"Golden Rule" for "loyal" democratic party members

[4themind]

Don't say anything about an opponent that you can't take back or logically still hold favorably relative to the republican nominee come G.E. time . This is especially important if you're dealing with opponents that are disciples to ronald's commandment. Whenever you see criticism, first ask :

1.)Will this person respect and support the choice that emerges from the democratic primary process?
then ask
2.)Are they following this rule?

[patrice]

1. I think the Golden Rule should be paramount in ALL relationships.

I also think that what you are suggesting implies that in our attitudes toward candidates, ISSUES should be the primary criteria. So the yardstick I use for Democrats is the same one that I use for Republicans.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. The actual Golden Rule for Democratic Party members is...

"Send us all your gold and stay silent about your issues, or you are a traitor to the party."

At least, that is how the GLBT community is treated by the party and its national candidates.

[patrice]

4. Have you placed your Issue advocates where they need to be (I would suggest locally

would be the best place to start) and then backed them up with a goal directed organization and process?

[patrice]

5. So, it looks as though your answer is "No."

:nopity:

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Impatient, aren't you?

I have brought my issues to the party, both directly and indirectly (by running as a candidate for the state Legislature in 2000 and 2004, and by sponsoring Washington's Initiative 957.) I have a very sympathetic ear with the district organization, as Washington's 43rd district includes Seattle's main gay neighborhood, Capitol Hill, has sent an openly gay representative to the State House for more than 20 years, and since 2006 has also had an openly gay state senator. Our token straight in the Legislature is Speaker of the House.

The problem is that only the western third of the state is progressive, and not even all of that. Once you cross the Cascades, the Democrats become very conservative. The state party feels it necessary to pander to these neo-con DINOs because, as you know, numbers are FAR more important than sticking to any kind of principles. Allow me to illustrate.

In 1998, I was a delegate to the state convention. At the preceeding district convention, we overwhelmingly passed a platform resolution on equal marriage. This resolution called for the state to enact equal marriage for same sex couples, denounced the federal "Defense" of Marriage Act and called on the party not to support or endorse efforts in the legislature to pass a state version. When I arrived at the state convention, I learned that the marriage resolution had been passed by enough districts to automatically send it to the convention floor.

When the resolution came up for discussion and a vote, several legislators from eastern Washington stood up and said, point blank, that not only do they oppose this resolution, they very strongly oppose it and would switch to the Republican Party if told to support it in any way. It became quite a shouting match.

Then Janice Van Cleeve, an activist from my own district who was instrumental in getting the resolution to this point, stood up and addressed the bigots. She said that the platform was a propaganda piece and not an actual statement of policy; those legislators who opposed the very idea of equal marriage were free to continue to oppose equal marriage. The resolution passed (by a very narrow margin) and was added to the state platform for '98, but for what? Even the person who worked hardest on the issue admitted that this was all a pointless excercise. After the convention, I resigned my position as PCO and never again worked for or identified with the Democratic Party.

On the national level, it is far worse. We have two candidates who have flat-out said that my desire for full civil rights under the law is divisive, distracting and will serve only to get McCain elected as President. The national platform has never once supported my full access to the law.

Too bad if you don't like facts. If you still think I am wrong, you will have to try a lot harder than just snide comments about me not responding fast enough for your liking.

[patrice]

7. Thanks for the information.

I can see your justification for your earlier post.

My daughter tells me similar things about there being 2 Oregons.

I live in an almost completely RED state myself. It comes from the churches; do you think it's the same in Washington? If that's where it is coming from, that's where I'd go.

Within the context of the new threatening economic pressures on the middle-class: **IF** the two party system is actually being "cracked", even a little bit, **IF** Obama's funding model affects the power of conventional lobbyists, and **IF** there are enough people who accept the long-term collaborative responsibilities of Issue-activism, there will be opportunities for new working relationships. I'm trying to imagine what those new working relationships could be, what issues matter more than other issues, and what relationships might be created between issues. And, I, for one, am very interested in taking the "top -> down" dynamic apart.

Since it appears, because of those numbers in the "other Washington", that you and yours were betrayed somewhere "above" your level, one thing I can imagine is to abandon that structure in order to go after those "numbers"; find "missionaries" to go into grassroots communities and build common-cause on THEIR issues that you and yours share with them, while also maintaing your networks on your own issues. The closer to concrete economic realities you can get, the more inclined most people will be to be co-operative. I know what you are talking about is way more complicated than what I'm suggesting, but it is necessary to start somewhere and deal with those complexities as they unfold.

Something similar to this is happening now between those who hold the Environment as the primary issue and those who hold opposition to Bush's War as the primary issue.

Sorry to hear "the party platform is nothing but propaganda. : - (((((((((

P.S. Since there are no absolutes, least of all semantic ones, :nopity: is just as "snide" as you want it to be.

[Apollo11]

3. Does "the democratic primary process" include the superdelegates?

I say we should all support the nominee who is chosen by the Democratic National Convention, in accordance with the rules of the party.

Right now it looks most likely that it will be Barack Obama, not just because of the so-called pledged delegates, but also because of prominent superdelegates like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson ....

It is the growing "superdelegates for Obama" movement that is making it hard for me to see how Hillary can win the nomination, even if by some kind of miracle she could manage to win all of the remaining 10 contests.

[crankychatter]

8. This was always my belief... no RW talking points in the Primary BUT...

since Clinton went berserker?

fuck 'em... mho