Just Released: Democrats Unveil 2012 National Platform-

[JaneyVee]

Some excerpts from a looong list which can be downloaded here: http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose: The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.


Freedom to Marry: We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

---------------------------

Also calls for reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Also, opposes Citizens United, For strengthening Medicare, building upon the Affordable Care Act, & further Wall St reform.

[former-republican]

1. guns are a losing issue

I wish democrats could grasp that.

Other than that it sounds pretty damn good.

[JaneyVee]

2. Mitt Romney banned assault rifles, the RW doesn't seem to care.

[former-republican]

4. They care

It is one of the most heated discussions on gun boards.

He said now he wouldn't sign any more gun laws.

He's a flip flopper so who's knows. I don't think it would ever get out of congress anyways.

I think personally we have enough gun laws on the books.
Blue dogs stay away from the issue also.

But to get back to to the platform.

There's a lot of good things in that platform.


One thing I wish I could believe lobby reform in Washington

Sadly I don't.........

[derby378]

30. Some liberal Democrats care, too

I own a Kalashnikov. Last I heard, it's still considered an "assault weapon" by gun-control advocates and therefore fair game for all manner of hostile legislation. Me, I beg to differ.

[Cha]

8. According to Sam Stein at the link provided by Tx4obama..they have. "Grasped" that is..

"Democratic Party Platform: Pro-Gay Marriage, Immigration Reform, Shots At Romney, Squishy On Guns"

If by "shots" he means calling Romney out on all his pathological LYING. Then you got that right, Sam Stein. Glad part of the Democratic Platform is taking well deserved "shots" at romney. Asshole has earned them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/democratic-party-platform_n_1853120.html

[former-republican]

10. If Romney loses just a small % of die hard republicans on his flipflop

on the gun issue it will make a difference. I'm hoping some voters just stay home.
Believe me when I tell you it's huge issue with many republican gun owners.
They don't trust him .

That works in our favor. My gripe and I know I'm a tiny minority in the democratic party.
Is I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd but despise everything else the republican party stands for now.

I would love to see the democrats become more pro gun.
It wouldn't be a detriment to the party , it would work in their favor.
When you have people like the Brady campaign constantly calling for gun bans. Carolyn McCarthy etc..
It turns many moderates off.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I actually agree with you. I think, at a federal level, it's a political loser.

That is leaving aside my own personal feelings around it. It goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing, only energizes the opposition.

(Of course, shit like continuing the drug war, raiding medical marijuana clinics, throwing cancer grannies in prison for getting high.. that accomplishes nothing and goes nowhere, too, and yet it continues. )

I don't see the rationality of putting it in the platform, but then the GOP sticks that HLA crap in their platform every 4 yrs despite the fact that most Americans are pro-choice, so go figure.

[Fumesucker]

14. Yeah, but the drug war doesn't energize the opposition so it's OK for Dems to support.

For the differently clued.

[barbtries]

27. no matter how many people get senselessly killed

guns are a losing issue.

[Tx4obama]

3. More 'excerpts' in the second half of article on the link below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/democratic-party-platform_n_1853120.html

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. DNC wall street reform does not even mention Citizens United and Glass-Steagall

and has as yet, not touched them.

Sorry, but that's the problem and they're not touching it. Must do better!

Edit: They DO mention Citizens United in the "Lobbying Reform" section. Good. Let's get an immediate overturning of the supreme court's decision regarding it! Can't wait for a Constitutional Amendment.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. On Social Security

Last edited Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:51 AM - Edit history (1)

"We reject approaches that insist that cutting benefits is the only answer." [underline added by me for emphasis]

Cutting benefits as one of the answers, or as part of the solution is still OK, then.

[philly_bob]

7. Yep, Manny, that's what it says.

Lukewarm support for Social Security gets lukewarm support from me.

[JaneyVee]

9. Doesn't say that.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. "We reject approaches that insist that cutting benefits is the only answer."

Search the pdf linked to in the OP. It's right there.

Unfortunately I forgot to put quotation marks around that quote in my post. I've updated it.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Where's it say that?

Link or Direct Quote?

