These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Saturday, May 3, 2008

RE: [LPplatform-discuss] Will The Real Ctrl-Z Platform Please Stand Up?

Starchild wrote:

SC) You appear to be confusing Rob Powers' proposed platform with what the petition asks for. (SC

On the contrary, I've been telling everyone who will listen that Rob's platform is not what Restore04 asks for, and this message was just my latest attempt to do so. You seem not to know that the Platform Committee passed a resolution asking the leaders of Restore04 to submit a draft proposal, and Rob's draft was what we got.  The Restore04 leaders are in effect using that list of Restore04 signatures to promote something that the wisest among them -- e.g. you, Alex Peak -- readily admit is not necessarily what they asked for.

Now, what Rob and David will tell you is that Restore04 does not demand verbatim restoration of the 40 deleted planks, and that changes to those planks are allowed by the terms of the petition.  Under that theory, the Platform Committee's proposal is arguably as Restore04-compliant as Rob's proposal is, and David even said that "in a sense it is a step toward what the Restoration Caucus proposes".  What Rob's proposal does is reach for for language primarily from the 62-plank 2004 platform, as well as from the 2006 platform, to completely replace the amputated 2006 platform with a 30-plank rewrite that restores the issue scope of the 2004 platform under a completely different plank organization.  What PlatCom's proposal does is reach for language primarily from the 62-plank 2004 platform, as well as from other past LP platforms, to completely replace the amputated 2006 platform with a 27-plank rewrite that restores the issue scope of the 2004 platform under a completely different plank organization. 

The primary structural differences between the two approaches are that Rob's draft includes more details from the 2004 platform (while still omitting over 40 specific policy positions that he's not telling you about), and that Rob's draft has hundreds of words of novel language that has never been approved by a NatCon or vetted by a full PlatCom.

The primary ideological differences between the two are that 1) Rob's draft includes personal secession and 7 of the other 9 most extremist/inflammatory statements of the 2004 platform, and 2) PlatCom's draft is effectively silent on abortion. (Note that the abortion plank came within 3 percentage points of deletion in 2002, and was rescued from its resounding rejection in 2006 only because of the technicality that it had been merged with another plank. 82% of likely delegates surveyed said they approve of our abortion plank.)

SC) I suspect Rob Powers' proposed changes would be an improvement on the 2004 platform, although I have yet to read them. (SC

Suspicion may be indeed the only basis you'll have on which to make your decision, as I see no sign that Rob has any interest in revealing the 40+ provisions he's leaving on the cutting room floor, or identifying all the new language in his draft.  Three weeks before Denver, his draft still has basic editing errors, and passing it would be like one of those bills that Congress passes with post-its and pencil edits and almost nobody actually reading what they're voting on.