To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Maybe we should just shoot it. It's near enough dead already.
I'll think I'm about to take a pledge not to support any party leader over the age of 35 ever again.
My generation needs to step aside and turn it over to some people who might just run an effective party that stands for something.
I shall now go throw up.
How many times do we have to learn the lesson "when you give voters the option of voting for Republican and the Republican lite, Republican always wins".
Sigh....
If this were money to feed our families and we were risking our last $20 on a horse race I would understand not taking the risk. If we don't have anything near parity in the state house and not a single statewide office nor a substantial presence in Congress then what do we really have that makes a damn bit of difference.
I made my case on the floor of the SDEC on every contested issue and it wasn't enough. I don't know how many more years we're going to have to continue losing before these folks get a clue that if we don't inspire some passion we're not going to inspire people to get off the sofa and vote.
I want to thank those who voted in support of these measures for their willingness to step up and be counted.
JC Dufresne Committeeman SD25 51 year old, straight, white guy, who doesn't smoke pot and doesn't know anyone on death row. As long as corporations are people and money is speech, then democracy is a farce.
Abolish the Death Penalty JC Dufresne, Committeeman SD 25 Jackie Soliz-Chapa, Committeewoman SD 25 Teresa Klein, Committeewoman SD 20 Dan Graney, Committeman Stonewall Democrats Eli Olivarez, Committeeman SD 20 Erin Moore, Committeewoman Stonewall Democrats Charles Urbina-Jones, Committeeman Texas Democratic Veterans Crystal Viagran, Committewoman SD 14 Marcus Cardenas, Committeman SD 19 Donna Bryant, Committeewoman Environmental Democrats
Dream Act Ralph Galvan, Committeeman SD 26 Jackie Soliz-Chapa, Committeewoman SD 25 Don Bankston, Committeeman SD 18 Teresa Klein, Committeewoman SD 20 Marcus Cardenas, Committeman SD 19 JC Dufresne, Committeeman SD 25 Dan Graney, Committeman Stonewall Democrats Charles Urbina-Jones, Committeeman Texas Democratic Veterans Crystal Viagran, Committewoman SD 14 Lila Valencia, Committeewoman Hispanic Caucus Donna Bryant, Committeewoman Environmental Democrats Eli Olivarez, Committeeman SD 20
Marijuana Legalization JC Dufresne, Committeeman SD 25 Teresa Klein, Committeewoman SD 20 Ralph Galvan, Committeeman SD 26 Marcus Cardenas, Committeman SD 19 Donna Bryant, Committeewoman Environmental Democrats Eli Olivarez, Committeeman SD 20
Affordable College Tuition Terri St. Clair, Committeewoman Young Democrats JC Dufresne, Committeeman SD 25 Donna Bryant, Committeewoman Environmental Democrats Eli Olivarez, Committeeman SD 20
As long as corporations are people and money is speech, then democracy is a farce.
BTW, I started tweeting in the Resolutions Committee meeting but my hand kept forming a fist so I had to quit. Vickie Vogel of SD18 proposed changing the death penalty resolution to a moratorium in an effort to save at least part of it and good on her for trying. But even that failed. The argument was that Sheriff Adrian Garcia couldn't win with that onerous burden hanging over his head.
But, casino gambling to finance education passed. You know, where the 1%er casino owners make big bucks but everybody else makes part time minimum wage. And Democrats want to finance education with an unreliable and unstable income like gambling? Is THAT what we stand for?
Scoot over, Glen.
You never see the SREC debating whether or not to stand up for their values (sic).
What the opposing SDEC members said, essentially, is: "we're too scared to even be associated with supporting Texas Democrats' right to vote on these, never mind actually standing up and supporting the values themselves".
The irony w.r.t. to the party's argument against photo ID legislation is lost, obviously.
This is classic liberal versus conservative stuff here, not urban-rural. It's the same quarreling that brought JFK to Texas in November of 1963 (to calm the dispute between Connaly and Yarborough in time for the '64 election). It's really not so much a chronological divide, as Glen and Susan have already demonstrated (I'm 53 FWIW).
Liberal v. conservative, progressive v. ... inert, I suppose is the best word. But it's also about being brave enough to fight for your values, no matter the odds.
It's time to clean all of the cowards off the SDEC. Past time actually. The sad thing is that it can't come soon enough to save the Democrats' chances in 2012.
A non-binding resolution supporting OWS never got out of committee, I take it? Another epic fail.
These votes yesterday are exactly the sort of message that could -- and should -- give tremendous momentum to the Texas Green Party.
http://www.txdemocrats.org/res...
We turned our backs on those communities concerned about those vital issues. Hypocritically it appears the SDEC pleased the Big Corporate gambling interests by allowing a referendum on casino gambling. Instead it was a slap in the face of those communities who care deeply about these issues.
I strongly supported and argued for all three issues. However the same "stand for nothing",don't rock the boat, my way or the highway mentality prevailed. Their excuse was we can't say what we believe in public because the all powerful GOP will destroy us,our candidates and we will lose those "undecided moderate" voters. Such policy of fear and lack courage is caused by listening to cetain consultants instead of engaging and listening to our base constituents. The secret is those "undecided moderate" voters are a myth.
I suggest the SDEC's rejection of these referendums will cause far more harm to our broke and wounded Party than the imagined harm to us or our candidates. I was most disappointed for those who said they supported the issues but were afraid say it out loud in public. This is why the public is disgusted from politics and leads to futher low voter turnout.
