Skip to main content

View Diary: We Can Do Better: 2006 Open Convention (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Steal from the Libertarians (4.00)
    As a member of the Libertarian party, I think that a good idea for the Democratic party would be to steal several ideas from the libs...

    One.  Refuse public funding.  Good Pr, and makes the Republicans look greedy and grasping.  Plus it gives lie to their "We are the party of smaller government" line.

    Two.  Have a truly open debate among candidates, instead of making the convention merely a coronation of the new candidates.  Have the convention mean something other than a three day tv spot.

    Three.  No free speech zones.  Invite the dissenters to the party by giving them a stage and free registration.  Solves the problem of non-inclusion, and makes a little money from registration fees.  Plus, maybe they'll call some attention to things that need to be addressed...

    Just some ideas, which I'd like to see in a major party con...

    •  Doh.... (none)
      Cancel that "free registration thing"  my fingers slipped...
    •  "Free Speech Zone" inside? (4.00)
      Be a welcome contrast.

      In 1996, one CA delegate has her "Support Medical Marijuana" sign confiscated by private security guards at the Dem. National Convention in Chicago, who informed her that only "official" signage was allowed.

      I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or yours.

      by ben masel on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:02:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pragmatically (4.00)
      the public wants conventions to be coronations. Which means that it is necessary to move the deliberative process out of the "meeting" and into the time leading to the meeting. The way to do this is to hold a series of events which are designed to produce public discourse - from party committee meetings to online events - and use this back and forth to produce the basis for campaigning in the fall of 2006.
      •  precisely. n/t (none)

        "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

        check out Daily Gotham, yo!

        by lipris on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:20:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dangerous precedent (none)
        If there's open debate at a midyear Convention, some elected delegates at the regularly scheduled Coronation might get the impression they're allowed to express themselves there too. </snark>

        I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or yours.

        by ben masel on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 07:17:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  exactly, but is the effort is to (none)
        have national implications, you need national media wrapup at the appropriate time held as a meeting/convention with big speakers

        Thus they arrive at a summer event in a non tourist city with low cost at hotels etc etc witha good meeting place.

        But regional meetings in the spring leading up to the national thingy would work just fine

        Vote VA General Elect Nov 8th GOTV for DEMS is Critical for all close races!!!!

        by Ed in Reston on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 07:34:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  CORPORATE Funding Is The Problem (4.00)
      The problem with our politics, our major parties, and their conventions is not their reliance on public funding (there should be more, not less, of that, IMO...just one of many reasons I'm not a Libertarian), but rather their reliance on corporate funding.

      Anyone who has ever been to a Democratic Convention (or, I assume, Republican Convention...I've never been to one of those, but I've seen 'em on the tube) knows that they are largely a series of social events thrown by the parties' big, corporate donors.

      If the Democrats' were to wean themselves from the corporate teat, and have a convention free of corporate sponsorship, they would truly be sending a message. But, of course, that's never going to happen.

      GreenSooner is the Rufus T. Firefly Chair in Freedonian Studies at the Poorman Institute for Freedom and Democracy and a Pony

      by GreenSooner on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 07:17:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, corporate funding is not good (none)
        I keep wondering whether Bill and Hillary Clinton were for the war (Bill publicly defended Tony Blair's decision to go to war and Hillary voted for the war resolution and has never repudiated that vote) because of ties to corporate sponsors. I'm just curious why 2 intelligent, supposedly socially responsible people tout a foreign policy that seems to serve big oil. Am I being unfair?
        •  Not Unfair Exactly (none)
          I think you're oversimplifying the deep commitment on the part of many people -- even on what occasionally passes for the center-left of our politics -- to military solutions to the world's problems.

          Certainly this war was about oil. But it was also about a lot of other things. As the facts on the ground continue to highlight the lunacy of the Iraq War, we should not let the oil angle, or even the particular ideological mania of the PNAC crowd, serve to blind us to the many other reasons that this war was so popular among our nation's foreign policy elite, which includes as many Democrats as Republicans.

          This insane, illegal war was politically possible in our democracy precisely because it could be sold in terms of so many political delusions -- about oil, about terrorism, about war itself, about Israel, about democracy, about American leadership in the world, and many more.  Which particular combination of these delusions Bill and Hillary sign on to is still, IMO, an open question.

          GreenSooner is the Rufus T. Firefly Chair in Freedonian Studies at the Poorman Institute for Freedom and Democracy and a Pony

          by GreenSooner on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 08:20:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Truthful (none)
            One of the more truthful comments I've ever seen on dKos.
          •  extremely well said (none)
            "This insane, illegal war was politically possible in our democracy precisely because it could be sold in terms of so many political delusions -- about oil, about terrorism, about war itself, about Israel, about democracy, about American leadership in the world, and many more.  Which particular combination of these delusions Bill and Hillary sign on to is still, IMO, an open question."

            Very well said. And I guess that's why I have hope for Wes Clark. He has not bought into the political delusions you talk about. Instead he talks about not using the military to solve political and economic problems. And I think he is intellectually honest enough, with good critical thinking and international experience and educational background to correctly analyze these problems and not rely on failed policies. But I think you really put your finger on the problem that both dems and rep.s buy into a particular mythology. That mythology of course is used to serve certain powerful interests. The thing that should, of course, give supposedly thoughtful politicians, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, pause is that when they sign off on the "solution" that their mythological analysis "justifies" (like war) the costs are unfairly born by individuals in the military and individuals in the target country and taxpayers. These politicians are willing to sacrifice others to their own delusions. That's what has me really disgusted and troubled.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site