The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds |

Politics & Government

Our network sites | Advanced

Postman on Politics

Chief political reporter David Postman explores state, regional and national politics.

E-mail| About the blog | From the archive| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

June 14, 2008 4:46 PM

Democrats approve platform

Posted by David Postman

The draft platform was just approved by unanimous consent, with no amendments. I pointed out some interesting points in the document here.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by evergreen_representative

6:19 PM, Jun 14, 2008

"Strict health, safety and environmental standards worldwide ...."

Before we start preaching to the rest of the world about strict environmental standards, maybe, we can start doing a little more rigorous recycling and waste management, just for starters; something like the mandatory recycling in Germany.

Posted by William

7:29 PM, Jun 14, 2008

As a long Democrat Iím shocked what has happen to my party.

We been taken over by the extreme left before the Novemberís election, which is a first.

The lady speaker talks about the constitution my Lord she should read it, as they have no idea whatís in it. If our fathers wanted socialism it would have been found there.

I must say this platform is a recipe failure. For Gregoire, one must ask are we better off today or when she took office?

For her to sell out the budget surplus to special interest and next year we will be in a huge deficit is appalling. I never like her when she was our A.G. another failure.


Posted by JimD

10:00 PM, Jun 14, 2008

I hate to be cynical (yeah right) but party platforms are typically idealistic and off-center.
This one is no less extreme that some pieces written by republican platform committees.
None of these wish lists have any binding force, of course.
They simply identify each party's ultimate fantasy for the purpose of plotting their respective political trajectories.
The national republican platform wants to eliminate automatic citizenship to those born here, but few (include many republicans) support such radicalism or believe it will ever be enacted.
A balanced two-party system assures that the extremes will be compromised - as they should - with a final result somewhere in the middle.
So don't read too much into this, William.
It's no more socialist than previous platforms, just as the republican's is no more fascist than their past efforts.
What matters is the respective candidates' positions, not what the platform writers think they should ;-)

Posted by Publicbulldog

10:11 PM, Jun 14, 2008

Blue pages..more blue pages..and even more blue pages.The party platform is Blue pages,Gentrification,pay outs,bribes from tribes.
What a proud party the D's have become. Bribed for blue pages,Bribed for gentrification,Bribed for bad policy.
The D's are on the take and take.

Posted by Methow Ken

12:50 AM, Jun 15, 2008

I pretty much had my say on David's prior (D) platform thread, but give myself leeway to correct one blatent falsehood in the above 22:00 post by JimD; i.e.: Where he said:

''The national republican platform wants to eliminate automatic citizenship to those born here.''

The critical part which JimD conveniently leaves out is of course the key qualifier:

Eliminate automatic citizenship for those born to parents who have broken the law by entering our country ILLEGALLY.

What the heck: A couple more (D) platform highlights (or is it ''lowlights''), that are awfully hard to ignore:

1... Under ''Energy and the Environment'' it calls for:
''Managing population and growth intelligently''.
hmmm. . . .:
Government MANAGEMENT of population ??
China does that by fairly ruthless enforcement of a one-child-per-family policy. Any writers of the (D) platform read this blog, and care to comment on just what they meant by ''managing'' population ??

2... ''A comprehensive, single-payer national health care plan.''
Where will all our unfortunate Canadien neighbors go, who used to come down here to get prompt treatment for conditions that have a months-long waiting list under their single-payer system ??

3... Under ''Transportation'':
''Investments in public infrastructure that broaden individualsí multimodal transportation choices;''
Can we get a bill in the next Session to build us a railroad over here in the Methow Valley ??... It's a perfect spot for it: A narrow valley 65+ miles long, with most of the poplulation living within a few 100 yards of the valley centerline. . . . . Of course there are still not more than about 5000 people in the whole place, but never mind. . . . Right. . . .

There is SO much more, but I've gotta stop.

Posted by Bill

7:49 AM, Jun 15, 2008

It's not too difficult to be an independent in todays political culture.
The distasteful religious based references in the Republican Party and poor foreign policy decisions are sure losers.
The Democrat Party is equally distasteful with the pandering to criminals (removal of three strikes), teachers (give them more money and removal of any standards) and illegal immigrants.
A moderate has no party as the left and right have gone too far in their respective directions.

Posted by JimD

7:58 AM, Jun 15, 2008

".. The critical part which JimD conveniently leaves out is of course the key qualifier:
Eliminate automatic citizenship for those born to parents who have broken the law by entering our country ILLEGALLY. .."

The KEY qualifier is how a native-born's citizenship would be conditional on the behavior of their parents.
It would set a dangerous precedent in class division - restricting the rights and legal status of an innocent newborn based on its parent's criminal record.
It's inconceivable that republicans would so casually step over this line and even consider holding the innocent responsible for the behavior of those over whom they have no control.
What's next?
Maybe ALL children of ALL law breaker should have their rights altered.
What better way to promote lawful behavior, huh?

Posted by William

8:41 AM, Jun 15, 2008

Jimd is the extremist who stole our party.

Look carefully at what they say and the logic they use.

How do you negotiate or try to reason with extremist?

Totally impossible!

God help us if they win.
Happy Fathers day to you all.


Posted by Methow Ken

9:38 AM, Jun 15, 2008

JimD is aghast that anyone should consider withholding US citizenship rights and benefits from anybody and everybody in the world who wants them; and screams the usual leftist (D) ''class warfare'' mantra.

In effect the leftist position is that anybody in the world who can manage to sneak into the US illegally should be allowed to stay, and must be given full citizenship rights. Carried to the extreme like the far-left wants, this policy amounts to willingness and even eagerness to grant US citizenship benefits to the entire world. And obviously this has NOTHING to do with ''punishing'' a newborn for the acts of the parents; trying to smear this issue in that way is SO typical far-left.

Just one real-world example: Can't recall the actual number OTT, but a few years ago saw a statistic on the percentage of births to non-US woman in El Paso TX hospitals, who had walked or were smuggled in from Mexico just before they were due to give birth. After having their child in TX they would immediately go back to Mexico with that precious birth certificate showing that their child was a US citizen. Then down the road the entire family could legally apply for and get US citizenship. And we're not talking a handful of cases here, IIRC it was 1000s just in the El Paso area.

And by the way just try the above in reverse, and see what happens; i.e.: If a US citizen is in Mexico even LEGALLY let alone ILlegally and gives birth, just try and claim MEXICAN citizenship for that child and see how far you get (ditto most other countries in the world). Of course not many if any parents ever try and do the reverse thing (why is that, do you suppose. . . .).

In any case: One of the most fundamental rights and attributes of any nation-state is the right and ability to control access across its borders. Even though it has gotten a little better in the last couple years, overall we are still massively failing in this area (thank goodness for patriots like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio).

And who can really blame the average disadvantaged illegal aliens from Mexico and many other countries, who risk death in the southern desert to try and find a better life for their families. But that does NOT mean we should let the rest of the world sneak in; or that we should close our eyes like the left keeps doing to the fact that a lot of very bad actors cross our borders illegally, along with the hordes of people just looking for work.

Who I DO blame is the political leadership of BOTH parties in this country; for failing for many years in their duty to secure our borders and shut down the massive and predatory coyote smuggling operations. Except for the coyotes, the current situation is bad for EVERYBODY. And I support a rational guest-worker program for LEGAL visitors. But securing our borders has to be the first step. Eliminating automatic birthright citizenship for those in this country illegally is just one part of that effort.

Posted by JimD

10:42 AM, Jun 15, 2008

"...In effect the leftist position is that anybody in the world who can manage to sneak into the US illegally should be allowed to stay, and must be given full citizenship rights..."

That's not what I said or even implied - and you know it.
Unborn babies do not "sneak" into the country or break the law.
They are not responsible for the behavior of their parents - illegal or otherwise.
The only reason your propose denying these innocents their traditional right of citizenship at birth, is to remove an incentive for their parents to break the law.
We must resist the temptation to undermine the constitutional principle of birth-right equality.
Preserving this fundamental right - a legal manifestation of God-endowed equality - is more important than satisfying the political whim of the moment, like today's panic to de-incentive illegal immigration.
Once these fundamental principles are perverted for whatever issue de jour strikes our fancy, we've enter the slippery slope of stripping the legal rights of native-born children - CHILDREN FOR Christ's sake - as punishment for their parents crimes.
Maybe we should strip the second amendment away from children of parents who've cheated the IRS.
And this is from the party that waves the flag of freedom and liberty while claiming higher moral intentions for children?
Only if you have the "right" parents, apparently.

Posted by Methow Ken

11:30 AM, Jun 15, 2008

JimD again:
''. . . we've enter the slippery slope of stripping the legal rights of native-born children.''

Complete and utter hogwash.

Posted by justice4all

12:13 PM, Jun 15, 2008

We spend so much time talking about the environment and social justice... and so much time working for them...

But if the environment and social justice are such a big deal for Democrats, why is it OK for the Governor to take all that money from nasty companies that are so busy wrecking it?

I mean COME ON! - Asphalt companies paving over the planet, timber companies wrecking ecosystems, fisheries companies wiping out marine life, drug companies that do animal testing, gambling operations that rob the poor, payday loan operations that squeeze working people till they are bled dry, oil companies turning our planet into a BBQ, Banks that serve big corporations and not people...

