Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Dems to take bolder stance in platform than in 2004

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 9, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Denver Democratic National Convention 2008

More stories »

Democratic National Convention delegates in Denver will see a platform that takes decidedly bolder positions than its 2004 version on issues including the war in Iraq, health insurance for all Americans and the rights of gays in the military.

The new platform, still in the form of a 44-page draft, is scheduled to be finalized today in Pittsburgh. Major changes and big floor fights are not expected, since the party appears more unified on issues than in some previous years.

The 2008 platform refers to President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs as examples of the party's tradition of social reform. Just a few years ago, those notions were viewed as instances of the "big government" the party was trying to avoid. They were not mentioned in the 2004 document adopted in Boston.

Democrats who are drafting the 2008 platform see the tide of public opinion turning against the anti-government sentiment that dominated politics since the Ronald Reagan years, said Metropolitan State College political science professor Norman Provizer.

"Those ideas are on the downturn," Provizer said of the ideology Reagan popularized in the 1980s. "All the ideas we're talking about currently really involve big government."

The platform will come up for a vote of all the delegates when they meet in Denver this month.

Colorado's delegates on the platform committee are state Senate President Peter Groff, D-Denver, state Rep. Mark Ferrandin, D-Denver, and Boulder activist Mary Alice Driver.

Provizer said that the vast majority of Americans cast ballots based on candidates, not party platforms. But the documents reflect the parties' moods going into the election.

"It gives you a snapshot at a given time - every four years - in terms of what issues and what positions on (are) close to the heart of the party," Provizer said.

But, he added, "In the course of American elections, it's really the candidate who defines the issues, not the platform."

Usually the views of the candidate dominate the platform on the big issues, and presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama has plenty of clout this year with the platform committee on the Iraq issue.

The 2008 draft calls for withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 16 months, except for residual forces to fight terrorists and defend the U.S. Embassy - exactly Obama's position. The 2004 platform was far more tentative about how to end the war.

The new platform calls for an end to the practice by insurance companies of refusing to cover people with a "pre-existing condition." The platform labels that practice "discrimination."

The 2004 version called for the insuring of all Americans and charged that President Bush was more interested in boosting profits for drug companies and health maintenance organizations than in keeping Americans healthy. But the document stopped short of attacking insurance companies or naming the specific practice that denies insurance to many Americans.

Similarly, the 2004 platform called for an end to workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

But the platform danced around the issue of gays in the military, saying that "all service members" should be treated equally and that "all patriotic Americans should be allowed to serve our country without discrimination." The platform did not say such service should necessarily be in the military.

This year's platform is much more direct. It calls for an end to the "don't ask, don't tell policy," saying that it has cost the military the services of people with needed skills, such as fluency in Arabic.

Then and now

The Democratic Party is set to solidify its platform today in Pittsburgh. Here are some major differences between the 2004 platform and a draft version of the 2008 document:

Iraq

* 2004: "We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. And we must secure more help from an international community that shares a huge stake in helping Iraq become a responsible member of that community, not a breeding ground for terror and intolerance."

* 2008: "We will be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely remove our combat brigades at the pace of one to two per month and expect to complete the redeployment within 16 months. After this deployment, we will keep a residual force in Iraq to perform specific missions: Targeting terrorists, protecting our embassy and civil personnel, and advising a supporting Iraq's security forces, provided the Iraqis make political progress."

Health care

* 2004: "We believe that health care is a right and not a privilege. Today, a family's ability to ensure that all its members get the quality health care they deserve is challenged like never before. For the most fortunate, America offers the best health care in the world. But tens of millions of Americans pay too much and get too little from our health care system, and tens of millions have no health insurance at all."

* 2008: "Health insurance plans should accept all applicants and be prohibited from charging different prices based on pre-existing conditions. They should compete on the cost of providing health care and the quality of that care, not their ability to avoid or overcharge people who are or may get sick. No one should be turned away because of a pre-existing condition or illness."

Comments

  • August 10, 2008

    8:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnHKennedy writes:

    Our Colorado Democratic Party Platform has an "impeachment plank". It calls for accountability and investigations of both Bush and Cheney.

    Obama's platform appears to blow off the hundreds of crimes against our Constitution and the WMD Lies that got 4,134 US Soldiers killed for Cheney's oil industry ambitions.

    Did all Democrats in government Not Take An Oath Of Office To Protect Our Constitution? And they want our support?

    John H Kennedy, Denver, CO
    43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver County Democratic Convention, organizer of the
    IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION http://ImpeachCO.com

    ..

  • August 10, 2008

    10:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    MC2008 writes:

    Wow, impeachment would be nice. I am all for it--in principle. I agree that this administration has been sneaky, underhanded, and illegal in their actions. In practice, though, wouldn't it distract from all the other priorities in the platform? We only have a few more months of the h*** that is W. Should we focus on getting out of Iraq, getting rid of No Child Left Behind, getting more Americans covered by health insurance, getting alternative energy sources up and running... and winning the election for Dems...! Or should we spend our time and energy getting Shrub and his cronies out of office a few months ahead of schedule?

  • August 11, 2008

    6:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    harvie writes:

    I flew from Denver to the National Platform meeting in Pittsburgh.

    Two of our three delegates were simply not present. This is after hundreds of Colorado Dems worked on county platforms and about 40 Dems worked 35 hours each plus homework on the State Platform. In theory, these platforms would advise the National Platform. But the Presidential campaign nominates two of our members of the National Platform Committee for approval by the CO delegation to the National Convention. These two choices were somehow changed after election and then just didn't attend. One whom I spoke to seemed to have no intention of attending.

    DNC Chair Dean also appointed Senate President Groff to a special position on the Committee. Senator Groff attended.

    Impeachment is not just for Bush, it is to set the proper precedent for all future administrations. If we skip impeachment now, the next Presidents will feel much safer from prosecution. That is a problem.

    Harvie Branscomb