Democracy for New Mexico

Become Republican!

This presentation tells you how.

(Elephant hats not included.)

Two Prescriptions for Healing What Ails the Democratic Party

(Click cartoon for larger image.)

How should Democrats craft their strategies for the long term, as well as those for the 2006 and 2008 elections? How can rank and file Democrats gain a more powerful voice in the process? The advice contained in two timely articles rises to the top of the heap in my opinion. I highly recommend reading both of them in their entirety.

The first, Middlemarch by Eyal Press of The Nation, analyzes the paralyzing side effects of the Clinton years that continue to stifle Democratic positions and strategy. Bottom line: If you try to please everyone, particularly those mythical "swing voters," you end up pleasing no-one. Excerpts:

... Clinton's legacy and example is something the Democrats urgently need to shed, not embrace. For it is from Clinton that the party's leaders inherited some of their most debilitating traits: the obsessive fixation on polls (mined in a desperate effort to predict what the public wants them to say); the elevation of expediency over principle; the search for compromise in a tug of war with an opponent that has made no secret of its desire to quash them at every turn. Again and again during his two terms in office, Clinton neutralized his conservative critics by co-opting their ideas and blurring the distinction between himself and them. Many people looking back believe this was smart politics. But any honest assessment must reckon with the costs. As Harris notes, Clinton's two major achievements--reforming welfare and balancing the budget--were conservative goals. In announcing that the era of big government was over, he was reading from a script written by the right. Clinton was a brilliant politician but a terrible party leader. His personal survival came, it appears increasingly clear over time, at the Democrats' collective expense.

... Strikingly, however, the Democrats still appear unable--or unwilling--to seize the moment and explain how they would govern the country differently. They bemoan the phenomenon of working-class voters getting suckered into voting for the GOP yet shy away from embracing a populist economic agenda that might win back their allegiance. They criticize the Bush Administration for leading America into a disastrous war yet refrain from issuing a unified call for withdrawal (when Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha recently did just that, Democrats from Hillary Clinton to John Kerry scrambled to distance themselves from his remarks). Perhaps this is why, in a recent Pew Research Center poll, while the voters said they trusted the Democrats more on a wide range of issues, the party's approval ratings were no better than the Republicans', with discontent particularly strong among their own usual supporters. Sixty-three percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believe "the party is doing only a fair or a poor job standing up for its traditional positions on such things as protecting the interests of minorities, helping the poor and needy, and representing working people." Until this changes, there will be no reason to believe that the Republican Party's recent problems will have a lasting effect. And, for all the flaws and contortions in our political culture and system of representative government, the Democrats will have nobody but themselves to blame.

The second is The Rise of the Rebels by the always compelling William Greider, also in The Nation. Greider considers the threats of the Party's progressive, core-principle wing to run primary candidates against increasingly turncoat candidates like Senators Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. He welcomes this "insurrection" and tracks how a similar movement within the Republican Party eventually resulted in a takeover by its right wing. Excerpts:

... The Democratic Party is never going to change substantively and again become a reform party with a serious agenda until some of its blood is spilled ... For years, incumbent Dems have distanced themselves from fundamental convictions, confident the party's "base" wouldn't do anything about it beyond whimpering. Until now, the cynicism was well founded. Galvanized by the war, disgusted with weak-spined party leaders, the rank-and-file may at last be ready to bite back.

... Democratic leaders in Washington naturally discourage the talk of insurgency, warning it could endanger the party's chance of regaining a majority in the House or Senate. Some progressives doubtless agree. But this is the same logic--follow the leaders and keep your mouth shut--that has produced a long string of lame candidates with empty agendas, most recently John Kerry in 2004. The strategy of unity and weak substance led Democrats further to the right, further from their most loyal constituents. And they lost power across the board.

... MoveOn and many other groups are, in essence, experimenting in the early stages of democratic invention--developing ways to restore influence to citizens at large and exert discipline on party incumbents. These are the self-correcting mechanisms of representative democracy that have been largely lost in the Democratic Party. "We are challenging the incoherence and appeasement of the Democratic Party," Matzzie says, "but we also have to do the work and develop the movement."

