Monday, May 22, 2006
I.O.U. , DEMOCRATS
The Democratic Party is owned by the members of the party, not by the leaders of it, not by the connected beltway bright things looking for their next press opportunity and handout.
The election and the seat won through it are owned by the voters, not by the candidates.
While the party has no right to require a guarantee of ideological conformity, especially since there is no Democratic ideology, there are things which a Democratic candidate owes to the members of the party.
1. Democratic candidates must make a binding promise that they will not leave the party for another one while holding an office gained as the candidate of the party.
2. If a Democrat leaves the party while holding office they must agree to vacate the office.
3. A Democratic candidate will accept the results of the nominating process.
4. A Democratic candidate will fight a crooked election.
A person who holds office has an obligation to represent all of their constiuents, they cannot be bound by the party to a given position on an issue. That is a matter of trust between the office holder and their consituents. But a person who holds office through the Democratic Party takes on additional obligations to the party. Through their own actions they have asked for our support and so have made it a matter of honor that they will not betray us.
No candidate who asks the support of the members of the party should be allowed to flim-flam us. If they don't gain the nomination through the rules of the Democratic Party they have to accept that. They should be required to promise at the beginning of the nomination process not to act as a spoiler in the general election by being a candidate outside the party or by campaigning for a rival of the party. No office holder who has gained a seat through the Democratic party should be able to leave the party while holding that seat. All candidates should be required to make these promises to members of the Democratic Party from the start as a pledge of trust. If they refuse? Democrats will know what to expect of them and can vote accordingly.
I am sure someone will ask about Jeffords. Much as I respect him, that's not out problem. His party left him and he had an R after his name.
#4. NEVER FORGET THE STOLEN ELECTION OF 2000 OR THE DISASTER OF A GOVERNMENT IT CREATED!
Employees of the Democratic Party in any of its branches and people employed by Democratic politicians should sign a contract stating that they will not go on the cabloids or other news and alleged news outlets to slam the party, its members, its candidates or its motives for three presidential election cycles after their employment ends. Russert, Matthews and the guy with the hair are stinking quislings who would be nobodies without the patronage of fools who trusted them. If the party doesn't learn from their example and institute contractual remedies to prevent the production of more of these it can expect more of the same.
Any Democrat who has anything to do with the likes of Dick Morris should be put up against the wall.
The Democratic Party is owned by the members of the party, not by the leaders of it, not by the connected beltway bright things looking for their next press opportunity and handout.
The election and the seat won through it are owned by the voters, not by the candidates.
While the party has no right to require a guarantee of ideological conformity, especially since there is no Democratic ideology, there are things which a Democratic candidate owes to the members of the party.
1. Democratic candidates must make a binding promise that they will not leave the party for another one while holding an office gained as the candidate of the party.
2. If a Democrat leaves the party while holding office they must agree to vacate the office.
3. A Democratic candidate will accept the results of the nominating process.
4. A Democratic candidate will fight a crooked election.
A person who holds office has an obligation to represent all of their constiuents, they cannot be bound by the party to a given position on an issue. That is a matter of trust between the office holder and their consituents. But a person who holds office through the Democratic Party takes on additional obligations to the party. Through their own actions they have asked for our support and so have made it a matter of honor that they will not betray us.
No candidate who asks the support of the members of the party should be allowed to flim-flam us. If they don't gain the nomination through the rules of the Democratic Party they have to accept that. They should be required to promise at the beginning of the nomination process not to act as a spoiler in the general election by being a candidate outside the party or by campaigning for a rival of the party. No office holder who has gained a seat through the Democratic party should be able to leave the party while holding that seat. All candidates should be required to make these promises to members of the Democratic Party from the start as a pledge of trust. If they refuse? Democrats will know what to expect of them and can vote accordingly.
I am sure someone will ask about Jeffords. Much as I respect him, that's not out problem. His party left him and he had an R after his name.
