[statecom-discuss] Should statewide candidates have to support party platform and posiitons ?

Fri Aug 4 18:50:58 EDT 2006

The question becomesÑis the party basically a state party that charters locals, or is it basically a federated party deriving its charter from the locals? Right now the locals are few and sparse. 

I guess I would hope that locals could take positions on issues which the state hasn't taken positions on, and that there are some issues that are local by their nature, for example charter reform, but we should try to stick up for each other on ways that other party's locals don'tÑlike urban and rural folks standing by one another on issues that dont arise in the same way everywhere....

-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Aug 4, 2006 2:54 PM
>To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Should statewide candidates have to support	party platform and posiitons ?
>
>that makes sense to me Bill... especially the part about being as bad as the Dems and Repubs....although I understand wanting diversity among individuals.   
>   
>  However it does seem to me that we want to be a different kind of party where individual sentiments can get expressed during the consideration of proposals, but once a person is approved at our conventin as a candidate then I think they have to represent the goals of that body (to be truly democratic and representative but also so that the public has confidence that our candidates actually stnad for our principles and position and not their own personal positions.
>   
>  I don't think that it is too much of a sacrifice for a candidate, or any person that is well associated with the party to subsume their own position while they represent the party.  Certainly I have faced this question as co-chair and I wouldn't even consider giving my own personal position while representing the party.  Once ther person is no longer representing the party then they can say what they want to....
>   
>  I would also feel the same thing about a local candidate, should be loyal to the local group especially if the local was coordinating the campaign.  (it would be different if the local was not sponsoring the candidate..  for example a person just running on their own using our designation) 
>   
>  The only remaining question for me in this discussion is this:  Should a local candidate, who is backed by their local in taking a positin opposed by the State Party be allowed to hold that position.   Say we had a candidate in a conservative town in MA who was against equal marriage adn so was her local, then what should happen ?
>   
>  Ron
>   
>  
>BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote:
>  If I were running for office with this party I would feel obliged to abide by the platform on all points.
>
>At the very least, before endorsement is given, a GRP candidate should be obliged to state every point on which she differed from the platform and would vote against the party's position if elected.
>
>Otherwise we do not really differ from the way the Big Two operate in this State except that we are much, much smaller.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Owen Broadhurst 
>>Sent: Aug 4, 2006 9:29 AM
>>To: Discussion List for StateCom members 
>>Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Should statewide candidates have to support party platform and posiitons ?
>>
>>We have never before required it, to my knowledge.
>>
>>We passed a seperate resolution requiring candidate support of equal
>>marriage rights, rather than platform subscription.
>>
>>It is a test that I personally would fail if I were to seek state-wide
>>office. I do not favor the handgun control portion of our party platform,
>>for instance, for many reasons (and I may well be in the running for the
>>endorsement of the Gun Owners Action League, having been highly rated on
>>their survey).
>>
>>I have never been in thorough support of the platforms of any given party.
>>This party boasts the one party platform I can voice general support for,
>>but there shall indubitably be one sentence or two within any given section
>>I could not support.
>>
>>A party that celebrates intellectual diversity cannot expect its candidates
>>in essence to become automatons robotically parroting every position the
>>party has adopted. We're in the business of trying to get human beings into
>>public office, human beings who recognize that although we do certainly all
>>subscribe to the Ten Key Values, we have wide diversity regarding how to
>>practice and express those values.
>>
>>Owen R. Broadhurst
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 8/4/06, Ron Francis wrote:
>>>
>>> I was reading the proposals for the staecom and noticed that the topic of
>>> our statewide candidates havign to support the party platform adn positions
>>> came up.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about requiring our candidates to support all of the party
>>> platforms....
>>> I think this should be discussed. My gut feeling is that all candidates
>>> should be required to support all positions of the stateparty and I think
>>> the candidates signed a contract to that effect or something
>>> similar..... The problem with the mainstream parties, among other problems,
>>> is that there is no prty loyalty and so the principles of the party mean
>>> nothing. I think we fall into the same trap if we allow "renegade"
>>> candidates at the state level. (not that I think we have any candidates that
>>> disagree with any of our position statements)
>>>
>>> It is interesting that we passed a proposal that candidates have to
>>> support equal marriage. My reasoning on supporting that is that it involves
>>> an issue of fundamental discrimination.... failure to pass it would mean
>>> that the party itself is not welcoming in some sense to the associated
>>> oppressed group; having a candidate who did not support equal marriage
>>> would effectively be disinviting certain people (affecting internal party
>>> functining by making us less diverse) because of what would be implied by
>>> the party's lack of support for equality.
>>>
>>> If that is the thinking behind the litmus test on equal marriage then
>>> shouol it not also apply to other issues where fundamental discriminatin is
>>> involved such as supporting the Civil rights act (racism in the US) or
>>> opposing jeiwish-priviledge aparthied (racism in the Middle East) or
>>> supporting title IX (sexism in sports) or affordable housing for all
>>> (classism) ?
>>>
>>> Each of these issues is one where the oppressed group is not allowed to
>>> participate in a fairly basic function of society. In my mind this aspect
>>> raises teh issue to a higher level where a litmus test is appropriate....
>>>
>>> Curious what others think aboiut this...
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Owen R. Broadhurst
>>Candidate for State Representative
>>Third Hampden District
>>http://www.owenbroadhurst.org
>>_______________________________________________
>>statecom-discuss mailing list
>>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
>Bill Cunningham
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss

Bill Cunningham