As we move into election mode, it's clear that unless the Party and its DLC and Beltway elements are pressured strongly and repeatedly, we'll get more of the same. More cowardice. More mushiness. More unprincipled expediency. More fear-based mumbling and candy-coated jive. More neglect of the Party's traditional core values in favor of a jumble of negativity. More fear-based avoidance of taking strong stands on the very issues that have traditionally made Democrats, well, Democrats.

What do you think? How can we help push the Democratic Party back to its roots -- its naturally liberal, no-nonsense grassroots?

Richardson & Denish Open Campaign HQ

The election headquarters of Governor Richardson and Lt. Governor Diane Denish are now open at:

Richardson for Governor 2006
111 Lomas Blvd. NW # 120
Albuquerque, NM 87102
First State Bank Building, First Floor

Call 505-828-BILL (2455) for more information or to volunteer to help. Nominating petition signatures are currently being gathered.

Q & A With Patricia Madrid at Next DFA-DFNM Meetup

NM Attorney General Patricia Madrid will be speaking to our group and answering questions at the next DFA-DFNM Meetup on Thursday, January 5th, at 7:00 PM at the First Unitarian Church Social Hall at Carlisle and Comanche in Albuquerque. Click to join our Meetup group or RSVP.

As you surely know by now, Madrid will be challenging Rep. Heather Wilson for the CD1 seat in 2006. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post ranks the competitiveness of this race ninth in the nation and says this will be Heather's "toughest race since she claimed the seat in a 1998 special election."

The 2005 campaign fundraising filing period ends on December 31 and Madrid's campaign would like to see a strong showing to demonstrate that thousands of New Mexicans are willing to step up and support her challenge to the awful policies of Bush and his rubberstamp, Heather Wilson. You can make an online donation right now at her new website.

Heather Wilson is nothing more than an enabler for the radical agenda of the Bush/Cheney/DeLay machine. She voted for them and time and again she votes with them on legislation that puts the interests of wealthy elites ahead of the people. This may be our last and best chance to stop her before she becomes SENATOR Heather Wilson! Let's get involved.

MoveOn is already targeting the race with a tv ad criticizing Wilson's position on the Iraq War. In MoveOn's recent petition campaign demanding an Iraq exit strategy and timeline, Wilson's office was presented with 2500 signatures, the most of any candidate targeted. Her response? According to the Albuquerque Journal, another parroting of the BushCo line: "As the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down." Wilson spokesman Joel Hannahs dismissed MoveOn.org's effort as that of a "left-wing" political group. We know where Wilson stands.

On the other hand, Madrid is advocating establishment of a definite, clear timeline for troop withdrawal that begins bringing our men and women serving in Iraq home by December 2006. She's also taking strong positions on healthcare, prescription drugs, tax policy and government reform. We're excited that we'll have a chance at Meetup to get detailed answers directly from Attorney General Madrid about her views on these and other issues like election reform.

Contribute a few bucks at her website before the end-of-year deadline and then come on down to our Meetup on Thursday, January 5th and take advantage of an excellent opportunity to meet the candidate and find out face-to-face what she stands for. A large attendance will demonstrate that Madrid's early reachout to the progressive community is much appreciated. Hope to see you there.

Let Joe Know

From Jim Dean at Democracy for America:

Click Here

Earlier this week while discussing the war in Iraq, Senator Joseph Lieberman said, "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Unfortunately, President Bush has no credibility. His administration misled our nation into the war in Iraq on trumped-up charges of weapons of mass destruction. His "stay the course" strategy has led to over 2,100 American deaths. And no one sees an end in sight.

It is disturbing enough that Senator Lieberman remains one of the president's biggest cheerleaders. But his call for opponents of the president's failed policy to keep quiet is outrageous.

The only way we will end this war is by having an honest debate about how and when we can bring our troops home.

Join me in sending Senator Lieberman an open letter asking him to join the majority of Americans in questioning the Bush administration's Iraq policy:

https://www.democracyforamerica.com/telljoe

If Americans don't challenge a president who is bankrupting our treasury, damaging our moral leadership in the world, and jeopardizing our national security then we are failing our democracy.

Please co-sign the letter today. Next week, I'll join Democracy for America members in Connecticut and deliver our letter with your comments to Senator Lieberman's office.