Basically any company that wrecks the environment or oppresses working people gives her money. WHY?


Posted by upchuck

3:22 PM, Jun 15, 2008 if the party platform has ever been worth even the papaer it is written on!

the convention and platform drafting process has to be one of the biggest distractions of progressive action. so much effort, time, energy, and passion spent every other year in creating a document that all of our democratic politicians likey never even read!

Posted by JimD

6:39 PM, Jun 15, 2008

" if the party platform has ever been worth even the paper it is written on!..."

Exactly my point.
The democratic state platform is as unrepresentative of what anyone expects the party to achieve, as the similarly pie-in-the-sky declarations by republican platform committees.
The democrats are no more going to accomplish global justice at the cost of our own prosperity, than the majority of republicans are going to support stripping-away the citizenship of those born in this country.
One may take some comfort in aligning themself with the opposing policy tone of one or the other, but no one seriously expects the candidates to actually accomplish the fringe agenda outlined in these absurdly fanciful essays.
Therefore, I'm relatively comfortable with the dem's platform - an ambitious agenda of freedom and justice.
I'd personally have trouble supporting the republican's repressive, anti-choice (anti-just about everything) platform.
But what better way to understand our different vision of America than through these fringe-authored platforms.

Posted by Defender

8:05 AM, Jun 16, 2008

Now the extreme platform that jimd and upchuck boasted about on this blog is now worthless today.

You two are Idiots!

Posted by Matt

8:56 AM, Jun 16, 2008

Why didn't the republican party platform get published after the republican convention? I want balanced covererage...

Posted by bobbyp

11:49 AM, Jun 16, 2008

"Why didn't the republican party platform get published after the republican convention? I want balanced covererage..."

They ran out of crayons.

Posted by upchuck

12:06 PM, Jun 16, 2008

"approved by unanimous consent, with no amendments"

...can anyone tell us if ammendments from the floor were even allowed by the rules this year???

Posted by P

1:10 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Typical Democrat platform, socialism first, last and always.

When will people in the USA realize that socialism does NOT work? Look at the complete failures in the UK, Canada, France and most of the other socialist countries around the world!

We have the BEST medical delivery system in the world. We have the BEST research in the world. We have the BEST drug research and delivery system in the world. And the Democrats want to do to our medical system what they did to our school system. Why are Democrats so ignorant? Do they truly not read? Can they not comprehend what has happened to the medical system in France, the UK and Canada?

In Canada, a woman with breast cancer has to wait in line until they finally get around to her, or she dies. Or, if they are really smart, they come to the USA and get treated.

Posted by upchuck

1:45 PM, Jun 16, 2008

we have the best medical delivery system - IF you can afford it. national health care is not socialist medicine it is CIVILIZED medicine. it no more socialist to make health care a public right than to make police dept and fire dept public resources... or would you also prefer to have blackwater patrolling our neighborhoods to root out crime or a fire fighting system that depends on profit??? how horrible would it be for your house to burn down becasue the private fire dept wouldn't stop the fire next door becasue your neighbor's couldn'd afford to pay!

Posted by Defender

10:54 PM, Jun 16, 2008

When I was a kid, our doc did house calls,office visit was $15.00 Then the lawyers and democrats which are the same said we need to sue these horrible doctors and hospitals. This was the end of low cost medical care.
Lawyers became 911 chasers and the democrats get pay back every day from the lawyers.
Then Ted Kennedy attacked the medical industry in the 90's said we need HMO's which they mandated. Today the idiots say HMO's are ruthless and heartless. The only way they will except health care is when the hospitals become run by the DNC and people die waiting to be admitted.
I rest my case!!!!

Posted by JimD

11:14 PM, Jun 16, 2008

I love the folks who say, "...but I have the best healthcare in the world..." as if the lower working classes should at least be grateful the affluent and privileged are well cared for.
HRC articulated the moral dilemma better than anyone - to the effect it's downright obscene that the greatest country in the world leaves one-third of its citizens to fend for healthcare they can't possibly afford. - a disproportionate number being women and children, btw.
Throw around the word "socialism", when in fact neither Obama nor Clinton has proposed anything like Canadian or European government-dispensed healthcare.
Nothing would change for those already insured, but try getting those who think healthcare is a privilege to acknowledge what's actually being proposed
Nope - if a 40K family can't afford 15K of healthcare - and still put food on the table and a roof over their head - too bad, losers.
At least you can find comfort in knowing your betters are covered.
Want to talk about breast cancer?
The only thing more DISGRACEFUL than how many US women can't afford the regular healthcare to catch it early, are those who spread lies about the proposed universal coverage that would save so many lives.
Have you no shame?

