Two months ago, at the most recent meeting of the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee (I hold a seat on the committee), there was a contentious vote on whether or not to pass a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. The resolution was not passed. In fact, it wasn't even voted on. In a move reminiscent of recent happenings in the US House of Representatives, there was, instead, a motion to table the bill, which narrowly passed by about a 55-45% margin (the exact margin is difficult to tell, since it was conducted visually by having people stand up in favor or opposition). Back in June, there had been a successful motion, passed with roughly two-thirds support of the committee, to send the resolution back to the issues committee.
After the motion went down, I started talking with a couple other young, progressive reformer friends of mine who had also won seats on the committee last year (four of us car pool to the meetings). The main business of the meeting was to nominate a candidate for superior court, since a new opening had appeared since the primary election. Apparently, the executive committee had met the night before, and worked out a deal for the new nominee, which the rank and file members of the committee were then expected to ratify. It wasn't the candidate either I or my group of friends wanted, and we were pretty angry that no one was doing anything about this. In between the impeachment vote and the executive committee fueled nomination, I had also been chewed out in the Philadelphia caucus for blogging about the goings on in the Philadelphia caucus, which makes me wonder if I am in jeopardy for re-election, even now with Michael Nutter as mayor. So, needless to say, I wasn't very happy at that meeting, and my friends and I lamented how the Republican state committee had rejected the judicial nominee their executive committee put forth, because s/he was pro-choice or something. Even though our principles were opposed, we admired that they would stick by their principles instead of just doing what their executive committee told them to do. That was a party that stood for something and where the rank and file held the executive accountable, rather than the other way around.
I have been kind of down about my position on the state committee ever since that meeting, since I feel like pretty much everything I have tried while on the committee has failed. From increased transparency (which has basically just resulting in getting yelled at), to holding party office elections every two years instead of every four years (I discovered that was a local matter, not a state one), to freeing up Philly caucus members to vote however they wish in the general sessions (I thought we had won on that one, until this meeting), it hasn't worked as well as I had hoped. Also, even though they did listen to me very closely, the party even went with a different proposal to revamp their Internet outreach than the one I proposed. However, word of a resurgent state party in California today brings a smile to my face. Progressive state committee members in the Golden state are going to introduce a measure censuring California Senator Diane Feinstein at their state committee meeting this weekend:
Whereas Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to support the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as United States Attorney General, thereby elevating to the highest position in law enforcement a man who refused to renounce the right of the President to resort to torture and who refused to recognize waterboarding as a form of torture, and by this action Senator Feinstein failed to oppose President Bush and failed to stand for the ideals of the Democratic Party, which abhors torture and stands firmly against its use by the United States at all times and places; and
Whereas Senator Feinstein voted to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit despite his clear record of racism and gender discrimination, thus failing to stand firmly with the Democratic Party, which supports gender equality and opposes racism in any of its manifestations; and
Whereas these examples are far from the only instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has failed to support the policies and principles of our party;
Therefore be it resolved that the California Democratic Party expresses its disappointment at, and censure of, Senator Feinstein for ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials.
Good for the state committee members putting forth this resolution. This is one of the strongest moves to hold their leaders accountable that I have seen from a local Democratic Party in a long time. It is the sort of fighting, principled action that gives me renewed faith in my endeavors in Pennsylvania. If Feinstein is going to approve all of Bush's nominations, and also assist in passing things like FISA, it is up to local Democrats to lead the charge in holding her accountable. I am very glad to see that many are willing to do just that, and I hope this resolution passes this weekend.
Let's hear it for fighting, grassroots Democrats. The silent revolution is alive and well.
STATE BLOGS