Upcoming Governor Richardson Book Signing Events 12/10

From Meredith Dixon:
If you missed the recent book signing at BookWorks for Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life with Governor Bill Richardson you can join the Governor this Saturday, December 10th and have your book signed!

When: Saturday, December 10, 2005, 10:00 AM-11:00 AM
Location:  UNM Bookstore, 2301 Central NE

When: Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:00 PM-1:30 PM
Location:  Borders, 10420 Coors Bypass NW

We hope to see you there! If you have questions call 505-828-2455

Dean, the DNC and DPNM Activism

The DNC held their Fall Meeting this weekend in Phoenix. An article in the Washington Post provides a rundown. Excerpts:

Displaying the fiery style that excited many Democrats during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, Dean attacked "political hacks and cronies" of the president for eroding civil rights and voting rights protections, and said of Republicans: "Theirs is a party of self-absorption and selfishness."

. . . We're doing the things that need to be done, but we have a long way to go," he said. "The collapse of confidence in the Republican leadership is not enough to elect Democratic leadership. We have to stand up for what we believe."

. . . [Dean] won near-universal praise among the DNC and state party leaders who gathered here this weekend, saying his emphasis on grass-roots organization was a welcome change from the past. Dean built his campaign for chairman by courting state party leaders, and many said this weekend that he had delivered on his promise to shift money and resources into their states. They defended the money he has spent by saying it represents an investment in party-building in places long ignored by the national party.

My DD also has coverage of the DNC Fall Meeting. See Pulling Back the Curtain: Your DNC and The DNC Meeting, Part I (which includes praise for one of our new DPNM field organizers hired by the DNC, Anathea Chino, who will be working with our Native American populations), Part II and Part III.

My take on what this means for the NM Dem Party? It depends on what "grassroots organization" and "Party building" mean to them.  We have yet to hear any detailed plans on what our four new DNC-funded field organizers will be doing between now and the 2006 election. We have yet to see any of them show up at grassroots meetings. I don't know anyone from our grassroots Democratic community who has been contacted by any of them. What will be their goals, their plans, their strategies and tactics? How will they interact with grassroots activists who hold SCC seats, who serve ward and precinct chairs and who populate the rank and file of Democrats in the state? What will they be doing on a day-to-day basis, and what will they need our help with? We don't know yet.

Let's hope they have a better appreciation of grassroots activism, organization and outreach than does our State Party Chair. As we've discussed previously, John Wertheim's conduct at the recent State Central Committee meeting was incredibly disrespectful of the grassroots and our proposals for reactivating long-dormant elements of the Party. This, despite strong support from the majority of SCC members, as was evident by the motions that won passage. Instead of embracing efforts to strengthen the Party, however, the Chairman seems stubbornly and almost irrationally negative towards almost every suggestion we attempt to raise. What is he afraid of?

We keep hearing the question, "What do the grassroots activists want?" It's no secret. It should be perfectly clear from the suggestions we made at the SCC meeting. These aren't radical proposals. They're not even "progressive" proposals. They're plain old Democrat proposals. They consist primarily of asking Party officials to follow the rules laid out in Party bylaws, to reach out more, to be more proactive, to build on past achievements, to rebuild and revamp for maximum effectiveness, to be more accountable and transparent.

We want more outreach to neglected Democratic populations, using the bylaw requirements as a starting point for developing an effective affirmative action program. We want the Party to actively be pursuing an expansion of Democratic voters and participants, especially in areas long neglected and seldom visited.

We want the resolutions and platform process laid out in the rules to be activated and reinvigorated. We want Democrats all over New Mexico to have a chance to be heard so our candidates can gain a clear and realistic picture of what we believe in.

We want the State Central Committee to be treated as defined in Party bylaws: as the supreme governing body of the Party, with clear responsibilities regarding budget and spending that require the provision of adequate financial information from Party staff and officers.

We want the Party rules to be considered and improved to make them more democratic and inclusive.

Is this asking too much? We don't think so, and we know from our interactions with other SCC members around that state that they don't think so either. Now is the time embrace all the energy and activism and ideas that are springing up among Democrats here and around the nation and put them to work, not push them away. Why would anyone concerned about the future of our Party do otherwise?

Why Did Gov. Richardson Cancel His DNC Speech?