Posted by Defender

9:38 AM, Jun 17, 2008

you can't debate what the lawyers have done to destroy healthcare. so you change the issue like a typical democrat.
I'm thankful I can afford healthcare. When I was in the ER too many democrats would try to get healthcare on taxpapers backs for a cold. Democrats through history live off the backs of the working class. Perhaps if you would get a job you might beable to afford health care. I doubt you spend less than $20.00 a day for coffee. Stop your crying and help these women you talk about. tell me what have you done to get them in for a check up?
Talk about lies your disgraceful ..

Posted by JimD

11:44 AM, Jun 17, 2008

Actually - I have a 60k job and very good healthcare, thank you.
I spend about $5 a day for coffee.
I also give generously to a variety of social service organizations (although I must confess much goes to Seattle Purebred Dog rescue)
I was very involved in community activism back in the '90s and help produce fundraising and awareness events for many organizations including Seattle Rape Relief, The Women's Funding name just a few.
I am well-aware of the healthcare issues facing the lower end of society - particularly women and children who disproportionately fill the ranks of the poor and uninsured (typically through abandonment and divorce).
If you want to get folks out of the ER for a cold, make sure they have regular, preventive healthcare.
If you truly know anything about the issue, you would know that forcing the uninsured to use emergency facilities as their primary care center is not only obscenely inefficient (paid for in our premiums, by the way), but creates untold illness and suffering for those who can't get the regular, primary care that could identify and treat illness BEFORE it turns into a true, and sometimes life threatening emergency.
But more important than all that, is our moral responsibility to what's not just the poor underclass, but a large chunk of the middle-class who simply can't afford healthcare with ANY sacrifice.
What are they supposed to do?
Wrap the kid's shoes with duct tape so they can save $18 toward a $900 monthly premium?
The dems have it right.
We have a MORAL obligation to see that everyone has basic healthcare regardless of their station in life, or how they got there.
It is our humane RESPONSIBILITY to our fellow countrymen.
We are not going to let the continuing divide between the "haves and have not's" manifest itself in healthcare access - in this, the greatest country on God's green earth.

What I truly don't understand is how republicans refuse to understand how universal coverage would lower the unit cost of healthcare to those already paying (in our premiums) for extremely expensive reactive care when simple issues become ER worthy due to lack of preventive care.
That's what disgusts me - how blatantly some will misrepresent what's being proposed and go to almost any lengths to maintain their privileged status quo - almost as if they'd rather spend more the way they are now just to maintain their privileged status.
Why don't they just parade their upper-crust position with a Hummer or expensive clothes, instead of bragging about how much better their healthcare is than the uninsured working class?
Frankly, that mind set matches the absurd assumptions you've made about my employment, my insured status and my philanthropy - as if democrats and the working class are some scary specie from another planet.
Combine this ignorance and social bigotry with the very real consequences of stranding over a third of the country without basic healthcare...well, it's just evil.
And it's going to change.
We're taking our country back from the azzholes who think it's all about what best serves them.

Posted by defender

2:28 PM, Jun 17, 2008

what is yearly income of middle class jim?

You assume they didn't have health care how about being so cheap they didn't want to go to the doctor and pay co-pay?
Some people don't tell them they are insured.

In the 90's Senator Patty Murray Democrat stood in the well of the senate floor and said " My mom and dad have to choose between dog food and paying for drugs.
I sent her off a e-mail requesting the address of her folks so I could send them some money and can food.
Murray now making over $160,000.00 year would tell American her mom and dads health care problems and not even help them.Typical liberal also she never reply to my e-mail. This is disgusting

Posted by defender

4:50 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Also jimd your so full of BS it shows in your support or lack of for Breast cancer which you where so worried about and not even mention it in your reply instead you give first to to dogs!
Your a typical liberal when the mouth opens lies come out!

Posted by JimD

7:53 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Okay, thank you for your feedback.
I rest my case :-)

Posted by John

9:39 AM, Jun 21, 2008


To accuse anyone without justification of saying that about Senator John McCain is indecent.
Iím calling on Mr. Postman, if he has any integrity to ban you from this site.
Youíre disgusting little kid who hides behind a keyboard and drops bombs.
I plan on monitoring this site to make sure your banned!
If not, Iíll proceed with further action against you and the Times.

I insist MR. POSTMAN you have JIMD apologize to me then banned him.

I donít want to leave this malice open ended.

Recent entries

Jun 17, 08 - 02:54 PM
Nothing to see here

Jun 16, 08 - 04:27 PM
Rossi, but not all supporters, confident of clean vote count

Jun 14, 08 - 04:46 PM
Democrats approve platform

Jun 14, 08 - 02:12 PM
Pelosi has big plans for country

Jun 14, 08 - 12:26 PM
Objection from the Gregoire camp







Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Browse the archives

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008


Buy a link here