#4. NEVER FORGET THE STOLEN ELECTION OF 2000 OR THE DISASTER OF A GOVERNMENT IT CREATED!
Employees of the Democratic Party in any of its branches and people employed by Democratic politicians should sign a contract stating that they will not go on the cabloids or other news and alleged news outlets to slam the party, its members, its candidates or its motives for three presidential election cycles after their employment ends. Russert, Matthews and the guy with the hair are stinking quislings who would be nobodies without the patronage of fools who trusted them. If the party doesn't learn from their example and institute contractual remedies to prevent the production of more of these it can expect more of the same.
Any Democrat who has anything to do with the likes of Dick Morris should be put up against the wall.
Comments:
<< Home
Democratic candidates must make a binding promise that they will not leave the party for another one while holding an office gained as the candidate of the party.
I don't necessarily agree with you here. If the Democrat has turned ideologically into a Republican, I guess it is fair to ask him/her to wait until the next election cycle to run as a Republican and could they at least vote in procedure votes as the Democrat their constituents elected as well as be honest about their substantive votes which would, of course, be with the Republicans. But somehow I don't think this is what you are talking about which is where I disagree with you -- if you have a Holy Joe situation where the person involved is voting in matters of procedure with the Republicans (even if the person is still generally in actual votes of substance to the left of good Democrats like Harry Reid), what do we loose by having that person simply admit that they are not voting as a Democrat where it counts, e.g. on matters of procedure which are, ironically, often more important than matters of substance? Isn't it better if voters explicitly know that their representative is de facto not of the party they elected him/her to be? It is one thing for our side to loose procedural votes because someone switches sides, but if that person doesn't vote with us in procedural votes anyway -- and is a drag on the party in general due to their ability to cause our message to be muddled, I say with them leaving -- good riddance! The quicker such a person leaves the better ...
I don't necessarily agree with you here. If the Democrat has turned ideologically into a Republican, I guess it is fair to ask him/her to wait until the next election cycle to run as a Republican and could they at least vote in procedure votes as the Democrat their constituents elected as well as be honest about their substantive votes which would, of course, be with the Republicans. But somehow I don't think this is what you are talking about which is where I disagree with you -- if you have a Holy Joe situation where the person involved is voting in matters of procedure with the Republicans (even if the person is still generally in actual votes of substance to the left of good Democrats like Harry Reid), what do we loose by having that person simply admit that they are not voting as a Democrat where it counts, e.g. on matters of procedure which are, ironically, often more important than matters of substance? Isn't it better if voters explicitly know that their representative is de facto not of the party they elected him/her to be? It is one thing for our side to loose procedural votes because someone switches sides, but if that person doesn't vote with us in procedural votes anyway -- and is a drag on the party in general due to their ability to cause our message to be muddled, I say with them leaving -- good riddance! The quicker such a person leaves the better ...
It's a good point and I'd be just as glad to get rid of the bad rubbish before it really begins to zmell.
You are right about why I would want them to have to remain nominally a Democrat if elected. When I first came up with the idea it was exactly in reference to Joe Lieberman and I thought that the series of questions might force him into promising that he wouldn't stab the Democratic Party in the back.
I don't think most of that is unrelated to his disappointment that Al Gore and the rest of us didn't just hand him the crown in 2004. It is the equivalent of Ralph Nader's scorched earth policy over his being denied a seat at that "debate".
Post a Comment
You are right about why I would want them to have to remain nominally a Democrat if elected. When I first came up with the idea it was exactly in reference to Joe Lieberman and I thought that the series of questions might force him into promising that he wouldn't stab the Democratic Party in the back.
I don't think most of that is unrelated to his disappointment that Al Gore and the rest of us didn't just hand him the crown in 2004. It is the equivalent of Ralph Nader's scorched earth policy over his being denied a seat at that "debate".
# posted by 
: 5:36 AM
: 5:36 AM << Home