I came across this item this today on the HotLineBlog :

PHOENIX -- NM Gov. Bill Richardson, chair of the DGA and one of the first speakers to commit to address the DNC's fall meeting in Phoenix this weekend, abruptly canceled his Saturday morning speech last night.

A DNC spokesperson said he didn't know the reason for Richardson's change of plans.

Richardson's cancellation upset several Dems, who were looking forward to the possible 08er's comments on topics ranging from Iraq to the growth of the Hispanic community.

"I heard he canceled as soon as he found out C-SPAN wasn't coming," grumbled one disenchanted Dem. [JOHN MERCURIO]

Update: Richardson spokesperson Billy Sparks simply said that "scheduling problems prohibited the Governor from attending" and, even when pressed, would not elaborate on those conflicts.

Strange, to say the least. You have to wonder if this has any connection with the fact that we still don't really know why DNC Chair Howard Dean didn't speak at the recent Democratic Party of New Mexico State Central Committee meeting, despite an earlier announcement that he would be there.

Scheduling problems on both of these, or something else?

Brazile Proposes Election Reform Resolution to DNC

Editor's Note: The DNC is meeting today in Phoenix, with its Resolutions Committee meeting scheduled for this evening. New Mexico's representatives on the DNC include DNC Committeepersons Mary Gail Gwaltney and Raymond Sanchez. I'd suggest you contact them to encourage their support of the resolution described below, but the website of the State Party doesn't list any individual contact information for them. Ah, well. I guess you can log your comments and ask that they be passed along to Gwaltney and Sanchez by calling the DPNM office at 830-3650 or sending an email to info@nmdemocrats.org. I note that the State Republican Party website lists the phone numbers of its national committee reps, but I guess our Party doesn't feel the need.

From Verified Voting NM:
The following Election Reform resolution will be considered by the DNC Resolutions Committee at its meeting on December 1, 2005, in conjunction with the meetings of the  Democratic National Committee, December 1-3, 2005, in Phoenix.

It urges support for such measures as:

• adequate training of poll workers
• uniform and clear published standards for the distribution of voting equipment and the assignment of official poll workers among precincts
• clear and uniform the rules on voter registration and handling of provisional ballots
• use of touch screen (DRE) machines only with a reliable voter verifiable audit feature
• requiring that a paper or other auditable record be considered the official record in recounts
• discontinuing use of punch card systems
• making it easier for college students to vote where their schools are located
• improving procedures for overseas voters
• making voter suppression a criminal offense

Submitted by: Donna L. Brazile, At Large/District of Columbia; Hartina Flournoy, At-Large/District of Columbia; Ben Johnson, At Large/District of Columbia

Resolution in Support of Election Reform

WHEREAS, in June, 2005, the Democratic National Committee completed its exhaustive  review of the presidential campaign in Ohio; and

WHEREAS, the resulting report, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” documents
that more than one quarter of Ohio voters reported problems with their voting experience, and
African Americans were more than two times as likely as white voters to claim they encountered
problems with their voting experience; and

WHEREAS, this report confirms evidence of widespread voter confusion; voter suppression;
negligence and incompetence on the part of election officials; long lines at the polls; improper
requests for voter identification, particularly among young voters and African American voters;
the failure to properly process absentee ballots and the improper use of provisional ballots in
Ohio on Election Day 2004; and

WHEREAS, evaluations of the administrative processes and technology used by election
officials in Ohio revealed that inadequate and insecure voting systems were pervasive
throughout Ohio—unreliable punch card systems and insecure, unverifiable direct record
electronic (DRE) machines; and

WHEREAS, 71 percent of white voters in Ohio were very confident their vote was counted but
only 19 percent of African American voters were confident their votes were counted; and

WHEREAS, the right to vote and to have that vote accurately counted is the bedrock on which
our democracy stands and nothing is more fundamental to our freedom than our confidence in
the integrity of our democratic institutions; and

WHEREAS, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” makes recommendations for
future action by parties, legislators and local election officials to improve future elections;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will
continue to work with Members of Congress, lawmakers in all 50 United States, the District of
Columbia, and all U.S. Territories, local election officials, and community leaders to update and
reform our election laws to ensure that voter confidence in our election system is restored and
maintained;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in
Ohio” recommends several actions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends states, the District of Columbia
and all U. S. Territories codify into law all required election practices, including requirements for
the adequate training of official poll workers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommend lawmakers adopt uniform and clear
published standards for the distribution of voting equipment and the assignment of official poll
workers among precincts, to ensure adequate and nondiscriminatory access, and that these
procedures be based on set ratios of numbers of machines and poll workers per number of voters
expected to turn out, and should be made available for pub lic comment before being adopted;
and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers adopt legislation to
make clear and uniform the rules on voter registration; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers and local election
officials adopt clear and uniform rules on the use of, and the counting of, provisional ballots, and
distribute them for public comment well in advance of each Election Day, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends touch screen (DRE) machines not
be used until a reliable voter verifiable audit feature can be uniformly incorporated into these
systems and that in the event of a recount, the paper or other auditable record should be
considered the official record; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends remaining punch card systems
should be discontinued; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers make it easier for
college students to vote in the jurisdiction in which their school is located; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers develop procedures to
ensure that voting is facilitated, without compromising security or privacy, for all eligible voters
living overseas; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers make voter suppression
a criminal offense in all states, the District of Columbia and all U.S. Territories; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers and election officials
should improve the training of poll workers.

Sound Off: A Party Out of Order

Picture this: A large, long meeting room dominated by a raised stage at the front where the Chairman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico and other Party officers sit or stand at a lectern high above the crowd of State Central Committee (SCC) members at their 11/19/05 meeting. The only microphones in the hall are at the lectern and in front of the officers. No provision is made for members in the hall to be heard if and when they are allowed to raise questions or make motions.

The Chairman announces, in a series of admonitions, that Robert's Rules of Order will be employed to control the procedings so that the views of both the majority and the minority will be protected. Hmmm. He introduces a "parliamentarian" he says will ensure that these rules are followed. Even at this early point in the meeting, it seems clear that formalized control of speakers and top-down authority will trump any rights of the members to express their views, propose actions or ask questions. The Chairman and other Party functionaries have established an intimidating physical environment coupled with threats of an intimidating enforcement of nitpicking rules to set the stage for a meeting of what used to be called the People's Party.

According to State Democratic Party Rules, it's the SCC that is charged with reviewing, analyzing and approving the Party's budget and spending, and it's designated as the governing body of the Party generally. The Rules state that, "The State Central Committee is the supreme governing body of the DPNM when regularly convened . . . It shall have general supervision and control of the political affairs of the party." Moreover, "It shall have the authority for appropriation of state party funds." The Party Rules also stipulate that "the Chairperson and the Treasurer shall present a financial report and proposed budget for the Committee's consideration."

Given such clearly delineated powers, you'd think a significant focus of those organizing any SCC meeting would be to ensure that members of the Party's "supreme governing body" have a chance to be heard, literally and figuratively. You'd be wrong.

Over many years, the so-called leadership of the DPNM -- Party officers, powerful elected officials, candidates -- has become accustomed to calling all the shots at SCC meetings and in almost every decisionmaking circumstance. Meanwhile, the SCC has been effectively demoted to the minor role of rubberstamping the decisions that come down from on high, and has generally been kept out of the loop as the Party retreated from anything but surface adherence to principles of transparency, accountability and inclusiveness. The Party Rules have not been changed to reflect this, but it's how the Party has been functioning -- as a top down, secretive collection of insiders.

Enter many new faces who were elected to the SCC after Kerry's loss in the 2004 presidential election, many of them grassroots activists of one persuasion or another. I, myself, am included in this new crop of SCC members. We showed up ready to rock and roll, return the Party to its roots and resurrect the Party's former bottom up power structure. As you might expect, we weren't exactly welcomed with open arms. Generally, we were treated like a rag-tag bunch of mouthy peasants who didn't know our place in the centralized scheme of things.

We started making noise, proposing changes, getting active, asking questions, studying the Party Rules and demanding they be followed. Having worked so damn hard since the early days of the presidential primary campaigns and continuing through the Congressional and Presidential races, volunteering, knocking on doors, phonebanking and donating money, we were dedicated to fixing the things we saw as broken within the Party. Unfortunately, many in the higher echelons of the Party saw this, and continue to see it, as a threat to the status quo, to their little kingdoms of influence, power and money that keep Party business running as usual, with the usual suspects in charge.