[MannyGoldstein]

16. See here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021263581#post15

[philly_bob]

17. Here is link to Dem Platform

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

The quote in question appears in the section "The Middle Class Bargain," under the subsection "Social Security and Medicare."

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Oh, I see.

Right under this part:

America’s seniors have earned their Medicare and Social Security through a lifetime of hard work and personal responsibility. President Obama is committed to preserving that promise for this and future generations.

And this part:

Unlike those in the other party, we will find a solution to protect Social Security for future generations. We will block Republican efforts to subject Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market through privatization.

[philly_bob]

22. The passage leaves open the possibility of cutting SS benefits

The parts you quote are vague, like any political party platform. Even in the context of surrounding paragraphs, they merely "commit to preserving that promise" [of Medicare and Social Security] but they don't go into specifics. Again, the section seems to say that we're determined to keep Social Security alive even if we have to cut benefits to do it.

Credit where credit is due: the platform does unequivocally oppose privatization of social security, Bush's universally-scorned idea.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. It is stated: clearly and forcefully.

Hyperbole around imaginary cuts to social security serves no one except the GOP.

And it has nothing to do with any free trade agreement, trans-pac or anything else.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Yes, I know, we're doomed.

Doomed.

[philly_bob]

32. Your "precatory" sent me to the Dictionary, AMac

"Precatory" = Of, relating to, or expressing a wish or request.

In other words, the Democratic Party would prefer to protect social security. It would like to. It really wishes it could.

I completely agree with you: "If there is no intention to cut Social Security benefits, that could be stated clearly and forcefully without any double-talk."

[former-republican]

18. say goodbye to more jobs leaving the country

Not surprised really . Just more politicians bought and paid for by lobbyists.


yea lobby reform...what a joke

[stevenleser]

21. Some of those are much worse than others. Of the recent ones...

Only Colombia is a potentially bad one. Wages are likely too high in Panama and South Korea to justify transferring manufacturing jobs there and then shipping the product back to the US.

Colombia is a different story. Of course, that assumes someone would take the risk of setting up a huge manufacturing enterprise in a country with an ongoing civil war. I dont think that likely, thus the job loss to Colombia is going to be very low as well for the forseeable future.

Free trade agreements are only serious problems when you have countries with wages low enough to justify a profit motive in the transfer of jobs there, and there aren't other issues like security with the country. Security issues probably eliminate Colombia and most Middle East countries.

Places that ought to concern people are those like Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

[stevenleser]

25. The totality of the costs with shipping is still prohibitively too high. nt

[pampango]

31. And another possibly in the works - with the EU.

"His administration is also exploring trade talks with the 27-nation European Union and could make a decision to launch negotiations with Brussels by the end of the year."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-usa-campaign-trade-idINBRE87F11420120816

Since Woodrow Wilson and the Revenue Act of 1913 which established the lowest tariff rates since 1857 and "was considered a major triumph for President Woodrow Wilson" and FDR who "spoke against the (Smoot-Hawley Tariff) act while campaigning for president during 1932 ... (and) pledged to lower tariffs. He and the now-Democratic Congress did so in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934", Democrats have always pushed for lower tariffs - long before republicans joined in.

Of course, "Historian Michele Bachmann Blames FDR's "Hoot-Smalley" Tariffs For Great Depression"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/historian-michele-bachmann-blames-fdrs-hoot-smalley-tariffs-for-great-depression.php

Make no mistake: When it comes to economics, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) knows her history -- even if that history is from another planet.

On Monday night, our friends at Dump Bachmann reported, Bachmann took to the House floor and paid tribute to the economic policies of Calvin Coolidge and the "Roaring 20s" (the era that ended with a massive monetary contraction and the Great Depression). One particular line really does stand out, though -- saying Franklin Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression through the "Hoot-Smalley" tariffs:

Here's what really happened: When Franklin Roosevelt took office, unemployment was already about 25%. And the tariff referred to here was actually the Smoot-Hawley bill, co-authored by Republicans Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, and signed into law by Republican President Herbert Hoover.

[standingtall]

19. If they are going to have the convention in a right to work state

Then the right to organize, and the right to strike should be part of the platform. Yet I haven't seen it yet.