Pelosi Pulls Bait and Switch on Platform: Delegates Stunned
NO Platform was Adopted under Roberts Rules at CDP Convention
Phony Platform Substituted for Real One at CDP Site After Convention Ends
Special Report by the Creative Youth News Team

April 1, 2008 (NOT an April Fool's Joke)

Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine pulled an April Fools joke on the delegates of the CDP convention by putting up a different platform than the one the delegates though was pseudo-adopted at the convention   Unfortunately for delegates, they will have to have the real platform put up at the site.

Delegates were suspicious when Pelosi choose not to put copies of the final version of the platform on all the seats on the last day of the California Democratic Party Convention.  The draft platform that had been sent to delegates, weeks earlier had been drastically changed, via amendments.  Sets of five or more delegates, or Democrats from different assembly districts, had to get planks submitted to the platform committee by 5 P.M. on March 25.  Between March 25 and March 28, some of these amendments were put into the then-final draft of the platform.  Copies were handed out on March 28.  As far as interested delegates knew, this and the amendments that were adopted at that meeting and a later defunding amendment that got the necessary delegate signatures were the final word on the platform contents.  However, Pelosi secretly removed wording from the final draft handed out on March 25 without informing the delegates who had worked to get those changes included.  Because no final version was handed out to delegates on Sunday, the delegates had no way of knowing that she had made any secret changes and had the right to expect that the platform that was adopted by the committee on March 28, the amendments adopted that day and the defunding amendment constituted the platform Pelosi tried to adopt in violation of Roberts' Rules of Order on March 30.

For those amendments that were not included, proponents were supposed to be allowed to speak. In some cases, such as with immigration and senior sections, proponents were not allowed to speak at all.  On some other sections, one or two proponents were allowed to speak and other proponents of properly submitted amendments were not allowed to speak at all. 

After the amendments were addressed or not addressed in a section, that section was adopted in the order of its location in the platform.  The only change after that point was to be on amendments signed by 300 or more delegates in a little over a day at the convention. There was one amendment that fit that description and that one involved cutting the funding.

On March 30, no copies of the final draft of the platform were on the seats.  Delegates were concerned.  Some didn't trust Pelosi.  They were in hope that the process would keep her honest.  Pelosi asked for a motion to adopt the platform and got a first.  She asked for the "yeas."  The majority did not respond.  She chose not to ask for the "nays," which could have outnumbered the "yeas," if they had come.  She announced the approval of the platform and the convention moved on without anyone being allowed to comment or respond to the obvious breach of Roberts Rules of Order.

When the platform went up on the site, those who had participated in the platform hearings were shocked that a bait and switch had been pulled.  The platform that went up on the site was not the one that was supposed to have gone before the floor.  Nothing really went before the floor as there were no platforms on the seats.

Here is an example from the education plank.  The paragraph above the bullet points ended with the sentence:
"All children should have equal protection under the law."

Though an additional bullet point was added to the section that read: "Close all American-based facilities or schools that engage in mental, physical, emotional or sexual abuse of our children," nothing was removed.

One delegate, not trusting the platform committee, got Pelosi to clarify that both the wording "All children should have equal protection under the law" and the bullet point just mentioned would been the platform.  Christine Pelosi, herself confirmed during the hearing that both would be in the platform.   The education plank with both was adopted by the whole committee unanimously.  This should have been the final word.

The equal protection language is removed and the word emotional is not included in the one Pelosi had put up at the site subsequent to the ending of the convention.

Since Creative Youth has a copy of the March 28 platform, we are willing to verify what was supposed to be in the platform with any party official who wishes to correct the platform that was later put up at the site.

With the falsification of the wording of the platform at the site, the violation of proper procedure and of Roberts Rules of Order in the passage of any platform, and what appears to be an intent to defraud the delegates, there is a question as to whether the California Democratic Party should provide refunds to all delegates and guests who attended what was termed a platform convention? 

What about the members of the platform committee?  Did they go along with the fraud?  Their failure to speak out about the secret changes tends to indicate they did.  What does this say about their integrity or lack thereof?  These members are handpicked, largely because of their support for the status quo.

The Democratic Party has never been keen on following its own rules.  One of the major players in the California Democratic Party regularly endorses Republican candidates over Democrats, with no repercussions or removals from his leadership position.

Incumbents are getting out the word that they have been threatened by Nancy Pelosi into endorsing certain candidates.  This calls for a major investigation.  Threatening public officials should be a crime.

Until the phony platform is replaced at the CDP site with the platform delegates who went to the Friday hearing believed was to be adopted, the California Democratic Party has lost its credibility.  Until the platform is made consistent with expectations, the whole platform convention will appear to  have been little more than an expensive hoax.  This is an election year.  The Democratic Party cannot count on voters to support it when it won't support the voters.  If it wants to win elections, it needs to clean up its act and treat Democrats with respect and dignity.

A rebellion took place at the end of the convention.  Two candidates, who were backed by Democratic Party leaders, had their endorsements overturned on the floor by a super-majority of delegates. One of these was an incumbent state senator who war running for re-election.  It would have taken 75% for the delegates to endorse the opponents of the establishment.  It took only 50% to endorse incumbents.  The odds were stacked against the delegates, but the vote by a super-majority against the establishment is evidence of extreme discontent with the California Democratic Party.

In 2007, the Democratic delegates almost rioted at the California Democratic Convention.  This year they rebelled in their voting on the endorsement.  What would the result have been if they had been allowed to vote against the platform?  Would the platform have passed or failed?  Most suspect that, if they saw the phony platform that has been put up at the site and had been allowed to vote "nay", that platform would have been shot down in favor of the one the delegates had every right to believe they were getting.

Copyright ©2008 by the Creative Youth News Team.  All rights reserved.

Home