Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [BayStateProgressiveBloggers] Too hot to handle

Expand Messages
  • Shai Sachs
    Yes - excellent work by Mass Marrier and BMG, among others, to keep this fire going. I have to say I don t think we ll get this opinion changed at all, even
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 18, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes - excellent work by Mass Marrier and BMG, among others, to keep this fire going.

      I have to say I don't think we'll get this "opinion" changed at all, even though I disagree with it.  Rather this is one of a line of little conflicts which will hopefully culminate, somehow or another, in a sea change in party leadership.

      Along those lines, we should think about what we can do to organize within the DP.  Perhaps we could have some kind of a wiki, similar to BMG's election wiki, which will keep track of skirmishes like this, last year's insane convention, and last March's abysmal state committee meeting?  Just having a history of the various issues which have emerged and the efforts which people have made would be a big step forward.  For example, after the convention last year I recall that the Newton DTC set up some kind of committee to explore the mess.  Whatever happened to that?

      Among other things, I think we should also set up some kind of (very, very lightweight) press relations office which works to push these sorts of stories out into the press.  The wiki would serve as a perfect resource for the press, who could go to it for background info on insider-y stories as needed.

      On the substance of this latest spat, I think it's important for the sake of principle that we work in the interests of delegates elected at the caucuses **as well as affirmative action delegates**, at the expense of the ex-officio delegates.  My proposal is to get rid of ex-officio delegates entirely.  I would also add that affirmative action delegates should be elected at the caucuses rather than appointed by the state committee (along with some kind of corrective measure to deal with the issue of too many aff. action delegates).  Then we could have our cake and eat it too.  It's just my two cents, I definitely welcome other's nickels and dimes. :)

      Shai

      On 2/18/06, Michael F. Wilcox <mfw@...> wrote:
      Wow! the wires are red hot with this flap over the "opinion" issued by Jim Roosevelt.
       
      I love it -- keep it up.
       
       
      I'm not sure how much I'll say publicly at this point -- I'm a little conflicted because of my role(s) in the DLP campaign -- I want to be careful not to undermine or contradict anything the campaign wants to accomplish.
       
      That said, I guess you know which side I'm on! I posted John's letter w/o comment, in case you want to refer to the link (I'm sure it's on his site, too, I haven't looked): http://www.mfw.us/bonifaz-on-rule-change
       
      One thing I'd like to point out for those of you engaging in this debate: it strikes me that Cyndi Roy is offering something of a smokescreen by pleading the principle of "inclusiveness" -- ha! when did the Party's rules ever have that as an objective? Witness what happened at last year's Convention! "It's not right," she declares! as if this were a debate over some moral issue. The question at hand isn't whether it's right or wrong -- it's what are the rules? What are the rules as voted on by the State Committee? Whether the rules are fair or logical has no bearing -- they are the rules that all candidates should have to follow.
       
      I have a (hard) copy of the Convention rules. Does anyone know if they are posted on the MassDems website? I couldn't find them. Would that be too much transparency? In any case, there are several places where "delegates" are referred to, and it seems to me that the use of the qualifier "elected" is not a case of redundancy. While it is certainly open to interpretation (does it include add-ons, who are "elected" by the State Committee?), it seems clear that the qualifier is an attempt to exclude ex officios (my interpretation). I section I.C., for example, talks about the process for submitting Charter Amendments that were not approved by the Charter Amendments Committee. In that case, signatures of 500 "certified Delegates" are required. Clearly, that includes ex officios. If the intent in rule II.A.3. was to include ex officios, why was not the same phrase used? Why is the phrase "elected convention delegates" and not the same language as in I.C.?
       
      One could go from this common-sense argument into an "intent" debate, I'm sure, looking back at the minutes of the SC meetings where these rules were discussed and voted on. In the end, though, I fear this is all an unproductive debate.
       
      Here's something I sent out over my signature to Deval's supporters here in the Berkshires:
       

       
      I have seen a lot of discussion about whether a third candidate would be good or bad for our candidate. I think that is the wrong discussion. I keep remembering what Deval has said on more than one occasion. I'm paraphrasing, but his plea goes something like this, "Let's stop having the endless debate about HOW we're going to win elections, and let's start talking about WHY we deserve to win."
       
      Deval Patrick's vision of what is possible, and his message of hope, are the themes that resonate with voters. Let's stay focused on that, and continue to promote our candidate. We have all worked very hard to support the caucus process and to run for or elect delegates to vote for Deval Patrick at the convention. I, for one, plan to respect all those who contributed to our success so far, and if I am asked to sign a petition to put another candidate before the convention, I will decline, and I hope all of our other delegates will do the same.
       
      As one supporter put it, "A simple, 'I'm sorry that I can't help; I'm supporting Deval Patrick' can be gracious without aiding and abetting the competition."
       

       
      Michael Wilcox
      Berkshire County Coordinator
      Deval Patrick for Governor
      home: 413-528-5863
      cell: 413-717-0819
      mfw@...
      http://www.mfw.us
      http://devalpatrickstore.com/
      https://secure.devalpatrick.com/page/mfw
       
      [aside to anyone from Blue Mass. Group who may have gotten this far: "Forbes" is my middle name, not part of a hyphenated name -- I appreciate the link to my blog on the blogroll, but please remove the hyphen -- thanks!]


      SPONSORED LINKS
      State of massachusetts Massachusetts secretary of state United states district court massachusetts
      Politics


      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




    • Lynne Lupien
      What I hate is that this is all game talk. WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUES!? Do we ever get to discuss the goddamned issues? This is so typical of the Dems. Lynne ...
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 19, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        What I hate is that this is all game talk. WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUES!? Do we ever get to discuss the goddamned issues? This is so typical of the Dems.
        Lynne
        -----Original Message-----
        From: BayStateProgressiveBloggers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BayStateProgressiveBloggers@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Michael F. Wilcox
        Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:05 AM
        To: BayState Progressive Bloggers
        Subject: [BayStateProgressiveBloggers] Too hot to handle

        Wow! the wires are red hot with this flap over the "opinion" issued by Jim Roosevelt.
         
        I love it -- keep it up.
         
         
        I'm not sure how much I'll say publicly at this point -- I'm a little conflicted because of my role(s) in the DLP campaign -- I want to be careful not to undermine or contradict anything the campaign wants to accomplish.
         
        That said, I guess you know which side I'm on! I posted John's letter w/o comment, in case you want to refer to the link (I'm sure it's on his site, too, I haven't looked): http://www.mfw.us/bonifaz-on-rule-change
         
        One thing I'd like to point out for those of you engaging in this debate: it strikes me that Cyndi Roy is offering something of a smokescreen by pleading the principle of "inclusiveness" -- ha! when did the Party's rules ever have that as an objective? Witness what happened at last year's Convention! "It's not right," she declares! as if this were a debate over some moral issue. The question at hand isn't whether it's right or wrong -- it's what are the rules? What are the rules as voted on by the State Committee? Whether the rules are fair or logical has no bearing -- they are the rules that all candidates should have to follow.
         
        I have a (hard) copy of the Convention rules. Does anyone know if they are posted on the MassDems website? I couldn't find them. Would that be too much transparency? In any case, there are several places where "delegates" are referred to, and it seems to me that the use of the qualifier "elected" is not a case of redundancy. While it is certainly open to interpretation (does it include add-ons, who are "elected" by the State Committee?), it seems clear that the qualifier is an attempt to exclude ex officios (my interpretation). I section I.C., for example, talks about the process for submitting Charter Amendments that were not approved by the Charter Amendments Committee. In that case, signatures of 500 "certified Delegates" are required. Clearly, that includes ex officios. If the intent in rule II.A.3. was to include ex officios, why was not the same phrase used? Why is the phrase "elected convention delegates" and not the same language as in I.C.?
         
        One could go from this common-sense argument into an "intent" debate, I'm sure, looking back at the minutes of the SC meetings where these rules were discussed and voted on. In the end, though, I fear this is all an unproductive debate.
         
        Here's something I sent out over my signature to Deval's supporters here in the Berkshires:
         

         
        I have seen a lot of discussion about whether a third candidate would be good or bad for our candidate. I think that is the wrong discussion. I keep remembering what Deval has said on more than one occasion. I'm paraphrasing, but his plea goes something like this, "Let's stop having the endless debate about HOW we're going to win elections, and let's start talking about WHY we deserve to win."
         
        Deval Patrick's vision of what is possible, and his message of hope, are the themes that resonate with voters. Let's stay focused on that, and continue to promote our candidate. We have all worked very hard to support the caucus process and to run for or elect delegates to vote for Deval Patrick at the convention. I, for one, plan to respect all those who contributed to our success so far, and if I am asked to sign a petition to put another candidate before the convention, I will decline, and I hope all of our other delegates will do the same.
         
        As one supporter put it, "A simple, 'I’m sorry that I can’t help; I’m supporting Deval Patrick' can be gracious without aiding and abetting the competition. "
         

         
        Michael Wilcox
        Berkshire County Coordinator
        Deval Patrick for Governor
        home: 413-528-5863
        cell: 413-717-0819
        mfw@...
        http://www.mfw.us
        http://devalpatrickstore.com/
        https://secure.devalpatrick.com/page/mfw
         
        [aside to anyone from Blue Mass. Group who may have gotten this far: "Forbes" is my middle name, not part of a hyphenated name -- I appreciate the link to my blog on the blogroll, but please remove the hyphen -- thanks!]
      • Lynne Lupien
        I loved your post about getting rid of ex-officio. If they want to go to the convention, they should be running on the ballot themselves at the caucus! And if
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 19, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I loved your post about getting rid of ex-officio. If they want to go to the convention, they should be running on the ballot themselves at the caucus! And if a slate comes in, if that chair is well-respected, the slate organizers will likely leave a space for that person. If that chair isn't deserving, then merit should trump insider status.
           
          Now, I would also like to mention, we need "our" kind of people to get in there, become state party members, chairs, and the like, in order to effect this change.
           
          Lynne
          -----Original Message-----
          From: BayStateProgressiveBloggers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BayStateProgressiveBloggers@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Shai Sachs
          Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:23 AM
          To: BayStateProgressiveBloggers@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [BayStateProgressiveBloggers] Too hot to handle

          Yes - excellent work by Mass Marrier and BMG, among others, to keep this fire going.

          I have to say I don't think we'll get this "opinion" changed at all, even though I disagree with it.  Rather this is one of a line of little conflicts which will hopefully culminate, somehow or another, in a sea change in party leadership.

          Along those lines, we should think about what we can do to organize within the DP.  Perhaps we could have some kind of a wiki, similar to BMG's election wiki, which will keep track of skirmishes like this, last year's insane convention, and last March's abysmal state committee meeting?  Just having a history of the various issues which have emerged and the efforts which people have made would be a big step forward.  For example, after the convention last year I recall that the Newton DTC set up some kind of committee to explore the mess.  Whatever happened to that?

          Among other things, I think we should also set up some kind of (very, very lightweight) press relations office which works to push these sorts of stories out into the press.  The wiki would serve as a perfect resource for the press, who could go to it for background info on insider-y stories as needed.

          On the substance of this latest spat, I think it's important for the sake of principle that we work in the interests of delegates elected at the caucuses **as well as affirmative action delegates**, at the expense of the ex-officio delegates.  My proposal is to get rid of ex-officio delegates entirely.  I would also add that affirmative action delegates should be elected at the caucuses rather than appointed by the state committee (along with some kind of corrective measure to deal with the issue of too many aff. action delegates).  Then we could have our cake and eat it too.  It's just my two cents, I definitely welcome other's nickels and dimes. :)

          Shai

          On 2/18/06, Michael F. Wilcox <mfw@...> wrote:
          Wow! the wires are red hot with this flap over the "opinion" issued by Jim Roosevelt.
           
          I love it -- keep it up.
           
           
          I'm not sure how much I'll say publicly at this point -- I'm a little conflicted because of my role(s) in the DLP campaign -- I want to be careful not to undermine or contradict anything the campaign wants to accomplish.
           
          That said, I guess you know which side I'm on! I posted John's letter w/o comment, in case you want to refer to the link (I'm sure it's on his site, too, I haven't looked): http://www.mfw.us/bonifaz-on-rule-change
           
          One thing I'd like to point out for those of you engaging in this debate: it strikes me that Cyndi Roy is offering something of a smokescreen by pleading the principle of "inclusiveness" -- ha! when did the Party's rules ever have that as an objective? Witness what happened at last year's Convention! "It's not right," she declares! as if this were a debate over some moral issue. The question at hand isn't whether it's right or wrong -- it's what are the rules? What are the rules as voted on by the State Committee? Whether the rules are fair or logical has no bearing -- they are the rules that all candidates should have to follow.
           
          I have a (hard) copy of the Convention rules. Does anyone know if they are posted on the MassDems website? I couldn't find them. Would that be too much transparency? In any case, there are several places where "delegates" are referred to, and it seems to me that the use of the qualifier "elected" is not a case of redundancy. While it is certainly open to interpretation (does it include add-ons, who are "elected" by the State Committee?), it seems clear that the qualifier is an attempt to exclude ex officios (my interpretation). I section I.C., for example, talks about the process for submitting Charter Amendments that were not approved by the Charter Amendments Committee. In that case, signatures of 500 "certified Delegates" are required. Clearly, that includes ex officios. If the intent in rule II.A.3. was to include ex officios, why was not the same phrase used? Why is the phrase "elected convention delegates" and not the same language as in I.C.?
           
          One could go from this common-sense argument into an "intent" debate, I'm sure, looking back at the minutes of the SC meetings where these rules were discussed and voted on. In the end, though, I fear this is all an unproductive debate.
           
          Here's something I sent out over my signature to Deval's supporters here in the Berkshires:
           

           
          I have seen a lot of discussion about whether a third candidate would be good or bad for our candidate. I think that is the wrong discussion. I keep remembering what Deval has said on more than one occasion. I'm paraphrasing, but his plea goes something like this, "Let's stop having the endless debate about HOW we're going to win elections, and let's start talking about WHY we deserve to win."
           
          Deval Patrick's vision of what is possible, and his message of hope, are the themes that resonate with voters. Let's stay focused on that, and continue to promote our candidate. We have all worked very hard to support the caucus process and to run for or elect delegates to vote for Deval Patrick at the convention. I, for one, plan to respect all those who contributed to our success so far, and if I am asked to sign a petition to put another candidate before the convention, I will decline, and I hope all of our other delegates will do the same.
           
          As one supporter put it, "A simple, 'I'm sorry that I can't help; I'm supporting Deval Patrick' can be gracious without aiding and abetting the competition."
           

           
          Michael Wilcox
          Berkshire County Coordinator
          Deval Patrick for Governor
          home: 413-528-5863
          cell: 413-717-0819
          mfw@...
          http://www.mfw.us
          http://devalpatrickstore.com/
          https://secure.devalpatrick.com/page/mfw
           
          [aside to anyone from Blue Mass. Group who may have gotten this far: "Forbes" is my middle name, not part of a hyphenated name -- I appreciate the link to my blog on the blogroll, but please remove the hyphen -- thanks!]


          SPONSORED LINKS
          State of massachusettsMassachusetts secretary of stateUnited states district court massachusetts
          Politics


          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.