After learning alot about how the Party operates and what levers of power we could possibly use to implement change, we organized as an ad-hoc group called NM Grassroots Democrats. Not progressives. Not liberals. Core Democrats on the ground. We organized, held meetings, sent a letter to the other SCC members around the state, made phone calls, built a listserve, raised money and created materials for a table to attract support at the SCC meeting in Santa Fe last Saturday. We paid $150 for a literature table at the SCC meeting, the same amount charged to candidates.

Over several months, we developed a series of motions and inquiries to raise at the SCC meeting that addressed some of our primary goals. Most of these had to do with pushing the DPNM to follow its own rules. They included getting members named to the Rules Committee with a meeting scheduled within two months, reinstituting a meaningful platform process that encourages the input of ordinary Democrats around the state, following rules in getting resolutions approved, ensuring that accurate meeting minutes are kept and distributed in a timely manner, getting the required affirmative action committee back into action and obtaining budget and spending information in a format that allows the SCC to make informed financial decisions, as delineated in the Party rules.

Real radical, huh? You'd think so by the reception we got at the SCC meeting. Even though our group provided the Chair with copies of our proposed motions and inquiries before the meeting and made a concerted effort to follow Robert's Rules in presenting them, we were stymied at every turn by the Chair. It was evident that Chairman John Wertheim and the powers that be were hell bent on rushing through the meeting, calling votes on committee reports before any debate or discussion could occur and confusing those trying to participate with often incorrect applications of Robert's Rules. The so-called official parliamentarian was never allowed to weigh in.

To make a motion or ask a question, we had to jump up from our seats and try to get the chair's attention without benefit of a microphone or run up to the front of the room, below the towering stage, to beg a microphone from the table. This often resulted in the individual being rudely chastized, criticized, humiliated or ruled out of order while they stood alone at the front of the room with Chairman Wertheim looming above. Despite the Chair's statement that he would help participants navigate the complicated fine points of Robert's Rules, we were usually refused an answer when we tried to ask how best to get our motion or question addressed. Clearly, the plan was to isolate those who dared to try to speak, portray them as "troublemakers" who were disturbing the conduct of business and shoot them down using unevenly applied parliamentary procedures.

The Chairman would make a pronouncement and if a speaker tried to respond with a question, watch out. A couple of the more persistent questioners were even threatened with removal from the hall by security unless they immediately fell silent. Ah yes, real democracy in action. Which brings to mind this quote from Major Roberts, who wrote Robert's Rules:

"While it is important to every person in a free country to know something of parliamentary law, this knowledge should be used only to help, not to hinder business. One who is constantly raising points of order and insisting upon a strict observance of every rule in a peaceable assembly in which most of the members are unfamiliar with these rules and customs, makes himself a nuisance, hinders business, and prejudices people against parliamentary law. Such a person either does not understand its real purpose or else willfully misuses his knowledge."

Despite all this, we did manage to get a number of our motions approved in between the protestations of the Chair and the congratulatory appearances of candidates and elected officials, flowers for the departing Executive Director and the rushed committee reports. We found that rushing into a motion before the Chair could get a protest out was the best method. It worked much better in the earlier portion of the meeting, before the Chair knew what was coming. Later, the only way to get a complete sentence out was to get your hands on a microphone and bellow to the crowd despite the Chair's threats to have you removed.

End result of this long litany of undemocratic conduct? Creating more mistrust, anger and disappointment in the Party's rank and file members. Discouraging participation and action. Stifling energy. And for what? You have to ask what the Party is hiding, don't you? What are they afraid of? In a political environment rife with corruption and dishonesty on the part of the now resigned Democratic Treasurer and other Dems, you'd think that transparency, responsiveness and conducting businesss according to the Party's own rules would be paramount. Guess again.

--This is a personal Sound Off by Barbara Wold, SCC Member and Chair of Precinct 462. Sound Off is a regular feature of the blog that allows individuals to voice their views on timely issues and controversies. Click on the Email Me link on the upper right-hand side of the page if you'd like to submit your own Sound Off.