|
|
||||||
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
George, In the release from the new officers of the Fifth District, there is a line-- Al Weed introduced a resolution regarding the United States involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, which was approved. --which deserves a little amplification. First, here's the text of the resolution:
The resolution was presented by Al Weed, head of Public Policy Virginia and the recent candidate for Congress in the Fifth. After reading the resolution, Weed centered his argument for adoption on the necessity of Democrats having to define themselves anew and distinctly: "We have to stand for something!" (Applause). In a later email, he writes:
After Al's presentation, several folks rose to discuss specific points within it--especially, it seems, the word "illegal"--with an eye to amending the language. Meredith Richards, chairing the conveniton, in consultation with Parliamentarian Lloyd Snook, explained that in order to amend a resolution, the rules must be suspended. Suspension of the rules to permit amending the resolution was moved and seconded. Al Weed urged not amending it--his point was, the same resolution was just passed by the California Democratic Party (and a similar one was passed by the New Mexico Democratic Party) and the resolution is being put forward in several Virginia district conventions, and they should all have the same text or risk attenuation of the message. The motion died in a count of hands. No amendments. Call the question. Discussion followed, with a loose five minutes permitted to each side, pro- and anti-adoption. All of the people involved in the subsequent discussion kept their remarks quite brief. The pro's stressed the evil nature of the war in Iraq, the creature of of an evil administration. The anti's stressed two points. Several delegates, Vietnam War veterans, voiced concern that the resolution failed to sufficiently honor the troops. And several from, as far as I could tell, the southern part of the District, expressed concerns about going on the record with what they saw as an issue beyond the scope of running candidates for local office--the constitutional officers and supervisors. As one said, "Don't saddle us with another thing for the Republicans to ride on." The point is key, in my opinion, and many of us were frustrated by the time limitation. I would have liked to hear people out on this point. In any event, the resolution passed by the votes of a majority of those still present. Positions are well-developed on the issues that local Democrats in this region focus on--unemployment, education, healthcare, women's issues, economic development and the environment. Concern for social justice and community seems to provide a solid basis for developing these positions. And it is not working. There are few Democrats elected, throughout the District. Our recent candidates for Congress have not got 3 votes in 8. Democrats running statewide are trimming and edging like landscapers. Is a resolution about the war in Iraq quixotic or fundamental? Dave Sagarin (May 17, 2005) PS. The resolution failed to pass in two other district conventions on
Saturday.
|