KT, you did a great job of tweeting this, but I think I got credit several times for things Alan Blakely or John Behrman said. We old white guys all look alike.
The strongest case for any measure was made by JC Dufresne in support of "Gay Marriage". He distributed polling data showing support for gay marriage among a sort of audience that is much younger and less white than likely voters in the Democratic Primary or, sadly, the last election.
In general, our usual "gimmick" or pabulum-driven campaigns designed by and for districted incumbents have failed repeatedly and will almost certainly continue to do so.
The question Saturday was whether three "litums tests" would be any better.
It is a legitimate question to debate -- a meta-issue -- for an executive committee with party governance responsibilities not a self-gratification forum.
I do not know of a single person who spoke against any of the rejected measures on the merits of any one.
The most compelling case against the rejected measures came from credible opponents of the death penalty and supporters of gay marriage or legalizing marijuana from urban Senate Districts with actual or potential Democratic majorities, such as SD-13, but not necessarily with sufficient turnout or ballot discipline to carry a countywide or statewide ticket.
The killer case was the devastating effect of ballot measures that could well be voted down in a Democratic primary with low turnout and illegal crossover voting -- the "voter fraud" we actually have than neither party will touch.
There is a problem: No voters or, as far as I know, no Democratic elected official in Harris County supports how the death penalty or, for that matter, life sentences are applied in Texas, opposes gay civil unions here or the reciprocity with states with provision for gay marriage, or supports the threat to our security posed by protection of legal beer distribution monopolies and existing forms of gambling. That all protects gangsters in Mexico and Louisiana.
But, again, how do our legislators credibly tackle the Mexican drug cartel when they cannot take on Big Beer?
The question we have as a party is not our posture but our effectiveness especially next year in the executive and judicial branches. Frankly, our state legislators are in no position to block bad or pass good legislation. They have to fight with the GOP for access to the consent calendar.
So, our success as a party will come from our credibility in delivering an effective government, not from striking poses. We have an enthusiasm and motivation challenge that will not be relieved by litmus tests and futile gestures.
Note that the ballot measures are non-binding. They have no effect and increase disappointment.
Two other things missed in the BOR:
The TDP has had something called the VAN since 2005. It was just the old Voter File marked up and resold to the party by a well connected crony. Today, the TDP has dumped the old vendor and has a bunch of new agreements but ... no deployable system or robust data, probably no money for anything but staff travel.
Buried in committee was a proposal not to have non-binding referenda but a policy-based platform-building process that would by constrained by priorities set in the primary. This should initiate a rich "conversation" that would including things like regressive Social Security taxes, preferential treatment of Big Beer relative to, say, marijuana, and limitation of government intrusion into religious or intimate matters.
The referendum would be binding on the SDEC and would change how we now produce a mix of pabulum and a long list of litmus tests and call it a platform.
Here is a clue: Democrats can swear unyielding fealty to Social Security benefits that are, indeed, tangible to seniors who vote. But, all young people see is a tax on wages and benefits the GOP says will not be there for them. So, do we have a conversation about how regressive the Social Security tax is or how it does not even apply to anything but wages or, in Galveston County, even to municipal wages? No. The electorate knows that Democratic office-seekers will pander to any complaining group. But, until we have a policy-based platform that drives issue-based campaigns, we may not see many voters in the primary or voting straight ticket. That is our challenge, folks.
Frankly, litmus tests and laundry lists are not really a very credible alternative to empty suits and pabulum. But, that is the time-wasting debate we had.
What differentiates being asked a question on marriage equality from being asked a question on interracial marriage? Death penalty versus civil liberties and warrantless wiretaps? Marijuana legalization versus equitable taxation? Why are the former, according to some, "litmus tests," yet the latter are simply what it means to be a Democrat? Or are they all litmus tests? Or are none of them? Can we never require candidates to meet certain requirements to be Democrats, lest we resort to "litmus tests"?
My guess? A litmus test is a question you'd prefer not to answer; otherwise, it's not.
2. What is the empirical/data-driven basis for believing that having such resolutions on the primary ballot will have any substantive impact on the general election? Does anyone have any data or research backing up this claim? Has anyone polled general electorate voters to see what role the resolutions passed in that party's primary had on their voting decision? How much weight it carries? How many people are even aware they exist? When was the last time a Republican campaigned against a Democrat using the primary ballot resolutions? More specifically, do we have any past instances of when a Republican used an issue only when it was in both the Democratic platform AND on the primary ballot, but not when it was in the platform but not on the ballot (a la the marriage equality issue)?
Heck, I'd be interested in how many Democratic officeholders could name the resolutions on the ballot three to six months after the primary.
As for this sample of one, I'd consider myself pretty politically engaged. My household's passionate discussion of the results of San Francisco city ballot initiatives and Montana city council races would indicate we pay more attention to politics, particularly the nitty gritty of voting, ballots, elections, etc., than the mean. Heck, I'm writing this comment on Thanksgiving. Yet I cannot recall a single Texas GOP ballot resolution ever. Oh, I'm sure maybe right after the primary, there may have been a news item that made me chuckle or sigh, and maybe I posted it on FB, but one that occupied more than a week's worth of my memory? None. Of course, I would strongly caution against drawing any conclusions about people from my example; maybe I have a totally distorted perspective. "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken
