Interesting that you ran your opening item in the paper in several languages but not here. Unfortunately, you got at least one language backwards:
.siht ekil skool noisrev werbeH ehT
I wonder how the languages were chosen. I'm sure that there are far more speakers of Hebrew and several eastern European languages than some of those listed.
Recently, I asked an "elected" who is running for a different office this year whether he had read the NCDP platform. He said he had. He considers the platform more guideline than binding
- it represents a moment in time
- it doesn't express priorities and doesn't distinguish between important and trivial matters; some very lengthy items are less important than the short ones
- it doesn't factor in political realities
That seemed to satisfy the people in the room, most of them not party actives.
The platform, tho important, is based on input from those who bother to show up at annual precinct meetings, a small fraction of 1% of all registered Dems. "Electeds" have to govern all of us on behalf of all of us, and they have to make real-time decisions based on many factors, not the least of which is constituent - all constituent - input. They are not the pawns of the NCDP SEC, even if the SEC were unified in its opinion on all matters. (The platform as published doesn't distinguish between items accepted unanimously or by a close hard-fought majority.)
No, there is nothing in the DNC or NCDP rules that creates a titular leader, but I want a party chair to rebuild an apparatus ready and willing to work with the gubernatorial candidate (probably not the pitbull in the race), OFA, and other critical candidates to maximize our results.
At this point, with the only candidate a long-term and belatedly resigned ALEC member (will the WI delegation walk out when he speaks?), we have no viable candidate yet. (A city council member who rarely attends party meetings or even functions, and is unknown outside her community, is not viable as state party chair.)
There is a time to debate internally, and there is a time to focus on winning. Now is the time to win.
Easley didn't nearly prevail. He defeated his choice. Ed Turlington was running before Easley endorsed him. Ed had just managed a presidential campaign and has served on the DNC since then. He was an eminently qualified candidate and would have done an excellent job (as did Jerry Meek - the pair was the best choice we've had since I've been involved with chair elections). Jerry won by 19 votes, ie, had 10 of his voters voted for Ed, Ed would have won. Having been there, I can tell you that more than 10 voted for Jerry just because they resented Easley's interference. Easley had no rank and file respect, and his refusal to help build the party was resented. Voters who might not have known either candidate well enough to make an intelligent choice knew they didn't want Easley's choice.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation