Donnie Fowler for DNC Chair

I firmly believe in the Democratic Party. I believe in what it stands for. I believe in the core values of liberalism, with pragmatism added for flavor. I see where the Democratic Party is headed. I see the cliff the GOP would have America run over.

But I also think the Democratic Party is paralyzed by the past-based, static-oriented "old-think" of the party leadership, including the DNC. The failure to articulate the progressive vision the Democratic Party holds for this nation has cost America too much to continue. New leadership must be commissioned.

There has been a big debate about how the Democratic Party must realign to win elections in America. More to the left? To the right? Not at all? This discussion is powerless and irrelevant. None of these things will work for the Dems. Position doesn't matter. Connection matters.

President Bush and the GOP Congressional majority didn't get there by having a better position. They got there by connecting to people. Their ideas didn't sway the electorate, their authenticity (or perception thereof) did. Voters don't care about positions, they want to trust those for whom they vote.

There is a candidate for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who sees this, and has a plan to return the trust back to the Democratic Party. Donnie Fowler for Chair of the DNC.

If you want to know what he has to say, you can find it here.

Checking back in after the holidays

Sorry for neglecting my post over the academic break.

I just want to say something about Equal Protection of the Law. I support and stand by the legal and Constitutional protection provided in the United States Constitution regarding Equal Protection of Law. Here's what it says in the 14th Amendment regarding Equal Protection:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Mental rumination may now begin. Consider these questions:

What does this mean for Sanctity of Marriage laws?
What are the implications for detaining Americans based on racial or ethnic profiling?
How can Justice Scalia use this as the basis for ending legally mandated recounts in Florida in 2000?
In concert with the voting rights act of 1965, how does this affect the certification of elections where certain precincts had limited access to voting?

For anyone who needs a refresher, here is the language of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

Consider: were standards, practices, or procedures applied in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004 which denied or abridged the right to vote to any person based on race or color? Were standards, practices, or procedures used in Florida or Ohio that did not provide Equal Protection as set in the 14th Amendment, or that denied Equal Protection as it applies in the 15th Amendment?