy!

---

by: mitch wood @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 15:31:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your whole post reeked of it

This animosity towards the national Democratic Party is pitiful and does not help advance the cause of justice and equality.

Yes, I am angry at the DNC and the national platform committee. I am angry that, yet again, they provide the same substanceless cant which promises everything and commits to nothing. I am angry that, despite several state Supreme Courts ruling that marriage is a RIGHT, the national committee is incapable of recognizing it as a right. I am angry at being repeatedly and relentlessly bullied into voting for a party that cannot be bothered to acknowledge my existence as a human being, much less acknowledge my basic human rights, and I am angry that most of this bullying comes from quislings who are so desperate for any kind of recognition that they have no apparent problem being their masters' pit bulls. You are goddamned right I have a lot of animosity towards the national Democratic Party.

Then you come along and assert that those of us who are angry are cutting off our noses to spite our faces, and that being angry "does not help advance the cause of justice and equality."

So allow me to rephrase my question: How does being silently complicit with the Democratic Party's refusal to even acknowledge our basic rights, much less its refusal to openly and clearly support them, do anything to advance the cause of justice and equality?

And if I may ask some follow-ups: How many elections must pass before we are allowed to get angry? Or will we ever be allowed to get angry? Must we continue to swallow our voices and our pride as the national party remains oblivious to our rights?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 16:40:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]